MAn facing 1st degree Murder for defending his home...

[insein]

http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1083230499109300.xml

You might have to type in a zip and birth year. Just make one up.

Murder suspect garners support
Thursday, April 29, 2004
By Daniele Cruz
[email protected]
FRANKLIN TWP.-- A jury will eventually decide the fate of a 39-year-old Grant Avenue resident facing a first-degree murder charge after allegedly shooting a burglar.

But a jury of his neighbors was already sympathetic.


When other residents learned that Robert Clark Jr. was charged with the shooting murder of the burglar, some of them said they might have done the same, despite New Jersey law prohibiting the use of deadly force to protect property.

"It's a shame the man got killed, but he shouldn't have been on someone else's property trying to steal," said Katherine Ferguson, who lives next door to one of two suspects in the burglary.

The incident happened Monday night, when Clark saw two men trying to steal his blue all-terrain vehicle from his shed. Authorities said Clark hit the police alert panic button on his home security system, retrieved a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and fatally shot one of the suspects, 39-year-old William Hamilton of Clementon.

Clark's attorney, Michael Pinsky, said the phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from people from Colorado to Alaska who are offering their support for his client.

"No one is disagreeing with what the law is. You can't kill someone if the only purpose is killing someone over property, but it's a little different when you apply the law to the facts in this case," Pinsky said. "My client reasonably felt his life was in danger. He did not kill this person over a piece of property."

Pinsky said he had successfully defended a case similar to this about 10 years ago, where a diner owner acted when he had been burglarized.

"When someone comes on your property at night they strike terror and fear into your heart," he said. "To me, my client is the victim here."

Residents along Grant Avenue have been aware of a rash of burglaries over the past year. Riding mowers, tractors and four-wheelers have been stolen from locked garages and sheds along the street.

"I'm beginning to get scared to live in New Jersey," said Candy Moore, a teacher at St. Catherine's School who lives up the street from the incident. "Burglars could think it's safe to come to Franklin Township, because as a resident, I can't do anything to protect myself against you. Where's the justice in this system?"

Ferguson has lived in her Grant Avenue home for 26 years and has never had a problem with burglaries; they're not something she expected in her rural community.

"Everywhere in the world there's good and there's always a few bad," she said. "It's everywhere you go, so what can you do?"

I think that this DA is outta control asking for 1st degree murder on this guy. He shouldnt even be tried because they were breaking into his property. More facts in the case that arent included here show that the shed itself was merely 8 feet from the man's back door. It also was in a position where his wife usually parks her car when she returns home from work. His wife was due to return home within 5-20 minutes he said. He was afraid one of the guys would try to grab her as a hostage. I think this guy was well within his rights regardless of what the stupid NJ law says.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Lib:"Let's lock up this greedy vigilante and throw away the key. Property rights are racism anyway."

 

[Hobbit]

I like the Arkansas laws. If you step onto my lawn, I have to warn you, then I can call the police. You take one step inside my house or car, or you grab anything that's mine and try to run, I have the right to shoot you. There aren't a whole lot of cat burglers in Arkansas, since so many people own guns.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Hobbit
I like the Arkansas laws. If you step onto my lawn, I have to warn you, then I can call the police. You take one step inside my house or car, or you grab anything that's mine and try to run, I have the right to shoot you. There aren't a whole lot of cat burglers in Arkansas, since so many people own guns.

I believe our society would be crime free if all adults were required to carry a sidearm.

 

[NewGuy]

If it were california, he would have to prove the guy was on his property, stealing his stuff, AND IN THE PROCESS of taking his life.

THEN you can shoot.

Kind of useless at that point.

Its just another way of taking the guns.

 

[Moi]

I'd rather face a jury of my peers than have to be forcibly raped or injured. I don't think anyone can say decisively, that burglars don't rape/injure/kidnap/kill.

My property, my gun, your life...you get the picture.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

I think it's ridiculous that this man would even be taken to trial. He did what he thought was right to protect himself and his wife who was to arrive home soon. It was a matter of protection and I think he made the right decision. How was he to know that the burglars "didn't" have guns themselves anyway?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
This is a nieghborhood bordering some pretty shitty sections! I know as I dont live far from there. I personally would not own a home in that vicinity for that very reason! However I agree a man should be able to protect his property, but someone breaking into your shed hardly calls for this type of force! I think I would of shot a warning round first! then take aim at the legs or something. If they were in my house well that's a different story, that would call for overwhelming force!

Hardly First degree murder though. First Degree murder has always said that a person must have malicious intent to kill the victim. He was defending himself and his property.

Whats really at stake here is some socialist DA that wants to make an example of someone by showing that your property doesnt belong to you and that you don't have a right to defend it. To hear some of the people making comments about this case around philly, you'd lose your mind. People saying that he should have run away and allowed them to steal the property. What is that? Its Socialist redistribution without all the paperwork. He called the police. He feared for his life and his wife's. He was well within his rights as a citizen of the US.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I hear ya man! I am just suggesting he would of been better off firing a warning round to scare off the intruder. If it were in his house as I said in the previous post I would be a little more annoyed with the situation, but agreed it is extreme!

Yea thats the thing. We're thinking after the fact with a cool head and clear vision. If im walking outside, in the rain, and 2 guys are breaking into my shed, my heart is racing and i don't know what to expect. Adrenaline takes over and you just try to survive.

I hate how he is the suspect and they are the victims though. Such a dumbass liberal prosecution system.

 

[Merlin1047]

"Its just another way of taking the guns."

Amen. Good point. I too believe that this is simply back-door gun control.

