Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Make My Day
Search this Thread:
Pages (2):  [1] 2 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
oldbutafan
The Advocate

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:12 PM
Location: If you can read this, you're too close.
Posts: 2976

Make My Day post #1  quote:



In another thread chekitty mentioned a Colorado law.

quote:
chelktty said this in post #6 :
If it had been in Colorado, the couple owning the home could have shot and killed the trespasser and been protected under the make my day law...


Look what's happening in Winnetka, IL ... an affluent suburb of Chicago.

A burglar broke in one night and stole the guy's SUV, and returned the next night in the SUV to finish the job and the homeowner shot him.

The homeowner now faces charges of illegally owning the handgun !

Here's the ( lengthy ) details:
.........................

Homeowner to face gun charges

BY KEN GOZE
STAFF WRITER

A Wilmette homeowner who shot and wounded an intruder succeeded in driving the burglar out of his house and may have ended a series of cat burglaries on the village's east side, but this week he faces weapons charges that include a local ordinance banning handgun possession.
The incident also could lead village trustees to revisit an issue which has received relatively little attention since board members passed the handgun ban nearly 15 years ago in the wake of the Laurie Dann school shootings.
Morio L. Billings, 31, was hospitalized at St. Francis Hospital in Evanston Dec. 29, after he fled the Linden Avenue neighborhood with two bullet wounds and a stolen sport utility vehicle police said he had stolen from the same house the night before.
After a Tuesday bond hearing, he was transferred to Cook County Jail, where he was held on a $3 million bond charged with two counts of residential burglary and one count of possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
The homeowner and victim of the break-in, 54-year-old Hale DeMar, will not face charges in the shooting, which prosecutors determined was justified.
But police on Tuesday said they planned to charge him with failing to have a current Firearm Owners Identification Card, a misdemeanor, and with violating Wilmette's 1989 handgun ordinance, which carries a fine of up to $750 and permanent loss of the weapons. He is to appear in court on both charges Feb. 6.
Police said they confiscated the .38-caliber revolver used in the shooting as well as a .380 automatic pistol from the home. They said DeMar had a FOID card but that it expired in 1988.
Although statements in the days after the incident seemed to indicate that police might not press the ordinance issue in the case, police said they were not wavering on the issue but waiting for facts and dealing with the more immediate issues surrounding the burglary suspect.
"It was not due to indecision but a desire to have complete information before coming to conclusions. Our strategy was to address the forcible felony charges first," said Police Chief George Carpenter.

Burglary history
Police said Billings has an extensive criminal history and came to the Chicago area from Coon Rapids, Minn. On the night before the shooting, he entered DeMar's house near the Bahai Temple by reaching through a dog door to open a deadbolt lock. At that time, police said he took a small television and a set of keys to the house and a BMV sports utility vehicle, which he used to flee the area.
When DeMar discovered and reported that crime early the next day, he was not able to get the locks changed and had his 8-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son stay in his upstairs room.
Shortly before 10:30 p.m., police said, Billings returned to the home, apparently seeking a computer monitor he believed to be a high-end flat screen television. When he used the stolen keys to open a kitchen door, DeMar was alerted by an alarm panel near his bedroom and went downstairs armed with the revolver.
He found himself across from a man masked with a hat and bandana. Instead of leaving through the nearby door, police said Billings ran farther into the house in a circuitous motion.
At that point DeMar fired four of the six bullets in the gun. Billings was struck twice, once in the shoulder and once in the leg. After crashing through a window and running back to the stolen SUV, he drove through a yard and knocked down two fences to escape.
Wilmette police found Billings shortly after that when St. Francis Hospital reported the arrival of a man seeking treatment for gunshot wounds. Billings' injuries were not considered life-threatening, but the bullet that struck his shoulder caused extensive damage lower in his arm.
Since mid-October, police have been investigating a pattern of cat burglaries in the area, break-ins or attempts by someone who knows or believes the home to be occupied at the time.

