User Panel
Posted: 2/22/2006 11:07:32 AM EDT
Police Say Wrong House Was Targeted In Oswego Slaying
Buffalo students thought rival fraternity members lived there, police say. Wednesday, February 22, 2006 By Douglass Dowty Staff writer Three fraternity brothers from Buffalo apparently thought they were vandalizing the home of a rival fraternity last weekend in Oswego in a confrontation that ended in one of their deaths, police said. Meanwhile, the prosecutor in the case said that the investigation has uncovered evidence that might show the Oswego man charged in the case was not responsible for the death. Three members of the Buffalo State College chapter of Zeta Beta Tau broke a front bedroom window and damaged siding on the house at 108 Fifth Ave. early Saturday, city police said Tuesday. The trio shouted and screamed at the residents of the house to come out and confront them, police said. That's when first-floor tenant Christopher Motola, 27, who had been sleeping in the bedroom, faced the students, said his lawyer, Anthony DiMartino. Motola told police he emerged with a double-edged knife about eight or nine inches long. During a struggle, he stabbed Luis Antonetti, a 22-year-old Buffalo State sophomore, in the abdomen two or three times. "After which, the male stumbled down the porch stairs," police said Motola told them. Antonetti died less than two hours later. In addition, Motola stabbed two other Buffalo students, including Andrew Aguado, 19, of Warsaw, who was listed in fair condition at University Hospital on Tuesday. The third student, who police said was 22, was treated for stab wounds to his hand, authorities said. Zeta Beta Tau members Tuesday confirmed the third victim was Jeremy Schnaufer. Motola was arraigned Saturday on a charge of first-degree manslaughter. In Oswego City Court Tuesday, Assistant District Attorney Donald Todd indicated that the investigation had uncovered information that might show Motola was not responsible in Antonetti’s death. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for Monday. DiMartino said Motola acted in self-defense after the three vandals attacked him. He was physically assaulted," DiMartino said. "He was charged by the three individuals in succession." DiMartino said Motola was treated at the Oswego police station for minor injuries. Motola didnot know his attackers and had no connection to either fraternity, police said. Authorities believe it was a tragic case of mistaken identity -- the Buffalo students were trying to settle a score with a rival fraternity. The students had arrived in Oswego for the weekend to meet with members of Oswego’s chapter of Zeta Beta Tau. "Issues had occurred between the (Zeta Beta Tau) fraternal organization members and another fraternal organization," said acting police Chief Michael Dehm in a news release. But police have found nothing to prove that any trouble happened between the fraternities on Friday or Saturday in the hours before the showdown at the Fifth Avenue house. A resident of 110 Fifth Ave., next door to the vandalized house, said that several members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon live there. A car in the driveway of the house Tuesday had a bumper sticker with that fraternity’s name. Both DiMartino and Todd said that there may have been an incident between members of the two fraternities at a local bar earlier that evening. It was unclear Tuesday where that might have happened or what occurred. There is no official record of any trouble between the two fraternities, said State University College at Oswego spokesman Tim Nekritz. But Antonetti’sbrother said that members of the two fraternities have had a rivalry for several years, after members of one fraternity left to join the other fraternity. "There was a little bit of a feud," said Jorge Antonetti. "It never really got violent." He said his brother and the other Buffalo State students possibly threw rocks through the window and kicked the house, which they believed housed members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon. "He (Luis Antonetti) made a stupid decision," Jorge Antonetti said. "I’m not going to say my brother’s actions weren’t criminal, because they were. But I don’t think he needed to lose his life." Luis Antonetti’s mother, Lydmia Santiago, attended Tuesday’s court appearance with a picture of her son clipped to her blouse. Motola walked out of court surrounded by a half-dozen family members and linked arms with his mother as they walked through downtown. His family supported him, she said. Douglass Dowty can be reached at [email protected] or 592-7140 |
|
And here comes the family with "Sure he was busting up someone's house, but he shouldn't have been killed"
