Jump to content

BRaptor

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    500

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by BRaptor

  1. Posted

    From what I had known of him before, he's been:

     

    Anti-2A

    Hypocrite

    Bit of a lush/drinker

    Pointless/senseless pontificator (when he's drunk, anyway)

     

    and now, he's a home-invasion robbery victim.

     

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6eMx8qYAupeLDmAEFILQLZ4HVQA?docId=624fb3f556bd4f23b721e752b492f9d4

     

     

    From the Associated Press

     

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Stephen Breyer was robbed last week by a machete-wielding intruder at his vacation home in the West Indies, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Monday.

     

    The 73-year-old Breyer, wife Joanna and guests were confronted by the robber around 9 p.m. EST Thursday in the home Breyer owns on the Caribbean island of Nevis, spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. The intruder took about $1,000 in cash and no one was hurt, Arberg said.

     

    She said the robbery was reported to local authorities, but she did not know if an arrest has been made.

     

    Breyer reported on his most recent annual disclosure in June that property he owns on Nevis is worth between $100,000 and $250,000.

     

    The last time a justice was the victim of a crime was in 2004, when a group of young men assaulted Justice David Souter as he jogged on a city street. Souter suffered minor injuries.

     

    In 1996, a man snatched Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's purse while she was out walking with her husband and daughter near their home in Washington. Ginsburg was not hurt.

     

    The justices return from a nearly month-long recess for a closed-door conference on Friday. They will next meet in public on February 21.

     

    At least he stuck to his "guns" and kept himself completely disarmed at home, just like he wants you and me to be! I'm very thankful that neither he nor his family members were hurt.

  2. Posted

    How would that actually be handled? Let's say you weren't in NJ, you were in a state with a Castle law. Under cover LEO storms your house, and you shoot thinking its a home invasion. Are you legally in the right or the wrong? You are protecting your house, but you just took out a cop....

     

    It's a tough scenario. I'd be willing to bet, even if in a state with a strong castle doctrine, you're gonna get charged, because you shot a cop while he was on duty (they're not regular citizens, they do have a special place in the law, and with that special place comes a special obligation, too. But, they're certainly not above the law, either.).

     

    I think it would come down to (assuming you're still alive, of course) convincing a jury that you had no idea they were officers. Things to consider: whether the officers announced on entry, whether they had identifying marks, the amount of light in the room and probably some other factors that I have no idea about. It's a horrible situation to be in, for sure; you likely just killed a man because he made a mistake of not announcing in the heat of the moment. Regardless of criminal repercussions, that would weigh heavily on my conscience.

  3. Posted

    I'll try not and miss-characterize his character if you agree to do the same, as well as not miss-characterize my post. I am not saying you did so intentionally, I think you just misinterpreted what I meant.

     

    I read your post, and never took anything you said to mean it justified the killing of the individual. I was referring to the fact they DID kill him. It was a statement of fact rather than a justification for it. I apologize if it seemed contrary. Often times the intended tone of a post comes off differently to the reader than from the writer.

     

    Sorry about popping off like that. I had just finished responding to something that the anti-gun blogger (in the other thread) had said to me. I was not in the right frame of mind to respond to a friendly post. I misinterpreted your post, too.

     

    As for the peeing comment, it was half-jest. I think it's a possible explanation of what he was doing in the bathroom. Kid ran from the cops on the street (ok, that's bad), thought he made it home safe (which is why he walked in his front door, rather than run) and went to take a leak. Of course, it's still tough to get past him hanging out in the bathroom for so long with the police (or someone, if one wishes to believe he didn't know it was the police) trying to kick in the front door.

  4. Posted

    This whole story is fishy. Why is a deputy attorney general prosecuting this case? They had this guy on something much more serious than what he was charged with . He obviously evidence on someone LE wanted MUCH more than him and used it to plead down.

     

    Ding ding ding....winnar!

     

    This boy flipped on his "crew" and probably gave the prosecutor some very good intel. Thus, he gets a slap on the wrist as a reward for being more of a criminal than any of us could ever think of being (remember, Aitken got 7 years for MUCH less). Plus, he's a former police officer, which means not only was he probably part of organized crime, but he also betrayed the public trust (something courts don't like, when officers go bad).

     

    NJ at its best, making deals with the devil.

     

    On the other hand, it's kind of nice to see NJ go "soft" (LOL) on someone for breaking these stupid gun laws.

  5. Posted

    Maybe there is other video, but if you watch the video posted here, you see the kid casually walk onto the porch, glance over his shoulder and walk into the house.

     

    I don't see him fleeing from the police in this video.

     

     

    Here, let me Google that for you:

     

    http://abclocal.go.c...york&id=8537038

     

     

    I absolutely believe that the police's "reason" for the "stop and frisk" is piss-poor. I "adjust my waistband" every now and again, too. Even in public! Does that make me a target for stop and frisk? sheesh.

     

    But the minute you start to run when the police approach you, you (legally) enter a different world. Running from the police is sufficient to give rise to probable cause for temporary seizure of and search of the person, exigent circumstances of the person's mobility combined with the likelihood of loss of evidence should the police go apply for a warrant gives you an exemption from the warrant requirement. The fact that he entered his home (which is sacred 4A territory) means they need an exception to enter w/o warrant. Here, probable cause is based on the running, now there is Hot Pursuit exception to the warrant requirement combined with concerns of loss of evidence for exigent circumstance (now "justified" by the fact that the PD found him in the bathroom, apparently flushing drugs....but I wonder why it took him several minutes to flush the drugs...doesn't make sense). Thus, from the looks of this case, it's fairly well-settled law that no 4A violation occurred from the entry.

