Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/22/2006 11:07:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:10:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:10:46 AM EDT
If you break into someones house.....you have to deal with the consiquences.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:12:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:14:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imq707s:
If you break into someones house.....you have to deal with the consiquences.



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.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:16:02 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:16:25 AM EDT
I hope the homeowner gets off without too much trouble.

Frat boys got what they deserved.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:16:38 AM EDT
I wonder what the BAC was on the 3 dirtbags?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:17:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By imq707s:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:19:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:22:08 AM EDT by Sd_Kfz_182]

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
I hope the homeowner gets off without too much trouble.

Frat boys got what they deserved.



+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
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:20:39 AM EDT

Moral of the story is don't assault people or they might just fight back and kill your sorry ass.



+1
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:21:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
I hope the homeowner gets off without too much trouble.

Frat boys got what they deserved.


+1
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:21:35 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:23:28 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:24:00 AM EDT
Only in NY would this guy be charged.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:24:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:24:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By imq707s:
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.



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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:24:35 AM EDT


Lemme get this straight! The attacker is the victim and the victim is the criminal.


ONLY IN CRAZY WORLD





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.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:25:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:26:10 AM EDT
Stupidity hurts.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:26:36 AM EDT

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.




Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:28:18 AM EDT



stupidity has a way of fixing itself.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:29:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
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
“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 it was a vicious attack, and that is exactly why he died.


“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.”


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


“We are doing this because they are victims,” the cheif's spokeswoman said.


Victims?! Of what? The New York mentality. This whole story is a fucking joke
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:41:59 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:43:06 AM EDT

“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.”


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.


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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:43:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 52brandon:

Originally Posted By Aimless:
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
“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 it was a vicious attack, and that is exactly why he died.


“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.”


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


“We are doing this because they are victims,” the cheif's spokeswoman said.


Victims?! Of what? The New York mentality. This whole story is a fucking joke



Got that right.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:47:20 AM EDT
At least he will be judged by 12.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:49:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:51:14 AM EDT by danno-in-michigan]

Originally Posted By Blued-Steel:

“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.”


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.


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.



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.




Motola was the victim - he did stay home that night.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:51:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Only in NY would this guy be charged.




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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:51:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:58:29 AM EDT

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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:08:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:

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.



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
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:11:25 PM EDT
Natural selection.

Stupidity is deadly.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:15:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
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.



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
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:18:01 PM EDT
They went looking for a fight. They found one. They lost.

Fuck'em.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:24:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 12:25:37 PM EDT by slefelar]
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:27:42 PM EDT

“Even if he made $40, he gave his tithe. He was a well-raised kid, a good kid.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:35:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Only in NY would this guy be charged.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:47:22 PM EDT
lol ZBT at its best!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:47:23 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:49:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slefelar:
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.

it sounds like it is the second option. At least that is how I read it.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:50:56 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:53:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
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.



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."

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:56:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:59:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:00:39 PM EDT
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....
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:02:59 PM EDT

“L.U.I.S.” will be the acronym for its name, which hasn't been chosen yet


I've veen trying like heck, but I can't come up with an appropriate name for this .org
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:05:58 PM EDT
Darwin Award candidate?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:15:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
At least he will be judged by 12.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:23:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By markl32:
At least he will be judged by 12.



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.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:24:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

“L.U.I.S.” will be the acronym for its name, which hasn't been chosen yet


I've veen trying like heck, but I can't come up with an appropriate name for this .org



L osers
U
I diots
S hitbags

Stuck on the U.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top