A fast moving storm prevented a helicopter airlift of the dead shithead to "the big city hospital.' Helicopter was en route and was forced to turn back-oh well... www.pall-times.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/news1.txt STABBING HEARING POSTPONED TO ALLOW HEARING ON ‘EXCULPATORY' EVIDENCE By ADELE DELSAVIO, Staff Writer A hearing for the man accused of the weekend stabbing death of a Buffalo man was postponed until Monday after the district attorney said he expects evidence to be introduced that might clear the suspect. District Attorney Donald H. Dodd told Oswego City Judge James Metcalf Tuesday that “exculpatory evidence” will be presented on Christopher Motola's behalf at the hearing. Dodd said he anticipates a series of witnesses will testify. According to the LAW.COM dictionary, exculpatory evidence is evidence that “may justify or excuse a defendant's actions and tend to show the defendant is not guilty or has no criminal intent.” Dodd declined to discuss the nature of the evidence to be presented or the details of the incident in which Motola allegedly stabbed 22-year-old Luis Antonetti and two other men Saturday. “It is to be tried in the courtroom, not in the press,” Dodd said. “The Oswego Police Department is contuinuing to investigate and a number of issues need to be addressed.” Antonetti, a student at Buffalo State College, died at Oswego Hospital about an hour and a half after the 1 a.m. stabbing. According to police reports, Motola stabbed Antonetti two to three times with an 8 to 9 inch knife before Antonetti stumbled backwards down the porch stairs of Motola's house. Motola, 27, is charged with first-degree manslaughter and is free on a $10,000 bond posted by his family. Motola's attorney, Anthony DiMartino, said Motola acted in self-defense. “Mr. Motola was home in bed. They (the three men) showed up and terrorized these people,” he said. Motola lives in a large house that is divided into apartments at 108 Fifth Avenue in Oswego. Antonetti was a member of the Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) fraternity, which has branches in Buffalo and Oswego. The Oswego branch has an unofficial fraternity house on Fifth Avenue. In a follow up statement Tuesday, the Oswego Police Department shed additional liight on the events that led to the stabbing. The statement said Antonetti and two other men from Buffalo were visiting the local chapter of the fraternity. An undisclosed incident occured with members of another fraternity. The Buffalo men and members of the Oswego branch of ZBT went to confront members of the other fraternity. Mistakenly, they chose Motola's house. The press release related that the men were at Motola's house shouting for the other fraternity men to come out. They were banging on the house and “did destroy some property and did break a window,” according to police. Police said there is no indication Motola, who graduated from SUNY Oswego in 2000, knew the men or had been a member of a fraternity. “To our knowledge no other resident of 108 Fifth Avenue had any ties to a fraternal organization,” police reported. Antonetti's family was at Motola's court appearance Tuesday. “It was a vicious attack. I truly do not understand why someone had to die,” said Luis Antonetti's older brother, Jorge Antonetti. “It was not a proper response to what happened.” “Yes, my brother made a serious mistake,” he added. “There was vandalism. But I should be here to bail him out, not make funeral arrangements.” He questioned why Motola went outside to confront the three men, saying Motola should have stayed inside and waited for the police to respond. “It took the police under a minute to respond. He lives in Oswego. He should have known they'd respond quickly,” he said. Antonetti's mother, Lydmia Santiago, wore a picture of her son on her lapel. She said she's determined to do something in her son's memory. She is working with the national offices of Zeta Beta Tau to organize an anti-violence, anger management education program. “L.U.I.S.” will be the acronym for its name, which hasn't been chosen yet. She said a memorial service for her son will be held at the United Methodist Church in Buffalo on Thursday. “Luis was my youngest child. My heart is shattered,” his mother said. She said Luis was active in his church. “Even if he made $40, he gave his tithe. He was a well-raised kid, a good kid.” Those who know Motola, including Wagner Dotto, publisher of Oswego County Business Magazine where Motola is a staff writer, say Motola is a well-mannered, nice young man. “I find it hard to believe he is involved in this,” Dotto said. As for the other two men who were stabbed, one was treated and released from Oswego Hospital and the other is in a hospital in Syracuse. They are 19 and 22 years old. A spokeswoman at the police chief's office would not specify which of the men is still in the hospital or which Syracuse Hospital he is in. She said there will not yet be an offficial release of their identities. “We are doing this because they are victims,” the cheif's spokeswoman said. The hearing will continue Tuesday at 1:30 p.m., if necessary |
|
If you break into someones house.....you have to deal with the consiquences.
