# Construction theft: The desperate are getting more desperate



## Jimmy Cabinet (Jan 22, 2010)

We all have seen and experienced construction theft. But it's usually copper or lumber.....things of that nature. Never in my 30 years in construction have I heard of thieves stealing roofing shingles AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY INSTALLED!!!!!!!!! 

A neighbor heard noise, looked outside to see 1 thug removing already installed shingles from the roof, tossing them to the ground where another loaded them into a minivan. The neighbor called the homeowner who arrived with his gun. Yea yea we all carry guns in Texas...not. The HO told the thugs to leave to which they refused so the HO opened fire hitting the driver as he tried to flee. The cops caught up with the driver a few blocks away. 

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/weird/110110-roofing-supplies-burglary-shooting

On the local news they showed the minivan full of shingles. I think the tires were about to explode from the weight.


----------



## English Roofer (Dec 22, 2008)

They will steal anything!, its mainly Lead and copper over here but not so long back we had loaded a garage roof in slates on a Friday afternoon,the idea was to have an easy Monday slating in!
We arrived on Monday morning, got out of the van with coffee in hand thinking that there was something not right? someone had got on the roof and stolen the slates!:whistling
Another time someone had nicked the aluminum scaffold from a Five story block of flats!
Cheers
Dave


----------



## deckman22 (Oct 20, 2007)

Kudos to the HO & his neighbor for calling. Chalk up another one for the good guys.


----------



## Bastien1337 (Dec 20, 2010)

shooting because he was stealing shingles? is that not excessive force, he actually hit the guy, what would have happened if he killed him? is that defensible???


----------



## mikeswoods (Oct 11, 2008)

Texas is Texas--


----------



## WarnerConstInc. (Jan 30, 2008)

Bastien1337 said:


> shooting because he was stealing shingles? is that not excessive force, he actually hit the guy, what would have happened if he killed him? is that defensible???


I would be shooting to kill.


----------



## Bastien1337 (Dec 20, 2010)

WarnerConstInc. said:


> I would be shooting to kill.


if you had killed in the state of texas would you go to jail for that? or would you get off?


----------



## Rob PA (Aug 30, 2010)

half the shingles would of been worthless from getting torn..i mean a bundle of 3 tab is what 20 bucks and tax


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Crew I used to work with once left a Tapco brake sitting on a pair of horses over the weekend. Monday morning, the brake was still there, but the horses were gone.


----------



## Jimmy Cabinet (Jan 22, 2010)

Bastien1337 said:


> if you had killed in the state of texas would you go to jail for that? or would you get off?


Technically if the thug is running away then the threat of harm to you no longer exists therefore shooting at this point could be a crime. This law is quite leiniant in Texas where gun ownership is more precious then anything else. 

The following is a little more info on a similar case that became very famous. The man is Joe Horn whom is now a Texas hero. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Bastien1337 said:


> if you had killed in the state of texas would you go to jail for that? or would you get off?


I think a lot of guys would get off on it. It's old-west rules, steal a man's horse and you get shot if you get caught. Today, tools and materials along with all personal possessions are the equivalent of a man's horse. 

Unless you can offer evidence that there is a more effective way to discourage people from violating another's person and property, I'd say the Texans have a better way. 

When properly applied, the death penalty leaves no recidivists.


----------



## Jimmy Cabinet (Jan 22, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Crew I used to work with once left a Tapco brake sitting on a pair of horses over the weekend. Monday morning, the brake was still there, but the horses were gone.


Thieves were never known to be smart. Maybe in those days you speak of were back when aluminim scrap was only worth cents a pound. Today that Tapco brake would be long gone, dismantled and sold for a couple dollars a pound. 

What the hell did anyone want the horses for anyway? Probably just kids.


----------



## structural stud (Jan 7, 2011)

Jimmy Cabinet said:


> Thieves were never known to be smart. Maybe in those days you speak of were back when aluminim scrap was only worth cents a pound. Today that Tapco brake would be long gone, dismantled and sold for a couple dollars a pound.
> 
> What the hell did anyone want the horses for anyway? Probably just kids.


Sounds like a roofer that never got payed ......


