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

[Conservative65]

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?

There are only two options. You said one wasn't what happened. It leaves only one. Your example is faulty. Sorry, you lose but you were born a loser.

WRONG, Gummo. *IF* you don't have evidence that something happened, *THEN* you don't have evidence that it happened. PERIOD. That in no way means it did NOT happen.

This is all sailing right the fuck over your pointy little head, isn't it.

In a legal sense, that's exactly what it means.

I recently went to court with my HOA over a matter involving something I did on MY property. They kept writing me letter after letter about how I had violated the covenants. Eventually, they fined me and we went magistrate's court. My contention with the HOA is that they were asking me to do something because of what I did on my property that they were not requiring others to do in the same situation. When I did what I did, that's when the letters and eventual fine came about.

The property management company that handled the business end of our association claimed that they had also written violation letters to the other residences doing what I had done only to be ignored. As a member of the HOA in the neighborhood and under state law, I asked for copies of the letters they claimed to have written to the others. They couldn't provide a copy of them yet still claimed they had been written. When we went to court, the magistrate asked them for the letters they couldn't provide me and they gave him the same reason they gave me that due to an issue between the current and former management companies, a lot of the paperwork, apparently including those letters, were not available.

When the magistrate made his decision, he gave three options. The other houses had to do what I was being asked, the other houses had to remove what they had done, or I was to be allowed to keep what I had done under the same conditions as the others were being allowed to exist. The magistrate made it clear that if the claimed letters to the other houses couldn't be provided, they DIDN'T EXIST. In other words, without those letters it meant, in legal terms, the writing of them DIDN'T happen.

 

[Conservative65]

As I posted, “Whether the man committed murder or not depends on the laws of that particular state.” I gave an explanation of Florida law because that is where I live and I know the laws well (I Have a Juris Doctorate). Over the years I have observed that far too many people think they know the law and they do not. My intent was to inform others to withhold judgment until they know not only the facts of the case, but also the laws of their state. I accept your apology for your condescending comment.

PS: I don't have the evidence I need to determine whether or not there was an attempted break-in. My comment assumed that was the case so that I could address the laws regarding the use of deadly force in such a situation. Perhaps I should have explained myself in much greater detail to avoid confusing readers who have limited analytical skills.

Now I am done with this thread and with you.

STILL Irrelevant.

1. Florida law does not apply in Massachusetts -- period.
   
2. Massachusetts has no "stand your ground" law.
3. The incident took place in Massachusetts. That was clear in the original article.

"Analytical" enough?

Stand your ground has nothing to do with defending your home when it's being broken into.

Nothing.

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

And the Gentle giant was going to medical school...and we had saintly photos of the young Trayvon...then people actually started looking into who the kid was....


So don't get all happy that you have a dead kid you can use to attack all gun owners.....you have no idea what actually happened....

But the cops have a clue of what happened and that is why they arrested the shooter and charged him with murder. I wonder if the killer's story matched that of the surviving teen? And I wonder if the glass shards were splayed in a manner indicating breakage from the inside than from the outside….

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And the Gentle giant was going to medical school...and we had saintly photos of the young Trayvon...then people actually started looking into who the kid was....


So don't get all happy that you have a dead kid you can use to attack all gun owners.....you have no idea what actually happened....

But the cops have a clue of what happened and that is why they arrested the shooter and charged him with murder. I wonder if the killer's story matched that of the surviving teen? And I wonder if the glass shards were splayed in a manner indicating breakage from the inside than from the outside….

Was the surviving teen drinking, too?

Glass breaking doesn't always mean location.

 

[Pogo]

STILL Irrelevant.

1. Florida law does not apply in Massachusetts -- period.
   
2. Massachusetts has no "stand your ground" law.
3. The incident took place in Massachusetts. That was clear in the original article.

"Analytical" enough?

Stand your ground has nothing to do with defending your home when it's being broken into.

Nothing.

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

 

[Conservative65]

Stand your ground has nothing to do with defending your home when it's being broken into.

Nothing.

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

If you make a claim, you do. That you're unwilling means you can't. You're dismissed, retard. No one believes you.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And the Gentle giant was going to medical school...and we had saintly photos of the young Trayvon...then people actually started looking into who the kid was....


