It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Family, Friends Of Dead Home Invaders Say “They Didn’t Deserve To Get Killed.”

page: 18
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Wow can you snivel! If your kid gets shot you can blame yourself until you commit suicide, thats fine by me!

Myself I would choose vengeance as a reason to live on.




posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Kryties






....only in America!





I swear that you are trolling. But I'll play. Somebody breaks in your home. What do you do? (Let's say that you are in UK? or where ever you are?)


Kryties would call the cops, who would arrive ten minutes after Kryties was beaten or killed. What else?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NewAmericanMan
I would disagree with such, as it is as much important as to know why a criminal does such. Sometimes it is a symptom of a bigger problem and issue at hand, rather than just that the person is bad.

Having a weapon should not be an issue, nor should using it to defend one's home. However, when it becomes a national problem and issues, such as teens and children committing adult crimes, it would thus stand to reason that there has to be a cause for this. And if the bottom cause can be found, then perhaps changes can be made. An adult criminal, that is one thing, especially those over the age of 20. But these were children, doing adult crimes, and children who died from such. that is a cause for concern.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
But you did bring religion into the discussion, when you brought up morals and used the term: Thou shall not, and listed off 4 out of 10 better known laws set down by Moses from Judaism, in a prior post.

It was your posting that brought such into the discussion, and thus opened a door.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

because the kids have no morals.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: spirited75
But you did bring religion into the discussion, when you brought up morals and used the term: Thou shall not, and listed off 4 out of 10 better known laws set down by Moses from Judaism, in a prior post.

It was your posting that brought such into the discussion, and thus opened a door.



i listed four famous morals from the origin of all morals.
i said nothing about religion.
if those four sentences are a hot button for you then that is your psychological issue.
it is impossible to talk about morals without talking about where they came from.

just like it is impossible to talk about a one month old baby,
without talking about sexual intercourse and pregnancy.

the two criminals HAD NO MORALS.

their parents tried to instill morals into them and the two criminals refused.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
You used the exact wording as would be found in most Bibles. And when such is used in conjunction with the term morality, it leads to the use of the Bible or any religious text as a weapon. Even history is loaded with such uses and excuses, and the first words come from the lips is morality and then quoting scripture.

Please keep to the topic at hand and not personal attacks.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: spirited75
You used the exact wording as would be found in most Bibles. And when such is used in conjunction with the term morality, it leads to the use of the Bible or any religious text as a weapon. Even history is loaded with such uses and excuses, and the first words come from the lips is morality and then quoting scripture.

Please keep to the topic at hand and not personal attacks.



get back on the subject about the two criminals who,
because they have no morals got killed for committing a felony.
the old woman enforce her morals upon them and it cost them their lives.

i am perfectly fine with the womans behavior.

if you take exception to the two criminals behavior-----which i think you do, it is because you have MORALS, and when you look at their behavior and compare it against your behavior, you judge their behavior as wrong.
that is because your parents instilled MORALS into you.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
No one knows who pulled the trigger. And I do not think that there was and enforcement of morals.
Morals, is a plural of moral. As defined: A lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information or an experience. A person’s standards of behavior or beliefs, concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

There was no lesson in morality here, it was an action of one senior citizen protecting themselves, and or the property that they live in or both. If there is a lesson there, it is not for the 2 boys who died, but rather for all of those in the area, that maybe robbing houses is not a good idea, as it could mean you get shot and lose your life.

And even then, the friends and families of both sides, tend to fail to see that there is a far worse thing that is the lack of fear for the consequences of actions. As I have stated before and will state again, the fear of jail, of consequences are no longer there. People, such as those 2 boys, acted without impunity or care for the actions that they were committing. And sadder still, are the friends and family that failed to see what they were doing, choosing to ignore their actions instead of taking action and trying to stop them and redirect them into another direction.

And what is even sadder than that, is that a lot of what we see going on, the very nature of society was predicted before many of us were even born, but people who had the foresight to take a look forward, and give warnings, that were neither heeded or paid attention to. And it is only going to get worse before it gets better, and things finally settle down.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

if they had no fear of getting caught then
why did they do this at 230 in the morning
when they had the cover of darkness to keep
their actions and themselves hidden?

"For everyone who does evil hates the Light,
and does not come to the Light for fear
that his deeds will be exposed. 21
Ephesians 5:21

John 3:20
20"For everyone who does evil
hates the Light, and does not
come to the Light for fear that
his deeds will be exposed.

Job 24:16
In the dark, thieves break into houses,
but by day they shut themselves in;
they want nothing to do with the light.

14Therefore behold, I will once again deal
marvelously with this people, wondrously
marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise
men will perish, And the discernment of
their discerning men will be concealed."
15Woe to those who deeply hide their plans
from the LORD, And whose deeds are done
in a dark place, And they say, "Who sees us?"
or "Who knows us?" 16You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker,
"He did not make me"; Or what is formed say
to him who formed it, "He has no understanding "?

They, criminals, do their deeds by and in darkness as written 7000 years ago.
it has not changed they broke into the old
womans house at night because they were
afraid of others seeing them, which is a consequence.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
There you go again, bringing religion into the discussion, yet again.

And if you were following along with the thread, then the answer would be apparent. The reason why the break in happened during the day, is cause like all those who do such, they do not want to be caught. Breaking in at night, means that there is a greater chance of getting caught, being under the belief that someone will be home. But if you break in during the day, then the chances go down, as most people tend to be working.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

these two criminals knew that an
old lady who does not work lived there.

they went in there at night probably because
they did not want to be seen so they could rape her and kill her.

I did not quote a religion, i quoted a Bible.

Using the bible as a purely historical document
we can see that even the dim witted unenlightened
people back 7000 years ago were intelligent enough
to know that criminals and sinners do their deeds in
the dark because they are afraid of being seen/caught.

that why devolution is apparent to me.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
And biblical quotes never win any argument in any court of law. It is neither evidence or acceptable in most jurisprudence societies. That is part of the problem with arguments that use such, as it is being used as a weapon to justify action, instead of legal precedence. Such arguments were used in the past to justify some of the most horrific of events, crimes, and very bad laws that have been passed and then repealed. And if you quote the Bible, then you are using a text that is used 100% of the time in one of the Judaic beliefs, thus it stands to be stated that it is a religious argument. The bible is not 100% accurate or reliable, due to the large number of parables in it, and allegorical meanings, thus that is why it is not used in a court of law as evidence. Every trial where it has been used, past the industrial revolution, has resulted in the side that used it being the loser in a court case, showing that it has no legal precedence or standing.

Do you not watch TV, or read or watch movies? Looking at this as if I was sitting on a jury, the argument that they could rape and kill an old lady does not wash, as there is no evidence of such present. Nor do we know what would have happened if they came across her in the middle of the night, having woke her up.
The facts are that they broke into a home in the middle of the night. So it is reasonable to believe that they were not wanting to get caught, and no witnesses means that it would make it harder for the police to catch them. A witness testimony can put a person in prison for life, but the lack of a witness means that either you can get away with the crime or there is a good chance of a lesser sentence if they were ever caught or arrested.

All we do know is that they broke in, and were making noise, waking the homeowner and her brother up, one of them had a weapon and they shot the 2 boys. Chances are the boys had something in their hands, thus leading to the fact that they were burglarizing the home at the time. That is all that is known and ultimately we will never know the reason why they did what they were doing. The rest is pure speculation, until there is evidence that indicates such.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

or the parents coul say "shoulda not burgled someones house. the fuch's wrong with you?"



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

Do you not watch TV, or read or watch movies?

The bible is not 100% accurate or reliable, due to the large number of parables in it, and allegorical meanings, thus that is why it is not used in a court of law as evidence.


change the word bible with the word TV and your quote is still true.

no i do not watch tv.
a landmark year in America was 1999.
there were more homes with cable tv than had running water.
which means there were more homes with sewer pipes
coming into the house than there were going out.

did you read what a neighbor who knew these two criminals said about them?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockoperawriter
a reply to: AlaskanDad

or the parents coul say "shoulda not burgled someones house. the fuch's wrong with you?"



Yup a parent whose child has been shot will certainly place the blame upon their child

and and they will undoubtedly blame themselves,

I mean it's not like an emotional situation or anything.

And no parent would ever get mad because someone capped a few rounds into their kid.

do you have any kids?

You can shoot people for any reason that fits your needs or desires.

But if you shoot the wrong child there are those would hunt down you or your loved ones.

Or if your kid gets shot you can blame them, yourself, or both until you become an alcoholic, and or commit suicide!


Here's one to think about, what if you cap and kill a cops kid doing a B&E?
do you think Daddy LEO will just forget about it? Of course he would.

What about that Veteran down the street, you know the one. I am sure he will give you a ribbon for capping his kid.

There are plenty of people that are going to be pissed their kid got shot and just whine about it.

And then there are a few that will have the need to return the favor in full.

I think that spells it out pretty simply, you can add your scenarios or voice your opinions but I think this expresses my view and thats

E'nuff said!









edit on 14-5-2014 by AlaskanDad because: the to this

edit on 14-5-2014 by AlaskanDad because: noticed the quote was not there so I added it



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

before your criminal child gets shot committing a felony crime,
why not apply some of that misplaced emotional overreaction of
yours on your childs seat of higher learning with a board of education.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I think they don't like Americans because we are so cold hearted when confronted with violence. As to what the COUNTRY does other than me,it is redundant. I would like to know if those parents raised any OTHER criminals whom we will have to shoot as well?
Cops were clear to me :kill them INSIDE your house challenge them if they APPEAR to be unarmed only. If you can't tell ,kill them. They have less paperwork and the system rolls on.
Is this good? No It's beyond sad but CLEARLY the parents are the cliche progenitors of the whole scenario. Not the defenders. The children are victims of their own culture,that still churns out THOUSANDS of these kids DAILY.
I suggest you start there.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Kryties would call the cops, who would arrive ten minutes after Kryties was beaten or killed. What else?


What is it with ignoramuses thinking they can put words in my mouth?

At no point in time did I say that a homeowner doesn't have the right to defend their home, but shooting first and thinking later is not what I meant. If two teens (in this case) intruded into my home I would, at worst, determine if they had a weapon or not (in this case not) and then either shoot to disable or simply point the gun at them and tell them to have a seat while I call the cops.

The salivating, bloodthirsty gun-freaks missed this point in their zeal to paint everyone with the same brush and sentence the intruders to death based off their own fantasizing about killing someone legally.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

If two teens (in this case) intruded into my home I would, at worst, determine if they had a weapon or not (in this case not) and then either shoot to disable or simply point the gun at them and tell them to have a seat while I call the cops.



"If two teens intruded into my home..."
this is 230 am in the morning, you are asleep and hear the strange noises inside the house, because in your version the "teens intruded into my home..." means that you did not hear them breaking the locks or the door.

"...I would , at worst. determine if they had a weapon or not..."
this is 230 am in the morning and to determine if the two felonious teens had a weapon you would
1. go turn on the lights in the room where these teens were.
2. ask the teens to turn on the lights so you could see if they had weapons.
3. don your night vision goggles and silently determine whether they were armed.

unclear at what point you actually armed yourself with your home defense weapon, was it before or after you set about determining whether the two teens were armed or not.

anyway you determine the teens are not armed and you then
"...and then either shoot to disable... "
so where on the body are you going to shoot to disable these two unarmed teens?
1. ask them to sit still while you point and aim your pistol/rifle at first one of their legs and blow the knee cap off of one of the unfortunate intruders, and then repeat the process on the second intruder. then of course having disabled both criminal felons, you lay your weapon down to run to the bathroom for the first aid kit so you can apply proper first aide and stop the bleeding and give them some aspirin for the pain.
2. rely on your skills at the local and state fairs at the shooting galleries, where you consistently win supersized stuffed animals for your lover by shooting tiny ducks floating by on a stream of water, to shoot them in the knees while they are running towards you (either in the dark or the light depending on how successful you were at either getting them to turn on the lights or turning them on yourself), or running away from you in the dark house falling over coffee tables and couches, or dodging the coffee tables and couches if the house is lit up.

"...or simply point the gun at them and tell them to have a seat while I call the cops."

and by you simply pointing the gun at them and calmly tell them to sit on the couch while you call the police will work because you have an incredible amount of influence over 17 year old and 14 year old felonious criminals and they will of course immediately obey your command presence and freeze in their tracks and willfully comply?

Here is how it happened.
One of these teens broke into the old lady's home a couple of weeks prior to the night in question.
Fingerprint from first break in matches fingerprint from one of dead criminal teenagers.
Old woman takes precautions of repairing broken lock
and adding a second dead bolt lock,
and asking a brother to stay with her.
Criminal teens break into house for at least the second time and both die of gunshot wounds.

I am betting the brother is a ex armed service( Korea), and decided to stop the repeated victimization of his sister so she could live her remaining days here on earth in peace and quiet.
The two criminal teens were repeat offenders at this womans home.
We only know of one prior break in.
There could have been more and the situation was
judged to be escalating by the woman, and her age she
probably even called the local law enforcement about the
first breakin which resulted in fingerprints being secured.

She saved the state of California a sum of money to the tune
of $45,000.00 per each of these criminals per year that they
would have eventually cost you a taxpayer in California.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join