Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!”
It is arrogance like this that has prompted thousands of taxpayers across the country to take to the streets:
A Chicago taxpayer went to his 22nd Ward alderman, Ricardo Munoz, to protest the Democrat’s support for tax-increment financing. (I reported years ago on how these “public-private partnership” scams siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.) The constituent wants to present Alderman Munoz with a petition.
Munoz physically shoves the voter and yells: “Get the f**k out of my office!” (Hat tip – Jim Hoft). Move over, Charlie “Mind Your Goddamned Business” Rangel. You’ve got company:
***
Send Ricardo Munoz a teabag!
• Ward Office: 2500 S. St Louis
Chicago, IL 60623
• Ward Phone: 773-762-1771
• E-Mail: rmunoz@cityofchicago.org
(if that doesn’t work, reader Mark says this one is operable…for now: Ward22@cityofchicago.org)
• City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300 Chicago, IL 60602
• City Hall Phone: 312-744-9491
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Of Course: MF Global COO Still Listed as EPA Financial Adviser
December 28, 2011 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Corruption
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
I don’t know, but I do know that someone pointing an assault rifle at one’s children is objectively very distressing for the parent, regardless of whether they are trespassing or not. But why did you leave out that tasty little fact in your original description?
And??? You have some point here???
Then don’t take them for a walk in a foreign country on someone else’s property.
What happened to property rights? First came property taxes, which meant you are really only renting your property, then zoning and environmental laws, now you have no recourse when a flood of foreign nationals vandalize your property?
So say your son, while playing baeseball, hits the ball into the neighbor’s yard, and he goes over to fetch it. You would be totally cool with that neighbor sticking a shotgun in your son’s face?
Property rights do not give one carte blanche to threaten to kill one’s children for a simple trespass.
chap: I guess the new m.o. for those breaking and entering will be “Bring your kid to work” so anyone who has the temerity to defend their property can be brought up on charges!
FYI, this is a link to the WashTimes report on the whole kerfuflle: Note it was a pistol, not an assault rifle or an AR-15 as you assumed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
So say your son, while playing baeseball, hits the ball into the
I don’t know, has the “son” in this example been stealing from that back yard and destroying the landscaping?
Actualy in this case it should.
nail, I have seen multiple accounts of him brandishing an AR-15, but whatever. Does it make that much of a difference?
I am sorry, but that is crazy.
You don’t see any difference between a ball going over a neighbor’s fence and a large group of illegals traipsing across a ranch in the middle of nowhere Texas?
A reasonable person would expect that a ball could go over a fence given the close proximity of most houses and the distance a basebal travels, would a reasonable person expect a foreign national with his family to be in the middle of a ranch in Texas?
Likewise, would you say that if a kid hit a baseball through a window, that the kid has the responsibility to pay for the repair of said window? If so, then the rancher should countersue the illegals for the cost of repairing the vandalism that’s taken place.
chap: The illegals trespassing on his property had looted, killed cattle, trashed the landscape (THAT alone is cause enough for justifiable homicide according to certain libs!), broken into and entered buildings on his land and otherwise made a general mess.
Now, the rancher had no way of knowing these were the same ones who had previously acted illegally and in such a dangerous fashion, but he also had no way of knowing they weren’t.
Plus, nobody’s basketball had accidentally rolled from Mexico into his back yard.
Sheriff Buford T. Justice would call that an attention getter.
I agree, the rancher should countersue for the cost of repairing the vandalism.
The problem with this case is that he jumped the gun (forgive the pun). He pulled a gun on a group of people trespassing, but there’s no evidence they were responsible for any of the vandalism, or were doing anything other than crossing on his land.
I do have a lot of sympathy for the guy–it sounds like he’s had an ongoing problem with people on his land, and I can’t imagine that he’s had much success relying on law enforcement to help him out.
But, that doesn’t mean it was right for him to pull a gun on trespassers who, as of yet, had done nothing more than trespass. The fact he’s had people vandalize his property in the past doesn’t mean that group was about to do the same.
I would say that a person who owns property on the border has every reason to expect illegal immigrants traipsing through his property. Doesn’t mean it is right or legal or that he has to like it or tolerate it, but it also does not justify a disproportionate reaction, like pointing a gun at a child.