So don't get all happy that you have a dead kid you can use to attack all gun owners.....you have no idea what actually happened....

I've got your "attack all gun owners" right here, pal. This is from a Second Amendment/firearms advocacy site. Read and learn.

=> The number of people I continue to come across who treat firearms as a talisman against evil never ceases to amaze me. They buy or inherit a firearm, stick it in a nightstand or on a closet shelf or in a gun safe, and then leave the gun there—often times for years—thinking that, “I’ve got a gun. I’m safe.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Col. Jeff Cooper once noted, “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” He’s entirely right. Owning a firearm that you don’t know how to run is like owning a car, and having never learned how to drive.

People who don’t train and who fail to develop confidence and competence with their firearms tend to panic and think that they “need” that gun to solve a problem when that is not the best or the legal option. Terrified beyond reason, suddenly aware of their glaring incompetence with the gun they possess, they routinely panic and make bad, tragic and often criminal decisions.

Every single month we cover at least one of these stories, and the saddest thing is that almost all of these instances would have been preventable if the person who fired the gun had simply gone to quality defensive firearm classes, learned the law, developed a moderate level of competence, and practiced regularly to maintain a level of familiarity and skill with their firearm (shooting well is a very perishable skill).

There is no justifiable reason for Jeffery Lowell to shoot through his door because teens were knocking on it, looking for a friend. He panicked, and made a series of deadly choices. The story here is little different than than that of the idiot in Florida who opened fire at Pokemon Go players who weren’t even on his property.

When the Founding Fathers reflected the pre-existing human right to armed self-defense in the Second Amendment, they made perfectly clear that they expected the people to be both well-armed and well-trained. That’s precisely what they meant when they said the militia (the people) should be “well-regulated.” <=
​

--- which is exactly what I noted here way back asking "where are the proponents of 'responsible firearm use'? That seems to have been thrown out a broken window. This goon makes an appalling judgment and y'all gun nuts bend over backward to ignore it simply because he employed the services of Almighty Gun, Even though it meant a child's life, the fetish is more important to you asshats. Because Almighty Gun (Power be unto It, Inshallah) is always right.

--- Which again demonstrates the purely emotional and irrational base of your wacko demagoguery.

This guy I quoted above is exactly right. He's voicing what I mean by 'responsible firearm use' while you're taking the side of what I call "gun nuts" -- a childish fetish rather than a responsibility. --- Bearing Arms

 

[Pogo]

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

If you make a claim, you do. That you're unwilling means you can't. You're dismissed, retard. No one believes you.

You can hold your breath until you turn blue, stomp your feet and go "la la la" all you want, child. It doesn't change the content of the link that was already up there.
Dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

More lives wasted thanks to a paranoid gun owner.

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

Two teenagers were drinking in Chicopee, Mass., Saturday afternoon when they set off to find a friend, according to authorities. Whether it was the booze or the sheer similarity of the neighborhood’s low-slung homes, the teens somehow ended up at the wrong house.

One of the teenagers, a 15-year-old boy, banged on the door.

Suddenly, a gunshot rang out from inside the house, and the boy slumped on the porch with a bullet to his belly.

The boy died at a hospital. He has not yet been identified.

The homeowner, 42-year-old Jeffrey Lovell, was arrested and charged with murder, according to the Chicopee Police Department.

If that is true, it's murder and he should pay. Likely, there are details being left out. Knowing the OP.

 

[Fang]

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

No one kicked in a door and no one was slapped in the face. I'm still of the belief there just isn't enough information to determine what actually happened. It's why those questions I posted are important.

 

[Conservative65]

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

If you make a claim, you do. That you're unwilling means you can't. You're dismissed, retard. No one believes you.

You can hold your breath until you turn blue, stomp your feet and go "la la la" all you want, child. It doesn't change the content of the link that was already up there.
Dumbass.

Seems you're the one stomping your feet. You've already you won't prove your claim. It's not that you won't, you can't.

 

[Conservative65]

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

No one kicked in a door and no one was slapped in the face. I'm still of the belief there just isn't enough information to determine what actually happened. It's why those questions I posted are important.

