Cal Thomas: Make rioters pay Restitution for damage in Ferguson (duh!)

[emilynghiem]

Ferguson unrest Make protesters pay for riot damage Fox News

I agree.

Free speech isn't free. If you cause damage while doing it, why should law abiding taxpayers pay your bill?

And if the rioters won't pay,
let's make a deal to fund Obama's Amnesty proposal.

Any illegal immigrants willing to pay back all their costs AND chip in the labor or money to rebuild in Ferguson can trade citizenship with anyone convicted of that damage who refuses to work and pay restitution. Whoever agrees to pay gets to stay; whoever refuses faces deportation.

(And any other immigrants not covered which Obama want to fund, let's sue the Democrat Party to pay for that policy since that's who got this guy elected. The Catholics pay for their own programs under their Pope and Church. Let the Democrats pay for their own health care and immigration policies if that's what they believe.)

Charge every identifiable rioter with riot-related crimes, throw em in a deep dark hole somewhere and move on. If they can actually pay restitution fine, but I kinda doubt it.

That's where I say to create jobs for them out of the work, and a way to pay the restitution.
If they won't do the work, allow immigrants to do the work as credit toward their amnesty.
So let them trade places.

If you take responsibility for your actions, then you deserve citizenship.
if you don't want to work to pay the costs of living here, and the costs of exercising your "free" speech or right to protest,
then let some other applicant do that work and receive citizenship that you forfeit.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No, I care about you. I want to see just him go to jail, not both of you. I won't go to jail for some fucking tv's, you can if you want. I won't go to jail for a building. It's a fucking building, if you have insurance, they'll build you a new one. That's taken care of. Why go to prison for life for a fucking building? How stupid are you?

Call me a coward for following the law. That's fine with me. I'll call you a coward during visitation. And don't drop your soap.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have a right to protect my private property and myself. Only a jury with people like you would give more consideration to a bunch of shitheads than the person they robbed or vandalized. All I have to do is feel that my life was in danger. Since it would involve me, only I can make that determination not you or anyone else. The laws of my state allow that.

As far as my stuff is concerned, I put more value on it than I do some piece of shit trying to steal it.

Wrong. You have to PROVE your life was in danger. If you look at me wrong and I feel you're a threat, I can shoot you? Of course not.

You do not get to say "well it's me, so its up to me to determine whether I felt at risk, so if I did, I can shoot the son of a bitch." NO STATE allows that. It doesn't work like that. It goes by "reasonable person" standard. If a reasonable person shouldn't have felt threatened, then you shouldn't either. If someone comes in, steals a TV and runs out, no reasonable person would feel their lives were in danger. Thus if you shoot, you have committed murder.

It's people like you that try to be rambo and wind up Butch's sex toy in a cell at the end of the hall.

You can act all Rambo in this forum, but in real life, you better follow the law or you'll become an inactive forum member very quickly. Case law means nothing in self defense cases because each one is unique.

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

 

[Conservative65]

I have a right to protect my private property and myself. Only a jury with people like you would give more consideration to a bunch of shitheads than the person they robbed or vandalized. All I have to do is feel that my life was in danger. Since it would involve me, only I can make that determination not you or anyone else. The laws of my state allow that.

As far as my stuff is concerned, I put more value on it than I do some piece of shit trying to steal it.

Wrong. You have to PROVE your life was in danger. If you look at me wrong and I feel you're a threat, I can shoot you? Of course not.

You do not get to say "well it's me, so its up to me to determine whether I felt at risk, so if I did, I can shoot the son of a bitch." NO STATE allows that. It doesn't work like that. It goes by "reasonable person" standard. If a reasonable person shouldn't have felt threatened, then you shouldn't either. If someone comes in, steals a TV and runs out, no reasonable person would feel their lives were in danger. Thus if you shoot, you have committed murder.

It's people like you that try to be rambo and wind up Butch's sex toy in a cell at the end of the hall.

You can act all Rambo in this forum, but in real life, you better follow the law or you'll become an inactive forum member very quickly. Case law means nothing in self defense cases because each one is unique.