I also believe this is an excellent example of why our justice system is more frequently called a "legal system" these days. Justice is no longer the aim. It is a game fought between government bureaucrats and defense systers. Neither care about justice or the truth. Many district attornies care nothing about the facts. Some have hidden exculpatory evidence because they do not care about guilt or innocence. They only care about their win-lose ratio. Then there are those like Johnny Cockroach. They will obfuscate the truth with elaborate fabrications to save a client they KNOW is guilty. They do not care about guilt or innocence. They are simply vying for another notch on their briefcases.

 

[Moi]

The law is actually unconstitutional, See Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Nothing therein says this right only applies if the seizor is the government. It clearly says that the people have the right to be secure in their houses and papers and effects...seems to me a shed is such effect. It clearly says shall not be violated. Again, no addition of "by the government".

This guy has a constitutional right to protect. No where in the constitution does it say that his right to be secure can be usurped by burglars.

 

[insein]

The sad part about all of this bullshit is that the man has a no win situation for defending his home now. He either goes to jail or he wins his case and spends upwards of $50,000 to prove his innocence. Money that will not be given back very easily from the courts. Its lose lose either way for him.

 

[deaddude]

"I believe our society would be crime free if all adults were required to carry a sidearm."
originaly posted by rtwngavngr


Bull shit. If all adults were required to carry a sidearm you would have huge amounts of criminal activity. Alot of people wouldnt want to carry the damn things in the first place. Theres a crime right there. I kinda of lean toward the "fewer guns = fewer gun violence."

But seriously, think, if everyone owned a gun then that means all of the criminals have guns too. Gang violence would probably escalate, ect. Your solution is shortsighted.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by deaddude
"I believe our society would be crime free if all adults were required to carry a sidearm."
originaly posted by rtwngavngr


Bull shit. If all adults were required to carry a sidearm you would have huge amounts of criminal activity. Alot of people wouldnt want to carry the damn things in the first place. Theres a crime right there. I kinda of lean toward the "fewer guns = fewer gun violence."

But seriously, think, if everyone owned a gun then that means all of the criminals have guns too. Gang violence would probably escalate, ect. Your solution is shortsighted.

Im sure he was being facetious. As in joking that if everyone had a gun things would be better. Because it cant get much worse than it already is.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by deaddude
"I believe our society would be crime free if all adults were required to carry a sidearm."
originaly posted by rtwngavngr


Bull shit. If all adults were required to carry a sidearm you would have huge amounts of criminal activity. Alot of people wouldnt want to carry the damn things in the first place. Theres a crime right there. I kinda of lean toward the "fewer guns = fewer gun violence."

But seriously, think, if everyone owned a gun then that means all of the criminals have guns too. Gang violence would probably escalate, ect. Your solution is shortsighted.

http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

Check out this great article:

If gun ownership is so dangerous and such a cause of social ills, then surely the most dangerous place in America must be Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), where since 1982 a law has required every household to have a firearm and ammunition. (Conscientious objectors are excluded.)

Right? Wrong!

There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children involving guns since the law was passed.

Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There have been only 2 murders with knives (1984 and 1987), and 1 with a firearm (1997). All this despite the fact that the population in Kennesaw grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate).

Could it be that gun ownership might have positive, not negative effects? That the whole premise behind gun banning is totally wrong? Just ask the people living in Kennesaw.

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/kennesaw.html

 

[Merlin1047]

"I kinda of lean toward the "fewer guns = fewer gun violence."

If your really believe that, I recommend reading the statistics on crime trends in Australia following the government's confiscation of privately owned weapons. To summarize, ALL crime categories showed a marked increase.

If you think that is an anomaly, research home break-in statistics in England.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by deaddude
I kinda of lean toward the "fewer guns = fewer gun violence."

The amount of guns is not the problem...it's the lack of consequences for illegally possessing and using guns that allows criminal activity to flourish. The statistics prove it.

If someone tried to rob or rape me at gun point...they would certainly think twice if I were armed and they knew it. No offense to anyone on this board, but I'd trade a few gang banger deaths for my ability to protect myself from rape any day.

 

[deaddude]

"The amount of guns is not the problem...it's the lack of consequences for illegally possessing and using guns that allows criminal activity to flourish. The statistics prove it."

agreed, however I still beleive that if everyone in the US were simply given a gun crime would increase.

"If your really believe that, I recommend reading the statistics on crime trends in Australia following the government's confiscation of privately owned weapons. To summarize, ALL crime categories showed a marked increase."

Yes I realy believe that, no I dont think we should confiscate all guns. If gun violence actualy went up its because criminals were getting weapons illegaly.

"If gun ownership is so dangerous and such a cause of social ills, then surely the most dangerous place in America must be Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), where since 1982 a law has required every household to have a firearm and ammunition. (Conscientious objectors are excluded.)

Right? Wrong!

There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children involving guns since the law was passed.

Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There have been only 2 murders with knives (1984 and 1987), and 1 with a firearm (1997). All this despite the fact that the population in Kennesaw grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate)."

I have no doubt that this can work in a localized area, but if this were passed nationaly we would be handing Crypts, Bloods, Who knows who else, the means to become much more effective killers.

 

[Avatar4321]

agreed, however I still beleive that if everyone in the US were simply given a gun crime would increase.

Why? If you knew the other guy carried a gun would you even think about robbing him with a gun or shooting him? seriously.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have no doubt that this can work in a localized area, but if this were passed nationaly we would be handing Crypts, Bloods, Who knows who else, the means to become much more effective killers.

So, your saying these guys who are already effective killers, would be even more effective if any of their potential victims was packing heat?