In the end, there are only two people that truly know what happened. One is dead.

 

[Correll]

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.
For that matter, although it wasn't the point, there's no evidence he was "drunk" either. The report was that they were "drinking alcohol". They never said how much.


...

1. R-i-g-h-t... They just had a teenie tiny sip, and then became so disoriented that they tried to enter the wrong house and didn't stop when the people inside yelled at them. Want to bet that when we get the autopsy is released that he was HAMMERED? Or just bet on HOW hammered? I take 3 times the legal limit.


2. You don't break a window with normal knocking. That's either they pounding so hard that it was, or could reasonable considered to be an attempt to break down the door, OR they purposefully broke a window so they could reach in and unlock the door.

3. There was communication between the people inside and those outside. Want to bet that in the conversation insults were exchanged and by the time of the window being broken that the drunk guy knew that his friend was not inside and was trying to get inside to attack the man that insulted him?

 

[Correll]

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?

Whether the kid was trying to get it in is IRRELEVANT.

Do you stupid mother fuckers not speak English or what? Read the fucking law.

In Mass, a person can break into your house eat all of your food and watch your tv and you can't come home and just blow them away because they broke into your home. You MUST be able to PROVE that they were a reasonable danger to your life, or at least a threat to do you great bodily harm. That's the law, I posted it in the thread.

Yep.

According to the law, that man should have waited until the two drunks broke down his door, entered his house and then beat him badly enough that he was concerned he might die.

AND THEN he would be allowed to defend himself.


Of course by then, they would have taken his gun away and he would just die.

Which is why we need laws like Stand Your Ground.

 

[Fang]

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

No one kicked in a door and no one was slapped in the face. I'm still of the belief there just isn't enough information to determine what actually happened. It's why those questions I posted are important.

In the end, there are only two people that truly know what happened. One is dead.

Weren't there two teens? The article mentioned two.

 

[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?

Whether the kid was trying to get it in is IRRELEVANT.

Do you stupid mother fuckers not speak English or what? Read the fucking law.

In Mass, a person can break into your house eat all of your food and watch your tv and you can't come home and just blow them away because they broke into your home. You MUST be able to PROVE that they were a reasonable danger to your life, or at least a threat to do you great bodily harm. That's the law, I posted it in the thread.

Yep.

According to the law, that man should have waited until the two drunks broke down his door, entered his house and then beat him badly enough that he was concerned he might die.

AND THEN he would be allowed to defend himself.


Of course by then, they would have taken his gun away and he would just die.

Which is why we need laws like Stand Your Ground.

It's just another example by those on the left thinking that despite not being there they know more about how someone felt than the person himself.

 

[jc456]

Stand your ground has nothing to do with defending your home when it's being broken into.

Nothing.

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

so only everyone else has to. Funny.

 

[Conservative65]

Irrelevant on top of irrelevant. There was no "break-in" happening here. That's a fabrication this thread made up.
Even the police said that. Even the murderer himself said that.

So it's got nothing to do with a law that doesn't exist in a place where Florida has no jurisdiction.

Nothing.

You don't know what happened anymore than anyone else. The link does not provide the unredacted story.

I post nothing that I don't know and can't back up.
All of the above is in my last link. There ain't nothing "redacted" in it --- they're actual quotes.

Prove that's how you do things. It's not whether or not you do, it's whether or not you can prove you do.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit. I simply reviewed what was already posted. Dumbass.

so only everyone else has to. Funny.

Make a claim and Pogo will demand proof. Let Pogo make a claim and proof is refused.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

Of course, because broken glass is worth the same as a lifetime.
You'd think they could make it cheaper.

So people can break your windows to get in and your cool?
Moron.

moron is exactly the right term for that gal

 

[Conservative65]

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

No one kicked in a door and no one was slapped in the face. I'm still of the belief there just isn't enough information to determine what actually happened. It's why those questions I posted are important.

In the end, there are only two people that truly know what happened. One is dead.

Weren't there two teens? The article mentioned two.

OK, three. One is dead and one had been drinking. One can't tell his story and the other had been doing something that could have inhibited his ability to have clarity about the situation.