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed. Based on your premise that agreements needs to exist in advance, my reply as to what I will do in those situations is based on State law or, in other words, something that is agreed upon in advance. Article 6, Section 16 - 11 - 420 of state law says:

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack

What those 5 things allow me to do is deal with intruders in a manner I, not you or anyone elses, deems appropriate. I don't have to retreat or surrender should my place of business or personal residence be intruded or if I feel my life is in danger. In other words, I'll have them meet their maker if they make the wrong decision. Cases involving this type of thing have been upheld before on behalf of the one being victimized.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You're moving the goalposts.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed

Who said anything about a house? Who said anything about retreating?

You originally said:

In practice, what I would do if someone was trying to burn my business, one that had nothing to do with why they are protesting, I'd prevent them from doing it and well within my rights under the law.

And that is what I replied to in my original reply to what you said. To try to make yourself right, you slowly moved the goalposts from "burning my business" to "breaking into someone's home." But, you were caught in the act.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have a right to protect my private property and myself. Only a jury with people like you would give more consideration to a bunch of shitheads than the person they robbed or vandalized. All I have to do is feel that my life was in danger. Since it would involve me, only I can make that determination not you or anyone else. The laws of my state allow that.

As far as my stuff is concerned, I put more value on it than I do some piece of shit trying to steal it.

Wrong. You have to PROVE your life was in danger. If you look at me wrong and I feel you're a threat, I can shoot you? Of course not.

You do not get to say "well it's me, so its up to me to determine whether I felt at risk, so if I did, I can shoot the son of a bitch." NO STATE allows that. It doesn't work like that. It goes by "reasonable person" standard. If a reasonable person shouldn't have felt threatened, then you shouldn't either. If someone comes in, steals a TV and runs out, no reasonable person would feel their lives were in danger. Thus if you shoot, you have committed murder.

It's people like you that try to be rambo and wind up Butch's sex toy in a cell at the end of the hall.

You can act all Rambo in this forum, but in real life, you better follow the law or you'll become an inactive forum member very quickly. Case law means nothing in self defense cases because each one is unique.

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed. Based on your premise that agreements needs to exist in advance, my reply as to what I will do in those situations is based on State law or, in other words, something that is agreed upon in advance. Article 6, Section 16 - 11 - 420 of state law says:

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack

What those 5 things allow me to do is deal with intruders in a manner I, not you or anyone elses, deems appropriate. I don't have to retreat or surrender should my place of business or personal residence be intruded or if I feel my life is in danger. In other words, I'll have them meet their maker if they make the wrong decision. Cases involving this type of thing have been upheld before on behalf of the one being victimized.

Yes, agreed. What I am saying is we should either require or "strongly emphasize and practice" the need to
EDUCATE and AGREE on not only this policy, but the actual Procedures for following it.

If you are a law abiding citizen, but have an emergency and knock frantically on a door or window of a house,
what do you do to indicate you are not a crook? that's one example.

If you find a drunken person going nuts on your door step, what do you do? what is the agreed process?

why wait for these things to keep happening.

meet in advance, call homeowners association meetings with police
and have everyone agree what the procedures are and inform all guests so they don't end up like Trayvon Martin.

And make sure any patrol volunteers agree and follow procedures so they don't end up like George Zimmerman.

Conservative, this is GREAT what you posted above.
That along with the actual police procedures are what all citizens should be trained in
especially to have armed citizens all on the same page. This will do more to deter crime,
with signs posted in every district that the homeowners group has been trained in law enforcement
procedures and not to enter the subdivision if you do not agree to follow them!

 

[airplanemechanic]

You're misinterpreting the law. No law in your list says you can shoot to defend property. If someone runs in your yard, grabs ya lawnmower and takes off down the road, you can't shoot them. Period.

 

[Conservative65]

I have a right to protect my private property and myself. Only a jury with people like you would give more consideration to a bunch of shitheads than the person they robbed or vandalized. All I have to do is feel that my life was in danger. Since it would involve me, only I can make that determination not you or anyone else. The laws of my state allow that.

