Teen mum shoots dead intruder with 12-gauge shotgun

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Koojo

but the one who was shot

a distinct possibility.

I fail to see how this is related to the person charged, given the definition of murder. Besides what the idiotic, barbaric US laws are.

Can you?

**sunsetter** · 06-01-2012, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Intent to murder?

no, i didnt mean that, they went with an intent to cause harm, they were armed, i would pretty much say any court in any country would say they went with intent, dont see a problem with that myself.

**Davis Knowlton** · 06-01-2012, 11:06 AM

Cool: It's not all that tricky. They broke into the house intending to commit a crime. Robbery at the very least, possibly rape and murder as well. A person was killed as a result of their premeditated actions (only difference is that in this case, and for a change, it was one of the scumbags). Thus, all surviving perpetrators get charged with the highest crime committed, in this case, murder.

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: It's not all that tricky. They broke into the house intending to commit a crime. Robbery at the very least, possibly rape and murder as well. A person was killed as a result of their premeditated actions (only difference is that in this case, and for a change, it was one of the scumbags). Thus, all surviving perpetrators get charged with the highest crime committed, in this case, murder.

I know perfectly well what the charge is and why.

What people seem to find difficult to do is explain in reality (not the law) how this person committed murder.

He did not.

Perhaps ye need to read up the definition of murder again....

Then come back and explain how it fits in to his alleged actions.

He did not kill an individual, he certainly did not kill an individual through premeditation.

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by sunsetter

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Intent to murder?

no, i didnt mean that, they went with an intent to cause harm, they were armed, i would pretty much say any court in any country would say they went with intent, dont see a problem with that myself.

There are charges for all of those.

Oddly enough first-degree murder is not one of them.

Except in one country of course.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: It's not all that tricky. They broke into the house intending to commit a crime. Robbery at the very least, possibly rape and murder as well. A person was killed as a result of their premeditated actions (only difference is that in this case, and for a change, it was one of the scumbags). Thus, all surviving perpetrators get charged with the highest crime committed, in this case, murder.

I don't have a problem with it at all. Scumbag gets put away is the end result.
Who gives a fuck?
Is anyone here really concerned about his human rights?

**Davis Knowlton** · 06-01-2012, 11:20 AM

Cool: If five guys rob a bank, and four go inside and one stays outside with the getaway car, and one of the guys inside shoots and kills a bank guard, all five get charged with premeditated murder, as well as bank robbery. If they hadn't chosen to be there, participating in a premeditated crime, the death would not have happened.

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: If five guys rob a bank, and four go inside and one stays outside with the getaway car, and one of the guys inside shoots and kills a bank guard, all five get charged with premeditated murder, as well as bank robbery. If they hadn't chosen to be there, participating in a premeditated crime, the death would not have happened.

Though the premeditated crime was not to kill a person, in your hypothesis.

We know the law, unfortunately it doesn't correspond with reality.

You cannot explain how the charged in this case killed the deceased in a premeditated way, can you? Quite simply, because he didn't.

**Davis Knowlton** · 06-01-2012, 11:40 AM

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out. Interesting that nobody has commented on the fact that her deceased husband was 58, and she was 18, thus 17 or younger when impregnated. Usually posters are all over stuff like that.

**hazz** · 06-01-2012, 11:46 AM

^^As would happen in the UK though the conspiracy laws.

In the UK we did experiment with the kind of bloody code being promoted here, where essentially there were two punishments transportation for very minor crimes and death for the rest.

In the end we have settled for esculating sentencing for escalating crimes. you rob a bank you get a sentence, with a gun a longer sentence, kill someone longer again. The principle being to create reasons for the criminal not to escalate the crime they have committed.

To take Davis's example. 5 guys rob a bank, without firing a shot a security guard kills one of them. The remaining four know that they are now guilty of premeditated murder (1st degree murder in the us?); what do they have to loose by going on a shooting spree themselves starting with the guards.

Its getting close to charging a speeding motorist with murder, because the policeman issuing the ticket would have been able to respond to another call if they had not been busy issuing a ticket and prevented a death else where.

