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.

 

82 year old man faces 1st degree murder charges for defending his life and property.

page: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
strike one: Admitted thieves, admitted they stole the trailer.

strike two: Wallace said, "They almost ran me over."

Strike three: Torres and Cardona(D.A.T...died a thief) are believed to be in the country illegally(hmm) and both have an arrest record. Cardona's record: public fighting(or assault), numerous traffic offenses (driving without a license or insurance).
Torres's record: agricultural trespassing AND aggravated motor vehicle theft. also under investigation for being part of a major auto theft ring.


let the old man out. if it's like this for real...i may as well just leave all my doors unlocked on my home and leave my car keys for both my vehicles hanging on the garage door.

there is no way gramps should even be in this position.
I DONT RESPECT THIEVES.




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?

its not like he was a rapist or kiddy fiddler (to the best of my knowledge), he was a common theif, what right does anybody have to end someones life over theft? you only have one life.

I don't agree with theft, but i also don't agree with murder, which this old guy is guilty of.


EDIT: what the heckers does him being an illegal alien have to do with anything??? does that make him not human and not subject to the same rights as other human beings????








[edit on 9/7/10 by woogleuk]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?


REALLY?!

That's odd, the guy who robbed me at gunpoint who's now on trial thanks to me, spent time in prison for drug trafficking just prior, hmm....me thinks "prison rehab" fails. oh well, he gets to try again this time.

and to answer the question: reincarnation perhaps.

edit: their status' made them law breakers from the door. them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.

the surviving thief needs to be charged with murder instead, evident that he was the driver of the vehicle in commission of a crime at the time his partner was killed, since he dropped off his friend at the hopsital.

i'm sure the dead one didnt drive himself to the hospital.




[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
All of you saying his life wasn't threatened so he shouldn't have shot them, what would you recommend?

It's real simple: When you violate someone else' rights, you forfeit your own. Period. no, that's not law, or biblical doctrine, it's effing common sense.

And, the crime begat back on you, should be worse than the one you purpetrated in the first place. (After all, the original crime on the victim, was worse than if he'd have just been left alone).

They're criminals - fvck their rights! That's one of the problems with this country!


What I recommend? writing the plate # down and calling the police. Not shooting someone who isn't attacking you.

Suspend the legal process on a whim, that's all I see you saying. Be judge and jury!

I'm glad you think shooting someone who is not attacking you is common sense... No really, because it allowed me to say that.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]


Originally posted by ahmonrarh
them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.


I like how you completely messed up the understanding of what a Darwin award is just to get a cheap shot off on illegals.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I suppose it's all down to whatever the LAW permits............. certainly in the UK, its straight forward murder (but would be reduced to manslaughter as it wasn't premediatated ), we had a case a few years ago when an old man living in an isolated farm had suffered years of break ins to his property.
One night he heard a disturbance and found two guys in his house he chased them down the road out of his property and shot one of them in the back killing him.
He was charged with manslaughter and jailed for many years - the reason being, there was no threat to his life at all, his actions were totally disproportionate to the actions of the offenders.

Whilst I feel that we are certainly do not punish our offenders severely enough in the UK, it saddens me that so many people, actually think it is ok to exterminate another human being as if he/she were vermin.

Incedentally, if the old fella had stayed indoors, he would have saved himself the trauma of the court case. It would have been easier to make an insurance claim not to mention having to live with the fact that he killed someone.

Even in the UK, We all have the right to protect our lives, so long as you are prepared to go to court and justify your actions to a jury and judge and swear on oath that your life was in immediate danger and that you took proportionate action to save your life.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
ill have to stand by what i said.
no reason to reverse it.

they stole from a man

he tried to stop them
they "tried to run him over"
he killed one.
he should be at home.

honestly police have used the "vehicle as a deadly weapon" justification for shooting into a car as the suspect tried to flee, more than once.




[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
ill have to stand by what i said.
no reason to reverse it.

they stole from a man

he tried to stop them
the "tried to run him over"
he killed one.
[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]


You're hiding behind your own post. Because you completely disregarded the fact he shot and killed a man when he was not in any danger.

You selectively chose which items you felt you would reply to that would aid your post. Being events not at the core of the debate, then pick them apart.

Standing in front of a moving vehicle even if its yours and was stolen, is false imprisonment. You are preventing someone from leaving. He took it upon himself to put himself in harms way, with a weapon as an excuse to fire upon someone.

He's angered he's being robbed, understandable. It's no justification to shoot at someone, and in the end murder them.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
It is very simple. Our government, is no longer, either representing us, or doing the few things, it is contractually obligated to do.
We need a new government. The sooner, the better.
A person, has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, to protect himself, and his home (property, family).
When ANYONE trespasses at night, and attempts to break-in, or steal, they have forfeited ANY "right to life", they may have previously enjoyed.
I'll send $500 to this mans defense fund, no questions asked.
Sadly, this parody of justice, happens all to often.
25 years or so, ago, a very close friend of mine, stopped an armed-robbery, at a local pizza restaurant, by telling the gunman to "freeze". Bad guy tried to turn-around, got 5 rounds, through heart.
The county prostituting attorney, tried to get my friend indicted by a GJ, 3 times. each time, he stood-up, and quoted Virginia Law, REQUIRING any "capable" person, to use "any amount of force necessary, to prevent a violent felony". Each time, no indictment. Prostituting attorney, lost next election.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahmonrarh

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?


