On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:45:51 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:59:15 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:57:23 -0400, wrote:

So every kid who ever stole something should be shot dead? Or just this
kid?

It is an occupational hazard for "night time" burglars.

===

As well it should be, punishment fitting the crime. It is tragic for
the father however, although it's entirely possible that some of the
blame ultimately rests with him.

He certainly has to rethink his parenting skills.
His 15 year old is skulking around at 1AM in a ski mask on a school
night.

Yes, he's going to have to improve on those, in his next life.

Did your kids never do anything insanely stupid? You most likely just
never knew about it.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:06:13 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:03:12 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:54:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

It is an occupational hazard for "night time" burglars.

I'll ask again, should all kids who are out at night be killed?

===

The ones who are masked, armed, and trying to break into someone's
home?

I think it's perfectly reasonable.

The best part?

No repeat offenders.

Even if you don't believe in Darwin there's a certain poetic justice
to it.

Armed with what? A pair of pliers? Did you even bother to read the
article or anything related before passing judgment?

Sheesh.


----------------------
The report said a knife. As to being shot. Did you go out late at night
when you were 15, dressed in black with a black head covering? Looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. Did not really need a weapon,
but something shiny in the hands of a person dressed as a cat burglar in the
middle of the night, should be assumed to be a weapon.

Assuming the worst, a 15 year old kid on the wrong path. Bet his
father wishes he never bought a gun. But you wouldn't know how that
feels, you're another compassionate conservative who cannot fathom
walking in another's shoes. Just like Mitt.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:06:13 -0700, Califbill wrote:


The report said a knife. As to being shot. Did you go out late at
night when you were 15, dressed in black with a black head covering?
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. Did not
really need a weapon,
but something shiny in the hands of a person dressed as a cat burglar in
the middle of the night, should be assumed to be a weapon.

However, Connecticut is a Castle Doctrine state not a Stand Your Ground
state. Without the knife, you have a duty to retreat. With the knife,
it's self defense. When you go outside the safety of your home, with a
gun, you run the risk.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:24:49 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/29/2012 2:10 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:18:53 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/28/2012 2:50 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:16:30 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/28/2012 12:00 PM, wrote:


No charges have been filed. An autopsy on the boy is planned.

He saved society a lot of money in prison costs. The kid was a thief.


As bad as it is, I hope that turns out to be the case. Turns out the
house he was "breaking into" was his Aunt, his Fathers Sister. Would be
pretty bad if it turned out to be a prank, or other family drama.

I am not suggesting it was, and I haven't heard anything that would lead
me to believe that... I do wonder what kind of "weapon" the kid had, and
why he wouldn't know his dad would probably be armed with a firearm... I
know I would not have "moved toward" a known armed person, I would yell,
"dad, don't shoot".... Just sayin'.

Surprising analysis from the freak. My bet is on family trauma with a
kid who's half out of his mind and acting stupid.

Mistakes with guns aren't easily taken back.


Don't even try to justify your trolling. You actually used this awful
event to troll posters here (me) earlier in the thread.. Figures...

Got the hook set firmly in your cheek. You've reacted by posting
twice the number I have.


Wow, you can count. Now what kind of handgun do you carry again?

Snotty, posts 3X anyone else in here and accuses me of trolling.

Like a heroin junkie who knows he's sick but can't stop shooting junk.

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:06:13 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:03:12 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:54:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

It is an occupational hazard for "night time" burglars.

I'll ask again, should all kids who are out at night be killed?

===

The ones who are masked, armed, and trying to break into someone's
home?

I think it's perfectly reasonable.

The best part?

No repeat offenders.

Even if you don't believe in Darwin there's a certain poetic justice
to it.

Armed with what? A pair of pliers? Did you even bother to read the
article or anything related before passing judgment?

Sheesh.


----------------------
The report said a knife. As to being shot. Did you go out late at night
when you were 15, dressed in black with a black head covering? Looks like
a
duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. Did not really need a
weapon,
but something shiny in the hands of a person dressed as a cat burglar in
the
middle of the night, should be assumed to be a weapon.

Assuming the worst, a 15 year old kid on the wrong path. Bet his
father wishes he never bought a gun. But you wouldn't know how that
feels, you're another compassionate conservative who cannot fathom
walking in another's shoes. Just like Mitt.
----------------------------------

Nope, I would feel bad, feel bad for the dad. But it was brought on by the
kid! 15 years old, climbing out a window, dressed as a cat burglar and you
too could be killed. Not by the dad, but by someone else, cop included, or
the aunt where you were going to B&E. Just because the kid lives in a nice
neighborhood, does not mean he is not a scum ball thief. The biggest
thieves we have these days graduated from Harvard Univ. Have PhD's even.
Makes the local stop and rob robber look like a piker. Madoff stole how
many millions? GoldmanSackus has ripped off its clients and the taxpayers
for how many billion? Hell Bernanke has cost all of us trillions with his
printing bogus money.