Shooter reacts
DeMar, who owns the Oak Tree Restaurant in Chicago, said he could not comment on specifics of the case but said he is not someone who wanted a confrontation.
"I don't think I acted any differently than a lot of people would have with two small children in the house. I'm a strong believer in the Second Amendment. I'm not a criminal, I'm a 55-year-old businessman," DeMar said.
"I think it's strange you're allowed to have a shotgun or semi-automatic rifle, but those aren't things you'd reach for when somebody breaks in," he said. "Those aren't things I'd have in the house."
Legal aspects aside, Carpenter said keeping handguns in a home and confronting intruders is a dangerous gamble
"We want to give good information to Wilmette residents about what we advise them to do if they ever find themselves in this situation. Lock the bedroom door and call 911. Protect yourselves and your children first," Carpenter said.
By confronting a burglar, homeowners take the risk of being overpowered or surprised by more than one intruder or by someone who is better armed, faster or just lucky.

Handgun dangers
The homeowner can end up wounded or killed in a struggle over their own weapon, Carpenter warned. Out of confusion and fear, some people trying to defend their home have accidentally shot their own family members returning late at night.
"These things go wrong in so many ways," Carpenter said.
Beyond the immediate danger of a struggle, Carpenter said a handgun in the home can facilitate suicides, accidental shootings and can turn domestic arguments into homicides.
The choice of burglary alarm also affects the outcome of incidents such as this one, Carpenter said.
The alarm notified DeMar of the intrusion, but a loud audible alarm usually sends burglars running. As with many home systems, the alarm goes first to a remote monitoring center before police are notified.
That delay can run as long as 10 minutes and in this case gave Billings enough time to get into a confrontation, run back to a stolen vehicle and begin his escape before police learned there was a problem. Some systems notify the Police Department directly.
It's not clear whether the incident will lead to calls to change or repeal the handgun ordinance, but it is possible that trustees will review the law or seek to remind people that it's still on the books and being enforced.
Wilmette is one of a few suburbs to enact local handgun bans, including Morton Grove and Oak Park.
Village President Nancy Canafax said the law had been considered before the 1988 Winnetka school shootings, but that incident helped overcome opposition to the ban and it seems to still enjoy broad support. It has not been scheduled for discussion at a meeting but could come up in trustee discussions or public input.
"I've gotten some e-mail from people saying it's a horrible thing and it's unconstitutional, but I don't think any of them were from Wilmette," Canafax said.
"The people I've talked to in Wilmette like this ordinance and support it."


Old Post 01-12-2004 09:10 PM
Click here to Send oldbutafan a Private Message Find more posts by oldbutafan Add oldbutafan to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oldbutafan REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #2  quote:

Governments take SOO much care of burglars as well as of criminals of different types...

The fact that the homeowner had weapon in posession without permit for more then 10 years and the police knowing that fact (guns were registered before, what happened when the permit's term expired?) took no effort to take them away clearly shows this law isn't worth the paper it's written on.


Last edited by Barbed wire on 01-13-2004 at 01:05 PM |
Old Post 01-13-2004 12:47 PM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

chelktty
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 09:12 PM
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2198

post #3  quote:

I totally agree Barb. I'm glad they're not charging this man for shooting the burglar. The report indicates that a series of cat burglaries in the area were committed when the assailant KNEW that people were home. That's just plain scary. If someone broke into my home while I was there, you bet you a$$ that I would take that as a personal threat to my person, not just my property. ESPECIALLY if kids are in the house. I agree that it would have been better to have the alarm system activated, that way police would be notified immediately. But having reports of burglaries in the area, shouldn't a robbery detective have been staking out the neighborhood anyway?
I can't believe this crook was stupid enough to go to the same house TWICE in a row.


Old Post 01-13-2004 02:57 PM
Click here to Send chelktty a Private Message Find more posts by chelktty Add chelktty to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore chelktty REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #4  quote:

chelktty:

This burglar proved really stupid also because he went to a hospital with gunshot wounds.

The arguments Carpenter (the chief of police) has not to confront criminals are just best wishes.

1. Currently, no country can provide its citizens with immediate police reaction. Somewhere police is better, somewhere worse, but there're many cases when criminal and victime are left one by one. There may be no possibility to call the police at all (say, street robbery).

2. Domestic arguments become homicides more oftenly with means of cooking knives, axes and other homestuff.

3. People, who bring out cases of firearms' accidents always forget the cases when a crime was stopped because there were armed citizens.

Only one important thing: a person who uses firearm, must be effectively trained, physically and psychologically to do it. Otherwise it's no use to have one.

The fact of giving one a firearm licence should mean that the person:
- can shoot,
- is a able to shoot at a human in case of danger (some people can't),
- well aware of legal consequences,
in addition to common requrements of sanity, etc..


