Getaway driver arrested for murder.

Argumemnon said:
I just confirmed phiwum's explanation in the post you quoted. It's getting very tiresome to discuss with you, especially since you seem to prefer to make the discussion about you and perceived attacks rather than address the rest of the points I've made to you. I also notice you didn't apologise for your accusations and mischaracterisations.

Ball's in your camp. Either discuss the issue or don't.
Click to expand...


AIUI you are of the opinion that verbally challenging an intruder is 'chatting up' them, and you also elaborated a lurid 'what-if' scenario speciously involving rape.

You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder if you think asserting yourself should lead to rape.

Bye, now.
 
Vixen said:
AIUI you are of the opinion that verbally challenging an intruder is 'chatting up' them, and you also elaborated a lurid 'what-if' scenario speciously involving rape.

You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder if you think asserting yourself should lead to rape.

Bye, now.
Click to expand...

What a massively dishonest post.

I have twice now clearly indicated what I meant by "chatting up", but you decided to not look it up to try to understand it, prefering to go with your self-serving interpretation. Second, rape is a real possibility when people break violently into your home, especially for women, so I don't see what's particularily shocking about it. I would think that the also very real possibility of death would be more unpleasant.

Third, no one said it "should" happen. That is a complete fabrication on your part with the goal of making me appear to wish for your rape, which is completely beyond the pale and definitely requires an apology from you, if you have any integrity whatsoever.

Finally, you decided to mirror my "chip on your shoulder" accusation, which shows that you responded out of spite and outrage rather than reasoned consideration. In short your entire post was garbage, and insulting garbage at that.
 
Ranb said:
About all you actually know about this case is that three teens were killed, no charges yet. How does this support your claim that any intruder can be shot with impunity?


Don't look to anyone else to support your claim with evidence. As far as I can tell you're only supporting your claim with your own bias and the unsupported statements of others on the forum. Is this what passes as skepticism for you?
Click to expand...
I find impunities to be very hard to aim and shoot!!! I prefer guns or crossbows.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
fuelair said:
In a number of states with castle/syg laws, yes - the assumption is if you only shoot to warn you were not really fearful of being killed yourself. An older black woman is still in jail (unless something changed and she is out but ) here in Florida for firing NOT to kill at her husband for trying to attack her and then running. Part of the reason is that warning shots often are not aimed and that means the wrong person may be hit and even killed by a stray bullet.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me at all. It implies that, when I am fearful for my life, there is only one course of action open to me when in practice there may be several. One course of action to mitigate the threat might be to scare the aggressor by demonstrating I have a gun. Another might be to run away. But no one suggests that running away, instead of shooting, means I couldn't have been afraid for my life.

You'd think the law would be open to having more options available, not fewer.
 
Vixen said:
One should always be aware of what is going on around you. Fear is your body's warning sign. It has evolved over thousands of years of survival.

Quite often, your body goes into fight or flight mode before it even registers in your consciousness. One should also listen to this.
Having said that, there are some parts of London, which when driving through at night, has me automatically making sure the doors are locked and the windows up. Irrational? Maybe, but I always listen to my fear signals.

Likewise, with intruders, my first instinct would be thinking of escape routes, next, with self-defence measures. One always needs to have a contingency plan.

In my profession, I am used to making risk assessments, and we should all carry this into our personal lives. Live in a nice house in a leafy neighbourhood? Get an alarm that links to the police station. Grilles look ugly, but can make a difference to security.
Click to expand...

If you believe this then what is all the fuss about. Isn't it possible that he listened to his "fight or flight" and fight won out. Being upstairs it is also possible that he thought of flight first and realized that escape was downstairs and therefore not an option? You have given the home invaders the benefit of the doubt many times why not this young man?

Having enough money for an alarm system and bars on your windows is no guarantee of keeping armed intruders out. Self defense with deadly force should still be an option. Your family members can still be harmed before police arrive.
 
Man will not face charges, Police say

No charges to be brought against Zach Peters, the man who shot dead three teens who invaded his home.

Elizabeth Rodriguez 21, now charged with three x first degree felony murder.

She has been formally charged with three counts of first-degree murder with additional counts of first- and second-degree burglary, Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp said Monday afternoon. She remains jailed and is being held without bail.
Click to expand...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loca...cle_ef5e4777-1f49-546d-bbfa-61249ff9cb4c.html
 
jeffas69 said:
If you believe this then what is all the fuss about. Isn't it possible that he listened to his "fight or flight" and fight won out. Being upstairs it is also possible that he thought of flight first and realized that escape was downstairs and therefore not an option? You have given the home invaders the benefit of the doubt many times why not this young man?