^For us brits impregnating a 17 year old does not make you a pedophile and well we are living in thailand so seeing fossils wondering around with young birds is not really an eye opener is it.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: If five guys rob a bank, and four go inside and one stays outside with the getaway car, and one of the guys inside shoots and kills a bank guard, all five get charged with premeditated murder, as well as bank robbery. If they hadn't chosen to be there, participating in a premeditated crime, the death would not have happened.

Though the premeditated crime was not to kill a person, in your hypothesis.

We know the law, unfortunately it doesn't correspond with reality.

You cannot explain how the charged in this case killed the deceased in a premeditated way, can you? Quite simply, because he didn't.

It really doesn't matter, the point is the scumbag gets taken out of the system.

**sunsetter** · 06-01-2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

seeing fossils wondering around with young birds is not really an eye opener is it.

great to watch though eh

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out.

I'm afraid you seem to completely miss the point. We are not talking about the law, we are talking about reality.

He did not kill anybody.

He certainly did not kill anybody through premeditated intent.

This is correct, yes?

**Davis Knowlton** · 06-01-2012, 11:59 AM

Hazz's para 4 in his post above is actually quite an interesting twist. A different perspective.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by hazz

^^As would happen in the UK though the conspiracy laws.

In the UK we did experiment with the kind of bloody code being promoted here, where essentially there were two punishments transportation for very minor crimes and death for the rest.

In the end we have settled for esculating sentencing for escalating crimes. you rob a bank you get a sentence, with a gun a longer sentence, kill someone longer again. The principle being to create reasons for the criminal not to escalate the crime they have committed.

To take Davis's example. 5 guys rob a bank, without firing a shot a security guard kills one of them. The remaining four know that they are now guilty of premeditated murder (1st degree murder in the us?); what do they have to loose by going on a shooting spree themselves starting with the guards.

Its getting close to charging a speeding motorist with murder, because the policeman issuing the ticket would have been able to respond to another call if they had not been busy issuing a ticket and prevented a death else where.

^For us brits impregnating a 17 year old does not make you a pedophile and well we are living in thailand so seeing fossils wondering around with young birds is not really an eye opener is it.

The private operators of the prisons who get federal money (profit) per day per prisoner, could offer the police cash incentives to charge more people with more serious crimes, and bonuses to judges for harsher sentences.
Perhaps the prison companies could also operate private 'security forces' and contract them to the government for policing duties thereby reducing the governments burden of administrating a police department.
They could also Lobby politicians, or maybe even buy a couple, (I believe the U.S. has the best money can buy) to introduce more, stricter and further reaching laws.

**ENT** · 06-01-2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: It's not all that tricky. They broke into the house intending to commit a crime. Robbery at the very least, possibly rape and murder as well. A person was killed as a result of their premeditated actions (only difference is that in this case, and for a change, it was one of the scumbags). Thus, all surviving perpetrators get charged with the highest crime committed, in this case, murder.

I know perfectly well what the charge is and why.

What people seem to find difficult to do is explain in reality (not the law) how this person committed murder.

He did not.

Perhaps ye need to read up the definition of murder again....

Then come back and explain how it fits in to his alleged actions.

He did not kill an individual, he certainly did not kill an individual through premeditation.

Dustin is charged with murder for being an accessory to the home invasion, so placing his buddy in harm's way, no matter who pulled the trigger.

The two dudes had to reach the lady's house via a long gravel road, intentionally going out of their way from the main road to cause her trouble.

The surviving perp is lucky he was hanging back "by the fence", probably keeping lookout.

**hazz** · 06-01-2012, 12:14 PM

^^I believe there was a case where the operator of a juvenile prison bribed at least one of the local judges to keep their operation full.

Originally Posted by sunsetter

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazz

seeing fossils wondering around with young birds is not really an eye opener is it.

great to watch though eh

Personally watching watching old men with wrinkly skin has never been much of a turn on. still each to their own, here's something to keep you happy

**ENT** · 06-01-2012, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out.

I'm afraid you seem to completely miss the point. We are not talking about the law, we are talking about reality.

He did not kill anybody.

He certainly did not kill anybody through premeditated intent.

This is correct, yes?

Pre-meditated intent to collude in the crime was indicated.
Dustin colluded with Justin, who, armed ready to violently intimidate or attack, broke into the victim's house to look for drugs.
It took 20 mins of banging the doors to enter the premises.

The lady shot Justin in self defence, after he entered the house, still armed.
Justin's partner in the crime, Dustin, aided in placing Justin in imminent danger of being blown away by the householder, as he was well aware of.

Not a responsible or legitimate act at all, in fact, a blatant high risk crime.
Dustin may also be open to a further charge of attempted murder of the householder, as he aided Justin's attempt at armed attack.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by hazz

^^I believe there was a case where the operator of a juvenile prison bribed at least one of the local judges to keep their operation full.

Scary stuff. I remember it. Look at this arsehole.

Luzerne County judges' young victims are scarred

After something bad happens, we tell people to move on with their lives. While that might happen in the movies, in real life it isn’t always easy.
Linda Bly should know. Her son Shane, was 13 when he went into an abandoned building with friends to look around with flashlights. The state police showed up and he soon found himself in front of Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, charged with criminal trespass.
Linda, whose son didn’t have an attorney, said she braced herself for a sentence of community service. She was ill-prepared, however, to hear Ciavarella send her son away to a juvenile detention facility called Camp Adam.
The change in him was instantaneous. Parents of Shane’s friends said they didn’t want their children hanging out with a kid in juvenile detention, so he made new friends with other teens at the detention center. Having done something so minor, he was shocked by his punishment and the consequences to his life.
“He has never been the same,” said his mother this week, adding he has been in and out of trouble and prison ever since, unlike her other two children, who grew up without any run-ins with the law.
As we know by now, Shane was not the only teen to experience that kind of slap to his youth. Ciavarella and fellow former judge Michael Conahan were charged for receiving more than $2.6 million from private detention centers. Prosecutors say the money was in exchange for sending young offenders to the facilities. The case of Ciavarella and Conahan is coming to a close but the repercussions are nowhere close to reaching an end.
Although the teens involved are having their criminal records expunged, many are still reeling — or worse — from the experience. We now have to ask ourselves what the state owes these victims.
“Are some of them ever going to get over this?” asked Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille this week during a meeting with the newspaper’s Editorial Board. “Some of it will affect them for the rest of their lives.”
Castille is involved in implementing changes to the judicial system in the wake of the terrible discovery in 2009 that hundreds of youngsters received harsh sentences for minor crimes that should never had led to them being ripped away from their families, schools and friends.
Ron Sharp, chairman of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, likens the kids involved in the minor cases to survivors of the Japanese earthquake. He said they got up one day thinking everything was the same, but instead all they knew as safe and secure was gone.
We all know there are consequences to our behavior, when we do something wrong, a DUI, selling drugs, stealing money. We realize a penalty will be paid.

But when something as small as throwing a cooked steak at a stepfather, shoplifting a tube of lipstick or going inside an old building with a flashlight means months in juvenile detention, your whole perspective on life changes. Sharp says some will deal with the trauma of their experience for years to come.
Sandy Fonzo, whose emotional tirade at Ciavarella after his trial last month was seen by thousands on YouTube, says her son committed suicide at age 23 because he never got over being sent away for a minor drug paraphernalia charge. At 17, with no prior record, he was an all-star wrestler eyeing a college scholarship. Instead, he spent months in a detention center, missing his senior year of high school.
The juvenile justice system is supposed to catch kids before they fall, help them learn to become productive adults. It’s not intended to knock them down permanently.
That is what happened here. Now we need to decide what obligations we have to the children and now-young-adults who got caught in what has been described as the nation’s worst juvenile justice scandal.
If these kids had been harmed physically, I am sure money would be set aside to help them with their injuries. But because their problems are emotional, are we less apt to do the same and simply urge them to “move on”? That would be a mistake, especially when we see the serious consequences, people in prison, others taking their lives.
The easiest part of this tragedy might be prosecuting the former judges for what they did. The hardest will be coming up with a way to help their victims, some of whom will need assistance for a long, long time.
We owe them that help.

Luzerne County judges' young victims are scarred | PennLive.com

**The Master Cool** · 06-01-2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out.

I'm afraid you seem to completely miss the point. We are not talking about the law, we are talking about reality.

He did not kill anybody.

He certainly did not kill anybody through premeditated intent.

This is correct, yes?

Pre-meditated intent to collude in the crime was indicated.
Dustin colluded with Justin, who, armed ready to violently intimidate or attack, broke into the victim's house to look for drugs.
It took 20 mins of banging the doors to enter the premises.

The lady shot Justin in self defence, after he entered the house, still armed.
Justin's partner in the crime, Dustin, aided in placing Justin in imminent danger of being blown away by the householder, as he was well aware of.

Not a responsible or legitimate act at all, in fact, a blatant high risk crime.
Dustin may also be open to a further charge of attempted murder of the householder, as he aided Justin's attempt at armed attack.

You fail to show that he killed someone, let alone that he did so with premeditated intent to kill them.

Yes?

He committed no murder, yes?

You could add all sorts of 'accessory to whatever.... home invasion... etc. etc.' The reality is that murder was not one of his crimes, yes?

Please look up the definition of what murder is before you answer.

**ENT** · 06-01-2012, 01:02 PM

^^
Even your cut and paste is crap.
Where's the missing first lines to the above quote?

**ENT** · 06-01-2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out.

I'm afraid you seem to completely miss the point. We are not talking about the law, we are talking about reality.

He did not kill anybody.

He certainly did not kill anybody through premeditated intent.

This is correct, yes?

Pre-meditated intent to collude in the crime was indicated.
Dustin colluded with Justin, who, armed ready to violently intimidate or attack, broke into the victim's house to look for drugs.
It took 20 mins of banging the doors to enter the premises.

The lady shot Justin in self defence, after he entered the house, still armed.
Justin's partner in the crime, Dustin, aided in placing Justin in imminent danger of being blown away by the householder, as he was well aware of.

Not a responsible or legitimate act at all, in fact, a blatant high risk crime.
Dustin may also be open to a further charge of attempted murder of the householder, as he aided Justin's attempt at armed attack.

You fail to show that he killed someone, let alone that he did so with premeditated intent to kill them.

Yes?

He committed no murder, yes?

You could add all sorts of 'accessory to whatever.... home invasion... etc. etc.' The reality is that murder was not one of his crimes, yes?

Please look up the definition of what murder is before you answer.

I don't need to prove anything about the matter.

He was, as reported, an accessory to the crime.

Murder, in this context, is defined by current US law.

Please pull your neck in.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

^^
Even your cut and paste is crap.
Where's the missing first lines to the above quote?

When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

Thanks for pointing out my little mistake there ENT.

**Cujo** · 06-01-2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by The Master Cool

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Cool: I give. We can obviously argue this forever. The law is the law, and a jury of his inbred peers will sort it out.

I'm afraid you seem to completely miss the point. We are not talking about the law, we are talking about reality.

He did not kill anybody.

He certainly did not kill anybody through premeditated intent.

This is correct, yes?

Pre-meditated intent to collude in the crime was indicated.
Dustin colluded with Justin, who, armed ready to violently intimidate or attack, broke into the victim's house to look for drugs.
It took 20 mins of banging the doors to enter the premises.

The lady shot Justin in self defence, after he entered the house, still armed.
Justin's partner in the crime, Dustin, aided in placing Justin in imminent danger of being blown away by the householder, as he was well aware of.

Not a responsible or legitimate act at all, in fact, a blatant high risk crime.
Dustin may also be open to a further charge of attempted murder of the householder, as he aided Justin's attempt at armed attack.

You fail to show that he killed someone, let alone that he did so with premeditated intent to kill them.

Yes?

He committed no murder, yes?

You could add all sorts of 'accessory to whatever.... home invasion... etc. etc.' The reality is that murder was not one of his crimes, yes?

Please look up the definition of what murder is before you answer.

MC are you concerned for his human rights?

**alwarner** · 06-01-2012, 01:27 PM

These burglars in america who end up getting killed should, imo, have recorded on their death certificates - death by misadventure on the grounds that they are utter retards. I mean there's a good chance of ANY house you break into containing not just fire arms but people who will happily shoot you.

If they don't die, they should be sterilised.

Thread: Teen mum shoots dead intruder with 12-gauge shotgun

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions