17 year old Dindu burgler shot dead by homeowner

[Katzndogz]

Yup

**** that!

Oh but according to him I'm a hypocrite for wanting the rich to pay more taxes.

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

There are no taxes on vegetables even if you buy them in a store.

 

[daws101]

He wants me to pay taxes on my weed money. ******* dope.

home grown?

I have my Medical marijuana card. I can have 2 ounces on me

Another pothead claiming to have a medical condition where he "needs" marijuana.

If we are free in America why do I have to explain anything to you?

I love conservatives who claim they are for freedom but want to legislate what we smoke and what we do in our bedrooms

I love Liberals who claim they are for choice then force the rest of us to fund things they think we should fund.

Who's we ?

 

[daws101]

I

**** that!

Oh but according to him I'm a hypocrite for wanting the rich to pay more taxes.

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

There are no taxes on vegetables even if you buy them in a store.

Don't understand what if means?

 

[Papageorgio]

Another John Wayne wannabe, who was at no risk. Essentially, murder...

The 54-year-old woman told police her surveillance system alerted her to the break-in of her home. She said she rushed home and found the teen climbing out of a window.

“She observed a subject leaving the home through the rear,” said police Det. Dan Ferrin.

Miami-Dade police said there was a confrontation and shots were fired. Police said they were on scene seconds after the shooting and gave CPR to the teen. Johnson was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

“What’s wrong with her,” asked Johnson’s sister Nisha Johnson. “She did not have to shoot him.”

What she did was murder. She had no reason to shoot him. He was no threat to her; he was exiting her home and running away. She should go to prison for a long time.

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

 

[Katzndogz]

I

Oh but according to him I'm a hypocrite for wanting the rich to pay more taxes.

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

There are no taxes on vegetables even if you buy them in a store.

Don't understand what if means?

You don't understand what necessary to diet is. Pot is necessary to nothing which is why vegetables are not taxed and pot is.

 

[daws101]

What she did was murder. She had no reason to shoot him. He was no threat to her; he was exiting her home and running away. She should go to prison for a long time.

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

 

[daws101]

I

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

There are no taxes on vegetables even if you buy them in a store.

Don't understand what if means?

You don't understand what necessary to diet is. Pot is necessary to nothing which is why vegetables are not taxed and pot is.

Lol!

 

[Papageorgio]

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

 

[sealybobo]

Yup

**** that!

Oh but according to him I'm a hypocrite for wanting the rich to pay more taxes.

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

Not if I opened up a produce stand. Then he'd want me to pay taxes on every Apple I sold.

He is right I am a bit of a Hippocrite but that doesn't change the fact that GE trump and Warren buffet need to pay more taxes. **** what's fair. What works? Fair would be trump paying the same as a poor guy pays. Fair doesn't work. And who's crying for the rich? They're richer than ever. And how is trump and the GOP going to fix that?

 

[sealybobo]

I

Of course so he won't have to.

You're defending a tax cheat. Just another example of your lack of human value.

Nope but you had to say something.
Home grown weed is no different than having a vegetable garden, you'd go batshit if someone told you that you had to pay taxes on that.
Slapdick!

There are no taxes on vegetables even if you buy them in a store.

Don't understand what if means?

You don't understand what necessary to diet is. Pot is necessary to nothing which is why vegetables are not taxed and pot is.

Define necessary. Can't live without it?

How many products get the tax break but you could live without it?

I bet coolaid gets the tax break

 

[sealybobo]

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

I'm certainly not inclined to defend the criminal but consider the business owner in pulp fiction who took it upon himself to break up that fight between Bruce Willis and Marcellus.

If the homeowner had a camera and it showed he didn't have to shoot him, would you find him guilty?

But even if the burgler is running away, I say that's reason to shoot. Maybe he's running for cover and has a gun himself. Anything other than complying with the homeowners orders could get you shot.

The term "one false move" comes to mind.

 

[daws101]

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

False! I have no opinion either way.
Thanks for confirming the rampant bias in this thread.

 

[sealybobo]

What she did was murder. She had no reason to shoot him. He was no threat to her; he was exiting her home and running away. She should go to prison for a long time.

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

Do you want to be sure the shooting was justified?

Would you be a fair juror? Which guy are you in 12 angry men?

 

[daws101]

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

Do you want to be sure the shooting was justified?

Would you be a fair juror? Which guy are you in 12 angry men?

I can think of two he might be.

 

[Papageorgio]

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

I'm certainly not inclined to defend the criminal but consider the business owner in pulp fiction who took it upon himself to break up that fight between Bruce Willis and Marcellus.

If the homeowner had a camera and it showed he didn't have to shoot him, would you find him guilty?

But even if the burgler is running away, I say that's reason to shoot. Maybe he's running for cover and has a gun himself. Anything other than complying with the homeowners orders could get you shot.

The term "one false move" comes to mind.

Never saw Pulp Fiction, I heard it was violent, I'm not into violent shows.

I use cameras quite a bit to investigate accidents and driver behavior. I find the camera to very objective and can see what really happened as to what people think happen. So I would weigh the camera evidence very heavily. I could find them guilty based on camera evidence. Camera and sound evidence is best.

The robber because he is doing something wrong has an instinct to flee. The homeowner wanting an explanation has an instinct to control the situation.

You bring up some really good points.

 

[Papageorgio]

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

Do you want to be sure the shooting was justified?

Would you be a fair juror? Which guy are you in 12 angry men?

Yes and yes.

 

[Papageorgio]

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

False! I have no opinion either way.
Thanks for confirming the rampant bias in this thread.

I confirm my bias, no one else's. And everyone is bias, but there are those not honest enough to admit it.

 

[daws101]

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

False! I have no opinion either way.
Thanks for confirming the rampant bias in this thread.

I confirm my bias, no one else's.

Bullshit! Your bias matches all the other "home owner supporters".
Your bias by extension comfirms the others.

 

[Papageorgio]

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

Not shit Sherlock, you are a ******* genius Captain Obvious!

You tend to believe the criminal's family, I tend to believe the homeowner.

False! I have no opinion either way.
Thanks for confirming the rampant bias in this thread.

I confirm my bias, no one else's.

Bullshit! Your bias matches all the other "home owner supporters".
Your bias by extension comfirms the others.

I don't support the homeowner, I tend to believe the homeowner over the robbers family. If evidence shows otherwise, I will believe the hard evidence.

 

[Conservative65]

There was a confrontation when she got to the house, without all the facts I tend to side with person not caught in a criminal act.

First, she should not have confronted him. Anyone with a grain of sense would call the police, not confront a burgler on her own. Second, there is nothing to say he attacked her with a weapon or with any force. For all we know, the confrontation was verbal. Bottom line, you do not murder people because they are theives. You call the police.

He was in her house, who is confronting who? There is nothing to say he didn't attack her, there is no indication there was verbal confrontation or not. We don't know, that is why I'm not calling it a murder. I said without all the facts, I tend not to believe the trespassers cousin.

There was also nothing to say he did either so as with all asshats you are making a false assumption.

And I said in other posts, I am more inclined to believe the homeowner over a robber's family that wasn't there and that justifies his criminal activity. But nutters seem to want to believe those that justify criminal activity.

If you are inclined to believe one side or the other without all the evidence being in it's a bias

You prove that every day.