REALLY?!

That's odd, the guy who robbed me at gunpoint who's now on trial thanks to me, spent time in prison for drug trafficking just prior, hmm....me thinks "prison rehab" fails. oh well, he gets to try again this time.

and to answer the question: reincarnation perhaps.

edit: their status' made them law breakers from the door. them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.

the surviving thief needs to be charged with murder instead, evident that he was the driver of the vehicle in commission of a crime at the time his partner was killed, since he dropped off his friend at the hopsital.

i'm sure the dead one didnt drive himself to the hospital.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]


Okay, where are YOU going to draw the line??

Is it okay to kill an employee for stealing a pencil?
Is it okay to kill a child for stealing candy?
Is it okay to kill a man for stealing your trash can"
Is it okay to kill a man for stealing food?
Is it okay to kill a man for robbing a bank?
Is it okay to kill a white collar criminal for stealing a pension fund?

Just trying to get you to THINK. Your reaction is emotional...
like the old man's...now he is up for murder.

Honest question though...where is YOUR line?

One last bit...if you believe it is okay to kill a thief in the act, then I say
(and I'm not religious) LET HE WHO HAS NEVER STOLEN CAST THE
FIRST BULLET.....cue the cricket chirping!!




[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 




Standing in front of a moving vehicle even if its yours and was stolen, is false imprisonment. You are preventing someone from leaving. He took it upon himself to put himself in harms way, with a weapon as an excuse to fire upon someone.


False Imprisonment!?!? That is nonsense. Two thieves cannot be imprisoned in a vehicle they decided to steal. That makes no sense whatsoever. By your rationale, every law enforcement officer that detains a person in a vehicle is guilty of false imprisonment.

A citizen has every right to detain a criminal that commits a felony as does a LEO. In some states a LEO can open fire on fleeing felons. It seems only reasonable that a citizen can as well. All the more so due to the fact that many LEO's do not get charged with crimes for using force in situations similar to the victim's.

Is it your argument that only LEO's have the power to interfere in these situations? If so I would like to remind you that we have a LEGAL system. There is no justice. The living offender has not been charged with a crime even though he admitted his guilt. He has now become the victim. That is not justice. It is sentimental fairy-land mentalities that have corrupted our JUSTICE system and transformed it into a legal system. Offenders(read: the 2 thieves) against the Life, Liberty, or Property of a fellow citizen would automatically forfeit their "rights" in a true Justice System. Those two thieves got exactly what they deserved. The victim did not harm innocents with his gunfire. I see no crime in his actions.

Our Legal System is an abomination and a pathetic excuse for true Justice.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Wow!

I know this much. If an LEO pulls you over, and is standing beside your vehicle, and you decide to pull away, turning the wheel just enough to brush the side of his leg with your fender,

HE CAN SHOOT YOU!
AND A LOT OF THEM WILL!
ON A BUSY STREET!
AND YOUR CHILDREN IN YOUR CAR!

For those who chose not to read the story, the man was on his own property.

The THIEVES were stealing his flatbed trailer with their truck.

They tried to run him over! He was armed and tried to protect himself.

It must have worked, he didn't get hit.

It is very easy for someone typing on their computer to say that they would have done this, or they would have done that.

Here is the test. You have a gun, a guy in a truck tries to run you over on your own property. What do you do? You can figure that out after the smoke clears.

About thirty years ago, a neighbor of mine had 8000 dollars stolen from his home by a pair of con-men. The State Police officer said why did you have that much money in your house?

You know what his answer was?

Because I am allowed to.

Just like this old man SHOULD be allowed to walk on his own property without fear of being run down by trespassing thieves!!!!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11118
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Take someones life for materialistic possession I do not see the common sense, humanity is so backwards.

Your enemy is your greatest teacher in compassion.

Unconditional love, something that most are lost to even practice.

Wake-up.


Oh no don't get me wrong. Shooting someone is the last thing that I would want to do. That being said, I sure hope no one makes me do it. Some people can learn through love. Some people can't. Those thieves did not respect that old man. They only respect force. One way or the other that old man was going to get his respect. I don't know about you, but I am damned tired of criminals getting away or getting off on a technicality. It is time the good citizens of this nation take back their security. It is a shame that anyone has to lock their doors at night out of fear. Out of anger. Out of distrust. What is so hard to understand about that? How can you rely on someone else to bring justice to you when you yourself will not even fight for it. Those who do not fight for justice does not deserve justice. Just like those thieves.

According to what you just said, well hell, I guess our forefathers should have just threw down their arms and let England have all of this MATERIALISTIC NATION. Choose a side wisely and if you have to fight, at least let it be for justice.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Conclusion]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Read the police report: www.khow.com...

The guy lied to the police. Repeatedly. That's not very smart.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Wow!

I know this much. If an LEO pulls you over, and is standing beside your vehicle, and you decide to pull away, turning the wheel just enough to brush the side of his leg with your fender,

HE CAN SHOOT YOU!
AND A LOT OF THEM WILL!
ON A BUSY STREET!
AND YOUR CHILDREN IN YOUR CAR!

For those who chose not to read the story, the man was on his own property.

The THIEVES were stealing his flatbed trailer with their truck.

They tried to run him over! He was armed and tried to protect himself.

It must have worked, he didn't get hit.

It is very easy for someone typing on their computer to say that they would have done this, or they would have done that.

Here is the test. You have a gun, a guy in a truck tries to run you over on your own property. What do you do? You can figure that out after the smoke clears.

About thirty years ago, a neighbor of mine had 8000 dollars stolen from his home by a pair of con-men. The State Police officer said why did you have that much money in your house?

You know what his answer was?

Because I am allowed to.

Just like this old man SHOULD be allowed to walk on his own property without fear of being run down by trespassing thieves!!!!



In the arrest affidavit the trailer owner at first denied the shooting at all.
Then he handed over the gun when told the house would be searched.
There is futher testimony that he was "able to get off one or two shots"
as the truck fled.

Nowhere is there ANY mention that the shooter was in harms way,
and, in fact, the testimony leads one to believe he fired from on or
near his back porch as the truck was leaving. There is even mention
that as he fired the passenger was running to get into the cab.

This is an important point concerning this thread. I'll yell it:

THE HOMEOWNER WAS IN NO DANGER OF HARM...

now back to regularly scheduled programming



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
False Imprisonment!?!? That is nonsense. Two thieves cannot be imprisoned in a vehicle they decided to steal. That makes no sense whatsoever. By your rationale, every law enforcement officer that detains a person in a vehicle is guilty of false imprisonment.

A citizen has every right to detain a criminal that commits a felony as does a LEO. In some states a LEO can open fire on fleeing felons. It seems only reasonable that a citizen can as well. All the more so due to the fact that many LEO's do not get charged with crimes for using force in situations similar to the victim's.


You're literally mixing common law practice with statutory practice.

If an officer is not making an arrest, then preventing someone from leaving is indeed false imprisonment. Officers are granted legal authority to make an arrest. Citizens arrest laws vary to state and most prevent interfering if the crime is anything above a misdemeanor.

I enjoy how you're attempting to justify murder. Wrong is wrong is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
According to what you just said, well hell, I guess our forefathers should have just threw down their arms and let England have all of this MATERIALISTIC NATION. Choose a side wisely and if you have to fight, at least let it be for justice.


This is ridiculous. The founding fathers didn't fight for land or wealth. They literally fought for their freedom to self determination.

Don't dare belittle that.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The pig thugs, i.e so called "police" are out of control and attacking americans every day. Wake up folks; the cops are the front line of the PTB tyranny that's coming to a neighborhood near you.
The enemy is symbolized and fronted by the cops; face it. Remember it.

The local "bubba" the lard ass cop dude who lives down the street and wears a blue gang uniform and wears a badge is NOT YOUR FRIEND, despite what you've been told all your life. He's a paid thug; paid by the PTB to CONTROL YOU AND HARRASS YOU!!!!

Note: Please no attempted responses from the paid cops who are paid tax money to troll internet blogs and defend their and their gang's criminal behavior.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 
In the arrest affidavit, who is sworn? It should be the officer making the report, not the arrested individual. The old man may have said many things, but he wasn't under oath at that point. Were the statements he made before or after he was read his rights?

See? I didn't yell at all this time.



Didn't yell last time either, I was just EMPHATIC.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
]In the arrest affidavit, who is sworn? It should be the officer making the report, not the arrested individual. The old man may have said many things, but he wasn't under oath at that point. Were the statements he made before or after he was read his rights?


I'm going to respond to you in reverse to accumulate information properly.

The US Supreme Court has upheld that officers are indeed not required to read you your Miranda rights. As these rights are simply a statutory reiteration of your Constitutionally protected inalienable rights.

They are always present, and exercisable by you. Therefor it is not the requirement of a governmental agency to reiterate them to you upon detention or arrest.

Secondly, the officer is writing down the statement OF the alleging partying. Therefor as the statement is not that of the officer, there is literally no reason to "swear" the officer in for his statement.

Thirdly, the alleging party does not need to be sworn in to give a statement as it is not testimony, rather evidence to be used during the case or testimony.

Lastly, the person does not need to be sworn in to provide a statement as the statement is being given to an appointed peace officer and as such is given under penalty of perjury by default.

(not to mention lying or "misinforming" is covered under interfering with an investigation laws)

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 
Thank you for your response.

Would you agree that if the 'gentlemen' had stayed off his property and not stolen his trailer that the shooting probably would not have happened?

Would you agree that numerous murderers have been acquitted of any crimes in the past because their Miranda rights were not administered, or even were not administered 'properly'?

Would you agree that the 'gentlemen' stole his trailer and have not been charged with a crime? ( the remaining one anyway)

BTW I gave you a star for your thoughtful response.

Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join