Unusual intruder shooting case

[Sam2000]

Well then the defendants lawyer would reject you.

Doh! I've told you something I shouldn't have. How silly of me. Now your network of potential jurors for killing any home intruders all know how to rig cases across America.

Can you help me make a video about this conspiracy?

 

[antiqueshell]

Sam did you actually read what I posted?

As a potential juror, whomever questions me, defense lawyers or prosecuting attorney will get the answers they need to hear, so that the victim in this case, the homeowner, is found NOT guilty on all charges.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Sam did you actually read what I posted?


Yes I did.

You are now saying this:

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
As a potential juror, whomever questions me, defense lawyers or prosecuting attorney will get the answers they need to hear, so that the victim in this case, the homeowner, is found NOT guilty on all charges.


But before you said:

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Just remember that jury candidates (like myself) are very careful to answer questions in such a way that( even though I would automatically vote not guilty on all charges) the questioner would think I was the perfect juror to get a conviction.

Both prosecuting and defending attorneys get to hear jurors at the same time. If you say things that the prosecutor wants to hear in order to trick your way onto the jury, the defendants attorney will drop you.

So which way will you play it? Answer each attorney in a contradictory way so they both think you are crazy and unpredictable, or appear pro conviction so the defendants attorney drops you first?

And if you still made it onto the jury, I'm fully confident that you'll display the same lack of logic you have here and the judge will replace you with the reserve juror.

Btw, I'm just playing along with your juror fantasy here. You realize you're displaying some disturbing tendencies through that line of argument don't you?

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
it is refreshing to know that good, old fashioned, basic "common sense" still survives and thrives.

Thank you.

Coming from a guy that advocates death for trespassing, this is golden!

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Sam did you actually read what I posted?

As a potential juror, whomever questions me, defense lawyers or prosecuting attorney will get the answers they need to hear, so that the victim in this case, the homeowner, is found NOT guilty on all charges.



So you'd lie?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
With all the incoming ridicule concerning my posts I'm feeling increasingly confident that this homeowner will not be convicted.
Thanks!


Validation through hallucination. Quite an interesting leap to conclude that the condemnation of some loony posts on the Internet works to validate the claims made in those posts

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.

Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?


It's like a full onslaught of hornets on sting mode...LOL except they are lawyers.

Just remember that jury candidates (like myself) are very careful to answer questions in such a way that( even though I would automatically vote not guilty on all charges) the questioner would think I was the perfect juror to get a conviction.

Perhaps if we put on our tinfoil hats and then have an X-Files moment where we all just "have to believe"

On the other hand, I, gleaned from first hand experience, know that the majority of Americans don't think like you. So the odds of the jury being chalk-full of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutters [censored]-bent on taking down the NWO are not in your favour.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

As a potential juror, whomever questions me, defense lawyers or prosecuting attorney will get the answers they need to hear, so that the victim in this case, the homeowner, is found NOT guilty on all charges.


The problem with your scenario is that during voir dire, the attorneys on both sides will hear the questions and the answers.

So, when you give the answers the prosecutors want to hear, the defense will bounce you off. If you give the defense the answers they want to hear, the prosecutor will bounce you off.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.

Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?


It's like a full onslaught of hornets on sting mode...LOL except they are lawyers.

Just remember that jury candidates (like myself) are very careful to answer questions in such a way that( even though I would automatically vote not guilty on all charges) the questioner would think I was the perfect juror to get a conviction.

Perhaps if we put on our tinfoil hats and then have an X-Files moment where we all just "have to believe"

On the other hand, I, gleaned from first hand experience, know that the majority of Americans don't think like you. So the odds of the jury being chalk-full of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutters [censored]-bent on taking down the NWO are not in your favour.


What I outlined in red is why he would never get on a jury.

Any defense attorney, even one on their first jury trial would first challenge for cause. The lawyer would have to explain his reasoning, in this case it would be obvious.

And if the judge didn't buy it, then there is the peremptory challenge. Which does not require a reason.

 

[antiqueshell]

Wow, it's all coming hot and heavy now! Good to know that most of you adressing me are pretty certain that when the trial is over this homeowner, (the true victim) is going to walk away a free man, whether due to a hung jury or found not guilty.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now directly OVER the target.

LOL

@Whip. You put words in my mouth, I never said I would lie.