Old Post 01-13-2004 05:33 PM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

chelktty
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 09:12 PM
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2198

post #5  quote:

quote:
Barbed wire said this in post #4 :
Only one important thing: a person who uses firearm, must be effectively trained, physically and psychologically to do it. Otherwise it's no use to have one. [/B]


Amen to that!
Here's more information on the Colorado "Make my day" law:
from:
http://www.ccdb.org/furman1.htm

The "make my day" statute creates certain additional rights of self defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

The statute goes further than other forms of self defense by providing for immunity from prosecution (as well as from civil liability) rather than merely establishing an affirmative defense. Based on this difference, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving applicability of the statute rests on the defendant, who must prove applicability by a preponderance of the evidence.42 Resolution of the issue should be conducted by way of a pretrial hearing. Conflicting evidence as to the applicability of the statute must be resolved by the trial court, and appellate courts will defer to the trial court's findings.43 A defendant who loses at the pretrial hearing may still present self-defense to the jury.44

It is generally assumed that the make my day defense is available against the full range of charges in which self defense is available, as discussed above. Appellate decisions have held the defense available against charges of first degree murder,45 second degree murder,46 first degree assault,47 second and third degree assault48 and heat of passion manslaughter.49 Several of the terms in the statute have been litigated. The term "dwelling" is defined in 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S., as "a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation." In People v. Cushinberry,50 the Court of Appeals held that a defendant sitting on a window sill in his apartment building stairwell when the victim confronted him was not entitled to the protection of the statute because the stairwell, which was a common area and not part of the defendant's apartment, did not constitute a dwelling for the purposes of the statute.

The phrase "unlawful entry" has also been the subject of litigation. The Court of Appeals has held that a person who invited another into his home could not claim the protection of the statute because an invitee does not make an "unlawful entry."51 The trial court had interpreted the phrase "unlawful entry" to include the concept, familiar from burglary cases, of remaining unlawfully after an initially proper entry. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the legislature did not include the remain unlawfully language in the make my day statute.

In People v. Malczewski52 the defendant used force against a police officer who was attempting to enter the defendant's home to follow up on a report of a baby in danger inside the home. The trial court found that the officer's entry was illegal and that the defendant could reasonably have believed that the officer was about to commit the crime of kidnapping. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the entry was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and finding no evidence to support a reasonable belief that the officer was about to commit a crime.

The most recent Supreme Court discussion of the "unlawful entry" language occurred in People v. McNeese.53 The issue was whether an entry in violation of an oral agreement in a lease constituted an unlawful entry. The trial court granted the defendant immunity from prosecution on the ground that the entry was unlawful, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. A majority of the Court held that the appropriate question is whether the entry was "a knowing violation of the criminal law." The Court also held that the appearance of an unlawful entry does not satisfy this standard: there must be an actual unlawful entry.

While the Court suggested that this entry, in violation of the lease agreement, did not meet this standard, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the question. Justice Erickson concurred in the remand, but argued that the appropriate definition of unlawful entry was "an entry into a dwelling in violation of criminal law." Justice Scott dissented, arguing that the majority was ignoring the plain language of the statute and engaging in judicial legislation. All three opinions contain significant discussions of the statute and should be read by anyone with a make my day case.

CONCLUSION
The right of self defense has strong roots in both history and the law. The basic parameters of the defense, set out by statute, have remained unchanged for some time. Perhaps reflecting our frontier history, Colorado does not impose a duty to retreat, even when deadly force is employed, analyzes self-defense from the point of view of the person being attacked and has created special exemptions from liability in the home. Nonetheless, there are limits on the use of this defense, and practitioners on both sides of a case must familiarize themselves with the case law to properly prosecute and defend these cases. Finally, there are a number of evidentiary issues which commonly arise in self-defense cases, and counsel must review this law as well.


Old Post 01-13-2004 06:00 PM
Click here to Send chelktty a Private Message Find more posts by chelktty Add chelktty to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore chelktty REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

chelktty
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 09:12 PM
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2198

post #6  quote:

Ok I know this might be a little off topic, but we as a nation might expect less crimes if we didn't give away so many rights to criminals and instead severely punished the guilty.

