LionHeart Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 So this dude is in his car with his wife and kids and a semi pulles up behind him. He then begins to have a cranial-rectal association and decides that he can get a new car and some money by committing insurance fraud. He then proceeds to slam on his brakes and gets rear ended by the semi. However, he didn't anticipate the laws of physics concerning extremely large and heavy objects combined with high velocity. Tragically, some of his family were killed. Things were going quite well for him getting a settlement, but eventually, his conscience caught up with him over losing his family members and he fessed up. What a high price to pay for a little greed and dishonesty. I can't imagine anyone putting their family in harms way to satisfy their own selfishness. This goes without mentioning the hardships inflicted on the truck driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I am with you Lionheart. That would be a really sad sad situation. You would think he could not have been all there to have even entertained an idea like that, especially with his family in the car. Most of us have enough marbles rolling around up there to know that when something like a semi runs over a car, there is not going to be much left.... Sounds to me like he basically committed murder just to get a car, going by what you are saying. Of his own family, no less.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarbay Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 When at first we practice to deceive... B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I do believe Insurance companies are well aware of groups of people try to defraud them by doing what was mentioned .......they will cause an accident to claim the insurance......What the Father did as mentioned was an expensive price to pay....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Sad, so very sad the greed and self indulgence that some people have without thought to anyone else. That poor truck driver will be scared for life knowing that he in some way was responsible for taking a life. The father will forever be reminded that his stupidity and greed took away something very precious in his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionHeart Posted January 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Okay, here's another one: Some guy visits his summer home every year except every time he arrives, he finds the place vandalized, broken into, and robbed clean. Finally he became fed up with it, so he rigged a shot gun on the front door to cap anyone who broke in. A couple of months later, he is being sued by some guy who is missing an arm. In everyones opinion, does the man who owns the house deserve to go to prison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebomb7652000 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The dude deserved it if it was the person that was vandalizing the joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syble Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Okay, here's another one: Some guy visits his summer home every year except every time he arrives, he finds the place vandalized, broken into, and robbed clean. Finally he became fed up with it, so he rigged a shot gun on the front door to cap anyone who broke in. A couple of months later, he is being sued by some guy who is missing an arm. In everyones opinion, does the man who owns the house deserve to go to prison?Isn't in our rights to protect our selves and our property? If not, why not put an add out in the news about what you have to offer every crook out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Where in theory he had the right to protect his property what it if had been an emergency response team that had attempted to enter the house. Police officer, fireman and they had been shot by shotgun. Is protection of uninhabited property worth the taking of a life? If I am in the house and fear for my life then I have a right to defend myself. To protect material things with lethal force seems excessive to me. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Would a better alternative to the shot gun, have been to put an alarm system in? The man was not there, he was protecting material possessions only, why take a life over material goods? In this day and time there are many things we can do to protect our property besides killing someone. When we are protecting personal life, it is different. But is personal property worth a life??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsha Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Where in theory he had the right to protect his property what it if had been an emergency response team that had attempted to enter the house. Police officer, fireman and they had been shot by shotgun. Is protection of uninhabited property worth the taking of a life?If I am in the house and fear for my life then I have a right to defend myself. To protect material things with lethal force seems excessive to me.BenI agree with Ben on this one. Somewhere in the law it states that you have to be "in fear of your life.'' If the owner wasn't there he wasn't in fear of his life. Yes he should have consequences, whatever the law allows.Marsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syble Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Would a better alternative to the shot gun, have been to put an alarm system in? The man was not there, he was protecting material possessions only, why take a life over material goods? In this day and time there are many things we can do to protect our property besides killing someone. When we are protecting personal life, it is different. But is personal property worth a life???I would think it depended upon the life taken. I don't agree with placing a trap trigger on a empty house's porch, but I don't think the guy losing his arm, if robbing the place, has the right to say anything about it, even less putting out a law suit against the owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 In everyones opinion, does the man who owns the house deserve to go to prison?Such is the inconsistency in the law! There used to be an old saying...if you shoot someone who's trying to break in, make sure you shoot them inside your house. In other words, drag their bloody body inside. Ridiculous, huh?In my opinon, no, the man who owns the house does not deserve to go to prison. He is protected by the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, many do not understand the Constitution [i.e., Life, Liberty, Property--Article XIV]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Such is the inconsistency in the law! There used to be an old saying...if you shoot someone who's trying to break in, make sure you shoot them inside your house. In other