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Tinstaafl said:


> Crew I used to work with once left a Tapco brake sitting on a pair of horses over the weekend. Monday morning, the brake was still there, but the horses were gone.


Kiinda like stealing all the copper wire in a roughed-in house, but leaving the breakers in the panel. :whistling


----------



## Bastien1337 (Dec 20, 2010)

If im a thief, I would cook up a better plan then stealing shingles. 

It isnt worth it, to shoot over shingles...but adversely it isnt worth it to get SHOT AT over shingles...


----------



## toddovan (Dec 17, 2008)

According to the Fox news, they were stealing the bundles of new shingles, NOT already installed ones. The roof was stocked with new bundles and one guy was tossing them down to the guy on the ground. Instant profit margin I guess


----------



## Michaeljp86 (Apr 10, 2007)

Rob PA said:


> half the shingles would of been worthless from getting torn..i mean a bundle of 3 tab is what 20 bucks and tax


Not if they pulled them up the way they were laid. They would just have 4 holes in them from the nails.



480sparky said:


> Kiinda like stealing all the copper wire in a roughed-in house, but leaving the breakers in the panel. :whistling


 I had this happen, they cut out all the wire they could get and one 100amp breaker but the left all the other breakers, probably 20 or more.


----------



## deckman22 (Oct 20, 2007)

toddovan said:


> According to the Fox news, they were stealing the bundles of new shingles, NOT already installed ones. The roof was stocked with new bundles and one guy was tossing them down to the guy on the ground. Instant profit margin I guess


Thank you, at least somebody read the article. It also said the driver tried to run him down when leaving. That's a threat against your life giving you the right to use deadly force. If the guy who got shot died the shooter would get off in that case. 

I read a fishing forum based in Houston, seems folks are posting up stories at least once a month of crooks getting shot at/killed there. No one likes a thief or someone invading your home here & those who do it could very well die for it, as they should imo. 

It happened here a couple of weeks ago. Some guy who lived in the same neighborhood invaded a home & got shot, as did the HO, both died unforturnately instead of only the bad guy.


----------



## Trim40 (Jan 27, 2009)

So now we all no where the lowballers get their materials.


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

Bastien1337 said:


> If im a thief, I would cook up a better plan then stealing shingles.
> 
> It isnt worth it, to shoot over shingles...but adversely it isnt worth it to get SHOT AT over shingles...



The shingles aren't the point. Two jack-offs thought it was a good idea to VIOLATE the homeowner by stealing his hard earned property. The homeowner was not going to allow the two jack-offs get away with it only to strike again. Who knows what would have been next for these two once their confidence was up. Breaking and entering in the middle of the night? Rape? Murder? F*** them! I wouldn't lose sleep putting one in his head.........by accident...............w/ a hollow point.................twice.


----------



## summithomeinc (Jan 3, 2011)

Not tryin to get off subject but I thought this was about theft of materials?
On a Job site.
Just sayin.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

summithomeinc said:


> Not tryin to get off subject but I thought this was about theft of materials?
> On a Job site.
> Just sayin.



I thought it was _expected _we drift off-topic. :laughing:


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

katoman said:


> Was there not a case where the person argued against the existing laws, stating that their right as a human being (species) gave them the basic animal right to defend their life?
> 
> Not sure where I heard that. Hoping someone else knows of this.


 Just as the intruder could argue his primal instinct to procreate after he rapes your daughter. Let's hope that precident hasn't been and never does get set.


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

All you need either way is a good, make that a great lawyer, and a sympathetic jury. Get those two and you can walk on anything. Good guy or bad guy it doesn't really matter. If the glove does not fit you must acquit. Sad but true and you know it Mr. Legal Eagle TNT. The law varies from state to state and is open to interpretation depending on the judge you would get. These thing are tried in a state court not federal. What do I know though. I'm just a contractor.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> So you shoot someone for stealing your TV.
> 
> Now you're in court, and the prosecution addresses the jury. "Ladies and gentlemen, this man values his TV more than your life. He has already killed one person who wanted his TV. If he believes you have his TV, he thinks it is his right to shoot you."
> 
> ...