I googled information on Singapore Crime and Punishment, having remembered that teen Michael Fay, an American tourist in Singapore was sentenced to jail and caning for spraying 2 privately owned cars with graffiti. (If I caught someone spray painting on my car, I'd want to whip him with a cane too!) Anyway I remembered people in the U.S. being upset that this poor boy (spoiled brat) was getting caned, that it was too severe a punishment.

However I submit that if we had more severe punishments for crimes here as they do there, that perhaps we would see a decline in criminal offenses, just as there has been in Singapore. In most cases, the caning is done in public, which may at first sound barbaric, but it's done to deter other potential offenders from committing similar acts. If people are fully aware of what WILL happen to them for committing a crime, they're less likely to commit it.

But here people know that if they devise a clever defense scheme BEFORE committing the crime, that they'll receive less time in prison. Or with the aid of a slick attorney, it's possible to even file a suit holding the criminal's victim(s) liable for the consequences of the crime or avoid any time at all in prison. A prison mind you, that has social rooms for playing cards, board games, computer rooms, television, libraries, learning centers, gyms, basketball courts and conjigal visit campers. Why would someone in the U.S. with a criminally disposed mind care if they spent time in prison? It's not really a severe punishment anymore.

Here's a link to a site with a chart outlining cases and their punishments in Singapore. There are 2 columns next to the offense synopsis; time spent in jail and # of lashes from the cane. Some of the offenses are pretty comical, but the seriousness of the punishment is what makes it one of the safest places in the world to visit and live in.

http://www.geocities.com/law4u2003/


Old Post 01-13-2004 06:35 PM
Click here to Send chelktty a Private Message Find more posts by chelktty Add chelktty to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore chelktty REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #7  quote:

chelktty:

In the materials that you've posted there is the statement that self-defence may be used in defending one's property.

1.Let's take the case of a car being stolen. Is it right to shoot and kill the offender in this case? Lets consider this story:

someone sees that his or her car is being driven away. Is it right to shoot at the driver? The case mentioned in the text on your link proves it isn't, since the owner was considered as the person who had started the fight.

2. The case Michael Fay. How do you think, to what extent should owners of property be allowed to defend their property? E.g. a car is being painted, windows/mirrors being broken, radio being stolen?
Here we come to the question of price of damage that allows using deadly violence.

I believe that the punishment must be severe for the potential criminals to consider seriously if their play is worth the risk.
But, the most important thing that law-enforcing organisations ensure that the punishment is hardly to be avoided.

Wilmette police proved itself ineffective. They had burglaries in their area of responsibility and couldn't cope with them.
Instead, they accuse the man on illegag possession of the firearms!


Old Post 01-14-2004 05:56 PM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

chelktty
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 09:12 PM
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2198

post #8  quote:

Interesting points, but what I was relating about the case of Michael Fay in Singapore was not that it should be an offense punishable by death at the hands of the victim, but rather that his punishment was caning in view of the public, detering potential criminals from committing similar acts. The caning didn't kill him, but it was a painful and humiliating punishment none the less.
The point I was trying to make was that if we had punishment similar here in the United States, perhaps criminals wouldn't be as apt to commit their crimes.

But to answer your question, never do I ever think it is justified to use deadly force against someone who is stealing a car. It's a CAR! A materialistic thing that can be replaced. Human beings can't.


Old Post 01-14-2004 06:28 PM
Click here to Send chelktty a Private Message Find more posts by chelktty Add chelktty to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore chelktty REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #9  quote:

Section 18-1-706, C.R.S in the referred material says about defending property is self-defence.

I thought that it'd be interesting to look at the case of Michael Fay in connection to "self-defence" term.

Because when we speak about defending property, we have the price of the loss.

About caning: I think that the USA had this kind of punishment years ago as well as
quote:
tarring and feathering a delinquent and riding the person on a rail
. (I learned about the last one from your American classic literature)
It'd be interesting to do a research the history of use of such punishments.


Old Post 01-14-2004 06:43 PM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oldbutafan
The Advocate

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:12 PM
Location: If you can read this, you're too close.
Posts: 2976

post #10  quote:

quote:
Barbed wire said this in post #7 :
Wilmette police proved itself ineffective. They had burglaries in their area of responsibility and couldn't cope with them.
Instead, they accuse the man on illegag possession of the firearms!


This is exactly right ! To compound it, the Police knew this guy had keys to the home and what kind of vehicle he was driving !