|
|
Not sure they got in, it might have happened on a porch. |
|
|
Especially when you break into someone's house and then proceed to attack him 3 on one. If someone did that to my house they wouldn't have been stabbed. All three who tried to attack me would have been shot. The home owner here seems to have had a legitimate reason to be in fear for his life, and his use of lethal force seems absolutely justified based on the facts in the article. The "shouldn't have been killed" arguement is moot, as the jackass doing the assaulting should not have been giving the home owner reason to fear for his life. Moral of the story is don't assault people or they might just fight back and kill your sorry ass. |
|
|
Sounds like three idiots went looking for a fight and found one. Unfortunate for the family but I don't see how it could be blamed on anyone but the three idiots. The only people charged should be the two remaining frat boys.
|
|
I hope the homeowner gets off without too much trouble.
Frat boys got what they deserved. |
|
Either way, there is no law requiring you to sit back and let someone smash up your house. You CAN confront them, and if attacked you CAN defend yourself, unless you have commie laws like those in NY. Sounds like the frat boys were drunk as skunks and wouldn't have listened to reason to boot. Drunk guys tearing your house down?? Yeah. Reasonable cause to fear for your life. |
||
|
+1 One got what he deserved the other 2 were lucky I'm just wondering why the homeowner didn't finish off the other 2 |
|
|
+1 |
|
|
+1 |
|
|
It just occured to me, that Liberals think there is no such thing as a good death. It's ALWAYS wrong when someone dies. Perhaps this is why, whenever someone is killed, someone ALWAYS gets charged, period, stop?
However, it's NOT always wrong. There is such a thing as a just killing. Self defense being the main category. |
|
So, why haven't the other two sh!t bags been arrested? Shouldn't they have been charged with assualt, distruction of private peoperty ect. as soon as they are released from the hospital. So, if I go rob a bank in Buffalo and get hurt they just let me go.
|
|
I don't disagree with you, just pointing out what I think happened and this is in commie NY. |
|||
|
And add to that, in order to be stabbed, you have to be withing arm's reach. These "well-mannered nice young men" picked a fight, then pressed on with it. |
|||
|
Lemme get this straight! The attacker is the victim and the victim is the criminal.
|
|
|
I wouldn't bet on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it was a vicious attack, and that is exactly why he died.
at least he knows his brother fucked up. The biggest mistake his brother made was attacking a guy wielding a knife. The guy goes outside when they call him out (or at least he thought they were talking about him) with a knife and the 3 try to jump him. Sounds like they got what was coming to them
Victims?! Of what? The New York mentality. This whole story is a fucking joke |
|||
|
I'm south of Oswego in Syracuse, and I've been watching this unfold on the local news. Kinda sad really, that it follows the standard formula for these kinds of things in the way it gets reported. I have to say, I find the news here slightly biased. They make it sound like a cold-blooded pre-meditated murder. Couldn't be farther from the truth. The dumbasses went to the wrong house, started to mix it up with a guy who had no clue what was happening and was obviously scared for his life, and one idiot got dead.
|
|
Guess he should have been home getting ready for a church activity instead of getting drunk, vandalising and confronting people in a way that makes them defend themselves.
Well, he was involved, but didn't have to be. I wish people would say how nice he is, but he sure should have stayed home tonight---or sober. But that would be assigning personal responsibility. Can't have that. |
||
|
Got that right. |
||||
|
Motola was the victim - he did stay home that night. |
|||
|
http://www.zbt.org/ Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity is a North American college fraternity founded in 1898 by a group of Jewish students in New York City. |
|
|
Regardless of the reasons for this incident. The fact remains that these three men broke into this person's domicile and attacked him. When confronted, it appears that they refused to flee and kept on the attack at which point the guy defended himself.