 

[LazyPrizm]

Well OBVIOUSLY the most simple explanation is that BITOG has been infiltrated with attorneys (for the NWO, OBVIOUSLY) with the OBVIOUS goal of silencing the one beacon of truth in this vast board of (OBVIOUS) lies. OBVIOUSLY.

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Wow, it's all coming hot and heavy now! Good to know that most of you adressing me are pretty certain that when the trial is over this homeowner, (the true victim) is going to walk away a free man, whether due to a hung jury or found not guilty.


Do us a favor and hold your breath for that not guilty verdict, will you?

LOL

 

[Astro14]

Yep...the whole fighter pilot persona I've adopted on this board is a cover story...to hide my real job as an attorney involved in cover-ups, airplane disappearances, and crime in support of the military industrial complex....

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Yep...the whole fighter pilot persona I've adopted on this board is a cover story...to hide my real job as an attorney involved in cover-ups, airplane disappearances, and crime in support of the military industrial complex....


I KNEW it!!!! (looks outside for the black helicopters).

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

As a potential juror, whomever questions me, defense lawyers or prosecuting attorney will get the answers they need to hear, so that the victim in this case, the homeowner, is found NOT guilty on all charges.

Quote:
@Whip. You put words in my mouth, I never said I would lie.

Knowing that your true opinion would get you removed by most lawyers, how would you "give them the answers they need to hear" without lieing?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I cannot imagine any case in which lethal force to prevent a theft would be justified.

First, let me thank you Astro for putting up some great posts on the use of force and the various grave consequences that come from it. Good stuff, and I fully understand your rational.

Perhaps my personal experience with the Rodney King riots in LA might be shaping my point of view. Those that defended their property with weapons when rule of law broke down, still had it. Those that didn't.... And when rule of law is gone, what is your recourse? Where is your next meal going to come from? Who is there on the line at 911 when the police abandon your city? Should you stand back and watch as looters remove your property and chances of survival?


Imagine if some foreign power parked unarmed ships on our shores with thousands of unarmed troops and started filling up those ships with our goods? Would the use of deadly force be warranted to eject them from our country? Or should the military stand down because those goods could be easily replaced?

"Unrealistic scenario"? Only because those invaders know force would be used to repel them.

Quote:
It's defense of my property after all. She chose to ignore the traffic laws, chose to endanger me...so, I am justified in shooting, her, right?


If you are legally in a cross walk with this car barreling at you at high speed, are you justified to shoot? Things can become murky, and Police shoot at moving cars all the time as they are considered deadly weapons.

 

[dave1251]

Tempest. I can empathize with your point of view. This being said my personal believe is that deadly force is a viable option if the situation is extreme enough that a potential victim or victims are in a situation of serious maiming or death. Using deadly force in the middle of a riot to protect oneself or in the situation you have referenced your property is not proportional to this particular incident.

IMO and this is only my opinion with me speculating with what information that has been reported at best this incident is a example of a weapon carrying citizen using deadly force and violating one of the most basic principal's in using deadly force without identifying your target. The worst possible example this incident is a calculating ambush murder over drugs.

The most disturbing factor in this situation to me is the cheer-leading from the vocal minority this is somehow a cause for celebration. No matter the circumstance a person lost their life. The circumstances of a person losing their life wither the person was engaging in immoral, illegal, or questionable activities should not be a cause for celebration ever. I highly doubt the cheerleader's excited about a person's death ever has even been in a physical confrontation. Thus never been responsible of their action's with justification or not has even knocked a person unconscious, let alone ended a person's life. I have and the feeling of remorse and guilt that I have experienced knocking someone out in a "innocent" sparing match will make you think twice about harming someone else if the situation can be avoided.

This being said if you believe your life or another person's life is in danger do not hesitate to use deadly force. But at the very least identify who you are shooting at.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
But at the very least identify who you are shooting at.

 

[SlipperyPete]

The misunderstanding of the laws in play by the most prolific posters in this thread would be staggering if it wasn't BITOG.

 

[antiqueshell]

It depends on which state you live. Some states like Texas permit the use of DEADLY FORCE to protect BOTH person AND PROPERTY.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
It depends on which state you live. Some states like Texas permit the use of DEADLY FORCE to protect BOTH person AND PROPERTY.


Gotta love Texas!!