On 9/29/2012 2:28 PM, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:06:13 -0700, Califbill wrote:


The report said a knife. As to being shot. Did you go out late at
night when you were 15, dressed in black with a black head covering?
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. Did not
really need a weapon,
but something shiny in the hands of a person dressed as a cat burglar in
the middle of the night, should be assumed to be a weapon.

However, Connecticut is a Castle Doctrine state not a Stand Your Ground
state. Without the knife, you have a duty to retreat. With the knife,
it's self defense. When you go outside the safety of your home, with a
gun, you run the risk.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm


Well, it's pretty clear the guy had every legal right to shoot here in
CT based on what we (who actually looked) know so far. Should be a wash
as CT is not a swing state, the DNC doesn't need an election prop here
like in the Florida case...

In article ,
says...

In article om,
says...

On 9/29/2012 12:29 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/29/2012 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:09:35 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


Stop playing Dick Tracy. You will be shown the truth by the expert
investigators..........................in due time.

But Scotty said, and I quote: "The cops said it was a weapon". So he
really should be able to show me, wouldn't you think?

A police statement released by Lieutenant J. Paul Vance, a spokesman
for the Connecticut State Police, explains what happened next.
?Believing the suspect was armed with a weapon and about to attack
him, the (father) discharged his personal handgun at the suspect.? The
father then found the victim ?lying on the ground in the driveway with
obvious gunshot injuries, holding a weapon?.


"holding a weapon"


Now can we write the stupid **** off?

But...But Looky hasn't finished his cross examination.

None needed. I guess you and Scotty and Greg aren't bright enough to
understand the difference in what a reporter said and Scotty's assertion
that " COP" said he had a weapon.

You are too stupid and words cannot describe your ignorance.

On 9/29/2012 3:37 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article om,
says...

On 9/29/2012 12:29 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/29/2012 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:09:35 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


Stop playing Dick Tracy. You will be shown the truth by the expert
investigators..........................in due time.

But Scotty said, and I quote: "The cops said it was a weapon". So he
really should be able to show me, wouldn't you think?

A police statement released by Lieutenant J. Paul Vance, a spokesman
for the Connecticut State Police, explains what happened next.
?Believing the suspect was armed with a weapon and about to attack
him, the (father) discharged his personal handgun at the suspect.? The
father then found the victim ?lying on the ground in the driveway with
obvious gunshot injuries, holding a weapon?.


"holding a weapon"


Now can we write the stupid **** off?

But...But Looky hasn't finished his cross examination.

None needed. I guess you and Scotty and Greg aren't bright enough to
understand the difference in what a reporter said and Scotty's assertion
that " COP" said he had a weapon.

You are too stupid and words cannot describe your ignorance.




Seems the kid had no record and was adopted by the family a few years
back. Sounds like kind of a nerdy kid, and was a Civil Air Patrol Cadet
from what I am getting in local reports... Played on line games, but not
"shoot 'em up" stuff... Just something missing here unless the kid
really didn't know his adopted father had firearms??

In article om,
says...


Stop playing Dick Tracy. You will be shown the truth by the expert
investigators..........................in due time.

But Scotty said, and I quote: "The cops said it was a weapon". So he
really should be able to show me, wouldn't you think?

It's none of your business, is what I think.

Well, sure it is, it's to make a point, that you can't believe a thing
he says here.


He who?

Holy ****! Try to follow a thread! Look up above, who said "the cops
said it was a weapon"????? That would be your answer. Sometimes I feel
like I"m talking to my sister's 3 year old.

In article om,
says...

On 9/29/2012 12:50 PM, iBoaterer wrote:

A police statement released by Lieutenant J. Paul Vance, a spokesman
for the Connecticut State Police, explains what happened next.
?Believing the suspect was armed with a weapon and about to attack
him, the (father) discharged his personal handgun at the suspect.? The
father then found the victim ?lying on the ground in the driveway with
obvious gunshot injuries, holding a weapon?.


"holding a weapon"


Now can we write the stupid **** off?

Hell no! Again, that is what a damned REPORTER said. YOU said that the
COPS said he had a weapon. Are you too stupid to understand the
difference?


Did the reporter lie?

Could well be, but again, because of your unusual inability to follow a
thread, I've stated over and over that I don't give a damned what a
reporter said. SCOTTY SAID "THE COPS SAID IT WAS A WEAPON". That is a
lie.