Sure. Go for it. If he can identify directly which illegals caused the vandalism. Still doesn’t justify pointing a gun at a child.
Theres a rule in Texas that if you trespass on someones land EXPECT to be shot.
There was a time when in my younger days (when I still thought I was a kid, but wasnt) I crossed someones land to get to a river. I was confronted about halfway across by some people who obviously had a meth lab. I was so deep in the country that no one would have ever found me had they decided to kill me. The only thing that probably saved me was that I hadnt spotted the lab yet, so I got the hell out of there after my ‘warning’.
My parents wouldnt have been distressed about the weapon, but about my stupidity for crossing a fenceline.
Oh… and lets put a different perspective on that too.
“
My parentsI wouldnt have been distressed about the weapon, but aboutmymy childs stupidity for crossing a fenceline.”chap: Is he supposed to wave a pen (mightier than the sword, after all) in the faces of those who have demonstrated a propensity to do illegal and harmful things to his property and livestock?
You can try something that stupid the next time some thug breaks into your house. As for me, I’ll have my friends Colt, Smith & Wesson with me ’cause the police will take way too long to arrive!
It would be in suburban america. It is not on a major human/drug smuggling route. You have heard about the drug war in mexico right? It is only a matter of time till it comes here.
Hey, Wisconsin, Indiana, would you like to take Chicago off of our hands? About the only good things/people that come to mind from Chicago are Mr. T, nuclear reactions, and a large aquarium.
If anything, he needs to carry heavier weapons than a pistol and have backup.
BTW the dow is only down 80 today. So not a bad day in the new obama economy.
Don’t most colleges ban this as hazing?
Oops, my bad, I thought you said give.
vargas & chap: No, he doesn’t know for a certainty that these are innocent people who are merely lost. He also doesn’t know for a cetainty that they aren’t planning mischief.
The rancher took a wise and cautious approach; he called for the authorities and made certain nobody “went stupid” or tried to leave.
He was outnumbered, his weapon leveled the field.
By threatening the lives of innocent children.
Mrs nail49 is a real sharpshooter!
I guess his teleprompter is broken so he couldn’t speechify!
Who the coyetes regularly use as drug mules and prostitutes.
Well, the fact that they are exploited CERTAINLY justifies shooting and/or threatening to shoot them.
chap: The illegals are the ones threatning the lives of their own children by dragging them across a vast open expanse where temperatures can kill in a matter of hours.
The lady recently stopped for breastfeeding her kid while driving AND talking on her cellphone was threatening the life of her child as well.
This rancher held them at gunpoint. Like I said earlier, he was outnumbered and needed something to level the field.
Agreed, but I did not think we were in the business of excusing bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.
I note you care more about the rights of the coyoetes to victimise young children and destroy this guys property than the guys right to defend himself and his property. Chap, he was completely justified in my eyes. And if the “law” doesn’t see that then the law is wrong and needs to be changed. What this law suit proved to me was that the people on the border have lost thier rights and those rights have been given to illegal immigrants.
He would have been better off shooting them and burying the bodies.
Defending your property is not bad behavior. No matter what the childs age is.
Yeah….not sure how you devined that from what I said.
Look the guy has a right to protect his property. This is not an absolute right that gives him free rein to do whatever he wants. I think it is absolutely foul you think he should have just shot them all.
O/T
I started spiking my Mountain Dew with Red Bull a few weeks ago…. If I start mainlining it, I think I may need to find a quality rehab facility
He would have been better off. He would not have had a lawsuit would he?
Its YOUR laws that are putting him into this situation. I would prefer he just continue what he did, but if he wants to avoid further lawsuits he can go bankrupt paying for broken property and lost lifestock, shot them and bury them, or he can just leave his farm.
No. He would have been a child murderer.
chap: sonofdy was merely making the point that this guy has had to put with a LOT of trouble, including a lawsuit, for defending his property.
If he had tried to do so without a weapon, he would probably have been the one buried on his own property.
In bosnia, a guy drank 12 red bulls in less than 5 minutes. European ones. The guy almost had a stroke.
