A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

[jc456]

Bad news and worse news for you gun fetishists:
The bad: the kid now has a name: Dylan Francisco.

The worse --- he's a white kid who "made friends and did well in school"

Cue mass exodus.

there you go again saying the homeowner guilty. You can't even wait for the investigation judge and jury to be announced. wow, why do we need a court system, we got you. You know what people write even when they didn't write it, and you know guilt without facts.

 

[Conservative65]

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning.

Yes, there is too little. That's why the story puts it in passive voice: "when a pane of glass broke", with no actor or apparent intent, because it isn't known.

That also means you don't get to just make it up because you'd like the script to go a certain way. We're not writing screenplays here.

Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

Again, you just pointed out yourself you don't know WHO broke the glass, so you don't know it "ramped up the homeowner's anxiety". Again, you're making up shit that isn't there.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

You're saying the victim had grounds to defend himself from a shot coming out from behind the door? You must be, since nobody knows who broke the glass or how.

So I guess that means you can walk up to a door and blast away from the outside, on the suspicion that the guy inside might be pointing a gun at you.

See where this gun fetish mentality leads?

Nah, you probably don't.

It means no such thing since the person on the outside has no business being on the outside unless invited. The person on the inside is where they are supposed to be.

I see where you're an idiot.

 

[boedicca]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

B'loney. Break-ins happen during all times of the day.

 

[Pogo]

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning.

Yes, there is too little. That's why the story puts it in passive voice: "when a pane of glass broke", with no actor or apparent intent, because it isn't known.

That also means you don't get to just make it up because you'd like the script to go a certain way. We're not writing screenplays here.

Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

Again, you just pointed out yourself you don't know WHO broke the glass, so you don't know it "ramped up the homeowner's anxiety". Again, you're making up shit that isn't there.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

You're saying the victim had grounds to defend himself from a shot coming out from behind the door? You must be, since nobody knows who broke the glass or how.

So I guess that means you can walk up to a door and blast away from the outside, on the suspicion that the guy inside might be pointing a gun at you.

See where this gun fetish mentality leads?

Nah, you probably don't.

It means no such thing since the person on the outside has no business being on the outside unless invited. The person on the inside is where they are supposed to be.

I see where you're an idiot.

I don't disagree with the conclusion but ---- that's where the poster's logic went. I just pointed it out.
Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Conservative65]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

The most recent break-in in the neighborhood where I live was between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM. The homeowners could verify it because they left around 1 and came back around 5. Are you going to say they were wrong because you think you know better. Crooks don't care what time it is.

 

[HUGGY]

A Pane of Glass was broken, and you jumped to the conclusion that the homeowner inside was to blame.

NO, I did NOT. I specifically called out posters who jumped to the opposite conclusion -- with no evidence.
Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

And Passive Voice is used frequently in the Liberal Press in order to depersonalize the crime and separate the perpetrator from the act.

For example:

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed [PHOTOS]


The Truck didn't run down the crowd. An Islamic Terrorist used a truck to murder people.

Oh we buried this canard last week. Once again, the identity of the driver wasn't yet known, so that couldn't be plugged in. Unlike USMB newspapers don't get to just make it up. It's got nothing to do with "separating" anything.

The truck absolutely DID run down the crowd. There's massive evidence of that. Everybody in the world already knows that if there's a moving truck --- THEN THERE'S A DRIVER IN IT.

Maybe...... Did you see "Christine"?

 

[Conservative65]

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning.

Yes, there is too little. That's why the story puts it in passive voice: "when a pane of glass broke", with no actor or apparent intent, because it isn't known.

That also means you don't get to just make it up because you'd like the script to go a certain way. We're not writing screenplays here.

Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

Again, you just pointed out yourself you don't know WHO broke the glass, so you don't know it "ramped up the homeowner's anxiety". Again, you're making up shit that isn't there.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

You're saying the victim had grounds to defend himself from a shot coming out from behind the door? You must be, since nobody knows who broke the glass or how.

So I guess that means you can walk up to a door and blast away from the outside, on the suspicion that the guy inside might be pointing a gun at you.