This homeowner was forced to do THEIR job because they did not. HE is the one who served and protected -- stopped the crime spree, and saved/protected his home and family, and perhaps the next family this burglar might have victimized !


Old Post 01-14-2004 07:02 PM
Click here to Send oldbutafan a Private Message Find more posts by oldbutafan Add oldbutafan to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oldbutafan REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oldbutafan
The Advocate

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:12 PM
Location: If you can read this, you're too close.
Posts: 2976

Update post #11  quote:

Village Board and Police Chief got an earfull last evening ...

Source wbbm780.com ( a local all news radio station )
..................

Wednesday, January 14, 2004, By Bob Roberts
WBBM Newsradio 780

(Wilmette, IL) -- The Wilmette Village Board heard a barrage of criticism of the suburb's handgun ban, and the decision to press charges against a homeowner who shot an intruder. But they showed no desire at Tuesday night's board meeting to make change.
Two former trustees who voted to approve the ordinance reaffirmed their support.

Former trustee Mary S. Ryan even called it her "proudest moment." But 23 of the next 25 speakers spoke against it, although fewer than half said they lived in Wilmette.

Police Chief George Carpenter said, based on his experience, guns kept in homes were far more likely to be used against Wilmette residents in domestic quarrels or for suicides than for protection. He urged residents to dial 911 instead.

But many of the gun advocates who spoke were far angrier with trustee Bernard Michna. Michna said he had also been the victim of a break-in when he lived in Chicago, but said he believed the board was "unanimous in that there will be no change in the handgun ordinance."

One speaker used giant cue cards to illustrate his points. Others used sarcasm.

"If we hear someone screaming, may we then come out of our locked rooms and, brandishing our phones, confront the perpetrator?" asked an incredulous Henry Koslowski.

Gun advocates chuckled as Conceal Carry, Inc., President John Birch mocked the ban. "Anything that attracts criminals to your town and away from mine, is a good thing," Birch said. "I want to assure you I support your law. Keep your law and I request that you also ban knives, crowbars and maybe automobiles."

Brent Hansen of Wheeling pulled out a wad of money, waved it at the trustees and said, "I'm going to give all my money in my wallet to the defendant who is being abused by your ordinance."

Still others were blunt.

"I don't want to be the guy hauled out of my house under arrest when I shoot someone for breaking in," said Kevin
Baxter, of Hampshire.

"What happens if somebody breaks into a home three months from now and kills the family," asked Derek Theclas of Wilmette. "I believe that anyone who would break into a home would have a weapon to protect themselves against the homeowner, so I don't see why we can't have…the right to defend ourselves against that trespasser."

Two Chicago radio talk show hosts even spoke against the ban, claiming listeners identifying themselves as being from Wilmette told them overwhelmingly that they were upset by the ban and the charges filed against 54-year-old Hale DeMar.

One said, "The arrogance of the trustees is appalling," and both suggested that residents defeat trustees and village board candidates who support the ban.

Village President Nancy Canafax, the last remaining member of the board that approved the ban, reminded opponents that the measure passed six weeks before an election in which its supporters won resoundingly.

"All I can says is that this community has felt secure for 15 years with this gun control," she said. "I think our residents agree with our chief, who says it has provided more safety than it has prevented harm.

She then invited opponents to test their support at the ballot box. "There's another election soon, and we'll see," she said.

DeMar, the owner of the Oak Tree Restaurant, 900 N. Michigan Av., shot Morio Billings, 31, twice on Dec. 29. Billings had allegedly broken into the DeMar home, at 35 Linden Av., in Wilmette, for the second time in two nights. He was arrested after seeking treatment at St. Francis Hospital, in Evanston, for gunshot wounds to the side and leg.

Billings is being held in the Cermak Hospital unit of the Cook County Jail in lieu of $3 million bond on two counts of residential burglary and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

DeMar is charged with failure to have a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card, and of violating the Wilmette ordinance.


Old Post 01-14-2004 07:22 PM
Click here to Send oldbutafan a Private Message Find more posts by oldbutafan Add oldbutafan to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oldbutafan REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oldbutafan
The Advocate

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:12 PM
Location: If you can read this, you're too close.
Posts: 2976

More post #12  quote:

An article exemplifying this as a clear case against gun control and criminalizing self-defense. As info:
.........................

The Threat of Gun Control
by Doug Hagin
14 January 2004


The ultimate result of gun control will be the criminalizing of self-defense.