You have set up a strawman. There is no way to defend shooting someone for stealing a TV. That is ridiculous. But I do have the right to shoot someone that has broken into my home. I do not have to understand that he is only there to steal my TV. I don't have to wait to see if he intends to harm me or my family. This is what the Castle Law states. If they are there to commit a felony (stealing my TV), I have the right to use force, and deadly if need be).


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

loneframer said:


> Just as the intruder could argue his primal instinct to procreate after he rapes your daughter. Let's hope that precident hasn't been and never does get set.


I believe the argument made was that regardless of laws of any country, a person has the basic right to defend his life. Same as all animals do.

I believe they won that argument, but not sure and have no reference.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Wow, I didn't know that someone could actually just throw insults as a sustainable argument. Bravo. Next!


Pay attention. The response was in kind.



Tinstaafl said:


> So, you're an expert on the law nationwide? :no:


No answer? :shifty:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> You have set up a strawman. There is no way to defend shooting someone for stealing a TV. That is ridiculous. But I do have the right to shoot someone that has broken into my home. I do not have to understand that he is only there to steal my TV. I don't have to wait to see if he intends to harm me or my family. This is what the Castle Law states. If they are there to commit a felony (stealing my TV), I have the right to use force, and deadly if need be).



Fancy way of saying, "I can't (or won't) answer that."

Now try your legal hand at "Imminent Danger". Was your life or health threatened by the guy carrying your TV out the back door?


----------



## summithomeinc (Jan 3, 2011)

480sparky said:


> I thought it was _expected _we drift off-topic. :laughing:


Maybe it is..I'm new here..Btw I'd shoot to kill ..hire a good lawyer


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

summithomeinc said:


> Maybe it is..I'm new here..Btw I'd shoot to kill ..hire a good lawyer


 New guy huh? 

Yeah, we tend to wander, or meander, if it suits.:laughing:


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

BTW, does a loaded gun in the night stand constitute "premeditated"


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Ooh, a new guy.

*Git him, boys!* :w00t:


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

loneframer said:


> BTW, does a loaded gun in the night stand constitute "premeditated"


Read my post. Condoned and recommended by the police. Under certain cicumstances. It's ready self defense to me. 

So yes, premeditated self defense.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Pay attention. The response was in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> No answer? :shifty:


Why do I have to answer it? I learned a long time ago, not to give the other side ammo. You should find your own. It is much more effective.

I also asked why someone need to be an lawyer to understand the law? Why do I have to be an expert to understand basic principles. Why do I have to be all that you say I have to be in order to understand my basic rights? But I have yet to get an answer out of you....hmmm.

You just like to get on here and try and shoot down a confident sole. This is all but for your amusement and nothing more. A way to try and best someone in public. Funny thing is I really have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. This is why I do not answer the question. And you repeating it proves as little as my lack of an answer.

And as for paying attention, if that was kind, I would hate to see unkind.


----------



## summithomeinc (Jan 3, 2011)

To add to my original comment. what does the law matter anyway? If someone is in my house and I have a gun. I won't be askin questions and I doubt anyone else would. I'd shoot first and then hire a good lawyer...so the arguments about the law don't make sense to me


----------



## tinner666 (Nov 3, 2004)

480sparky said:


> So you shoot someone for stealing your TV.
> 
> Now you're in court, and the prosecution addresses the jury. "Ladies and gentlemen, this man values his TV more than your life. He has already killed one person who wanted his TV. If he believes you have his TV, he thinks it is his right to shoot you."
> 
> ...


True. But, in 3 cases in recent history, (One 3 months ago), persons have been shot and even killed stealing cars from a HO's yard. All were ruled "Good Shoots"
One, the perp was running down the street and got it in the back. He got arrested, but the jury decided it was a "Good Shoot". Often enough here, they do reports, ask questions, etc. and haul the body away.

At least in the south, "He needed shooting" is still considered a valid defense.

Better to be judged by your peers than be buried by them.


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

loneframer said:


> BTW, does a loaded gun in the night stand constitute "premeditated"


Tape the holster to the back or side of the nightstand. Quicker. You live in Jersey too? Man your gonna get it!!