See where this gun fetish mentality leads?

Nah, you probably don't.

It means no such thing since the person on the outside has no business being on the outside unless invited. The person on the inside is where they are supposed to be.

I see where you're an idiot.

I don't disagree with the conclusion but ---- that's where the poster's logic went. I just pointed it out.
Thanks for agreeing.

That's not at all where the poster's logic went. That's the excuse you gave to make stupid comments.

 

[Pogo]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

The most recent break-in in the neighborhood where I live was between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM. The homeowners could verify it because they left around 1 and came back around 5. Are you going to say they were wrong because you think you know better. Crooks don't care what time it is.

See the word "likely" in there??? Do any of you gun nuts know how to read?

"Likely" kinda matters when you're speculating based on nothing. Which is what y'all have been doing here.

Say, did anybody notice that the kid magically shrunk back down from "adult size"? Or that somehow he reverted to being 15 years old again?

No, probably not. Dickheads.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

On the contrary, I was the first to call out the whole "conversation" canard (four times) and everybody who tried to float that canard ran away. I've also been pointing out relentlessly that nobody knows the circumstances of the broken glass, which is also a fact.

"Fabricating stories" refers to making the kid "adult sized" on no evidence (that poster ran away too), giving him two extra years, and contriving that if a "glass broke" he must have been "breaking in" -- again on no evidence.

You don't get to just make it up because you want the story to go your way. Doesn't work like that. As another poster put it:

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

Oh wait -- that was you.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

Stupid and untrue


The only thing that matters is the ******* law. In Mass , and probably in every ******* state that has a Castle Doctrine, you can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would fear for their lives or of great bodily harm, or of someone else who lives in the domicile. . What the person living there feels is irrelevant UNLESS it's reasonable.

again, if a rock was thrown threw the window that's a threat. Not saying that's what happened, just reminding you you have no idea what was used to break the glass if it was indeed broken and after the conversation. Let's get there first. A rock would be a weapon and indeed complies with the doctrine.

A rock does not represent a reasonable threat to your life , however if a rock breaks into your home and you shoot it, I'm fairly convinced you won't be put in prison.

 

[jc456]

A Pane of Glass was broken, and you jumped to the conclusion that the homeowner inside was to blame.

NO, I did NOT. I specifically called out posters who jumped to the opposite conclusion -- with no evidence.
Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

And Passive Voice is used frequently in the Liberal Press in order to depersonalize the crime and separate the perpetrator from the act.

For example:

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed [PHOTOS]


The Truck didn't run down the crowd. An Islamic Terrorist used a truck to murder people.

Oh we buried this canard last week. Once again, the identity of the driver wasn't yet known, so that couldn't be plugged in. Unlike USMB newspapers don't get to just make it up. It's got nothing to do with "separating" anything.

The truck absolutely DID run down the crowd. There's massive evidence of that. Everybody in the world already knows that if there's a moving truck --- THEN THERE'S A DRIVER IN IT.

no the truck did not. someone drove the truck, the truck's mental capabilities couldn't do that. Unless of course you know trucks that can start and drive themselves?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Pogo, you are truly stupid. MOST people who break into your home want to AVOID confrontations, They just want to steal your stuff, so they are MORE likely to strike when no one is home, which in MOST cases is during the day.

 

[yiostheoy]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

The most recent break-in in the neighborhood where I live was between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM. The homeowners could verify it because they left around 1 and came back around 5. Are you going to say they were wrong because you think you know better. Crooks don't care what time it is.

See the word "likely" in there??? Do any of you gun nuts know how to read?

Your info Pogo is all fokked up.

Most residential break in's are in the middle of the day, with others being after midnight.

I love my guns, yes. Guns equal freedom.

No guns equals slavery or death or worse.

Do you anti gun nuts understand that the police cannot protect you ?!

 

[jc456]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

so how did the glass get broken?

 

[Conservative65]

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

On the contrary, I was the first to call out the whole "conversation" canard (four times) and everybody who tried to float that canard ran away. I've also been pointing out relentlessly that nobody knows the circumstances of the broken glass, which is also a fact.

