The perpetrators forfeited their rights to exist the moment they unlawfully broke into another citizens domicile, its that simple.
I'm So Mad
- Thread starter tbradsim1
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
And, we know this how? A newspaper report? What is the rush to form and then publicize one's opinion? I want the facts, all of them possible before I can begin to form an opinion.
And, in most jurisdictions in the US the right to life is not forfeited simply by unlawfully entering a domicile. It's not that simple. Damn! This is scary, as some of you have weapons but, little to no understanding of the law.
Usually fear of personal injury or death, written many ways across the Country. in some form or other is required before taking a life is countenanced under color of law.
And, in most jurisdictions in the US the right to life is not forfeited simply by unlawfully entering a domicile. It's not that simple. Damn! This is scary, as some of you have weapons but, little to no understanding of the law.
Usually fear of personal injury or death, written many ways across the Country. in some form or other is required before taking a life is countenanced under color of law.
I'm not sure Philo was saying it is the law's view that miscreants forfeit their right to live. I believe he may have been saying that that is his view. I believe that in capital cases, only one appeal should be allowed, and the guilty perpetrator hanged. I know for a fact "the law" does not share that particular view.
I think Texas still permits taking a life to protect property. I support that also. I really do hate thieves, viscerally in fact. People work hard for what they have and no one should have the right to take it away. Well, if there's a lien holder that's a different matter.
I do not keep up like I used to but, I do keep up with such in the jurisdiction where I reside.
I do not keep up like I used to but, I do keep up with such in the jurisdiction where I reside.
Yaddy - Please look into it. Training videos on it in Police and Corrections departments all across the country. Heck, it's probably on YouTube. It takes very little time to closed that distance.
Warren - You are absolutely correct! As I said above, there must be a risk of "Serious bodily harm or death" to yourself or another. However, I say it again, these "Teenagers" were armed. A knife is quite capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. One thing no lawyer, judge, or jury can do is argue your "Perception of Threat", which is another factor taken into consideration in these matters. If the young man says he feared for his life when these THREE, ARMED individuals entered his house, no one can tell him he didn't. Nobody. Only YOU know how YOU perceive a threat.
There are four factors that have to be in place for any force, including deadly force, to be justified. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion.
Ability - The offender must be physically capable of causing harm
Opportunity - This relates to the physical distance of the offender to the person.
Jeopardy - Physical harm to oneself or another must be reasonably likely if action is not taken.
Preclusion - Any other means by which you could have stopped the offender from harming you or another.
This is what an investigation will try to determine. If all of these elements are present, good shoot. If not...
For all of you, if you shoot a person who poses no threat of serious physical harm or death, you will lose your freedom. Even if you are cleared legally, you could be sued civilly by his family, and possibly lose everything. I like my stuff. I like my freedom. I am not shooting anybody who doesn't pose a threat to me or mine. If they do, then I will shoot center mass. (Shooting to wound can get you killed and in some places, its illegal)
Most of you know much more about pipes than me. Tobacco too. This is an area I know a lot about. I am regularly Chairman on Use Of Force hearings. I regularly conduct Use Of Force investigations. Do what you will. I just want all of you safe AND free. Do what you must, but be smart and keep it legal and reasonable.
Tim
Warren - You are absolutely correct! As I said above, there must be a risk of "Serious bodily harm or death" to yourself or another. However, I say it again, these "Teenagers" were armed. A knife is quite capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. One thing no lawyer, judge, or jury can do is argue your "Perception of Threat", which is another factor taken into consideration in these matters. If the young man says he feared for his life when these THREE, ARMED individuals entered his house, no one can tell him he didn't. Nobody. Only YOU know how YOU perceive a threat.
There are four factors that have to be in place for any force, including deadly force, to be justified. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion.
Ability - The offender must be physically capable of causing harm
Opportunity - This relates to the physical distance of the offender to the person.
Jeopardy - Physical harm to oneself or another must be reasonably likely if action is not taken.
Preclusion - Any other means by which you could have stopped the offender from harming you or another.
This is what an investigation will try to determine. If all of these elements are present, good shoot. If not...