I believe that’s what you meant to say.
So what’s this guy to do? Just tolerate his livestock being killed and his place being vandalized? If he’s detained 12,000 since 1998, do you really believe he threatened them or is this MALDEF’s attempt to get him to look the other way.
Let’s follow this logic a little further. Let’s say these illegals are crossing his land and spook the cattle. One or more illegals gets trampled. Who’s fault is that? There is a reason we are supposed to have property rights.
And would have kept his farm. That is the choice you would force on him.
And thats why Texas needs to run this country – it would bring clarity in ones actions. Tejas should have annexed the states instead of subjugating to the North.
My bad again. Old school Democrat Texas, not this liberal pansy-waste RINO/lib stuff they have today.
My parents taught me that if the ball goes over the fence, I don’t have a “right” to go and get it. I go to the front door, knock, and ask politely if I can retrieve my ball from their backyard. If they aren’t home or say no, I respect their property rights and the ball is “lost”. I don’t blame others. I take responsibility for my actions.
If I jump the fence, I am responsible for all that happens to me including any emotional distress I may suffer due to my actions. If the dog bites, if the gun shoots, if the boogeyman nabs me, if the rancher isn’t jolly. All on me because I was taught better and that teaching didn’t come from my village. It came from my parents.
Your parents taught you that if someone shoots you because you cut into their yard to retrieve a ball, that’s just hunky dory?
They taught me I don’t go into the other persons yard.
Currently sitting at 1 large cup of coffee enhanced with a flavored tea bag for effect and 6 Mt Dews spiked with 4 Red Bulls. A 12pk per day is normal and has been for years. (who do you think is single-handly keeping PepsiCo’s stock afloat?)
Thats about my limit before my head starts to explode…..
But I get a lot of stuff done though LOL
AGAIN to make this comparison correct, the kid would have had to have repeatably, over years, gone into that yard and stolen and destroyed said property owners stuff.
Apples and oranges.
WOW, step back from you. I think your heart is going to explode…
yeah…but you know kids and the silly things they do…surely you didn’t obey your parents 100% of the time? I guess if your child, who was maybe a bit cranky that day and decided to be a bit willful, disobeyed your best-intentioned instructions and wandered into a neighbor’s yard, you would feel that neighbor acted within his rights to shoot him up? You’d invite that neighbor over for your next BBQ?
Yes. But Im guessing your neighbors didnt have carte blanche to whoop you if you acted up in the nieghborhood either. Ours did. And we werent even in the ghetto. Over there, they got beat down.
chapoutier: Would you allow a constant stream of pedophiles to walk through your 6 year old daughters room just because they have other kids with them?
I remember a child who had an AK47 pointed at him. His name was Elian… Let’s see, which President and Attorney General was it that did that? Hmmm, let me think…
If I were to take my children illegally into another country I would fully expect to find myself and my children faced down by a gun in someone’s hand.
The real victim here is the landowner who has NO RIGHTS left and has been pushed to the point of having to defend his land with a gun and do the border guards’ job for them.
That these illegals have any standing to SUE HIM is SICKENING.
Isn’t this WAY off topic BTW?
AK47 = HK
quibling I know.
Current heartrate: 52 (seriously it is)
On second thoughts, drink more.
When someone in authority tells me not to do something, they probably have a good reason for saying it. If I disobey, I may found out why they had that rule. They probably did not put up that fence for looks.
It’s called personal responsibility. Even liberals can have it. They may not like it but they can have it.
chappy – The kids weren’t ALONE chasing a ball in their neighbor’s yard.
GAH! Another broken moral equivalency gauge! You and Mookie should have a contest for who can offer the most absurd moral equivalency argument e-ver.
No. To make this analogy correct, it would have had to be many other kids who had been running into the yard, and the guy decides to take out his years of frustration on the last kid.
chap: You are ignoring (or forgiving) the fact these illegals and the neighbor kid have been doing for years — that is vandalizing property, breaking and entering, killing livestock, etc.
The first time it happens, you hand the ball back and say, please be careful. After the 12,000th time, someone needs to get “scared straight!” Whether that calls for loosing the hounds, a couple of shotgun loads of rock salt, or a trip downtown in the back of the police cruiser — whatever it takes!
