2 Robbers Killed by Homeowner. Third robber charged with murder?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by el_madmaster

 

So damn sick and tired of blacks bitching every time a thug dies at the hands of a white man. It is absolutely disgusting.

I agree that it's disgusting, but I think your anger is pointed toward the wrong group.

The problem is, it isn't "blacks" who are doing the complaining -- it's black "leaders." Most laypeople, not having much brains (black or white), fall right into line whenever their "leaders" tell them something.

Jesse Jackson and Rev. Sharpton are no more spokesmen for the black race as George W. Bush is a spokesman for the white race.

The question is: why do idiots like Jackson and Sharpton get a national media microphone in the first place?

If I stand on a street corner and scream that evil pocket lint is the reason I can't sell my house, no newspaper or TV station would see fit to print or air my comments.

And yet, the media comes running whenever someone cries racism -- no matter how ridiculous the claim. The quesiton is: why?

Three words: Divide and conquer.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by el_madmaster

 

If a black man, a latino, a white man, a native American, a f*** eskimo or a green Martian broke into MY home the bastard wouldn't get three steps through my door.

lol if a green martian broke in id prolly offer him some milk n cookies

ANY time a violent criminal\thug is killed, society is a better place, for the
simple fact that the scum wont have the chance to prey on more innocent
victims. I've read statistics that sicken me when I see how quickly these
vermin perpetrate a crime once they're released from jail. They cant wait to
rob, steal and victimize. It's what they do.
As for this thread's story, the homeowner made a mistake by not killing the 3rd
robber.

I'm amazed at how many people are condoning the killing of anyone. I keep hearing "what the homeowner did was right" and "good for him!". It seems like no one thinks that killing someone is a bad thing anymore. I know he's within his rights, and I don't think he should be punished, but it sounds like everyone is out for a lynching.

And worse yet, I keep reading "he should have shot the 3rd guy."!!!

WTF! All of you people advocating the killing of anyone sicken me.

reply to post by Rasobasi420



Yeah, its probably because most people are sick and tired of CRIMINALS being CRIMINALS. And I guess most people feel that if a CRIMINAL such as these - dont deserve to live and breath the same air the rest of us non-criminals are breathing.

Maybe the homeowner should of beat the criminal's head w/ his gun instead and made him live a life of pain and suffering. Would that be better?

I know this. There are 2 things that a man doesnt want you to mess with: His family and home. Once you do that, all bets are off - and that includes one's life.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]

Bear in mind I'm not saying this guy didn't have the right to do what he did, but theres a big difference between having the right, and something being right.

And yes, I know that if someone was breaking into my house, threatening my life and the life of my family I'd have no qualms about shooting them. However, my above post was directed at those who said he should have killed the one person who survived the event. The person who's no longer a threat.

As for criminals being criminals, what the hells the point of jail if there's no chance at rehabilitation. We might as well give the death penalty to everyone who's convicted of a crime. I'm not saying that someone walking into a gun fight should expect to walk away alive, but it shouldn't be a good thing when someone dies.

It's about f---in' time that the law treated criminals (of any race) like criminals, and left honest self-defending people (of any race) alone!

There is hope after all. Maybe this might make the bleeding hearts that run Canada take a reality check. Canada is more like the UK; if something like this happened here, the homeowner would likely end up in a anal-rape camp for life.

Anyone remember the Bernie Goetz case in 1984? He shot four thugs that tried to rob him at knifepoint in the NYC subway. None of them died but some ended up paralyzed (boo hoo), and one of the bastards sued Goetz. The others went on to commit further crimes. The media, and of course the hordes of liberals, leftoids and black "activists" (all of which had strings leading all the way to Moscow, natch) demonized Goetz as the next Hitler, of course.

If only New York at the time had similar laws to California now; then the other three punks could have been punished for crippling the fourth!

reply to post by el_madmaster


WAT TO GO HOMEOWNER! If this guy is stupid enough to break into someone's house he deserves whatever he gets. I don't know, maybe it's something like....If you're involved in a robbery and someone pulls out a gun, everybody involved can be charged with ARMED robbery. Bummer man!!!!

Well, the third guy involved in the break-in could have said, "Hey, my fine friends, shall we not break into that house this day? Perhaps we should get jobs and make something of ourselves instead."

Instead, he apparently said, "Hellz yeah, let's break into this joint and beat this guy's kid into a vegetable!"

And because of that, his scumbag friends are dead.

If somebody breaks into my house like that, the debate will not be over the race of the intruders. It will be about determining their identities. :-)

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Cut the crap. It's old. It's tiring. It's bull#. It happened, it was tragic, but it was over 200 years ago. Get over it. Move on.

[edit on 11/18/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Just wondering,
Who said anything about slavery? Why does it upset you so much?

Originally posted by el_madmaster


In a case that has brought cries of racism from civil rights groups, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, was charged by prosecutors in this overwhelmingly white county under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed.

(visit the link for the full news article)


note the 'rarely invoked legal doctrine' part. If it's legal i.e. legal doctrine, then it is not racist. If anything, it's just a poorly thought out law.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

All I'm saying is, no one condones or protects crimes of white people, nor should they, so why do people condone and/or protect black people?

Why is it, then, that blacks generally have a higher incarceration rate/actual crime rate for the same crimes (Especially drug use) as whites in America? Can dig those stats up or you can google it. I would assume that this means either the crimes of white people ARE condoned/protected against in some manner, or the crimes of black people ARE NOT condoned/ protected. Obviously there is attention when Al Sharpton is around, from the media who wants a story, but I don't think that means crimes committed by black people are generally condoned or defended. One in a million getting attention doesn't seem particularly convincing. IMHO, the reason Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson get attention is because the media knows that they are the easiest people for the highest # of the American population to either love or hate. The real stories should be about the biased ways the laws are applied, if crime/race is going to be talked about.

Sorry for getting off topic, just got me thinking. As far as this case in concerned, I think it is easy to get emotional about the mans son, jump the gun and say these murders were just and right without knowing all the facts. I believe in the courts and the system but (and I don't know this law well) is it justified to shoot them in the back if they were running away? What if they were two feet out of the front door, same story? If the law is the law and that is what matters, I would want to be very sure that the shootings were justifiable under the law under those circumstances before I said much about it. Does the person shooting have to be the one attacked, ect, can anyone clarify?

Edit: trying to fix the quotes
[edit on 19-11-2007 by littlemoe]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by littlemoe]

Is it right to shoot them if they're going out the door? I think so. Once they've tried to kill you in your home, there's no way of knowing they won't try again. If they were heading back out the door, who's to say they weren't running out to get more weapons, or planning on hopping in their car and driving away shooting?

I don't condone murder for revenge, but a person's right to defend their home should be unhindered. If somebody presents a credible threat to someone in their own home the victim should not have to worry about trying to make difficult legal decisions when they should be trying to save the lives of their families.

My personal belief is that the "castle doctrine" should be a Constitutional Amendment. A person should have the right to defend their home from all unlawful intrusion and attack.

Great. Now the black community is going to whine and cry about this and then the home owner will be convicted and the survivor will go scott free due to ACLU or who ever. Maybe these black tugs will get the messege that don't ripp the white community off or you'll get shot!. I heard this on the radio the poor old man was scared to death. What the hell do you expect him to do. Good for him!. Hope that all! Tugs get the messege.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Is it right to shoot them if they're going out the door? I think so. Once they've tried to kill you in your home, there's no way of knowing they won't try again. If they were heading back out the door, who's to say they weren't running out to get more weapons, or planning on hopping in their car and driving away shooting?

I don't condone murder for revenge, but a person's right to defend their home should be unhindered. If somebody presents a credible threat to someone in their own home the victim should not have to worry about trying to make difficult legal decisions when they should be trying to save the lives of their families.

My personal belief is that the "castle doctrine" should be a Constitutional Amendment. A person should have the right to defend their home from all unlawful intrusion and attack.

All that nneds to be said right there.. mattifikation for pres!!

Oh bye the way. Maybe the white community should start standing up for there rights as well insted of not saying anything!. If we pull the same crap as some of these black people maybe we wouldnt be stepped on so much.

they got what they had coming to them. i don't give a crap what race they are they broke in at 400 am and beat the mans stepson with a baseball bat so bad he has to live in a care facility. and don't go crying for the one charged with murder. if i perform a robbery at the bank and my gun goes off accidentally and kills someone i would becharged with murder.

Originally posted by TheoOne
Nice job, homeowner.

GG.

Don't know why other one is charged with murder, though.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by TheoOne]

I'm not sure if this question was answered already, but in most states, if someone dies during the comission of a felony, then the felon can be charged with murder.

Good on the home owner, burglars are cowardly scum, they don't just thieve, they invade personal space and security and deserve to be shot. The other burglar should'nt be charged with murder though. That part is a bit ridiculas.

I have been looking around the web and have not heard of any updates on the case. Are there any court dates that weren't mentioned in the article, or have not happened yet, etc? Curious to see if the murder charge will in fact stick.