Think for a moment of the rights that Americans enjoy. Which is the most precious ? Which is the most fundamental ? Which of our rights can we truly not be free without ?
Freedom of speech ? Freedom of religion ? How about Freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures ? Yes these are all hallmarks of a free society. Yet there is one freedom which protects these and all our other rights in America. That right is found in our Constitution in the form of the Second Amendment.

Yes truly the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental of all our liberties. The Founders were brilliant men. They knew our rights came from the Creator and they formed a nation based on respecting and defending those rights. They also knew that those God-given rights would last only as long as the American people held the right to own guns.

Think of it, without the freedom to own guns we are unable to defend our other rights. Without the Second Amendment the rest of the constitution is hollow and meaningless. By its very nature any government will, over time become greedy and start to encroach on the rights of its people. The founders certainly knew this and put the right to own guns as the ultimate defense against government intrusion upon our liberties.

This truth is why the battle against gun control is so crucial to preserving America's freedoms. None of our constitutional rights have been so maligned or attacked, as has the right to keep and bear arms. And the price if we lose this struggle is clearly illustrated by a case out of Chicago.

There Hale DeMar, a 54-year old homeowner, is facing prison time for owning a gun. A local ordinance bans ownership of handguns, a clear violation of the constitution, and Mr. DeMar has found himself in hot water for daring to exercise his constitutional right to defend his home.

The trouble for DeMar began when an intruder broke into his home on December 29th. DeMar shot the intruder twice and protected his family from whatever the criminal had planned for them. Now he faces up to a year in prison, for simply doing what the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to do, own a gun.

The tragedy of this case is very clear to see. The ultimate result of gun control will be the criminalizing of self-defense. And this case borders on that. The attitude of the authorities in Wilmette, Illinois, where DeMar lives is frightening to anyone who loves freedom.

Police Chief George Carpenter said the charges show the town's "serious concerns" about the shooting. How about the concern for the right to be secure in our homes ? Or the concern for our right to protect ourselves ?

Carpenter made some very troubling statements about DeMar and the charges he faces. "The outcome of the matter in this case was very fortunate for the homeowner. We much prefer, for the safety of the home, that a resident who finds himself in this situation immediately lock the door of the room he is in and dial 911."

Really Chief Carpenter ? There is no "safety" in the home once an intruder has chosen to violate the law and break in. Mr. DeMar chose to be prepared to protect his home and now he is facing a jail term ?

Not content to pass judgment on DeMar for standing up to law breakers Chief Carpenter continued his nonsensical remarks. "Wilmette residents are much safer without handguns in their homes. We see handguns stolen, used in domestic arguments or suicides. Those are far more likely outcomes than when you would actually need a handgun to defend yourself."

Apparently Chief Carpenter has been drinking the gun grabbers Kool-Aid pretty regularly if he believes such ignorant statements. As I wrote just last week well over 2 million Americans use guns to defend themselves annually in America. Maybe Carpenter does not approve of self-defense ?

Chief Carpenter did express some concern for DeMar however. "He strikes us as a good man with a good heart who did something that apparently came naturally to him. That's why it is important the Wilmette Police speak out now."

Speak out about what, Chief Carpenter ? People not surrendering to criminals ? People defending themselves and their families ? Why would any law-enforcement officials speak out against these things ?

Chief Carpenter also said he did "regret" the intrusion of the family's "privacy".
Well that ought to ease their concerns, shouldn't it ? If Mr. DeMar goes to prison for exercising his constitutional rights they should thank Chief Carpenter for his "regrets" ? If some other family actually follows Carpenter's advice and dials 911 and hopes help arrives in time they might be killed in their own home but they will have Chief Carpenter's "regrets" ?

The question of gun control is truly a question of liberty. Will we be free to defend ourselves ? Or will we leave ourselves at the mercy of criminals and the gun control laws criminals love ?

..........

Source: ???


Old Post 01-14-2004 07:47 PM
Click here to Send oldbutafan a Private Message Find more posts by oldbutafan Add oldbutafan to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oldbutafan REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #13  quote:

There is an amusing point in Chief Carpenter's words about HANDGUNS.

Imagine, DeMar'd used a 12 or 10 gauge shotgun loaded with buck-shot?
The burglar would have his arm amputated as minimum.