The parents of such a kid would have long ago had a visit from me and the authorities and your “little angel” would have been told in no uncertain terms they had better stop — the lost baseballs are one thing, the vandalism, breaking and entering, killing livestock, are another and are NOT inconsequential.
In the rancher’s case, he has stopped numerous (12,000!) illegals over the years and they continue — time for some rack salt!
So, no I wouldn’t invite the neighbors over for BBQ and I won’t blame the rancher for allegedly pointing an alleged loaded weapon at those who have show a propensity for violating my property rights. Even if they are allegedly carrying a baby in their arms!
Getting back on the subject of Aldercreature Munoz, were you aware that he is a “former” member of the Latin Kings street gang that had a juvenile arrest for UUW (CPD code for illegally carrying a gun)? I put quotation marks around former because I doubt it.
Hope is not a plan; not all change is good. The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST!!!!!!!!!
ECS
Anyone check the date? October. I can’t see the year, but I’m guessing it’s 2008.
Elections were in November. Wait…he was “appointed” to his post…in 1993.
He’s obviously been pulling the wool over the eyes of the 22nd district for more than 15 years now.
From a UI-Chicago report on the stellar record of Chicago Aldermen found here (page 6):
In the past 35 years, a total of 30 Chicago aldermen have been indicted and convicted of federal crimes such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, conspiracy, mail fraud and income tax evasion. Three additional aldermen were indicted for similar offenses but two died before federal prosecutors could bring them to trial and one, Anthony Laurino (39th ) was too sick to stand trial. Several other aldermen, who were not indicted but were targets of news media investigations, resigned their positions after the public learned of their questionable behavior.
Of the 30 convicted aldermen, three were Republicans and 26 were Democrats.
Was Obama ever an Alderman, or did he jump right from community organizer to State Senator?
No, but I wouldn’t point my gun at the kids. Why would you?
TO. STOP. THEM.
My god you are dense. Sorry, but if you can get this simple concept….
ECS: provide citation. That’s pretty serious. One look at his profile pic and you understand why he would glom onto a gang. He’d get his neck snapped in a minute.
I’m wondering if he’s even a citizen, having been born in Monterey, Mexico. He certainly has picked up on the jerga americana since he moved here. His diction on the “frisbee” he threw at his constituent was flawless.
The military used to make me exercise for 10 minutes before they would administer an ECG. My standing heartrate was 40-42.
I could never be a pot smoker, heroin user or addicted to painkillers, god forbid mixing alcohol with something… my body would probably go into hibernation.
According to Chap, no citizen can defend himself from criminals or attempt to stop a crime in progress as long as the criminal brings a child with him.
As long as we have that straight.
So punish the kids for the sins of the adult?
I thought one of the main tenets of responsible gun ownership is to never point a gun unless you are prepared and willing to shoot. So what you are saying is that an innocent child should be murdered simply because his parents are trespassing. Or even because many have trespassed before.
Either way, that is absolutely nuts. I am sorry. That is absolute insanity.
I never said that at all, and you know it. I am taking issue with threatening the child.
Well said, T-Bone.
I like this tought experiment. Let me continue by paraphrasing.
It is “unjust” for this man to have secured the trespassers with a weapon while awaiting the authorities (Chap’s argument)
OK, so it is only justified to enforce the boundaries of your property if the person entering is armed, by this logic. What is armed? Am I armed, because I know how to use joint locks, holds, strikes, and throws to hurt and kill you? How would you know, upon seeing me on the street, that I have these skills? What if I was carrying a concealed weapon?
Or, does it extend further than this. It what is really being stated here is that the trespassers had no harmful intentions (we cannot prove that, by the way), and that they should have been allowed to continue across this person’s land as if it were public property? What is the trigger point at which we determine what harm is? Is it the killing of cattle, unless the cattle are used to feed a starving mass? Is it the dropping of litter and the destrution of property, unless such littering lightens these wanderer’s burden, or the destruction allows those persons to continue forward on their mission?
