Lifeline at risk for 2 million jobless

[luckytxn 2,264]

So your solution to a high crime rate is more guns?

Let's say an unemployed single mother whose unemployment benefits have just been cut

breaks into your home to steal a loaf of bread to feed her hungry child.

Are you going to shoot her?

I wouldn't advise breaking into my home to even steal a loaf of bread if I or my wife was home. The better option would be to knock and tell me you are hungry.

[luckytxn 2,264]

So you would use deadly force on an unarmed woman stealing food?

It's safe to say that you would be going to jail for manslaughter and looking at 5-10 years behind bars.

You don't have to be armed to be shot if you break into a house. The law would just come and scoop them up and leave.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you would use deadly force on an unarmed woman stealing food?

Sure he would. We had a guy in the county shooting an unarmed man dead in front of his 8 year old daughter over a dispute on the use of skateboards in a public park. The unarmed man was a retired from the Air Force after 20 years of service. But as it is in Florida, the murderer is standing a very good chance to get off w/o the DA ever pursuing any case. The cases of never prosecuted homicides has gone up in FL ever since the lunatics in our legislature felt it was a god idea to give people more freedom to kill.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Sure he would. We had a guy in the county shooting an unarmed man dead in front of his 8 year old daughter over a dispute on the use of skateboards in a public park. The unarmed man was a retired from the Air Force after 20 years of service. But as it is in Florida, the murderer is standing a very good chance to get off w/o the DA ever pursuing any case. The cases of never prosecuted homicides has gone up in FL ever since the lunatics in our legislature felt it was a god idea to give people more freedom to kill.

And this relates to someone breaking in my home? How? Exactly how?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just wondering, how do you tell the difference between an out of work mother trying to feed her family and a drug addict with a hidden gun?

Shoot them until they are dead and then search them. No gun? Must be an out of work mother. Too bad, so sad.

DO NOT break into my house.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

Sure he would. We had a guy in the county shooting an unarmed man dead in front of his 8 year old daughter over a dispute on the use of skateboards in a public park. The unarmed man was a retired from the Air Force after 20 years of service. But as it is in Florida, the murderer is standing a very good chance to get off w/o the DA ever pursuing any case. The cases of never prosecuted homicides has gone up in FL ever since the lunatics in our legislature felt it was a god idea to give people more freedom to kill.

but......you decided to move there.

[mawilson 2,133]

Find me ONE case...ONE where a person killing someone that broke in their house in Vermont was prosecuted, convicted ad imprisoned.

Easy.

State of Vermont v. Frederick A. Little

[mawilson 2,133]

"As we noted in State v. Olsen, 680 A.2d 107, 109 (1996), intent can be proven by showing that a defendant's actions were not accidental and evinced a wanton disregard for life; the wanton-disregard instruction thus defines implied or constructive intent. Accord State v. Johnson, 158 Vt. 508, 518, 615 A.2d 132, 137 (1992). The State's information expressly charged that defendant acted intentionally."

[Boiler 43,836]

In Colorado we have a Make my Day law.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Easy.

State of Vermont v. Frederick A. Little

There was nothing there to show that the defendant was charged and sentenced because he was protecting his home from an intruder. He was charged and convicted for wanton killing. He knew the guy. The guy was already in the house. No breaking and entering was said by anyone in this case.

[mawilson 2,133]

There was nothing there to show that the defendant was charged and sentenced because he was protecting his home from an intruder. He was charged and convicted for wanton killing. He knew the guy. The guy was already in the house. No breaking and entering was said by anyone in this case.

Whether he knew the guy or not or whether he broke into his house is irrelevant -

the important part is whether the alleged intruder used "force or violence":

"The statute to which defendant refers states that homicide is

justified if it occurs "in the suppression of a person attempting to

commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or

robbery, with force or violence." 13 V.S.A. § 2305(2). Citing historic

sources, defendant urges an interpretation that would justify any killing in the

suppression of a listed felony, as long as the felony was committed in the

defendant's presence. See 1 J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the

Criminal Law *16-17 (5th ed. 1847) ("Private individuals are enjoined by

law to arrest an offender when present at the time a felony is committed .