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Fancy way of saying, "I can't (or won't) answer that."
> 
> Now try your legal hand at "Imminent Danger". Was your life or health threatened by the guy carrying your TV out the back door?


Not a fancy way of not answering. I never said you had the right to shoot someone stealing your tv. You have set me up shooting a guy in the back leaving my house. This is far different from shooting someone in my home. Which is my argument.

This is why it is a strawman. You have setup the senario so that I have no option but to chose a losing answer that supports your argument.

For the record I stated that it is lawful to shoot an intruder in your home. You can what if me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not required to determine intent of an intruder. Read the Castle Law. Pretty clear to me.


----------



## Jimmy Cabinet (Jan 22, 2010)

The answer:


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Why do I have to answer it?


Let me see. I believe you indicated a desire for responses in the line of sustainable argument. Yet your debating style is not in that vein; you dance, evade and respond to only those comments that you [apparently] feel you can score points with.

I can't believe they haven't eaten you alive in P&R. :laughing:

Okay, I'm done. Have fun.


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

HandyHails said:


> *You live in Jersey too? Man your gonna get it!*!


 ??? I'll assume you mean storm? I'm a bit daft.:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> ........ but it doesn't change the fact that you are not required to determine intent of an intruder. Read the Castle Law. Pretty clear to me.



Again, two things that vary state to state. What applies to you DOES NOT automatically apply to EVERYONE ELSE.

Imminent Danger, Castle ("Make My Day"), and Duty to Retreat laws are different everywhere. So don't ask me to read your laws and apply it to me.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Let me see. I believe you indicated a desire for responses in the line of sustainable argument. Yet your debating style is not in that vein; you dance, evade and respond to only those comments that you [apparently] feel you can score points with.
> 
> I can't believe they haven't eaten you alive in P&R. :laughing:
> 
> Okay, I'm done. Have fun.


Funny thing is you quite first.

It is good debate to not answer questions that are a setup to the other side. I would have no problem holding my own in P&R. Seems to me I outlasted you. :whistling

I have only danced and evaded dumb questions regarding my expert status, and a straw-man posed by you. All others have been answered.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Again, two things that vary state to state. What applies to you DOES NOT automatically apply to EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Imminent Danger, Castle ("Make My Day"), and Duty to Retreat laws are different everywhere. So don't ask me to read your laws and apply it to me.


But they are all basically the same. They may very in language, but they all state that I have the right to defend my family and home. Most States recognize that I have the right to use force, even deadly, when my home is invaded. They also give the general idea that I do not have to determine intent in order to use force and or even deadly force.


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

loneframer said:


> ??? I'll assume you mean storm? I'm a bit daft.:laughing:


Nah, I heard that Jersey handgun laws are crazy strict. Am I misinformed?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> But they are all basically the same.


No they are not.



TNTSERVICES said:


> They may very in language, but they all state that I have the right to defend my family and home. Most States recognize that I have the right to use force, even deadly, when my home is invaded.


No they do not.



TNTSERVICES said:


> They also give the general idea that I do not have to determine intent in order to use force and or even deadly force.


Again, incorrect.


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

HandyHails said:


> Nah, I heard that Jersey handgun laws are crazy strict. Am I misinformed?


 Oh yeah, A friend of mine applied for a firearm/handgun permit about 5-6 months before it was approved. That was about 2 years ago.


----------



## Jimmy Cabinet (Jan 22, 2010)

loneframer said:


> Depends on where they find the body, more accurately.
> 
> If you decide to kill someone and elusively dispose of the body, that's between you and God.


I love this answer. I do not trust politicians and pigs, I have no use for them. If I shot an intruder in my home I would bury the bast-ard in the yard or in the woods and tell no one.....ever. Why take a chance in our crooked corrupt court system anyway. Handle it in your own way. 

Even those who trust our court system will admit the laws protect the criminal and not the victim. I would never want to be questioned on doing the right thing to protect my life, my family and my assets.....


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

loneframer said:


> Oh yeah, A friend of mine applied for a firearm/handgun permit about 5-6 months before it was approved. That was about 2 years ago.


Takes about a week here in PA to carry a concealed.