This drives to the conclusion that all property is essentially public, and that you are not secure in your rights to your home or land. If you cannot enforce trespass, this is the only logical end. No real property. No personal property. That means everything that you own does not actually belong to you, and can be taken or used as someone else sees fit, so long as they benefit from it’s use.
And now we have entered the slippery slope.
If we hold true that:
1) It is never just to secure yourself or your property against those who seek to use it for “good intentions”, and
2) The extension of this right of others to use your property thereby prohibits your right of ownership of anything…
The only logical conclusion is that:
You have no right of ownership of yourself, and that anyone may demand of you anything they desire, which you have an obligation to fulfill that need, so long as the intention is good.
Is this really where you intend to go, Chap? This is where America was before the Revolution. The British could make demands upon it’s subjects at the King’s whim, and always citing the great good for the Empire.
I’m not sure the Founding Father’s intended the return of this state of affairs, and I am certain that I will not stand for such a state. A subject is always a slave, regardless of the beneficence of his master.
On, and BTW, what does this have to do with an Alderman (violently) ejecting a petition-carrying constituent from his office, especially when that constituient is redressing grievances that he has against his elected official?
Always the lawyer, divert, come up with a straw man and soundly defeat that straw man…. it gets old Chap.
No it is not my argument. I assume I can stop reading the rest of your post since your basic premise is entirely false.
Strawman? Please. that is EXACTLY what sonofdy, among others, is arguing.
He has turned in 12,000+ illegals over the years. The coyotes who guided the trespassers across his property were likely caught more than once — they are culpable for promising safe passage where they knew they could get caught.
Granted, some innocents were caught up, but they are only innocent because they trusted someone to help them break the law and instead were themselves caught.
To use your “last kid” analogy, this “last kid” was led onto the property knowing he was doing something illegal and where others were brought to justice.
Barretta’s song still applies to first-time offenders as well as to seasoned crooks: “If you can’t do the time…”
Chap – What I quoted back to you is a STRAW MAN argument. You make one HUGE, astronomical ASSUMPTION that the man would have killed the children (which is ABSURD)!
He’s made these arrests before and never killed anyone. And yet you won’t allow the man to make an assumption that the illegals were going to harm his property even though many many illegals before them had done just that.
Pointing is the same as shooting… gah… unreal…
So it is okay to threaten to kill children, but clearly absurd to actually do so? Is the parent supposed to know whether or not the guy is just kidding around sticking a gun at their child? This is actually the heart of the intentional infliction claim.
I give up.
sighhhh.
Joy,
Do you own a gun? Do you think that one should ever point a gun if one is not serious about pulling the trigger?
Really, Chap, what’s all the diversion for? You can’t address the main point of the article, so you use the liberal tactic to change topics to avoid discussion?
John2; there you go trying to use logic on a liberal again! Don’t you know they have no understanding of “logic” or “rational”?
I didn’t bring this guy up. Cheapseat did, within the context of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Try again.
And in any case, this is a far more interesting and fruitful discussion than some silly scuffle between a Chicago pol and a guy with a cmarea.
Under the chap theory of property defense here, you choices are shoot them and bury them/toos the bodies over the border, or lose the ranch.
shakes head…
toos = toss…
Now THAT is a strawman. Thanks for showing us how it is really done.
Well, I can’t seem to find the story on this AR-15 in the kids face thing. But I’d be doubtful about the account if the illegal border-crossers are the source of the claim.
But back to the topic of the this article.
Why is this idiot Munoz not being unceremoniously drummed out of his council seat?
So your whole premise is that you should never point a gun at a child? That’s it?
chap, that is what you have left the guy with. Ingore the property destruction, or shoot all witnesses to avoid law suits.
Don’t blame me for your rules.
As Chap the Learned Lawyer knows but is too much a lefto-weasel to admit, assault and battery are both torts and crimes. Crimes impute damages to the offense.
Being put in fear for your life or physical safety is enough to sustain a CRIMINAL assault charge.
(as in a mugger holding an empty pistol next to your head. Wanna say there are no damages in such a case, Chap? Wanna say the vic has to prove them to win a case either in tort or a criminal proceeding?)