"Fabricating stories" refers to making the kid "adult sized" on no evidence (that poster ran away too), giving him two extra years, and contriving that if a "glass broke" he must have been "breaking in" -- again on no evidence.

You don't get to just make it up because you want the story to go your way. Doesn't work like that. As another poster put it:

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

Oh wait -- that was you.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

Stupid and untrue


The only thing that matters is the ******* law. In Mass , and probably in every ******* state that has a Castle Doctrine, you can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would fear for their lives or of great bodily harm, or of someone else who lives in the domicile. . What the person living there feels is irrelevant UNLESS it's reasonable.

again, if a rock was thrown threw the window that's a threat. Not saying that's what happened, just reminding you you have no idea what was used to break the glass if it was indeed broken and after the conversation. Let's get there first. A rock would be a weapon and indeed complies with the doctrine.

A rock does not represent a reasonable threat to your life , however if a rock breaks into your home and you shoot it, I'm fairly convinced you won't be put in prison.

There isn't but one person for whom you can make that determination. Wanna guess who that one person is?

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, you are truly stupid. MOST people who break into your home want to AVOID confrontations, They just want to steal your stuff, so they are MORE likely to strike when no one is home, which in MOST cases is during the day.

Again, IRRELEVANT. There is NO (zero) evidence anybody was breaking in to anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

 

[jc456]

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

On the contrary, I was the first to call out the whole "conversation" canard (four times) and everybody who tried to float that canard ran away. I've also been pointing out relentlessly that nobody knows the circumstances of the broken glass, which is also a fact.

"Fabricating stories" refers to making the kid "adult sized" on no evidence (that poster ran away too), giving him two extra years, and contriving that if a "glass broke" he must have been "breaking in" -- again on no evidence.

You don't get to just make it up because you want the story to go your way. Doesn't work like that. As another poster put it:

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

Oh wait -- that was you.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

Stupid and untrue


The only thing that matters is the ******* law. In Mass , and probably in every ******* state that has a Castle Doctrine, you can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would fear for their lives or of great bodily harm, or of someone else who lives in the domicile. . What the person living there feels is irrelevant UNLESS it's reasonable.

again, if a rock was thrown threw the window that's a threat. Not saying that's what happened, just reminding you you have no idea what was used to break the glass if it was indeed broken and after the conversation. Let's get there first. A rock would be a weapon and indeed complies with the doctrine.

A rock does not represent a reasonable threat to your life , however if a rock breaks into your home and you shoot it, I'm fairly convinced you won't be put in prison.

but a rock is a weapon, it's not fists on a body, and when someone has a rock in their hand it is a weapon if a threat is made. And breaking a window would be a threat.

 

[yiostheoy]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

The most recent break-in in the neighborhood where I live was between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM. The homeowners could verify it because they left around 1 and came back around 5. Are you going to say they were wrong because you think you know better. Crooks don't care what time it is.

While you are quite correct there are still middle of the night break ins as well.

Thieves work round the clock.

 

[yiostheoy]

Pogo, you are truly stupid. MOST people who break into your home want to AVOID confrontations, They just want to steal your stuff, so they are MORE likely to strike when no one is home, which in MOST cases is during the day.

Again, IRRELEVANT. There is NO (zero) evidence anybody was breaking in to anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

Fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Fallacy of shifting the burden.

Fallacy of moving the goalposts.

You are a complete moron POGO.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yet another moron gets added to my long ignore list.

 

[Conservative65]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".

The most recent break-in in the neighborhood where I live was between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM. The homeowners could verify it because they left around 1 and came back around 5. Are you going to say they were wrong because you think you know better. Crooks don't care what time it is.

While you are quite correct there are still middle of the night break ins as well.

Thieves work round the clock.

Thieves do work around the clock. However, since most people are gone during the day and home at night, the daytime is the most opportune time to do so without anyone being there.

My response was to refute the statement that broad daylight is "not a likely time for a break in". It is as likely as any other time if not more so.