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

[Katzndogz]

These invasions might get worse. Crazy people are already demanding access to police stations, fire stations and even some prisons looking for pokemon. Private homes will be nothing for these nuts who will be shot.

 

[jc456]

I'm watching TV one night around midnight, and suddenly there's a loud knocking on the window next to my head, with a face peering in.

Reacting quickly, I ... went outside and directed the drunken teenager to the to the house he was looking for.

Thanks to the conservatives here, I now realize how wrong that was, and that I need to apologize for not wasting him.

funny, I stated that I had an encounter. Mine unfortunately ended up in an arrest. So you've errored in your thought of conservatives.

 

[jc456]

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.

Only to a gun hater is it irrelevant.

Prove ME wrong, gun hater.

*IS* there, or is there *NOT* --- any evidence that the kid was "breaking in"?

If not --- then it's irrelevant.
Does not apply.
Moot.
Not involved.

how would he know, he's not the prosecutor? seems you jumped the gun, get it jumped....the ....gun? dude you're a whackamole. And you've been whacked a bunch today. Got a headache yet?

 

[jc456]

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.

As we see with every terrorist act and crime, leftards come running in to side with the criminals.

Time to take action against the left.

Nobody's "siding with the criminal" except the Gun Nuts. Who are eloquent in their sudden silence on the subject of "responsible gun ownership". Wonder why.

Not that this has anything to do with the point, which was that "breaking and entering" isn't related here. And the poster was unable to disprove that.

Like it or lump it.

Fuck you, asshole. You side with every Islamo and every criminal.
Hands up don't shoot up your ass.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Show me where I "sided with" the perp here. Or anywhere.

What I side with is the facts. The Truth. I shoot down myths. That's why I'm in this thread --- it's crawling with myths.

you are just one big myth. someone let him know, he has me on ignore.

BTW, it's most likely why no one ever gets back to him cause he puts them on ignore. Then says, nobody every replies so I win mode. dudes a funny guy. Sad, but funny. and not literate as well

 

[jc456]

A few things

1. Pogo you're an idiot. For a myriad of reasons , but let's begin with this. Of course the teenager broke the fucking pane of glass.

2. This guy broke the law. As I've said for years, people need to learn the fucking law where they live. Breaking a window is not enough to reasonably believe your life is in danger. This guy will be found guilty of murder, and rightfully so.

depends on the facts as they come out. Why don't you wait and not jump to conclusions. Now you are jumping to a conclusion. Pogo?

 

[jc456]

Which part? The breaking glass? The guy was drunk? They were trying to get in? Brain left it out? It is funny?

The "trying to get in" part. Read the thread. Better yet, read the article.

Rhetorical question: I know you lefties have learned that if you are clear, then people can easily see that your policies, agenda, accusations, ect, are all based on lies and are bad for this nation and it's citizens.

That's nice. In English now?

Where you there? Can you prove he wasn't trying to get in?

What the fuck is it with reading comprehension around here?

I did not say he "wasn't trying to get in" -- I said there's no evidence he WAS. You can't just make up your own facts.

In the same way I did not say he was "kid sized"; I said there was no evidence he was "adult sized". Which was also made up here.

Do you actually fail to understand the difference between a negative statement and the absence of evidence for a positive? Is that just over your head or what?

so if you don't know those facts, how is it you've convicted the home owner?

 

[charwin95]

This incident has a big similarity with McBride got shot early in the morning in Wafers front door 2 years ago.

Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder

The Detroit-area homeowner who shot in the head 19-year-old Renisha McBride was found guilty of murder Thursday afternoon. The jury found him guilty on all three charges — second-degree murder, manslaughter, and felony firearm — on its second day of deliberations.
McBride was shot dead in the early hours of November 2 outside 54-year-old Theodore Wafer’s Dearborn Heights, Michigan, home. McBride’s family and police believe McBride was in a car accident, and knocked on Wafer’s door for help after her cell phone died. But Wafer claimed during trial that he shot McBride in self-defense, after initially telling police he discharged the gun by accident.

 

[The Professor]

Maybe the homeowner was just following Joe Biden's advice: "[If] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

Biden Advises Shooting Shotgun Through Door

Whether the man committed murder or not depends on the laws of that particular state. Some states have laws which allow a person to use deadly force against anyone who has broken into into his dwelling or is attempting to break into his dwelling. Florida is one of those states and here's a link from a very reputable source (I prefer to use the following clear and easily understood explanation instead of posting the bare language of the statute):

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/o...analysis-of-florida-new-self-defense-law.html

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Uhhh a teenager knocked on my door and broke the window...some window. So I shot the door

That entire door is a window!

LMAO

What's so funny? Look at the house. That is what is known as a storm door and it is solid glass from top to bottom. Ther are no panes to knock out, unless you open that door first!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why do you sleep under your pillow?

 

[koshergrl]

A few things

1. Pogo you're an idiot. For a myriad of reasons , but let's begin with this. Of course the teenager broke the fucking pane of glass.

2. This guy broke the law. As I've said for years, people need to learn the fucking law where they live. Breaking a window is not enough to reasonably believe your life is in danger. This guy will be found guilty of murder, and rightfully so.