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

loneframer said:


> Depends on where they find the body, more accurately.
> 
> If you decide to kill someone and elusively dispose of the body, that's between you and God.


I'm good with that. And dog food for a week :thumbup:


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

HandyHails said:


> Takes about a week here in PA to carry a concealed.


 I was told my friends scenario is not uncommon


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> No they are not.
> 
> They are so.
> 
> ...


Not incorrect.

How did I do? Did that work as an argument? No? Oh so it didn't work for you either.

How about this? Nanny nanny booboo :tt2:


----------



## HandyHails (Feb 28, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Not incorrect.
> 
> How did I do? Did that work as an argument? No? Oh so it didn't work for you either.
> 
> How about this? Nanny nanny booboo :tt2:


If you stay up late enough, everyone who is arguing,er debating, w/ you will get tired and go to bed. Just a few minutes more. I gotta work tomorrow.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Not incorrect.
> 
> How did I do? Did that work as an argument? No? Oh so it didn't work for you either.
> 
> How about this? Nanny nanny booboo :tt2:



Yes, incorrect. Not all the laws are the same. They do not say the same thing with different language. Some laws say you cannot do something, some allow you to. Some require you to do something, others allow you to, others prohibit it.

Again, please quite stating your laws as though they apply to everyone else.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Yes, incorrect. Not all the laws are the same. They do not say the same thing with different language. Some laws say you cannot do something, some allow you to. Some require you to do something, others allow you to, others prohibit it.
> 
> Again, please quite stating your laws as though they apply to everyone else.


I said they GENERALLY say the same thing. The Castle Law general says the same thing in every state.

Oh wait...I'll see if you will answer the one that I was accused of evading and dancing around...Are you an expert on Castle Law in every state?

I am not stating my laws as if they apply to everyone else. I simply stated they say basically the same thing. Please stop saying they don't.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

HandyHails said:


> If you stay up late enough, everyone who is arguing,er debating, w/ you will get tired and go to bed. Just a few minutes more. I gotta work tomorrow.


Unfortunately I do to. I have a few quotes to put together and then off to bed. It's just too fun annoying people. I have to try and break that habit. It's just too easy when you get them on the hook.

I was told by my brother in law that if you make a man angry you own him. I guess I own a few tonight...or at least after saying that I will. :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I said they GENERALLY say the same thing. The Castle Law general says the same thing in every state.


Once again: NO THEY DO NOT! Let me repeat that for you: *NO, THEY DO NOT.*



TNTSERVICES said:


> Oh wait...I'll see if you will answer the one that I was accused of evading and dancing around...Are you an expert on Castle Law in every state?
> 
> I am not stating my laws as if they apply to everyone else. I simply stated they say basically the same thing. Please stop saying they don't.


OK, in case you missed it, I will repeat it again: *NO, THEY DO NOT.


























*Once more, just for good measure:  *NO, THEY DO NOT.*







































OK, once more, just in case you missed it: *NO, THEY DO NOT.














































*I'm done, now. Bye bye.


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Unfortunately I do to. I have a few quotes to put together and then off to bed. It's just too fun annoying people. I have to try and break that habit. It's just too easy when you get them on the hook.
> 
> I was told by my brother in law that if you make a man angry you own him. I guess I own a few tonight...or at least after saying that I will. :laughing:


 Maybe, but there are still those of us that don't GAF.:thumbup:


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

You can say it a thousand times, but as much as you want, it won't make it true. I know you probably are used to it working, but ya can't bully me with that BS. Have a great night. Till we meet again.


----------



## TxElectrician (May 21, 2008)

You guys just don't get it do you?



No one was shot over a TV. Got it?
It was shingles. If y'all are going to debate, get the facts straight.:whistling


----------



## Bastien1337 (Dec 20, 2010)

I kinda feel like the whole point has been missed, If you read the article this house was fully under construction, no one lived there, there was no threat to family, the neighbor called the guy and he WENT to the house, he put his own life in danger by going there. I'll get flamed for this, but how can I claim self-defense if I'm knowingly going to a dangerous situation, these guys could have just as easily had guns and shot the HO dead on the spot. If you ask me, in this situation, Im calling the cops and letting them deal with some shingles getting stolen. You guys are way to gun happy.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 10, 2010)

BamBamm5144 said:


> First off, wasn't this the neighbor who shot the guy stealing from the house next door?
> 
> Second, you can only use enough force to stop the attack on you. If a guy has a knife, bring a gun.
> 
> If a guy comes into your house and steals a tv (since that is the example that has been used) and you see him running out the door with your tv and you shoot him in the back, you'll go to prison.


