Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (13561)	12/23/2007 6:59:48 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

if there were no drugs we wouldn't have had three kids trying to break into his house. This is true, but I don't know how relevant the drug issue actually is in the burglary case... yes, there may have been pot growing in that house, but that doesn't give the three permission to commit a burglary... the three could have known than a house contains expensive jewelry and try to break into that home... I doubt this is the first time they ever did such a thing, from the method they used to break in, it sounds like they knew what they were doing, i.e., making sure the outside lights didn't work, oiling the fence so it wouldn't squeak, and then phoning to see if anyone was home before entering the property... those three entered the property to commit a crime of burglary, they planned it in advance, they made preparations, and they knew exactly each step along the way what they were doing... I don't think the target of their burglary is relevant to their crime, we can't blame the victim of the crime... that's no different than saying it was okay that the girl was raped because she was wearing a very sexy outfit, can anyone really blame the rapist when she looked so hot and inviting? Of course, this is silly, but to justify the burglary even in the slightest because they were going after pot is the same as blaming the victim of the burglary... we can't do that just because we may disapprove of the victim's actions, the pot and the burglary are two completely separate issues and ought to be treated as two completely separate issues... we can't excuse the burglary because they were "only going after some pot." That's merely blaming the victim... There are two separate crimes here, the possession of pot with the possible intent to distribute, depending on the amount growing in his house... the city or the State is the victim of that crime... and then there's the burglary, the Avery family is the victim of that crime... I see nothing wrong in defending your home and family in this circumstance... if the kid got shot, he's just lucky he didn't die, I probably would have done the very same thing... the shooting should not be linked to the possession of pot, but to the fact that the kid committed a burglary... this is the risk the kid ran when he decided to burglarize a home... Now, here's another interesting case that is similar that happened some years ago... a guy was making a phone call in one of those phone booths on the street corner, he was actually speaking to his partner, they were both planning a burglary... meanwhile, a car accidentally jumps the curb, hits the phone booth at a high rate of speed, and kills the man in the phone booth... the driver was a total stranger, there was no connection between the driver and either of the two potential burglars... does the driver not get charged for manslaughter just because the dead man was planning a crime? I understand he was charged anyhow because it was completely irrelevant that the dead man was planning a crime while in the phone booth... Maybe an attorney could step in here and add his three cents... I realize it has always been two cents, but I think inflation is creeping into the picture... GZ