As far as my stuff is concerned, I put more value on it than I do some piece of shit trying to steal it.

Wrong. You have to PROVE your life was in danger. If you look at me wrong and I feel you're a threat, I can shoot you? Of course not.

You do not get to say "well it's me, so its up to me to determine whether I felt at risk, so if I did, I can shoot the son of a bitch." NO STATE allows that. It doesn't work like that. It goes by "reasonable person" standard. If a reasonable person shouldn't have felt threatened, then you shouldn't either. If someone comes in, steals a TV and runs out, no reasonable person would feel their lives were in danger. Thus if you shoot, you have committed murder.

It's people like you that try to be rambo and wind up Butch's sex toy in a cell at the end of the hall.

You can act all Rambo in this forum, but in real life, you better follow the law or you'll become an inactive forum member very quickly. Case law means nothing in self defense cases because each one is unique.

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed. Based on your premise that agreements needs to exist in advance, my reply as to what I will do in those situations is based on State law or, in other words, something that is agreed upon in advance. Article 6, Section 16 - 11 - 420 of state law says:

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack

What those 5 things allow me to do is deal with intruders in a manner I, not you or anyone elses, deems appropriate. I don't have to retreat or surrender should my place of business or personal residence be intruded or if I feel my life is in danger. In other words, I'll have them meet their maker if they make the wrong decision. Cases involving this type of thing have been upheld before on behalf of the one being victimized.

Yes, agreed. What I am saying is we should either require or "strongly emphasize and practice" the need to
EDUCATE and AGREE on not only this policy, but the actual Procedures for following it.

If you are a law abiding citizen, but have an emergency and knock frantically on a door or window of a house,
what do you do to indicate you are not a crook? that's one example.

If you find a drunken person going nuts on your door step, what do you do? what is the agreed process?

why wait for these things to keep happening.

meet in advance, call homeowners association meetings with police
and have everyone agree what the procedures are and inform all guests so they don't end up like Trayvon Martin.

And make sure any patrol volunteers agree and follow procedures so they don't end up like George Zimmerman.

Conservative, this is GREAT what you posted above.
That along with the actual police procedures are what all citizens should be trained in
especially to have armed citizens all on the same page. This will do more to deter crime,
with signs posted in every district that the homeowners group has been trained in law enforcement
procedures and not to enter the subdivision if you do not agree to follow them!

My State gives me the procedures on how to follow it. While the law may not say the words, I'll stand my ground. There is absolutely no way to provide a procedure on how to deal with every potential action. We don't have to agree on specifics nor would that ever be able to be done.

Since such a list would be so impractically long, what am I supposed to do, read through pages and pages, and pages to find out what was agreed upon? What happens if the frantic person knocking isn't law abiding or how you supposed to tell if it is an actual emergency or they are faking? Same with the drunk.

 

[emilynghiem]

You're moving the goalposts.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed

Who said anything about a house? Who said anything about retreating?

You originally said:

In practice, what I would do if someone was trying to burn my business, one that had nothing to do with why they are protesting, I'd prevent them from doing it and well within my rights under the law.

And that is what I replied to in my original reply to what you said. To try to make yourself right, you slowly moved the goalposts from "burning my business" to "breaking into someone's home." But, you were caught in the act.

Aren't both counted as intruding on property.
Sure, ideally nobody should get shot.
And yes, there are cases where people go to trial after shooting someone over cases like this or less
(The cases that come to mind: the man who shot a young man dead after loud music was blasted from the car Florida Loud Music Shooter Michael Dunn Gets Life In Prison The Two-Way NPR
the man who shot a drunk woman pounding on the door for help Police Death of woman 19 possible self-defense gone wrong - Fox 2 News Headlines the man in Texas who faced charges but wasn't charged after he defended a neighbor's home not his own Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings - Houston Chronicle and the most horrible case I've heard was the two teens who broke through the window and both ended up dead by the homeowner who went through great lengths to get them. I think this is the link: Minnesota Man Faces Double Murder Charges In Home Burglary Case JONATHAN TURLEY

So technically, no, you can't abuse the law.
But within the spirit of the law, people will sympathize and give leeway
as long as you are not abusive and dangerous, and you appear reasonable to them.