He is being prosecuted for one reason only. He used a knife which much like the club is the weapon of the thug. Had he been legally armed and shot them, he would likely not be facing charges. |
|
A somewhat similar thing happened at my house when I was a kid. A collage swim coach lived next door and his team liked to toliet paper his house every year. One year they picked my house. It was late at night, there were some noises, and there were people in the front yard. Kinda scary. Well, my Dad went outside to investigate, confronted them and told them to clean it up. End of story. WWII vets didn't get trigger happy over a bunch of college kids gone astray. |
|
Just for educational purposes, the rules in NYS governing use of force and deadly physical force: ARTICLE 35 DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION Section 35.00 Justification; a defense. 35.05 Justification; generally. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary. 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited. 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. S 35.00 Justification; a defense. In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense. S 35.05 Justification; generally. Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when: 1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions; or 2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense. S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: 1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person. 2. A warden or other authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use such physical force as is authorized by the correction law. 3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury. 4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to thwart such result. 5. A duly licensed physician, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if (a) the treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is under the age of eighteen years or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision, or (b) the treatment is administered in an emergency when the physician reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent. 6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization. S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is: (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20. S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary. 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson. 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three. 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary. 4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings prescribed in section 140.00; (b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other premises include, but are not limited to, police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of their duties. S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises. S 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited. A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer. S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. 1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that he may use deadly physical force for such purposes only when he reasonably believes that: (a) The offense committed by such person was: (i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or (ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or (b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. 2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. 3. A person who has been directed by a police officer or a peace officer to assist such police officer or peace officer to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such police officer`s or peace officer`s direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized and he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances when: (a) He reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (b) He is directed or authorized by such police officer or peace officer to use deadly physical force unless he knows that the police officer or peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. 4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to: (a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom. 5. A guard, police officer or peace officer who is charged with the duty of guarding prisoners in a detention facility, as that term is defined in section 205.00, or while in transit to or from a detention facility, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility or from custody while in transit thereto or therefrom. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a12.html |
|
|
But of course, that's why everyone on death row doesn't deserve the death penalty. Frankly, Libs make it sound like they all are innocent. I say, the gov't should give the convict a house next to the Lib with the biggest mouth until they all shut up. That way I know which neighborhoods to avoid - the ones with all the Libs and convicts. Randall |
|
|
They went looking for a fight. They found one. They lost.
Fuck'em. |
|
Couldn't have happened to a nicer frat. It is unclear whether they were in the house or not. If they were inside, it would appear to be a slam dunk case of self defense. If not, it won't be that simple.
If the resident went outside to investigate/confront and the ZBTers jumped him, I think it is a clear case of self defense. If he chased them down or used the knife to stop them from breaking windows, it is a different story. In any event, they obvioulsy messed with the wrong guy. |
|
|
|
|
Yep. If it happened in FL, the other two frat boys would have been charged with murder for the death of their cohort and the victim would be sleeping in his own bed. Classic case of Castle Doctrine & Felony Murder here in the South. |
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, the Zeebs were the most arrogant nasty people on campus. Gave the negative conotations associated with the term frat boy. Especially the ones from NY. They were rich and didnt give a shit about anyone else except their own.
I have found this to be true on more then one campus that I have been on. |
|
Its part of their hubris. Liberals think they are smarter than everyone else, and that if they were there, they'd have found a way to peacefully resolve the situation. If you have the stomach for it, go onto the DU and see what they post in response to these situations. Its always "there is always another way." |
|
|
fuck a knife attack my house and then rush me in my yard your going to get shot in the head.
fuck'em. a bunch of dumbass kids. |
|
And how is this relevant? Do you accuse the victim (homeowner/tenant) who had to defend himself as being "trigger happy" with his knife? Should he have taken a couple of minutes and dialogued with them in order to determine that they were in fact "college kids gone astray" and meant no harm? Please. |
|
|
I was an ATO at UB (University of Buffalo), not Buff State like these guys, but I can tell you, we always had problems with the ZBT's.
What a bunch of assholes, always starting fights. They chased a bunch of Fraternity brothers down the street from The Steer (a bar on Main St.) they ran to my house looking for help (We had for brothers and a buddy who was a Marine living there). They left rather quickly when I showed up in the porch with my Poly-Tech Legend AK..... Doesn't surprise me they pulled this crap. Guy was probably from downstate too.... |
|
I've veen trying like heck, but I can't come up with an appropriate name for this .org |
|
|
I don't think it will even get that far if the articles I've read are fairly accurate. NY actually has a strong self-defense provision in the PL. There is no requirement to retreat if one is in their residence. I doubt the grand jury will indict the resident of the home. |
|
|
Yeah, reads to me that the DA's moving towards having the case dismissed. Actually, that would be good for him - Help in Civil court, which is where this will be headed next. |
||
|
L osers U I diots S hitbags Stuck on the U. |
||
|
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.