I hope the guy files charges AND sues Munoz, who likely would be forced to pay nominal damages in tort, AND take a huge political “hit”—which would be the point—even if he beat a criminal rap.
Because he is a dem and above the law. Why else?
Yeah, Chap: a powerful politician and a citizen have a “silly scuffle”, apparently consisting of the pol committing A & B on the latter.
No abuse of power.
Nothing to see here, move along folks.
Thanks for sharing your Stalinoid views, chap.
How old are these “innocent” children? I see 10 year olds in LA that own guns and would pop a cap in you because of the colors you are wearing. Any many of them are from Mexico. There are plenty of minors around the world who have killed people.
Guns are legal. Land ownership is legal. Protecting ones property is legal. Entering a foreign country without permission is not legal. If my parents bring me along on the bank robbery and the police shoot up the car, the police are not responsible. The parents who brought minors into the situation are. Pretty simple concepts.
Don’t confuse chap with reality.
There is a classic case of IIED, unlike here. So bad example on your part.
And in any case, that comment was originally in response to someone who said he should sue “for a fortune.” At most he gets nominal damages, as you pointed out.
Committing intentional infliction of emotional distress by threatening to shoot someone’s child for trespassing is not legal, just so we are clear.
Cynthia McKinney part deux.
So this is all about someones FEELINGS??? Chap I want 1,000,000 dollars off of you because you hurt my feelings.
Well, IIED is what we were discussing, so yes, sort of. But again, lets see if your feeeeeelings would be hurt if someone pointed a gun at your kid. I suspect they would be, whether you were trespassing at the time or not.
chap: Neither is inflicting emotional distress by illegally entering one’s property with the very real possibility the perp is armed.
Granted, the kids are not the guilty parties, but the rancher wasn’t the one who brought them there in the first place. Further, was it ever established the rancher threatened to shoot any children?
The gun kept the field level (he was outnumbered, just him and his pal Mr. Colt) and he wanted to make certain everyone knew he meant business. It may be that some kids happened to look down the barrel of that gun and they will hopefully recall that should they ever consider taking another stroll across someone else’s proterty univited!
Its pathetic. Suing because your feelings were hurt WHILE you are breaking the law. I guess they were stupid enough to think that everyone would just roll over and take it.
Ans since when did kids STOP carrying arms during the commision of a crime???
Wow. This thread has gone quite a ways off since I last commented.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it seems clear that this alderman acted in an embarrassing manner. There may not be a civil case, but I believe there’s still a simple battery case here. Why didn’t he call the police and let them handle it? At the very least, his PR should suffer a bit. He wouldn’t be the first bully Chicago alderman.
Ilovemycountry has expressed his drivel that this is how Republicans should be treated, but there’s nothing to indicate that this was a Republican. If this man is from Chicago’s 22nd (border at Kedzie and Cermak), that is a very Democratic ward. Odds are he isn’t a Republican.
Still, it would be a shame [sarc] if Ilovemycountry were handled in the same fashion here on this board. It’s clear he has no intention whatsoever of having a conversation and is deliberately trolling.
Chap said
Ah but did he commit it, was it intentional, was it inflicted, how emotional was it, what distress was caused, was a threat made, was the gun loaded for shooting,whose child was it, were they trespassing? I wouldn’t make those broad assumptions. Those things may need to be litigated and proven behond a reasonable doubt before we crucify the innocent rancher. Not so fast Sherlock. I want to see the whole video….
On March 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:
I remember in Louisiana Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese exchange student, was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, mortally wounded Hattori with gunfire, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. Peairs was acquited of any wrongdoing.
The problem with the way you’re interpreting these laws, Chap, is that it puts undue burden upon the property owner to determine if the trespasser is dangerous or not.
By trespassing, the intruder has already broken the law; by refusing to leave, the intruder again breaks the law. Even if the intruder can’t speak english, is drunk, can’t understand what the property owner is saying, or is too young to comprehend anything, the property owner is within his rights to use lethal force. Why?
Because the burden for protecting one’s own life in such cases outweighs any other considerations, period. A homeowner is not a law enforcement officer or an agent of the State. Therefore the homeowner is not bound by the additional burdens that such agents must (absolutely) abide by.