| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2013 01:02:57 PM · #776 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There was a home invasion right down the street from me 2 days ago. The people were not home at the time...I do not know what was stolen. |
I think if nobody is home, then it's called a "burglary." |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 01:11:44 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There was a home invasion right down the street from me 2 days ago. The people were not home at the time...I do not know what was stolen. |
I think if nobody is home, then it's called a "burglary." |
That's what I thought.
ETA:
Home Invasion Definition:
A break and enter of occupied residential premises with forced confinement, assault or battery of occupants.
Message edited by author 2013-01-23 13:13:43. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 01:20:22 PM · #778 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Home Invasion Definition:
A break and enter of occupied residential premises with forced confinement, assault or battery of occupants. |
FWIW the legal definition of "assault" includes the threat of immediate physical harm; once they hit you is when it becomes "battery." |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 01:32:30 PM · #779 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There was a home invasion right down the street from me 2 days ago. The people were not home at the time...I do not know what was stolen. |
I think if nobody is home, then it's called a "burglary." |
Burglary is also known as "breaking and entering", but does not include crimes committed after the entry such as theft.
Let's play the crime dictionary game!
Message edited by author 2013-01-23 13:33:21. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 01:36:51 PM · #780 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Home Invasion Definition:
A break and enter of occupied residential premises with forced confinement, assault or battery of occupants. |
FWIW the legal definition of "assault" includes the threat of immediate physical harm; once they hit you is when it becomes "battery." |
The fact that someone burgles your house while you are there is enough to constitute a threat and thus assault. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 02:00:37 PM · #781 |
The moral of the story....I am gonna keep my weapon a little bit closer at night, just in case there is a "home invasion"
|
|
|
|
01/23/2013 02:03:41 PM · #782 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The fact that someone burgles your house while you are there is enough to constitute a threat and thus assault. |
A jury would probably agree with you. I don't recall saying or implying otherwise. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:07:48 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The fact that someone burgles your house while you are there is enough to constitute a threat and thus assault. |
A jury would probably agree with you. I don't recall saying or implying otherwise. |
I'm not saying you did, just clarifying.
Most likely, it would never get to a jury. Here, the Castle Doctrine clearly protects a homeowner from prosecution and civil suits in cases of self defense. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:13:35 PM · #784 |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:27:22 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love the castle law |
Then you should be thrilled with our societal regression toward feudalism ... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:45:26 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love the castle law |
Then you should be thrilled with our societal regression toward feudalism ... ;-) |
If the alternative is spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees after being sued for everything you own over injuring or killing a criminal intent upon harming you or your loved ones...I'm all for societal regression. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:54:05 PM · #787 |
I have to agree with spork on this one. In states that don't have the castle law...if a criminal breaking into your house injures himself...i.e. cutting himself on the glass he just broke to get in..... He can sue. In Louisiana he is sent to jail, can't file that lawsuit, and is laughed at for being the dumb ass that cut himself..
|
|
|
|
01/23/2013 03:57:56 PM · #788 |
| yeah sure, blame the lawyers. In fact, if you ever wrongfully shoot someone in a fit of scared rage, tell them you don't want a lawyer- more guns, less laws and lawyers, thats what we need for the country. Bullshit. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 04:46:18 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
yeah sure, blame the lawyers. In fact, if you ever wrongfully shoot someone in a fit of scared rage, tell them you don't want a lawyer- more guns, less laws and lawyers, thats what we need for the country. Bullshit. |
Read about Ty Cobb's childhood sometime ... |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 05:42:50 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
yeah sure, blame the lawyers. In fact, if you ever wrongfully shoot someone in a fit of scared rage, tell them you don't want a lawyer- more guns, less laws and lawyers, thats what we need for the country. Bullshit. |
Do you really want to get started on lawyers? Lawsuits over spilled coffee. John Edwards. Patent trolls. Congress.
Or, related directly to the castle doctrine. Lawyers make it possible...
|
|
|
|
01/23/2013 07:02:55 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Do you really want to get started on lawyers? Lawsuits over spilled coffee. |
There are tons of frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits, no question about it, but the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit wasn't one of them, it was a righteous complaint.
"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle."
Check out the facts for yourself.
The judge on that case called McDonalds's behavior outrageous. And the woman herself first tried to settle for 20k: they wouldn't listen to her. The coffee burned her so badly she needed serious skin grafts over a significant portion of her body. That coffee was served to her at 188 degrees! |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 10:01:35 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Do you really want to get started on lawyers? Lawsuits over spilled coffee. |
There are tons of frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits, no question about it, but the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit wasn't one of them, it was a righteous complaint.
"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle."
Check out the facts for yourself.
The judge on that case called McDonalds's behavior outrageous. And the woman herself first tried to settle for 20k: they wouldn't listen to her. The coffee burned her so badly she needed serious skin grafts over a significant portion of her body. That coffee was served to her at 188 degrees! |
The woman was still judged to be 20% at fault.
Yet thanks to the lawyers, neither you or I know the real outcome, do we?
|
|
|
|
01/23/2013 10:18:10 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The woman was still judged to be 20% at fault.
Yet thanks to the lawyers, neither you or I know the real outcome, do we? |
Jaysus, you're stubborn! THE RESTAURANT SERVED COFFEE SCALDING HOT! It was CORPORATE POLICY to do this. The woman got careless, and she paid for it with major surgery instead of a dry cleaning bill. FOOD'S NOT SUPPOSED TO DAMAGE US! There's NO excuse for serving dangerous food to the public. And McDonalds doesn't do it any more.
This is an example of the system working the way it's supposed to. |
|
|
|
01/23/2013 11:26:16 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are tons of frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits, no question about it... |
I would hazard a guess that we agree on more than just this. Maybe not guns and maybe not camera makes ;-) but probably more than is supported by various position postings.
Message edited by author 2013-01-23 23:29:56. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 12:07:29 AM · #795 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
yeah sure, blame the lawyers. In fact, if you ever wrongfully shoot someone in a fit of scared rage, tell them you don't want a lawyer- more guns, less laws and lawyers, thats what we need for the country. Bullshit. |
Do you really want to get started on lawyers? Lawsuits over spilled coffee. John Edwards. Patent trolls. Congress.
Or, related directly to the castle doctrine. Lawyers make it possible... |
So your solution is to get rid of all the lawyers? They don't write the laws, you know. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 12:24:40 AM · #796 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So your solution is to get rid of all the lawyers? They don't write the laws, you know. |
Actually, they pretty much do... But they don't propose the bills that get turned into law.
Summary:
So here̢۪s a summary of what Marci wrote: If you want to know who actually puts pen to paper, it̢۪s nonpartisan staff lawyers who work for Congress who know the exiting law they are affecting inside out. They do that under the direction of office staff for Members of Congress and congressional committees, who vet the bill with outside experts and advocates. Sometimes those advocates (i.e. lobbyists) propose changes in the form of legislative language. But did they write the bill? Probably not.
quoted from: //www.govtrack.us/blog/2010/03/24/who-writes-our-law/ |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:50:32 AM · #797 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The woman was still judged to be 20% at fault.
Yet thanks to the lawyers, neither you or I know the real outcome, do we? |
Jaysus, you're stubborn! THE RESTAURANT SERVED COFFEE SCALDING HOT! It was CORPORATE POLICY to do this. The woman got careless, and she paid for it with major surgery instead of a dry cleaning bill. FOOD'S NOT SUPPOSED TO DAMAGE US! There's NO excuse for serving dangerous food to the public. And McDonalds doesn't do it any more.
This is an example of the system working the way it's supposed to. |
Sorta.
The McD's served coffee at ridiculously high temperatures. Even after the case, they were serving it at 158F, which is better, but still above the recommended 155F maximum. The real problem is that this woman's case does nothing for the hundreds who were scalded before her, nor does the settlement with gag orders really serve the public good. Really, the case simply benefitted this one woman and provided incentive for McD's to serve their coffee at a more reasonable temperature.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 01:59:20 AM · #798 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So your solution is to get rid of all the lawyers? They don't write the laws, you know. |
Actually, they pretty much do... But they don't propose the bills that get turned into law.
Summary:
So here̢۪s a summary of what Marci wrote: If you want to know who actually puts pen to paper, it̢۪s nonpartisan staff lawyers who work for Congress who know the exiting law they are affecting inside out. They do that under the direction of office staff for Members of Congress and congressional committees, who vet the bill with outside experts and advocates. Sometimes those advocates (i.e. lobbyists) propose changes in the form of legislative language. But did they write the bill? Probably not.
quoted from: //www.govtrack.us/blog/2010/03/24/who-writes-our-law/ |
Also, there are more lawyers represented in congress than any other profession. Typically about 40% of Congress lists "lawyer" as their occupation. |
|
|
|
01/24/2013 08:39:32 AM · #799 |
FYI I was not blaming the lawyers. I was, in a way, blaming the law makers. (alot of whom are lawyers) I think every state should have the castle law. It would help to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution while defending his/her property.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2013 09:30:44 AM · #800 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think every state should have the castle law. It would help to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution while defending his/her property. |
Or just feeling threatened in your home, or near your home, or your car, or your office, or in your neighborhood, or pretty much anywhere you have business. The Castle doctrine can be used even when there is no threat and you are far far from home. Kill now, ask questions later.
Imagine that you have been having an affair with a married woman and her angry husband shows up your house unarmed but angry. Go get your gun and kill him. No problem, you are just defending your castle. Enjoy
Or lets say some one steals from your tip jar. Chase him down with your car, then shoot him in the back until he dies. Your tip jar on your Taco truck is also your castle.
David McDaniel in 2010 argued with a taxi driver over the change he was due. He was shot to death. Though he was unarmed the castle doctrine protected the killer cabbie, because he felt McDaniel was trying to steal his property. Had only McDaniels shot first he could have put up the exact same defense that the taxi driver used, after all the survivor gets to tell his story.
"Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property," |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 07:41:09 AM EDT.