words, drag their bloody body inside. Ridiculous, huh?I was thinking the exact same thing..... I had to answer the door with a shotgun once when I was living on a ranch in the middle of nowhere, everyone out rounding up the cattle, and rustlers were about.... left alone with no phone, no car and a baby to take care of. All I could think of was..... inside with body, inside with body. Scared the you know what out of him... later I find out he was the grandson of the ranch owner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 So that I understand about protection of property. Those who defend a man who rigs a shotgun to shoot anyone that comes in his door when he is not home. You would feel justified in shooting someone to death as they were stealing your childs bike.? How about your car? Maybe a few things from your garage? I am all for law and order but stop at justifying killing someone because they were taking something that is of a material nature. The play Les Miserables comes to mind. Should have shot him for stealing the bread in the first place and saved a lot of misery. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 So that I understand about protection of property.Those who defend a man who rigs a shotgun to shoot anyone that comes in his door when he is not home. You would feel justified in shooting someone to death as they were stealing your childs bike.? How about your car? Maybe a few things from your garage?I am all for law and order but stop at justifying killing someone because they were taking something that is of a material nature.The play Les Miserables comes to mind. Should have shot him for stealing the bread in the first place and saved a lot of misery.Ben I couldn't defend a man who rigged a shotgun to shoot anyone when he wasn't at home .... that's just wrong in my eyes. And as for stealing material things....let em...it's not worth taking a life. I was told that answering the door with a shotgun might be a nice deterent to someone intending on stealing anything..... not that I would shoot someone for stealing someone else's cattle, or stealing my motorcycle or skateboard..... But protecting my family from harm....you betcha.... I wouldn't hesitate to use a gun to protect my children. I would aim for the knees...they can't hurt you if they can't walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Sorry Lindy but I misunderstood. I would not shoot for the knees unless using a shotgun. I was taught to shoot to stop and that is two to center mass. Center mass is defined as the middle of the chest. In defending my family and our lives I have no problem with shooting to center mass. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 All I could think of was..... inside with body, inside with body. Scared the you know what out of him... later I find out he was the grandson of the ranch owner What a brave lady you are! I would have totally freaked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Rigging a shotgun is a bit much, I agree. A video camera would work better. LOL I think the man could have gotten away with it if he had posted a no trespassing sign on his property: "Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight". But without a sign, and an innocent victim being shot, methinks the man is in trouble. Had he shot the perpetrator...different story. But then again, try proving this was the same thief who had been robbing him each time. As per arming myself...no problem! I would, and I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I cannot defend rigging a gun to kill someone who walks into your home and no one there. I agree, what if the house had been on fire and firemen were there trying to save your home? What if some silly teenager decided to break in for the heck of it, or even if that teenager was out to take everything you had. Is it really worth taking their life, man, woman, teenager, or child????? There are better ways to protect your property than that! Personally I liked the idea of a video camera myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dror Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 *sigh* That's so sad about the guy's family members being killed. About the other guy (who rigged the shotgun), isn't that what the police are for? I mean yes, maybe the guy who was vandalizing and stealing deserved it, but to we really want to go back to Old West vigilantism? What if an innocent person had gotten hurt? Like a family member of his who forgot the gun was rigged up. Or a police officer investigating someone who had broken in through the window. And is losing one's arm a punishment proportional to the crime? We have rule of law for a reason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am sure that this is not a big deal, even my kids don' t get it right all the time. Robbery is taking something by force or threat of violence. Burglary is when something is taken when you are not present. A building or car gets burglarized. A person is who gets robbed while in the house or on the street. This guys house was being burglarized and vandalized when he was not there. I hope that clarifies it a bit. With a burglary there is no fear of injury only loss of goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Thanks Ben, I did not know the difference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Thanks Ben, I did not know the difference... I didn't know the difference either... I always thought they were the same thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionHeart Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Here's one that's kind of on the other side of the circumstance: (I really admire this guy) A man, from a mid-sized town, was at home spending a lovely evening with his wife and children. This man didn't own any guns; he didn't want his children to be in any danger. So they were at home, and three perpetrators came barging into the house with guns. They held the whole family at gun point while they duct taped their hands and feet. They then proceeded to rummage around the house in search of anything of value. While this was going on, one of the perpetrators came back to the room where the family was taped up and drug the man's wife into the next room. Upon hearing her scream, the man had an adrenaline rush and tore the duct tape. He then went into the next room, took away the perpetrators gun, and killed him with it. After this, he went around the house, hunting the other two, and upon finding them, he killed them as well. The authorities didn't even attempt to press any charges because this man didn't even own any guns. The perpetrators brought their own demise with them. Any charges would have been dropped immediately. This incident did, however, cause the crime rate in that town to drop by 50% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.