When people are wounded with a handgun they typically receive less damage, at least they die less frequently.


Old Post 01-15-2004 09:56 AM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

chelktty
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 09:12 PM
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2198

post #14  quote:

I still think it's ridiculous that the homeowner is facing any kind of charges whatsoever. Because he should have locked himself in a room and called 911 instead?!? This guy broke into his house the next night after ALREADY ripping it off before! He KNEW people were in the house when he broke into it. There were children in the house as well. You can't convince me that a person breaking into a house that he knows to be occupied isn't a threat to that family!
I'm glad that the community is voicing their oppinions about this, but I can't understand why officials won't drop the charges against the homeowner. I guess they're not interested in getting re-elected for another term.


Old Post 01-15-2004 01:56 PM
Click here to Send chelktty a Private Message Find more posts by chelktty Add chelktty to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore chelktty REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #15  quote:

Do NOT shoot at the guy stealing your vehicle...because you MIGHT hit your vehicle! Now...I have to say...charges or not...someone comes into MY property with the intent to do anything other than deliver the morning paper, my mail or a pizza...he is GOING DOWN!!! I'd hurt him so bad then give him the phone and tell him to call the cops to save his a$s!

Old Post 01-15-2004 11:53 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:12 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #16  quote:

This is lke the Tony Martin case in the UK, this guy was robbed by the same people 3 time in a year everytime he called the police they were always to late and could not arrest the person due to lack of evidence, on the third incident Martin shot the guy and killed him he alwys claimed he did not want to kill him just hurt him, but Martin still went to jail. Nearly everybody in the UYK backs what he did because we all believe you have a right to protect your home, except the governmnet who keep telling us criminlas have rights to. In fact if somebody breaks in to my house I have to wait for him to attack me first because if I do not I can get done for assault can you believe that.

Old Post 01-16-2004 02:31 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #17  quote:

YEP!!! I guess if I had to...I'd cut myself with a knife if there was a burglar in my home...that way, I could do away with him and say he tried to gut me!!! Cuz, there is no way someone would leave my home on his own if he was there in the first place against my will!

Old Post 01-16-2004 03:04 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Barbed wire
Veteran

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 05:12 AM
Location: Russia
Posts: 492

post #18  quote:

TearUUP,

The situation of self-defence at home happens quite seldom in comparison to self-defence in the street.


Old Post 01-16-2004 04:06 PM
Click here to Send Barbed wire a Private Message Find more posts by Barbed wire Add Barbed wire to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Barbed wire REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #19  quote:

Exactly...but...in the event that it ever does happen... I just don't think that it's right to defend yourself...(lethally or not)...if someone enters your house unlawfully!!! I would do ANYTHING to protect my family! I know that you could turn that around to say that if I did do that then I would be placing myself in the hands of the law by doing so and that really wouldn't be helping out my family in the long run...but I just can't look at it like that! If someone were to bad mouth my wife...I don't care who they are or what they do...I would punch em in the eye!

Old Post 01-16-2004 04:24 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:12 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #20  quote:

I have got 2 big dogs so I will let anyone that breaks in take thier chances.

Old Post 01-16-2004 04:47 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #21  quote:

Same here...but that is the same as shooting someone...the intruder could just as easily sue for the fact that you didn't have your dogs under control at the time of the break-in!!! I have a dog that is 3 quarters wolf and she got a hold of a neighbors cat that was in our garage...the cat was killed with it's neck broken in less than a second! The friggin' neighbors tried to press charges saying that our dogs are out of control!!! They don't bark, dig, or anything else, as a matter of fact they are inside dogs al night and most of the day! And the freakin' cat was IN MY GARAGE!!! My dog was just protecting her territory, and for a while the cops were going to try and make the charges stick!!! BS!!!