For all of you, if you shoot a person who poses no threat of serious physical harm or death, you will lose your freedom. Even if you are cleared legally, you could be sued civilly by his family, and possibly lose everything. I like my stuff. I like my freedom. I am not shooting anybody who doesn't pose a threat to me or mine. If they do, then I will shoot center mass. (Shooting to wound can get you killed and in some places, its illegal)
Most of you know much more about pipes than me. Tobacco too. This is an area I know a lot about. I am regularly Chairman on Use Of Force hearings. I regularly conduct Use Of Force investigations. Do what you will. I just want all of you safe AND free. Do what you must, but be smart and keep it legal and reasonable.
Tim
As Warren pointed out, the laws governing these types of situations vary greatly from state to state.
As for ascertaining the actual facts of any given story, it's true that we can't assume the initial news reports are accurate. But in many, if not most cases, the actual, real facts are never known to most of us, because even during law enforcement investigations and court cases there can be, and often is IMO, much manipulation of the facts.
Generally speaking, IMO, the very first news reports on any given incident tend to be more accurate than later, edited versions.
The best way to comment IMO is: "If the story is accurate, then my opinion is..."
As for ascertaining the actual facts of any given story, it's true that we can't assume the initial news reports are accurate. But in many, if not most cases, the actual, real facts are never known to most of us, because even during law enforcement investigations and court cases there can be, and often is IMO, much manipulation of the facts.
Generally speaking, IMO, the very first news reports on any given incident tend to be more accurate than later, edited versions.
The best way to comment IMO is: "If the story is accurate, then my opinion is..."
In some matters more facts are needed to make a judgment. This does not appear to be the case here. As far as I know, no facts are in dispute. So why fuss about what went down fact-wise? I don't get it.
I would add this: If the story is accurate, I'd be interested to know what the relationship of the "21 year old woman in the car" was to the teenage perps. Based on the OP, it sounds to me like she deserves a big share of responsibility for the whole thing.
Thank you tschiraldi for getting to the plain facts of the case, it does not matter about the newspaper or media, the assumption here are the details as we understand them. As far as a knife is concerned, if you are any good with them, you can throw it at a distance, you do not need to be within arms reach. And just because you see a knife does not mean the person isn't also carrying a gun or something else. I am flabbergasted that this would even be a matter of debate! You break into my house, I assume my life is at risk; you are not there to borrow a cup of sugar and I will use whatever force I deem necessary at the moment to protect my family, period, and I'll worry about any laws or suits later on. I just hope I will be alive then to deal with it all.
Americans have "guns on hand" for one simple reason. No, they are not "gun nuts" or "gun crazy," that is just an idea promulgated by the anti-gun lobby here and in socialist counties; they are empowered by the law of our land as citizens to have the right to resist tyranny as a free standing militia, and 99.9999% of the crimes you hear about are NOT committed by responsible, legal gun owners. Do you know that during WWII that the emperor of Japan was going to invade the USA and his generals talked him out of it telling him that there would be a gun behind every tree and rock?
You see, the reason why your countries don't want you to have guns is because an armed populace is not so easily controlled and the first thing a tyranny does when it tries to take over a country is to disarm the population.
Having been brought up to fear guns as something evil and dangerous, I do not expect you to understand the matter at all. I suggest that before you tell us we are all crazy nuts, go look up the local chapter of the NRA in your area and go to one of their meetings and talk to some of the people there.
And mortonbriar, let me explain a few things as well. What do robbers in your countries rob your house with, a golf club? A bat? Maybe a claw hammer? I am guessing they rob your house with a gun, an illegal one, but let me assure you that I can kill you just as easily with a golf club, bat or hammer, but I will gladly take the gun.
Americans have "guns on hand" for one simple reason. No, they are not "gun nuts" or "gun crazy," that is just an idea promulgated by the anti-gun lobby here and in socialist counties; they are empowered by the law of our land as citizens to have the right to resist tyranny as a free standing militia, and 99.9999% of the crimes you hear about are NOT committed by responsible, legal gun owners. Do you know that during WWII that the emperor of Japan was going to invade the USA and his generals talked him out of it telling him that there would be a gun behind every tree and rock?