Yeah, if I'm in a house and someone pounds on my door, then breaks the glass to get in...

Sorry, he's getting pegged.

 

[james bond]

A few things

1. Pogo you're an idiot. For a myriad of reasons , but let's begin with this. Of course the teenager broke the fucking pane of glass.

2. This guy broke the law. As I've said for years, people need to learn the fucking law where they live. Breaking a window is not enough to reasonably believe your life is in danger. This guy will be found guilty of murder, and rightfully so.

This is a tragedy on both sides from what seems so simple. I agree gun owners have to know the law to prevent themselves from going to jail, but aside from that there's too much jumping to conclusions. What happened to the innocent until proven guilty law? The homeowner was arrested for murder, but it doesn't make him one. That's up for the court to decide. However, the DA sounds like he's ready to convict already.

 

[Katzndogz]

He could have put the gun down and used an axe.

 

[Pogo]

Which part? The breaking glass? The guy was drunk? They were trying to get in? Brain left it out? It is funny?

The "trying to get in" part. Read the thread. Better yet, read the article.

Rhetorical question: I know you lefties have learned that if you are clear, then people can easily see that your policies, agenda, accusations, ect, are all based on lies and are bad for this nation and it's citizens.

That's nice. In English now?

Where you there? Can you prove he wasn't trying to get in?

What the fuck is it with reading comprehension around here?

I did not say he "wasn't trying to get in" -- I said there's no evidence he WAS. You can't just make up your own facts.

In the same way I did not say he was "kid sized"; I said there was no evidence he was "adult sized". Which was also made up here.

Do you actually fail to understand the difference between a negative statement and the absence of evidence for a positive? Is that just over your head or what?

Then the only thing you can be saying is he wasn't. When there are only two options and you say one wasn't happening, it only leaves the other.

NO. IT. DOES. NOT Existence just doesn't work that way.
If you tell me you robbed a bank yesterday and I say "prove it" ---------------- that in no way means I'm declaring you DIDN'T rob the bank. How the fuck would I know that?

 

[Pogo]

This incident has a big similarity with McBride got shot early in the morning in Wafers front door 2 years ago.

Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder

The Detroit-area homeowner who shot in the head 19-year-old Renisha McBride was found guilty of murder Thursday afternoon. The jury found him guilty on all three charges — second-degree murder, manslaughter, and felony firearm — on its second day of deliberations.
McBride was shot dead in the early hours of November 2 outside 54-year-old Theodore Wafer’s Dearborn Heights, Michigan, home. McBride’s family and police believe McBride was in a car accident, and knocked on Wafer’s door for help after her cell phone died. But Wafer claimed during trial that he shot McBride in self-defense, after initially telling police he discharged the gun by accident.

Yes, that's a case I linked earlier. The one where ShitSpitters kept referring to the girl who got shot in the face as a "slut'. And it's not unrelated that some lowlife pondscum waste of human protoplasm rated this story "funny".

And they wonder why I mention race.

 

[Pogo]

He could have put the gun down and used an axe.

True, and maybe he should have. It would have given the 15-year-old time to react.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe the homeowner was just following Joe Biden's advice: "[If] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

Biden Advises Shooting Shotgun Through Door

Whether the man committed murder or not depends on the laws of that particular state. Some states have laws which allow a person to use deadly force against anyone who has broken into into his dwelling or is attempting to break into his dwelling. Florida is one of those states and here's a link from a very reputable source (I prefer to use the following clear and easily understood explanation instead of posting the bare language of the statute):

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/o...analysis-of-florida-new-self-defense-law.html

Yeah ummm..... don't think Florida law applies in Massachusetts.

 

[Katzndogz]

He could have put the gun down and used an axe.

True, and maybe he should have. It would have given the 15-year-old time to react.

The drunk kid would have gotten his head split open trying to get inside.

 

[Pogo]

He could have put the gun down and used an axe.

True, and maybe he should have. It would have given the 15-year-old time to react.

The drunk kid would have gotten his head split open trying to get inside.

It must suck that there's no evidence the kid was either "drunk" or "trying to get inside".
However we do know he had a head, since I posted a picture of it. Shouldn't be a total loss.

 

[Conservative65]

Which part? The breaking glass? The guy was drunk? They were trying to get in? Brain left it out? It is funny?

The "trying to get in" part. Read the thread. Better yet, read the article.

Rhetorical question: I know you lefties have learned that if you are clear, then people can easily see that your policies, agenda, accusations, ect, are all based on lies and are bad for this nation and it's citizens.

That's nice. In English now?

Where you there? Can you prove he wasn't trying to get in?

What the fuck is it with reading comprehension around here?

I did not say he "wasn't trying to get in" -- I said there's no evidence he WAS. You can't just make up your own facts.

In the same way I did not say he was "kid sized"; I said there was no evidence he was "adult sized". Which was also made up here.

Do you actually fail to understand the difference between a negative statement and the absence of evidence for a positive? Is that just over your head or what?

so if you don't know those facts, how is it you've convicted the home owner?

That's because the homeowner used a gun and Pogo is a gun hater.