Of the men in the above cases, the only one I know that really made it clear
he was not trying to shoot to kill, but was truly defending the neighborhood from burglars he confronted,
was the man who was defending his neighbor's house when he witnesses thieves stealing and running off with property.

If you ask me, we need ALL citizens to take the same oath to uphold Constitutional laws and due process
as police officers are sworn and trained to do, if we are going to have consistent agreed use of firearms for law enforcement and defense. Just having the community all on the same mindset will deter crime. It reinforces a positive respectful vibe, that's why schools which have this respectful atmosphere don't have trouble with students disrupting things.

If you set a lax atmosphere you invite people who don't take rules seriously.
This happens with sports teams, with theatre and production groups,
if everyone is on the same page, you perform better with no distractions or divisions.

Just human sociology and psychology, we need to get on the same page
and it makes everyone's jobs and lives easier! Ask any teacher or officer, and they
will tell you the difference it makes to work with a community that has its act together.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong. You have to PROVE your life was in danger. If you look at me wrong and I feel you're a threat, I can shoot you? Of course not.

You do not get to say "well it's me, so its up to me to determine whether I felt at risk, so if I did, I can shoot the son of a bitch." NO STATE allows that. It doesn't work like that. It goes by "reasonable person" standard. If a reasonable person shouldn't have felt threatened, then you shouldn't either. If someone comes in, steals a TV and runs out, no reasonable person would feel their lives were in danger. Thus if you shoot, you have committed murder.

It's people like you that try to be rambo and wind up Butch's sex toy in a cell at the end of the hall.

You can act all Rambo in this forum, but in real life, you better follow the law or you'll become an inactive forum member very quickly. Case law means nothing in self defense cases because each one is unique.

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed. Based on your premise that agreements needs to exist in advance, my reply as to what I will do in those situations is based on State law or, in other words, something that is agreed upon in advance. Article 6, Section 16 - 11 - 420 of state law says:

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack

What those 5 things allow me to do is deal with intruders in a manner I, not you or anyone elses, deems appropriate. I don't have to retreat or surrender should my place of business or personal residence be intruded or if I feel my life is in danger. In other words, I'll have them meet their maker if they make the wrong decision. Cases involving this type of thing have been upheld before on behalf of the one being victimized.

Yes, agreed. What I am saying is we should either require or "strongly emphasize and practice" the need to
EDUCATE and AGREE on not only this policy, but the actual Procedures for following it.

If you are a law abiding citizen, but have an emergency and knock frantically on a door or window of a house,
what do you do to indicate you are not a crook? that's one example.

If you find a drunken person going nuts on your door step, what do you do? what is the agreed process?

why wait for these things to keep happening.

meet in advance, call homeowners association meetings with police
and have everyone agree what the procedures are and inform all guests so they don't end up like Trayvon Martin.

And make sure any patrol volunteers agree and follow procedures so they don't end up like George Zimmerman.

Conservative, this is GREAT what you posted above.
That along with the actual police procedures are what all citizens should be trained in
especially to have armed citizens all on the same page. This will do more to deter crime,
with signs posted in every district that the homeowners group has been trained in law enforcement
procedures and not to enter the subdivision if you do not agree to follow them!

My State gives me the procedures on how to follow it. While the law may not say the words, I'll stand my ground. There is absolutely no way to provide a procedure on how to deal with every potential action. We don't have to agree on specifics nor would that ever be able to be done.

Since such a list would be so impractically long, what am I supposed to do, read through pages and pages, and pages to find out what was agreed upon? What happens if the frantic person knocking isn't law abiding or how you supposed to tell if it is an actual emergency or they are faking? Same with the drunk.

No, because the schools are able to work with 6th graders on setting up a general policy, even though there are ten million ways things can go wrong. Someone can pee in their pants, have a heart attack or seizure. Their nose could start bleeding or they could cut themselves or burn themselves in lab. That doesn't stop teachers from laying out the rules the first day of class and enforcing them by example the first week to make sure everyone understands.

if you nip it in the bud, that eliminates about 20 more million things that could go wrong, but people won't even try.
That limits it to 5-10 million!