. . . [W]hen the felony is committed in the view of a private person . . .

any one [sic] may justify breaking open doors upon following the felon, and

if he kill him, provided he could not otherwise take him, the act is

justifiable. . . .").

We see no need to debate the finer points of this eighteenth-century

statute, for it is clear that it requires evidence that the victim acted

"with force or violence." 13 V.S.A. § 2305(2). There was no evidence of

force or violence on Pasho's part until he was attacked by defendant.

Defendant testified that he saw a person's silhouette, which he assumed to

be a man, in the bedroom doorway. The man then dropped to his knees and

began crawling toward the bed. The fight began only after defendant jumped

across the bed and, as he testified, "engaged th[e] intruder." The fight

then moved down the hallway and into the living-room area where Pasho broke

away and ran from the house. Pasho was killed after defendant got his gun,

followed Pasho out of the house, and shot him sitting in his car.

Defendant told a detective soon after the incident that he did not believe

the intruder had a weapon while in the house, and no weapon was found in

Pasho's car. Thus, we agree that the evidence did not support a § 2305(2)

justified-homicide charge.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Whether he knew the guy or not or whether he broke into his house is irrelevant -

the important part is whether the alleged intruder used "force or violence":

"The statute to which defendant refers states that homicide is

justified if it occurs "in the suppression of a person attempting to

commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or

robbery, with force or violence." 13 V.S.A. § 2305(2). Citing historic

sources, defendant urges an interpretation that would justify any killing in the

suppression of a listed felony, as long as the felony was committed in the

defendant's presence. See 1 J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the

Criminal Law *16-17 (5th ed. 1847) ("Private individuals are enjoined by

law to arrest an offender when present at the time a felony is committed .

. . . [W]hen the felony is committed in the view of a private person . . .

any one [sic] may justify breaking open doors upon following the felon, and

if he kill him, provided he could not otherwise take him, the act is

justifiable. . . .").

We see no need to debate the finer points of this eighteenth-century

statute, for it is clear that it requires evidence that the victim acted

"with force or violence." 13 V.S.A. § 2305(2). There was no evidence of

force or violence on Pasho's part until he was attacked by defendant.

Defendant testified that he saw a person's silhouette, which he assumed to

be a man, in the bedroom doorway. The man then dropped to his knees and

began crawling toward the bed. The fight began only after defendant jumped

across the bed and, as he testified, "engaged th[e] intruder." The fight

then moved down the hallway and into the living-room area where Pasho broke

away and ran from the house. Pasho was killed after defendant got his gun,

followed Pasho out of the house, and shot him sitting in his car.

Defendant told a detective soon after the incident that he did not believe

the intruder had a weapon while in the house, and no weapon was found in

Pasho's car. Thus, we agree that the evidence did not support a § 2305(2)

justified-homicide charge.

It actually means everything to the argument. He didn't break and enter. He partied and went to the house and they stayed up and talked. He says he went to bed and woke and saw what he did and then fault him and then went and got his gun and went outside and shot his friend. This is nothing but cold blooded killing and he is lucky to get a lesser charge and convicted. he should have gotten first degree murder and maybe an additional sentence for being stupid.

[mawilson 2,133]

It actually means everything to the argument. He didn't break and enter. He partied and went to the house and they stayed up and talked. He says he went to bed and woke and saw what he did and then fault him and then went and got his gun and went outside and shot his friend. This is nothing but cold blooded killing and he is lucky to get a lesser charge and convicted. he should have gotten first degree murder and maybe an additional sentence for being stupid.

That's not what was being argued. You may have your own ideas of right and wrong, but the law

has clear definitions of what a justified homicide is.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Moral: Guns and alcohol don't mix.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Instead of making Unemployment Benefits valid for 99 weeks, why don't we just make them valid for 999 weeks...THAT will surely motivate the unemployed to go out and be self-sufficient tax-payers.