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.

 

NV Man cleared in shooting of sleeping trespassers

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

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.


Desperate people do desperate things - why is that so hard to understand.




posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

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??
'

Why yes droning people, and dropping bombs on people sleeping is better.

Is that what they call campassionate 'liberalism' ?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Cuervo

People should not expect to find shelter by trespassing. They should expect to find trouble.


Trouble with the cops! Not getting shot in your sleep.

By your rationale, any crime you commit can be reasonably met with a hail of gunfire. That's some twisted Sharia/Old Testament law thinking there.

The whole reason we get mad at police when they shoot people for minor offenses is because they are not judge, jury, and executioner. Why would this guy get a free pass when he didn't even have to go into a dark building he suspected of having squatters? He could have called the cops.

Why do people feel they have to approach simple problems in such a way?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

It's no more difficult to understand than the axiom actions have consequences (even when you're desperate).



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo




These are the two people who were shot in their sleep. The guy got shot in the head and she was shot three times and survived.


That is how the Bin Laden compound raid went down.

Don't hear anyone screaming bloody murder.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Of course they do. ...and the guy didn't deserve to die. Do you think anyone will disagree with that?

...and others do things they'll at some later point in life, or so it's to be hoped, regret.

...and when/if he does? He'll have to look into the mirror for the rest of his life. Maybe not the punishment some might wish on him, but a punishment none the less.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

Exactly.

How was his life in danger?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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?


The stories all say robberies and break ins happened at this place fairly often.....likely he HAD called the cops numerous times and nothing was ever done. If it were my property and someone called to tell me there was someone in it, I surely would not go there unarmed. The area is not a nice neighborhood and like I said, had a repeat of this offense on numerous occasions.

He went there with 2 handguns from what I read....where are you getting a third?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You really comparing this to the Bin Laden raid?

Wow.

Apples to freaking oranges.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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.


Exactly....it came down to both of their testimonies.....guess what....his was believable and he was let go.

Again....don't be a criminal and your chances of being shot are a LOT less likely.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

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."


Ain't it funny how no one gives a crap about people like this until it makes the national 'news'.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

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.



So the raid on Osama was wrong but... if he was a squatter, it would have been okay?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

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.


HE killed ONE CRIMINAL not the second one who was shot 3 times. She survived.And A jury found him not guilty on all charges and nothing goes in his record.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

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.



Exactly. The whole "stand your ground" law keeps getting applied in cases where it clearly isn't somebody standing their ground. There shouldn't be a law that excuses a person from knowingly and needlessly walking into a situation where he or she expects to shoot somebody. 9-1-1. Easy enough number to remember. It's especially nifty when you have the choice to put yourself in a sketchy situation or not.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

You're reading things that I am not typing. I said trespassers should expect to find trouble. Never specified the source or degree of trouble.

Ideally, all criminal acts would be addressed immediately by the police. That's not the case in the real world. This old man had been repeatedly victimized by criminals. Police were unable to protect his property, so he has to monitor the place himself and finds himself in a dangerous encounter with criminal trespassers. Right off the bat I am going to lean in favor of the geriatric protecting his property and possibly his life, over the two meth heads who were caught treaspassing in the same house that had been burglarized. Actual evidence might sway my opinion, but we have none.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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.


Oh what's the problem ?

Some guy in NV shoots some people, and yet me, and every other gun owner in the country is responsible for it.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Good thing he was able to defend him self from those sleeping intruders!




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join