 Unless he was trying to kill you by throwing the TV at you and you feared for your life.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> That's hilarous. It says they have different laws. I guess 'different' means 'they mean the same thing'.


Stand your ground and Castle Law state that you have the right to use force in your home or residence. How is that different?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

​


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Stand your ground and Castle Law state that you have the right to use force in your home or residence. How is that different?


Whatever you are drinking or smoking, please come back when you're done ingesting it. You're just going in circles now.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

I kinda feel like this was a big waste of time. Sparky was so focused on Iowa law and I was focused on the general idea of the law and it's use over the majority of the country.

Sparky I am man enough to admit that I was chasing the wrong rabbit.

It was fun, but maybe next time we can agree on what we are going to disagree on.

What I thought you were saying was that Castle Law in states with Castle Law were not the generally the same. I was not aware that you were arguing that Iowa has no such law. Especially since you listed in a post as a state without or weak castle law.

Are we good?


----------



## Bastien1337 (Dec 20, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Bastien1337*  
_shooting because he was stealing shingles? is that not excessive force, he actually hit the guy, what would have happened if he killed him? is that defensible???_





ubenhad4 said:


> Asking this question is what is wrong with the world. If you teach a couple thiefs a leason I bet it stops almost altogether. My 9 year old daughter hed her little purse stolen the other day. She had $74 dollars in it and all her gift cards from christmas. Some sob stole it when she turned away for a second. Granted this was at wallmart and the only reason she was there is to use a gift certificate. They did nothing. I already never shop there because its been taken over but now my wife an daughter feel the same. I would have loved to seen the person.


just how capital punishment is a proven deterrent:no:, Im sure there are better links but here ya go.

http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2007/07/19/death-penalty-no-deterrent-to-murder/


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 10, 2010)

Bastien1337 said:


> just how capital punishment is a proven deterrent:no:, Im sure there are better links but here ya go.
> 
> http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2007/07/19/death-penalty-no-deterrent-to-murder/


 Your telling me there would not be a change in the mindset of criminals if they had to wonder every time they did something that wronged someone if they would get shot that crime wouldn't drastically go down. Im not talking about our painfully slow criminal law system. In my opinion if your sentenced to death take you out back and get it over with. I don't want to pay you to sit in jail with three hots and a cot for ten year appealing . If the death penalty was actually the death penalty things would change for sure.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> To support my claim that Castle Law is generally the same:


Duh. You don't even cite your source for that. And I would hardly consider some of the links contained to be legitimate governmental or jurisprudential authorities. :laughing:

Try taking "generally" into a court of law without _much_ more substantial backing than you're showing here.

I don't claim to be an expert in formal debate practices, but based upon your performance in this and other discussions, I feel confident that I have a tad more experience at it than you. Which is totally understandable. I'm an old fart.


----------



## B.D.R. (May 22, 2007)

sorry ,but I have no compassion for people who commit crimes against other people ,especially the weaker members of society.
kill them. Let God forgive.
I've had a p#$sy day.One of my employees had his tools stolen a month ago .They found a realestate agents prints on the window.They know who did it but does he get hi tools back... NO
F%^k em.
I'll probably be nicer tommorow


----------



## Heritage (Mar 20, 2007)

loneframer said:


> BTW, does a loaded gun in the night stand constitute "premeditated"


I watch a lot of "First 48" on A&E, so I'm a little bit of an expert :whistling

But I saw one case where the prosecutor *EFFECTIVELY* argued that the suspect demonstrated PREMEDITATION almost a second (as in 1/60th) of a minute prior to pulling the trigger :blink:. As in the only thing that could possibly have made the case a premeditated murder was that the suspect WILLINGLY and CONSCIOUSLY decided to pull the trigger.