P.S. your state provides this but you are doing proactive work to educate and train yourself.
That is where you are doing work that not all people find accessible.

I had to teach kids that the Bill of Rights applies to them, and is defended to PREVENT abuses against them. The kids I taught assumed the laws were for police to enforce and didn't know that people invoke these things and even hold police and govt to acct.

When I brought up this subject at work, with full grown adults, only 1 or 2 people in the room besdies me knew there was huge difference between passing laws on a state or federal level, and the problem with city govt. The rest just thought politicians do whatever they want without recourse and you can't bother because t hey will overrule you anyway.

So we need the SAME empowerment through education that you have, which you may take for granted, but some people REALLY need to be educated, trained and connected on this level. We won't get rid of causes of crime except by connecting on this level and agreeing on laws!

So the education would even be to get people up to speed to where YOU are as a law abiding citizen who shares responsibility. Some people don't even have that much, which is why we have crime because of that disconnect and feeling powerless where people do whatever, thinking it doesn't matter because the system is against them. They don't get they can be part of the system and ensure respect that way. So they fight it from outside instead of inside.

 

[Political Junky]

Cal is still alive?

 

[Conservative65]

All that I need for proof is the situation to be one where it could be. Someone burning my business and looting or coming into my house in a manner they shouldn't is all I need.

Funny how you care more about some piece of shit thief than the one being victimized. That puts you in that category.

So you apply a one size fits all standard? Interesting. You might be coward enough to let people steal from you, but some of us aren't. If two people are involved and one can't tell their story, guess who is believed?

It depends what state you are in, how tightly or loosely the laws are written and interpreted.

The castle doctrine allows for defense to protect the home,
and also laws on stealing cars which are the equivalent of horses where these
were defendable from theft by force and firearms.

The COMMON factor is that citizens and police in a region AGREE what the standards and Procedures are!

If we all agree, then
1. we know what to do and what not to do if there is confrontation. we already agree what the limits are.
2. we agree how to act to determine if the people in the confrontation are law abiding and under the agreement or outsiders
3.we can screen trouble out farther in advance. people who cannot even work with the police or other citizens
to agree on policies already indicate there is going to be trouble. so conflicts can be worked out in advance,
not wait until there is a confrontation

Because even civilized citizens have disagreements over what is and waht is not proper use of force for defense,
That is WHY we need to meet and AGREE in advance!

otherwise, criminals take advantage of this gap and play one side against the other, where both sides don't know what to expect.

So if we close that gap and totally agree what is the procedure and what is not,
then people either have to comply or they are obviously criminal.

We can't have even lawabiding citizens not following the exact same procedures
or we can't tell who's a bad guy. It's like wearing uniforms in school. If all the members
of the community are exactly in line, then anyone who's from outside will stnd out like a sore thumb.

We need all communities to be in complete accord with their police and nobody can get away with anything less.
they will get screened and weeded out far in advance. it will be obvious who isn't with the program.

There have been cases in my state where the piece of shit breaking into someone's house got what they deserved from the owner with no charges filed. Based on your premise that agreements needs to exist in advance, my reply as to what I will do in those situations is based on State law or, in other words, something that is agreed upon in advance. Article 6, Section 16 - 11 - 420 of state law says:

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack

What those 5 things allow me to do is deal with intruders in a manner I, not you or anyone elses, deems appropriate. I don't have to retreat or surrender should my place of business or personal residence be intruded or if I feel my life is in danger. In other words, I'll have them meet their maker if they make the wrong decision. Cases involving this type of thing have been upheld before on behalf of the one being victimized.

Yes, agreed. What I am saying is we should either require or "strongly emphasize and practice" the need to
EDUCATE and AGREE on not only this policy, but the actual Procedures for following it.

If you are a law abiding citizen, but have an emergency and knock frantically on a door or window of a house,
what do you do to indicate you are not a crook? that's one example.