You see, the reason why your countries don't want you to have guns is because an armed populace is not so easily controlled and the first thing a tyranny does when it tries to take over a country is to disarm the population.
Having been brought up to fear guns as something evil and dangerous, I do not expect you to understand the matter at all. I suggest that before you tell us we are all crazy nuts, go look up the local chapter of the NRA in your area and go to one of their meetings and talk to some of the people there.
I taught, not necessarily up to date any longer, many courses over my years as a copper. I was responsible for Officer Survival Training and handled officer involved shooting investigations. Explored officer involved shootings from around the country to find the mistakes and develop training to eradicate or minimize such officer mistakes. So, we have much the same background.
It's not a matter of trusting the media. It's a matter of understanding what their goal is. It is to please their editor and get a by-line. Editors cater to their boss. If he is biased, write a biased story. It she is a pedant to grammar, the reporter is going to pay more attention to grammar than the story. Reporters want the by-line, editors what their expectations met and owners/publishers want profit or, and this is important, they own the paper/TV Station, etc simply to push their agenda.
Motive is important when determining veracity and slant. When you listen to the news or read a newspaper know the owner/publisher of the company and you'll be half way to determining why and how they report what they report. Who do they socialize with? Their friends and business partners? Politics? Education? It all paints a picture.
We, America, has a guaranteed free press. There is no Constitutional requirement for objectivity in reporting however.
It's not a matter of trusting the media. It's a matter of understanding what their goal is. It is to please their editor and get a by-line. Editors cater to their boss. If he is biased, write a biased story. It she is a pedant to grammar, the reporter is going to pay more attention to grammar than the story. Reporters want the by-line, editors what their expectations met and owners/publishers want profit or, and this is important, they own the paper/TV Station, etc simply to push their agenda.
Motive is important when determining veracity and slant. When you listen to the news or read a newspaper know the owner/publisher of the company and you'll be half way to determining why and how they report what they report. Who do they socialize with? Their friends and business partners? Politics? Education? It all paints a picture.
We, America, has a guaranteed free press. There is no Constitutional requirement for objectivity in reporting however.
"If the story is accurate, I'd be interested to know what the relationship of the "21 year old woman in the car" was to the teenage perps. Based on the OP, it sounds to me like she deserves a big share of responsibility for the whole thing."
She is going down on the Felony Murder Rule. I am sure her attorney will be less than happy with her confession.
As I stated, the facts are not in dispute.
"The woman at the center of a triple shooting in Wagoner County spoke to News On 6 from jail.
Liz Rodriguez faces three murder charges after three of her friends were shot and killed when they broke into a home on Monday.
“I’m guilty of the robbery but I’m not guilty of the murders,” she said.
Rodriguez said the most important thing she wants people to know is she didn't willingly leave her friends behind.
She said she feels sorry for their family, and sorry for her family - but when it comes to Zach Peters, the man who was home when they broke in, he's at the bottom of her list for compassion.
3/27/2017 Related Story: Three Teen Burglars Killed By Broken Arrow Homeowner's Son, Deputies Say
"I'm sorry we broke into his house. I'm sorry we scared him or whatever, but I'm not going to be sorry he shot somebody. He could've shot them boys in the leg. I understand he was scared, had every right, he has his rights, has his rights, I'm understanding of him. I affected his life, I'm sorry, but am I compassionate for him? He's on the bottom of my list to be compassionate for," Rodriguez said.
She said she'd done other break-ins in Tulsa County and near Owasso, but no one had ever been home.
She said they'd already broken into the Peters' garage and loaded items into the trunk, then the boys went to kick in the door of the main house - she heard the kicks, then gunshots and waited.
Rodriguez said, "Jake came out and slid across my car. I put it in park, got out and before he fell down. He said, ‘I got hit.’ I said, ‘Where, bro,’ and I pulled up his shirt and saw the gunshot in his chest and all the blood. I was holding on to him, ‘C'mon bro, get in the car, get in the car, get out of here,’ but he just grabbed my hand and said go, told me to leave."
She said she'd met Max Cook a month earlier online, was best friends with Jake Redfearn and Jaykob Woodruff was Max's friend, but considers them to be family.
She doesn't believe it's right she's charged with their murders.
"I understand the concept of why they're charging me, but, do I think it's right, no. Do I think what happened to them is right, no. All I can do is wait it out and hope for the best. I'm not guilty of that, not guilty of killing them, not guilty of murdering them," she said.
Rodriguez said she knows she's going to prison, just doesn't know for how long. She hopes the judge will give her bail so she can go home and say goodbye to her kids before she goes away.
Some of the information in this news story may have been provided by law enforcement with the request News On 6 inform the public of, and/or assist in locating a person in connection with, a police investigation. News On 6 can make no independent verification of the accuracy of the information, photographs and/or video provided to it by police or other law enforcement agencies."
http://www.newson6.com/story/35035268/broken-arrow-triple-murder-suspect-interviewed-by-lori-fullbright
She is going down on the Felony Murder Rule. I am sure her attorney will be less than happy with her confession.
As I stated, the facts are not in dispute.
"The woman at the center of a triple shooting in Wagoner County spoke to News On 6 from jail.
Liz Rodriguez faces three murder charges after three of her friends were shot and killed when they broke into a home on Monday.
“I’m guilty of the robbery but I’m not guilty of the murders,” she said.
Rodriguez said the most important thing she wants people to know is she didn't willingly leave her friends behind.
She said she feels sorry for their family, and sorry for her family - but when it comes to Zach Peters, the man who was home when they broke in, he's at the bottom of her list for compassion.
3/27/2017 Related Story: Three Teen Burglars Killed By Broken Arrow Homeowner's Son, Deputies Say
"I'm sorry we broke into his house. I'm sorry we scared him or whatever, but I'm not going to be sorry he shot somebody. He could've shot them boys in the leg. I understand he was scared, had every right, he has his rights, has his rights, I'm understanding of him. I affected his life, I'm sorry, but am I compassionate for him? He's on the bottom of my list to be compassionate for," Rodriguez said.
She said she'd done other break-ins in Tulsa County and near Owasso, but no one had ever been home.
She said they'd already broken into the Peters' garage and loaded items into the trunk, then the boys went to kick in the door of the main house - she heard the kicks, then gunshots and waited.
Rodriguez said, "Jake came out and slid across my car. I put it in park, got out and before he fell down. He said, ‘I got hit.’ I said, ‘Where, bro,’ and I pulled up his shirt and saw the gunshot in his chest and all the blood. I was holding on to him, ‘C'mon bro, get in the car, get in the car, get out of here,’ but he just grabbed my hand and said go, told me to leave."
She said she'd met Max Cook a month earlier online, was best friends with Jake Redfearn and Jaykob Woodruff was Max's friend, but considers them to be family.
She doesn't believe it's right she's charged with their murders.
"I understand the concept of why they're charging me, but, do I think it's right, no. Do I think what happened to them is right, no. All I can do is wait it out and hope for the best. I'm not guilty of that, not guilty of killing them, not guilty of murdering them," she said.
Rodriguez said she knows she's going to prison, just doesn't know for how long. She hopes the judge will give her bail so she can go home and say goodbye to her kids before she goes away.
Some of the information in this news story may have been provided by law enforcement with the request News On 6 inform the public of, and/or assist in locating a person in connection with, a police investigation. News On 6 can make no independent verification of the accuracy of the information, photographs and/or video provided to it by police or other law enforcement agencies."
http://www.newson6.com/story/35035268/broken-arrow-triple-murder-suspect-interviewed-by-lori-fullbright
The big question is: Is her admission against interests admissible? Time will tell.
Based on the above post a reasonable person should be able to make a reasonable preliminary conclusion as to the legality of the shooting. If they are indeed admissible statements her attorney certainly has some hard work ahead.
I love the New On 6 disclaimer. It's an oddity when a medium states that there may not be any facts, or few, in a story. That's refreshing.
Based on the above post a reasonable person should be able to make a reasonable preliminary conclusion as to the legality of the shooting. If they are indeed admissible statements her attorney certainly has some hard work ahead.
I love the New On 6 disclaimer. It's an oddity when a medium states that there may not be any facts, or few, in a story. That's refreshing.
- Status