I was like WTF?:blink:

Unless pulling the trigger was an accident, then anytime someone withdraws their gun, raises their gun, points their gun at someone with their finger on the trigger...therein you can have a LEGITIMATE case of premeditation!!!

The suspect was found guilty of 1st degree murder, specifically because the prosecutor was able to convince the jury of the legal definition of "premeditation" and how it could apply the instant before pulling the trigger...whereas he (the suspect) had ZERO intent/premeditation to commit the murder prior to the second before he pulled the trigger. So yeah...there you go...not as cut as dry as most of us thought.



Bastien1337 said:


> I kinda feel like the whole point has been missed, If you read the article this house was fully under construction, no one lived there, there was no threat to family, the neighbor called the guy and he WENT to the house, he put his own life in danger by going there. I'll get flamed for this, but how can I claim self-defense if I'm knowingly going to a dangerous situation, these guys could have just as easily had guns and shot the HO dead on the spot. If you ask me, in this situation, Im calling the cops and letting them deal with some shingles getting stolen. You guys are way to gun happy.


:notworthy Thank you.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Duh. You don't even cite your source for that. And I would hardly consider some of the links contained to be legitimate governmental or jurisprudential authorities. :laughing:
> 
> Try taking "generally" into a court of law without _much_ more substantial backing than you're showing here.
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert in formal debate practices, but based upon your performance in this and other discussions, I feel confident that I have a tad more experience at it than you. Which is totally understandable. I'm an old fart.


Old does not mean or imply anything but you managed not to get yourself killed or murdered to this point.

I never said anything in regards to a formal legal defense or that you could take the "general" argument to court.

See this does show your lack of formal classical debate. It is a first years mistake to try and redefine your opponents argument. My first statement was broad. It was that you have the right to shoot and or kill an intruder. And in fact, most states you do. But the devil is in the details. This is why it was perfectly safe for me to state that the laws that protect HO are GENERALLY the same in giving the HO the right to use force and even deadly force.

Thus far, neither you or Sparky have provided proof that these laws do not afford one the right to use said force. You have, unsuccessfully, tried to attack my credibility, by wanting me to answer whether or not I am an expert on this law nationwide and if I could answer strawman arguments concerning specific what if scenarios setup by the opposition. It would serve me nor my position to fall into the trap of a strawman argument. Again, this is first semester debate 101.

If I were to qualify my statements they would be best placed in the opening or closing argument, but not as evidence, because they are baseless without the facts.

You ask why I haven't offered facts...At first it was futile. They would only be shot down as inadmissible or unreliable. So why bother. However, when faced with specific IL code, I discovered the largest flaw in the entire argument, one to which you still fail to recognize. We (Sparky and I) were not debating the same topic. He thought that I was saying that all states had a general Castle Law that protected anyone from using force, even deadly, on an intruder. I was not agruing this point. I was arguing that the states who have "Castle Laws" or "Stand Your Ground Laws" are generally the same. This would indicate that I acknowledge subtle nuances to each state and it's specific code. That some states require different reasonable circumstances, but as a whole give citizens the right to protect themselves, their family and yes even their property. Otherwise I would have used a definitive statement calling them exactly the same not generally the same.

Sparky himself posted that force was even granted when the intruder was in progress of committing or the HO had reasonable expectation that a felony was going to occur.

So what did I miss? And are you an expert in trial law? You keep telling what would happen in court, as if you know? How many actual arguments have you presented before a judge? How many cases have you tried? I would suggest that you take your own advice and make sure you are an expert before giving legal advice.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

BTW I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So I rest my case!:hammer:


----------



## Electric_Light (Nov 25, 2007)

It's sad you don't get to pow pow more readily. Knowing that the law is there to put the victim of crime in grave trouble for shooting the criminal makes it that much easier for criminals to do their deedl. 

You know those pedestrians that just walk against red on a crosswalk expecting you will stop, because they KNOW drivers will be in deep chocolate pudding if they don't?


----------



## carpentershane (Feb 9, 2009)

I live in Washington State and one can only use "comparable force" One cannot just shoot someone for breaking into one's house. Deadly force cannot be used unless one's life is in danger. 