If you find a drunken person going nuts on your door step, what do you do? what is the agreed process?

why wait for these things to keep happening.

meet in advance, call homeowners association meetings with police
and have everyone agree what the procedures are and inform all guests so they don't end up like Trayvon Martin.

And make sure any patrol volunteers agree and follow procedures so they don't end up like George Zimmerman.

Conservative, this is GREAT what you posted above.
That along with the actual police procedures are what all citizens should be trained in
especially to have armed citizens all on the same page. This will do more to deter crime,
with signs posted in every district that the homeowners group has been trained in law enforcement
procedures and not to enter the subdivision if you do not agree to follow them!

My State gives me the procedures on how to follow it. While the law may not say the words, I'll stand my ground. There is absolutely no way to provide a procedure on how to deal with every potential action. We don't have to agree on specifics nor would that ever be able to be done.

Since such a list would be so impractically long, what am I supposed to do, read through pages and pages, and pages to find out what was agreed upon? What happens if the frantic person knocking isn't law abiding or how you supposed to tell if it is an actual emergency or they are faking? Same with the drunk.

No, because the schools are able to work with 6th graders on setting up a general policy, even though there are ten million ways things can go wrong. Someone can pee in their pants, have a heart attack or seizure. Their nose could start bleeding or they could cut themselves or burn themselves in lab. That doesn't stop teachers from laying out the rules the first day of class and enforcing them by example the first week to make sure everyone understands.

if you nip it in the bud, that eliminates about 20 more million things that could go wrong, but people won't even try.
That limits it to 5-10 million!

P.S. your state provides this but you are doing proactive work to educate and train yourself.
That is where you are doing work that not all people find accessible.

I had to teach kids that the Bill of Rights applies to them, and is defended to PREVENT abuses against them. The kids I taught assumed the laws were for police to enforce and didn't know that people invoke these things and even hold police and govt to acct.

When I brought up this subject at work, with full grown adults, only 1 or 2 people in the room besdies me knew there was huge difference between passing laws on a state or federal level, and the problem with city govt. The rest just thought politicians do whatever they want without recourse and you can't bother because t hey will overrule you anyway.

So we need the SAME empowerment through education that you have, which you may take for granted, but some people REALLY need to be educated, trained and connected on this level. We won't get rid of causes of crime except by connecting on this level and agreeing on laws!

So the education would even be to get people up to speed to where YOU are as a law abiding citizen who shares responsibility. Some people don't even have that much, which is why we have crime because of that disconnect and feeling powerless where people do whatever, thinking it doesn't matter because the system is against them. They don't get they can be part of the system and ensure respect that way. So they fight it from outside instead of inside.

So your premise is based on the specifics of even the same situation being the same?

I agree with my State's laws. If someone decides to invade my residence and/or put me or my family in harm's way, I will protect them as I see fit. The law allows me to do so. You don't have to like it. Perhaps you should focus on educating the dumbasses that would do such things about staying away from those of us who will do them.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So your premise is based on the specifics of even the same situation being the same?

I agree with my State's laws. If someone decides to invade my residence and/or put me or my family in harm's way, I will protect them as I see fit. The law allows me to do so. You don't have to like it. Perhaps you should focus on educating the dumbasses that would do such things about staying away from those of us who will do them.

I agree with your states laws too, but what I don't agree with is your interpretation of them. You are unable to comprehend what you are reading. You are also moving the goalposts again.

I never said anything about anyone breaking into a RESIDENCE. Try to follow me here, this thread is about looting to BUSINESSES in Ferguson. If you are NOT there, and someone breaks into your business, steals a TV and runs out, you can't shoot them. I know I am right, I've taken classes on this. You want to be rambo, go ahead. AGAIN, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BREAKING INTO A RESIDENCE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THESE LOOTERS BREAKING INTO UNOCCUPIED BUSINESSES. And I live in the state with the most lax gun laws in the entire nation and you STILL can't shoot to defend property.

And you can believe anything you want to, I'd be happy to get the police to tell you that you're wrong, but if multiple websites don't make you realize the error in your ways, nothing will.