Having enough money for an alarm system and bars on your windows is no guarantee of keeping armed intruders out. Self defense with deadly force should still be an option. Your family members can still be harmed before police arrive.
Click to expand...

I have given him the benefit of a doubt. Police haven't found he did anything wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Jack the Ripper broke into people's homes?

No, he tramped the streets trawling for prostitutes in the East End.

So a complete non sequitur.

Of course the UK has criminals and murderers. It is vanishingly rare for a homeowner to have to shoot dead intruders.
Click to expand...

He may or may not have broken into Mary Kelly's home, and then there's the victims before the "canonical 5," some of whom where attacked at home.

I can think of a few recent instances where people were either shot or stabbed whilst attempting to rob a house in the UK, and it definitely does happen. Gun crime in the North-West happens a lot, and much of it is never actually reported in the papers. There have been plenty of shootings in Liverpool, some of them are reported but most are not.
 
Giz said:
Fwiw, as someone originally from the uk, when we say "armed" it just means "has a weapon" (including knives). I have no idea what vixen is going on about.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I've always known "armed" as meaning: "with a weapon." I work in security, and we constantly ask each other whether a person caught up to no good was "armed" or not. It could mean almost anything intended to cause harm.
 
Argumemnon said:
As late as yesterday you sure hadn't:



You also said he shot because he was irked, that he ruined three lives, etc. You're definitely not giving him any benefit, in fact.
Click to expand...


This is incorrect. I said, if he shot them because he was irked then he should be charged with manslaughter.


We still need to hear the full details, which will not come out until trial, so I should hold your horses as to whether you know what happened.
 
Yeggster said:
Yelling at intruders to get out might work, most of the time ... the caveat I'll add is to do so with one hand on the opposite exit door and get ready to run away, very fast.
Click to expand...

Knowing the kind of people who commit such acts as house-robberies, yelling anything at them is generally not worth a carrot, unless you happen to be yelling the name of a notorious local gangster at them who they may or may not fear and may or may not know who they are.
 
Vixen said:
This is incorrect. I said, if he shot them because he was irked then he should be charged with manslaughter.

We still need to hear the full details, which will not come out until trial, so I should hold your horses as to whether you know what happened.
Click to expand...

Should I also hold my breath while I wait for the two apologies you owe me?
 
Vixen said:
We have been told 'it is illegal to point a gun at somebody'.

Maybe the other solution is to call the police before descending the stairs with your AR 15.
Click to expand...

But if you have a family, you generally want to do all you can to ensure that they're safe from harm, and you'll do that like a rabid wolf. If I think my family may be in immediate danger, I'm not going to wait to call the police, I'm going to do what I can to seriously harm the offenders and prevent them from doing the same to me or my loved ones.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I have to agree. I've always known "armed" as meaning: "with a weapon." I work in security, and we constantly ask each other whether a person caught up to no good was "armed" or not. It could mean almost anything intended to cause harm.
Click to expand...

I was specifically referring to 'armed robbery' within a particular context.

(No, I don't want to get into a quibble because we have already ascertained the actual meaning of this.)

Nobody is disputing a knife is a weapon. You might like to refer back to my post in which I discussed being a juror on a case which dealt with this matter.
 
Vixen said:
I was specifically referring to 'armed robbery' within a particular context.

(No, I don't want to get into a quibble because we have already ascertained the actual meaning of this.)

Nobody is disputing a knife is a weapon. You might like to refer back to my post in which I discussed being a juror on a case which dealt with this matter.
Click to expand...

Yep, they're all weapons, brass knuckles are highly illegal, as are batons, especially spring-batons, butterfly knives and lock knives.

I didn't think you were disputing that a knife was a weapon, and I'm not entirely sure what the point re: jury service was about.

We're hardly clean from gun crime, though. That's a point I'd like to hammer home. The North-West alone has an appallingly high-rate of gun crime. The Matrix unit here in Liverpool is run ragged with gun crime.
 
Actually, Vixen said:
Armed usually means with a loaded gun. None of the three had a gun. That tells you they were not there to kill.
Click to expand...
She was challenged after making this nearly-omniscient statement and shown that no, that's not what "armed" usually means at all. Or in this case.
 
Not having a gun, imho, means little with regards to whether or not they intend to cause harm. They may not have had access to a gun, for one. Knife crime is significantly worse than gun crime in many places, especially the UK. People can get hold of guns pretty easily here, if they have money and know who to ask, and yet knife crime is the preferred method in a lot of cases.

I've searched many people and found things like lock-knives, butterfly-knives, plastic knives which are undetectable and thus highly illegal, and they're all things which you have to assume are intended to cause harm. You simply cannot make the conclusion that they were merely intended to scare an individual.
 
The people saying brass knuckles are illegal must be Brits. You can buy them in the US no questions asked over the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom