"No, no, no, no, please!"

[Steely Glint]

Don't break into other people's homes.

I wasn't going to. Jeez.

[Lewkowski]

And there's a equally quiet de-escalation of the purported act we don't like. No one said "bit by a dog" your standard was killed by a guard dog.

When you're staking a position, you have unarmed teens with no criminal record or even suspicion of criminal behavior who are killed for on trespass by people with guns or by their dogs but when we rebut suddenly you claim you're talking about armed hardened criminals with a long convicted track-record of murderous intent merely getting bit by a local dog who may or may not have a connection to the home-owner. Come back sometime when you're willing to be honest for more than two posts in a row, Lewk.

The conversation is larger than just THIS example. And the difference between bit and dead can easily occur. If someone isn't culpable for a dog biting than they wouldn't be culpable for the dog killing. Why? Because a dog bite can be lethal it just depends on the location.

My point was if you put a sign up that says beware of dog and in ANY circumstance where a home invader breaks into your home and that dog bites OR kills said person you shouldn't be liable. Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree than lets discuss that.

If you do agree that a home invader breaking into a house that has a clear beware of dog sign posted shouldn't be able to sue (or their family if the crook dies) would it be any different with 'beware of gun' signs?

On a broader scale the burden of determining the criminal intent (steal? murder? rape? is he armed?) should never fall on the home owner. That's asking for a situation where the homeowner hesitates and then dies. Or it creates a climate where criminals don't fear people defending their homes which of course leads to more home invasions. If a home owner hear the sound of glass breaking and his home being breached by a man in dark clothing and a mask - do you think the homeowner should have to wait to fire? Even if that means he, his belongings, his own life and that of his family could be lost? If the answer is no he shouldn't have to wait to fire than tell me specifically where you draw the line. What if the intruder isn't wearing a mask? What if it is day time and not night time? What if it is the garage and not the house?

My belief is simple. You break into someone's home than the homeowner has the right to use lethal force to protect his property because if he doesn't it increase the chance of harm occurring to the homeowner. Oh and because thugs and and thieves dying while breaking in is good news for EVERYBODY.



If you disagree than let's talk about that because

[GGT]

FFS Lewk, what you posted makes the Fed Ex/UPS and even my own mailman "suspicious" enough to shoot on spot. Not to mention the people who take sporadic readings from my gas or electric meter.

You should re-examine what it means for home or business security...and what you consider suspicious behavior that's "worth" paying for. *cough* even if it's being over-insured.

[Lewkowski]

Fed ex goes into garages now? Who knew.

[GGT]

Fed-ex has left packages on side porches...that I didn't find in a "timely" manner.

Lewk, why don't you address the underlying issues that are timely?

[Timbuk2]

I wasn't going to. Jeez.

[Loki]

I wasn't going to jeez.

[Enoch the Red]

On a broader scale the burden of determining the criminal intent (steal? murder? rape? is he armed?) should never fall on the home owner. That's asking for a situation where the homeowner hesitates and then dies. Or it creates a climate where criminals don't fear people defending their homes which of course leads to more home invasions. If a home owner hear the sound of glass breaking and his home being breached by a man in dark clothing and a mask - do you think the homeowner should have to wait to fire? Even if that means he, his belongings, his own life and that of his family could be lost? If the answer is no he shouldn't have to wait to fire than tell me specifically where you draw the line. What if the intruder isn't wearing a mask? What if it is day time and not night time? What if it is the garage and not the house?

I absolutely agree that the benefit of the doubt should be given to a homeowner who is fending off an intruder. There is no doubt in my mind that the split second decisions made in the heat of the moment could always be second-guessed, but at the end of the day the homeowner is doing what they believe is necessary. What I do see a problem with is someone whose goal is not the defense of their house, their family, and their property, but instead the murder of a thief. The two goals are at cross purposes. If this man was truly interested in protecting his family and himself he would not have intentionally left his garage open. He would not have baited it with a purse. And most damning of all, he would not have spoken to acquaintances, telling them that his goal was to kill this person.

My belief is simple. You break into someone's home than the homeowner has the right to use lethal force to protect his property because if he doesn't it increase the chance of harm occurring to the homeowner.

I agree that the homeowner should have the right to defend themselves and their property. There are examples of that. This just is not a good one.

[earthJoker]

This looks like the Montana equivalent to first degree murder. Punishment is death (not that it will ever get that far).

70 years it is, and at least 20. Don't know what that means in reality, for a white home owner, probably 35?

[Loki]

Lots of variation between states. I do know that people rarely get parole on their first try.

[EyeKhan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/08...erman-student/

Perhaps you should have stayed off other people's property and not been a thug?

"Jurors also heard audio tapes of Pflager talking with police after the shooting. She told officers Dede had pleaded for his life, saying, "No, no, no, no, please!"

This audio tape should be played in every middle school across the country. This is what happens when you steal. You beg for your life and then you die getting shot up. This would be a lot more effective in curbing crime than any amount of "Head Start" initiatives.

Your beliefs are monstrous.

[Lewkowski]

Your beliefs are monstrous.

Eh? I'm trying to save kids lives here by showing them an example of what could happen when they steal. A healthy dose of fear about doing crime will be very helpful in the long run.

[Aimless]

One shudders to think of what your childhood and your parents may have been like.

[Lewkowski]

One shudders to think of what your childhood and your parents may have been like.

Quite normal really.

Though fear of bodily injury/death is quite common when parents teach kids. "Look both ways so you don't get hit by a car." IE "Look both ways so you don't become crippled or road kill."

[LittleFuzzy]

You're still being too lenient. That GOP Congress-critter from the last election cycle had it right. Parents should have the right to kill their children for being disobedient. Spare the rod and spoil the child after all. That would work. That would instill sufficient fear wouldn't it Lewk?

As I said earlier in this thread.

[Flixy]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/18/as...h-boys-deaths/

Hey Lewk, maybe you should move to Bangladesh.