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.
originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Cuervo
People should not expect to find shelter by trespassing. They should expect to find trouble.
I'm with seagull, I'd want to see what evidence was entered into that court before passing judgement on this man.
'
originally posted by: CB328
You are comparing a young man and woman seeking shelter to a man who is willing to shoot two people eight times while they are sleeping?
Of course, that's compassionate conservatism. Or is that the culture of life??
originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Cuervo
People should not expect to find shelter by trespassing. They should expect to find trouble.
originally posted by: Cuervo
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: Cuervo
originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Cuervo
If It's raining and I hop the fence and stroll toward the White House, do you think the Secret Service will understand that I was seeking shelter? They might be a little more concerned with the trespassing part.
My earlier post was mostly in jest. No bloodthirsty, poor-hatin' conservatives in this thread. Promise.
People don't seek shelter in the White House. People do seek shelter in abandoned houses.
When vacant houses outnumber homeless people... what do you expect?
I think that is exactly the issue here....expectations. Sure you can expect homeless to break the law and break into someone else's property for shelter and to shoot up their drugs, but in turn the homeless should expect the owner may come by and defend their property.
Expectations should run both ways, not just in favor of the criminal right?
This isn't the 1700's where we had to wait a week for the law to arrive. If somebody is squatting in vacant property, you call the police.
The owner went there because he got a call that told him there was somebody squatting. He wasn't caught off guard. He showed up at night with three handguns. If he wanted people out of his property, he would have called the police. He wanted to shoot somebody and it's obvious. Why else would you respond like that?
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
I did read it. It came down to he said, she said. The jury believed him.
I'd still like to see the transcript.
A friend of the Devine family who now serves as a victims advocate in Minnesota said state lawmakers need to re-examine "how these stand-your-ground laws have led to unjust homicides."
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96
You really comparing this to the Bin Laden raid?
Wow.
Apples to freaking oranges.
Your right at least the op was the guys own property unlike invading a foreign country, and a home there.
Why whatever was I thinking.
originally posted by: projectvxn
I have to agree here, minus all the hyperbolic anti gun crap.
This guy should be in jail for this.
He murdered two people.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Yes.
Truly though, did the guy deserve to die for crashing in an abandoned, by all accounts it been so for a while, building?
Really, he should have called the cops.
If he was truly in danger, and had to shoot...fine. Horrible, but understandable. But should he have gone there himself? Knowing there were people there, who might indeed pose a considerable risk to him? I'm sorry, I consider that somewhat, well, stupid.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96
I don't know what you were thinking comparing two vagrants to one of the most wanted, and supposed terrorist ring leaders.
That would imply that these two were some how a known danger with that comparison.