Old Post 01-16-2004 04:52 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:12 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #22  quote:

I think it is alright because the dog as you say is protecting it's terrtory, plus you could just say the dog was provoked by the intruder, I have never heard of a case where a dog was destroyed or an ownere used by an intruder that got attacked, I think it is like the police dogs biting a criminal if you break the law ya take your chances

Old Post 01-16-2004 05:10 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #23  quote:

Anthony Olszewski

Last modified: 01/16/2004 10:19:06



The Giant Breeds Certainly Intimidate Through Sheer Bulk, But German Shepherds And German Shepherd Mixes Really Make The Best Guard And Attack Dogs
Before using a dog to protect you, your family, and your property, legal realities need to be considered. Many municipalities in the United States have enacted "vicious dog" laws. These seem to be, for the most part, anti-ethnic youth laws. As with many so-called "quality of life" statutes, enforcement is generally sporadic, arbitrary, or based on complaint. In any case, read your local codes. It will be senseless to spend time training a dog, only for it to be impounded and possibly destroyed. The safest course is to not make a nuisance of yourself. If the dog torments your neighbors with barking, property damage, and attacks on their pets and children, expect them to retaliate, legally or by other means. If the same people perceive your pet as a valuable source of protection for themselves, as well as for you, good will will be engendered.

In some locales, the law prohibits the possession, training, or use of a dog to inflict bodily harm. If this is your situation, you might wind up in the same prison cell as the burglar that was bitten by your dog! Most likely, even in these precincts dogs still can be used as alarms to warn of the approach of intruders.

Force applied through a dog raises the same issues as the application of force through weapons or your fists. Were you reasonable in a perception of an immediate threat to your physical safety or that of others? Could you have summoned the police? Would an alarm or warning have sent the malefactor running?

I am not an attorney and am definitely not aware of every law and every court case for every community as applies to guard dogs. Consult a local lawyer before proceeding with the training of a guard dog.

It has been said, "I'd rather be in the hands of twelve jurors than six pallbearers!"

Another issue must be faced before initiating protection training. A dog that is haphazardly trained to SIT or COME is better than one with no training at all. The same is not true for aggression conditioning. Your dog has probably been taught from birth not to bite and not to growl. You are now about to modify or remove those inhibitions. Is the dog in a home environment? Does the dog interact with strangers? If either of these factors are true, then you must be completely certain of the dog's disposition and that you have control over the animal. The dog must instantaneously respond to "NO", "SIT", "DOWN", "STAY", and "COME". The idea is for the dog to protect you and your family from harm, not for him to inflict it on you! I have seen two lackadaisically trained dogs that had to be destroyed. Both attacked a series of innocent people , working up to mauling their owners.


There is a difference between a guard dog and an attack dog, though, quite possibly, a single dog can serve in both capacities. A guard dog patrols what he considers as home turf. Canine aggression is here clearly an extension of territorial instincts. The guard dog generally is expected to work on his own, without the owner or trainer being present giving commands. An attack dog works under the orders of his human superior. This sort of dog is expected to perform anywhere under any circumstances. Upon command an attack dog will threaten or attempt to stop anybody. The person will very likely be posing no threat to the dog. Here we are dealing more with the canine hunting patterns. A guard dog is very much a reflection of a human police officer, for we expect judgement and discretion of both. An attack dog is very much a weapon, just like a gun. We don't want an attack dog to think, just to function smoothly. Here all thought, and responsibility, rests with the operator.


Old Post 01-16-2004 05:33 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:12 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #24  quote:

One thing about dogs I was thinkng about while reading your article is that a dog barking at an intruder is normally enough, put yourself in the postion of an intruder, you are about ot break in and you hear a dog barking in the house would you honestly risk it?

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:28 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #25  quote:

Do I have a steak loaded with sleeping pills?

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:31 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #26  quote:

There are a lot of STUPID criminals out there, you have to admit! They do some of the most idiotic things!

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:32 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:12 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #27  quote:

The stek with sleeping pills very funny
But you are right there are total idiots out there. There was a stroy on the news about a guy who robbed the petrol station where he worked, no mask or nothing fool


Old Post 01-16-2004 09:36 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #28  quote:

What an idiot! Um...by the way boss...I won't be coming in today!

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:42 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #29  quote:

The Boss: You told me you were sick!!! And here I find you robbing my store, well...you're STILL NOT getting paid for today!

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:43 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

TearUUp
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 07:12 PM
Location: MY TIME
Posts: 5273

post #30  quote:

Do you see my point though? I bet there are cases where people have broken into someone's house then tried to sue because the dog got a hold of their a$s!

Old Post 01-16-2004 09:44 PM
Click here to Send TearUUp a Private Message Find more posts by TearUUp Add TearUUp to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore TearUUp REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 02:12 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (2):  [1] 2 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Make My Day
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.49951100 seconds (92.18% PHP - 7.82% MySQL) with 44 queries.

ADS

© 2013, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting and Web Design by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home