I personally think this is a good law- Human life, even the life of a thief, is worth more than a [email protected]#ing television, or a car, or shingles. People change, they turn their life around and if they are dead, that is not an option.


----------



## Dirtywhiteboy (Oct 15, 2010)

tinner666 said:


> Yes, it's legal, dead or wounded. I know of one HO that got a commendation and a new box of ammo.


 :notworthy:clap::thumbup:


----------



## Dirtywhiteboy (Oct 15, 2010)

TNTSERVICES said:


> There was an old lady here in Chicago that shot a kid in her yard. He was throwing rocks at her and her house. She went inside, got her gun and told the kid to leave. He did not, she shot him and was found in the right. She could have left the premises. She could fled, but she stayed, defended her property and was in the right.


 And I bet that kid won't be doing that stupid shit anymore


----------



## Electric_Light (Nov 25, 2007)

carpentershane said:


> I live in Washington State and one can only use *"comparable force"* One cannot just shoot someone for breaking into one's house. Deadly force cannot be used unless one's life is in danger.
> 
> I personally think this is a good law- Human life, even the life of a thief, is worth more than a [email protected]#ing television, or a car, or shingles. People change, they turn their life around and if they are dead, that is not an option.


That's freaking retarded. 
Have you been shot yet?
Ok, then you may shoot now


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

carpentershane said:


> I live in Washington State and one can only use "comparable force" One cannot just shoot someone for breaking into one's house. Deadly force cannot be used unless one's life is in danger.
> 
> I personally think this is a good law- Human life, even the life of a thief, is worth more than a [email protected]#ing television, or a car, or shingles. People change, they turn their life around and if they are dead, that is not an option.


Your logic is twisted. You say that human life is worth more than a TV, however these thieves will kill for less. You have no idea when they break in that they only intend on stealing from you. You also need to understand that if they are willing to come in when you are at home, they are willing to do much more. They don't want to get caught. What do you think they will do when they find you there?

I for one would never put my family in that kind of danger. If a man is willing to break the sanctity of my home with me in it, he is willing to do much more. So he is risking his life for a TV.


----------



## FRAME2FINISH (Aug 31, 2010)

shoot first ask questions later


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

carpentershane said:


> I have been in the hood in Chicago and Milwaukee, I am still alive and kicking. The issue was not walking down the street in a bad neighborhood, the issue was "defending one's property"
> 
> 
> No, just a bunch of people advocating shooting someone leaving their property with shingles, fill-in-the-blank


I doubt it. Let me pick the neighborhood, not what you think of as a hood.

My point was that thieves in general will kill for less than a TV. If they are willing to go into your home with it occupied, it is not a thrill seeker or a typical burglary. If they are willing to risk it, they are willing to do much more.

As for the shingles, you need to actually go back and read the entire thread. It would make you look a lot less foolish. As with any thread the conversation has evolved. We are no longer talking about the guy shooting the shingle thief.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

carpentershane said:


> I am sure you are really fearing for your life in Naperville there TNT. Voted second best town to live in 2006 by money magazine and had ...... wait for it..... wait for it.....
> 
> 1 criminal tresspass in 2009
> 2 gun arrests in 2009
> ...


Ummm...just because I live in Naperville doesn't mean that I work exclusively here. Some people are so dense. I work all over Chicagoland. I never said this was a rough area. If you don't believe that I know Chicago, then take me up on my offer. You will have nothing to worry about.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

carpentershane said:


> Not exactly a war zone


What is your point? I don't think that I ever said I live in a war zone. Did you not understand that I said I would drop you off in a neighborhood of CHICAGO. Not Naperville. You should really learn how to read more carefully. Foolishness abounds tonight.


----------



## superseal (Feb 4, 2009)

If their in my home, uninvited and threaten physical well being - it's game over :detective:- if their out in the detached or truck, I'd just grab my full auto paint ball apparatus and color them up - local cops love it for identification purposes, especially the one with the lumpy forehead:wacko::laughing:


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

OK, the points have been taken. 10 pages, that's good. This has taken quite the stray from the main story.

:thumbup:


----------

