User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 6:09:06 AM EDT
[#1]
In Iowa this guy would be charged too. There must be a reasonable attempt to avoid the situation then lethal force is allowed only if there is a perceived threat of serious injury or death. Lethal force can't be used to protect property in Iowa. Someone breaks into your home, blast them. Someone busts out your windows and damages your siding while trying to lure you outside don't do it. Call the police, hope for the best prepare for the worst (home invasion). The second they step foot in you house open fire. Property isn't worth killing over. Thats what insurance is for. Shok |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 6:46:51 AM EDT
[#2]
You may want to check that Q. Most states have the lethal force stipulation but I highly doubt any state has the obligation to retreat clause. That's like giving criminals a gurantee non-interference clause. Tj |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 6:48:07 AM EDT
[#3]
It's funny, but I didn't hear much about this in the news last night. Maybe because it's a clear cut case of self defense rather than manslaughter, it's no longer newsworthy.
I'll keep you all posted as to how this turns out as soon as I find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 6:56:08 AM EDT
[#4]
In your opinion property isn't worth killing over. You'd be surprised how many don't agree with you. I think property is worth killing someone over. Don't try to steal stuff I have worked for. Its a simple concept. "Thats what insurance is for" sounds like something a lib would say.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:05:37 AM EDT
[#5]
No, it is sage advise. When you kill someone, when you actually take action that results in a dead man lying at your feet and his blood all over your hands, your life CHANGES. All sorts of badness begins to happen to you after that. People you have known for years start to look at you different. You were Bob before, but now......you actually killed somebody. Even if the cops side with you and nobody tries to sue you, there are STILL consequences for having taken another human life. It is something you should try to avoid if at all possible. It is also tactically sound not to go starting a lethal confrontation over mere property damage if you are reasonably sure that is all that is at stake. Lethal fights are, well, LETHAL, and there is no guarantee that you are going to win the fight. The wisest move is to only fight if you are left with no choice. Only risk a lethal confrontation if there is something on the line valuable enough to die for. Personally, I value my own skin rather highly, and there isn't a whole lot I am willing to risk it over. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:06:01 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:16:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Well, the point is mute for me now anyway, since I live in NYS, and that certainly is not permissable here in any case. I am talking conceptually. I just feel, IMHO, my property is worth defending. If more burglars/criminals knew they had more to worry about for stealing your TV for crack money, like getting their asses blown away, there might be a lot less burglaries. Hell, currently in NYS, they KNOW they really have virtually no consequences for stealing, so why not? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:21:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Killing someone just because they are damaging or stealing your property isn't SELF defense then is it? Shok |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:22:48 AM EDT
[#9]
+1 Good post. Shok |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:24:13 AM EDT
[#10]
I wasn't talking self defense. You said that property isn't worth killing someone over. I disagreed. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:26:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Five words make it so. "I feared for my Life". |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:31:54 AM EDT
[#12]
If you kill someone over property it's unlikely you will have any for the rest of your life when all is said and done. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:35:30 AM EDT
[#13]
Motola must have nicked Antonetti's Abdominal Aorta in the scuffle. Almost no way he could have bled to death so fast after receiving competent medical attention, unless maybe he sustained a severe laceration(s) to the liver or spleen which are very vascular. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:38:52 AM EDT
[#14]
The kid who dies got the education of a lifetime!!
Note to stupid college Fraternities who want to act like street punks: 1. Keep your hands off other people, being in a different frat is their business, not a reason for you to act like assholes and attack them like idiotic street gangs. 2. Stay off of, Out of and away from other peoples property, I'm sure your mommy told you this at young age as mine did, REMEMBER IT! 3. If you violate any of the above you deserve what you get, if interested in more information on the topic of how to treat other people look up the Ten Commandments in the bible. The Golden Rule, the Crime Codes for your specific area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:40:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Again, I said I thought so conceptually...as you know in NYS it is not permissable. Plus with the fucked up legal system, even if you are in the right legally there lots of crap you have to worry about. But conceptually, I believe you should be able to defend property with deadly force, and if its ruled a good shoot, then thats it, case over, fuck the dead POS's family...he shouldn't have been doing something that would get him killed to begin with..... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:44:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Sorry, you can't do that.  Shok |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:44:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Damn.. you got my hopes up that we were finally going to get our zombie epidemic. Next time make it clear that he was dead AFTER attacking the house, not while he was doing it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:48:12 AM EDT
[#18]
A person who steals your property steals the labor you invested in acquiring the property. He compels you to labor to replace the property. A person who steals or compels your labor enslaves you. I have no moral qualms about killing to prevent a man from enslaving me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:49:58 AM EDT
[#19]
 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:50:34 AM EDT
[#20]
Great post, eloquently put. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 7:55:47 AM EDT
[#21]
I have my sights on this thread!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 8:27:10 AM EDT
[#22]
Fixed it for you. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 8:52:40 AM EDT
[#23]
According to Iowa code you can defend property and prevent felonies with "reasonable force". Lethal force is not reasonable force for defending property. Non-lethal force is OK (kick them in the nutz). There is not a non-interference clause but a non-lethal clause in Iowa code. Reasonable force is defined as follows: Iowa Code Defenses
"Reasonable force" is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or employment. (C51, §2773; R60, §4442; C73, §4112; C97, §5102; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, § 12921; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §691.1; C79, 81, §704.1; 81 Acts, ch 204, §2) "Dwelling" defined, see § 702.10 Deadly force is only allowed when there is a threat of serious injury or death when alternatives entails a risk to life or safety. The exception being if the alternative requires one to abondon or retreat from one's dwelling. In Iowa you can't walk outside and stab someone to death for vandalizing your home. If that guy was in Iowa he would be charged also. Shok |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2006 9:02:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Nah, there was a better one on page 3... Liquored Up Idiots Sliced |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 6:56:10 AM EDT
[#25]
When somone is destroying your home with you in it while luring you to come outside it's not the same as sneaking in a yard stealing a yard ornament. No wonder there is so much crime these days, like someone else said, there is a law of no interference in whatever somebody decideds to do. They are more brazen than that around here, they carjack shoot and rob people in nice areas in broad daylight, nobody is going to resist anyway. Most of the time they rob you then shoot you anyway, just for fun. I'm not saying I would shoot them, in all cases, because unfortunatly I have a concious but I would send a gift basket to anyone else that does so. I guess I can scratch Iowa off my potential places to move to. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 7:04:33 AM EDT
[#26]
No, stupid post, I would rather not kill anyone either but giving the feral humans free reign to do whatever they want with absolutly no interference from anyone simply raises the bar on what they are willing to try to get away with, and has led to the current state of being, both here and in Europe, where I hear they call it "vigalantyism" if you try to resist ANY crime against yourself, rape included. Yes if you have to kill sombody your life will change, it's too bad some people chose to violate other people and make them have to kill them. I sincerely hope nobody makes me have to kill them so I go out of my way to avoid it, I hope my lucky streak continues. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 7:10:00 AM EDT
[#27]
I don't have time to read this whole thread, but I believe if someone dies during the commission of a crime, including the criminals, the accomplices would face charges of manslaughter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 7:13:59 AM EDT
[#28]
 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 7:58:07 AM EDT
[#29]
You are right; the theft of the lawn ornament would be larceny. The destruction is criminal mischief. Society through its elected reps has given each offense its respective level of punishment and what steps can legally be taken to prevent that particular offense from occuring. Don't like it, talk to your reps and get the laws changed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 8:01:35 AM EDT
[#30]
From the lawyer's point of view, it soley depends whether or not the assailants presented a clear and imminent threat inside the homeowner's primary dwelling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 8:54:34 AM EDT
[#31]
Ban 8-9 inch double bladed knives.......for the frat children.
 The beer muscled frat brats went to a knife fight armed only with fists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 9:02:29 AM EDT
[#32]
<some bleeding heart moron> BUT, but this CHILD only made a juvenile mistake! The man should have called the police and allowed his property to be destroyed! And had the children come INTO his house, he should have fled!</some bleeding heart moron> <Rational person> If you PLAN on taking the law into your own hands, and then BREAK the law (property destruction/vandalism) in an attempt at REVENGE then are STOOPID [sic] enough to "take revenge" oon the WRONG PARTY, whatever happens to yuou happens... it's called "survival f the fittest!</Rational person> I'll admit my heart bleeds now and again, but not =, for CRIMINALS which, is EXACTLY what the "frat asshats" were. CRIMINALS. Period. I hope that the charges are drpped post haste. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 9:49:01 AM EDT
[#33]
tagging for outcome and for more of the spirited debate...
Woody |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 10:07:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Double edged knives are classified as daggers and are already banned in NY. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 10:31:47 AM EDT
[#35]
Ah but you see that's where the reasonable doubt comes in and the heart of your guys disagreement. It isn't the act as much as the intent. The right to have and bare a lethal weapon on your property is pretty well established. I think someone else did a post on what if this was a gun for example. Now assume the homeowner went outside with a legally pocessed weapon to tell his attackers to go away and cease their vandalism. He was then attacked and forced to defend himself. 3 against 1 is pretty good odds the 1 is going to lose and lethal weapon therefore in the hands of the attackers thus a good case for reasonable suspicion of severe bodily harm or death. Now assume he went outside screaming I'm going to kill you then killed someone, this warrants a charge. Though his act to defend his property was legal his method for doing so was definately not. The mere fact he had a weapon does not establish intent. Yes no one except in Texas at night has the right to kill anyone over property but in about every state I know you do have the right to defend your property with reasonable force. Without this, then hell we've just handed the country over to the badguys. There is no right in this country to destroy property unhindered. If I had to chose, which I'm glad I don't have to chose, between making it legal to kill anyone who destroys or steal property and between giving criminals the free hand to never be hindered in destroying or stealing property, to me its a no brainer and the criminals would start being shot on sight. Its laws like the one you posted that thank God keep us as a society from ever having to make that decision. Its the middle ground where the property owner can hinder the criminal within reason. Crime is a problem that we must all face. We can either be part of the problem or part of solution. Many of us simply don't believe letting the criminal have their way 100% of the time without resistance is the answer to crime but in fact encourages crime. Its very hard to look at this scenario and forget the boy initiated it by criminal activity at then when confronted with a homeowner with a deadly weapon they chose to ignore the option of retreat. Equate this to your own childhood. Most of us did childish pranks as a kid say at Halloween or sometime but when the homeowner came out yelling at us most of us didn't try to beat the shit of him either. These boys crossed the line from vandal to assault. It was ultimately their choice. They made a bad one. Tj |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 10:58:25 AM EDT
[#36]
news10now.com/content/all_news/oswego_county/?ArID=60679&SecID=155
Motola waives his right to preliminary hearing Updated: 2/27/2006 7:41:28 AM By: News 10 Now Web Staff Christopher Motola waived his right to a preliminary hearing Monday in Oswego City Court. Motola is accused of stabbing Luis Antonetti to death outside of his Oswego home on 5th Avenue last weekend. Motola's attorney Anthony DiMartino says the purpose of today's hearing was supposed to allow him to cross examine some of the prosecutions witnesses to further develop his case that Motola acted in self defense. DiMartino says the Judge was going to limit the testimony, and that is why he decided to waive the hearing. Motola's lawyer says they can prove he acted in self defense. "My client opened the door and as soon as he opened the door and came out he was attacked by three individuals in succession, there is a lot more to the story that has been reported and we believe he defended himself," said DiMartino. Now the case will go to a grand jury which the defense believes will be heard in the next one to three weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 11:19:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Be interesting to see if he testifies before the Grand Jury.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 11:50:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Well if what rkbar15 posted is true I can take a good guess as what would happen here. I call it the old "Good for the goose good for the gander". The DA woud be scaring the shit out of everone threatening charges until they all quit insisting on pressing charges. He'd appease the dead kids parents by telling them file a civil case if they think they are in the right while telling them there is no way he could win in criminal court. The whole time he's dragging it out so the media drops interest and tempers cool. The whole thing would be dropped and forgotten. Tj |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