     

    BUT, the NYPD is NOTORIOUS for harrassing, stopping and frisking minorities for seemingly no reason, and making $hit up to justify a stop and frisk. As a department, they have a fantastic reputation as jack-booted thugs. I hate their policies, even if they are "effective." So, his running might be "justified" to avoid harassment. Unfortunately, running from the police is not a recognized way of dealing with police harassment. Especially in NY (state, not just City), pretty much the only way to deal with harassment is a Section 1983 lawsuit.

     

    I think the entry is MUCH more easily justified. The shoot, not so much.

     

    How would you like it if someone burst in on you taking a pee and shot you? (oversimplification, meant to be funny, please don't take it seriously)

  7. Posted

    I hope this isn't the other side. Because being a "suspicious" person and not engaging in a conversation with police is not a crime, doesn't allow police to break into your home, and certainly doesn't give them the right to kill you. I sure hope there is another side then this, because that still makes it sound like murder (in addition to a number of other things). Shy of the guys who chased and shot him having seen him murder, assault, or commit another violent crime on someone or themselves, I am having a difficult time envisioning a scenario that justifies what happened. I sure hope there is though.

     

    It is the other side. Refusing to engage the police in a conversation and running from them like a criminal are two very different things (as SCOTUS has already decided). Please don't mischaracterize this person's behavior.

     

    Also, if you had read my post carefully, I NEVER said it was ever sufficient grounds to kill someone. In fact, I said the opposite. Please stop it.

  8. Posted

    HA!! She wrote me this response, because I followed up.

     

    Dear Otheropinion,

     

    This is my blog. I don't owe you anything. The first amendment does not require me to post all comments made to my blog. As to the rest of what you said, nonsense.

     

     

    Edited to Add: I specifically told her in my follow-up that she didn't owe me anything. I told her that I had just hoped that she would fulfill the 1st Amendments intentions of encouraging intelligent discourse. She has, obviously, refused.

     

    Se la vie (I also "speak a little french.")

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    I spent a lot of time responding to most of her ignorance. She didn't approve my comment. Though, she approved and responed to many other comments that made "us" look bad or that she could quickly and easily dismiss. Shocking, I know. My comment completely called into question EVERYTHING that she said (outside of the racial implications, because those had already been disproven). Yes, not a peep out of this self-righteous.......nevermind.

     

    I hate people that are ignorant who are completely dedicated to remaining ignorant.

  10. Posted

    I watched this on the news the other night. This reporting is EXTREMELY one-sided and disgusting.

     

    The Exigent Circumstance is called Hot Pursuit. The police had identified this "youth" out on the street as a suspicious person and attempted to approach him. The youth ran, the police followed. The youth ran into his house, the police followed. What happened inside is anyone's guess, but this "kid" was no angel and no stranger to police (at least two prior arrests for marijuana and burglary).

     

    There is surveillance video of the guy running from police when they try to approach, and the police chasing him all the way home. The police say he was in the bathroom (flushing drugs) when they found him.

     

    Now, no matter what crimes this kid committed, or his criminal history, he didn't deserve to be shot for them. But, if he made some moves or had an object that made an officer believe that he had a weapon and that officer feared for his life, then, sorry, you're gonna get shot. There is much more to this story than was reported.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    With almost 800 dislikes & 85 likes MAIG disabled & removed both comments & ratings... I wonder why? I guess they believe in the 1st amendment just like they believe in the 2nd amendment.

     

    Hmmm.....a group made up entirely of government's executive leaders, who are representing and acting in their official government capacity are selectively deactivating ratings and comments on certain of their videos and they're deleting comments made by Americans. Hmmmmm......very interesting

     

     

    84 likes vs 668 dislikes.. Not a bad ratio... Thats right around 80% of this people don't like it if you look at the numbers... Yea Baby!!!

     

    You say 80% dislike. I choose to see it as 8:1 AGAINST these MAIG idiots. Now, it's up to 10:1.

     

    We ARE the majority.

  16. Posted

    I hear ya. I was born and raised in FL.

     

    This is what freedom smells like, my friends: http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/ocala/recarea/?recid=40236

     

    The link is about the free, open-to-the-public, self-policed pistol, rifle and shotgun range in the Ocala National Forest. It's paid for and maintained by the state of FL. Well, it's "free" in that it's paid for out of tax dollars levied on firearms and ammunition.

  17. Posted

    I'll answer the questions inline below, not because I'm trying to be a jerk, but because it's easier.

     

    So I see that some people request for 4+ handgun permits. Why apply for more than 3 if you can only buy 1 every 30 days and the permits only last 90 days? Is it easier to apply for a permit extension?

     

    Theoretically, you could apply for and use up to 7 permits at a time without having to apply for an OGAM exemption. Your first 4 permits are good for 90 days and would not need to be extended. Permits 5, 6 and 7 would need to be extended by your local PD. Getting an extension depends on the department. It can be as easy as making an appointment, stopping by and getting the extension signed, some PD's require an additional form or written request. Other PD's don't "do" extensions. So, it's town-specific.

     

    The process in my town seems to require quite a few forms including a Request for Criminal History Record Information and a Mental Health Records Search on top of the standard Handgun Purchase Permit form. I have to pay an additional for the Criminal History Record check with every permit request. I did the Crimnal History Record and Mental Health Record about 4 months ago.

     

    Additional requirements beyond the two standard Mental Health and FID/Permit application are specifically against the law (though many PD's require a "subsequent criminal history check" form.). If your town requires additional permits or steps, contact the NJ2AS (www.nj2as.org, they're also on this forum), and they can very quickly help to sort things out with your town. From what I've heard, there is a "rule" somewhere that says you don't have to get another criminal history check if you've had one done within the past 6 months. Again, it depends on which PD you're dealing with.

     

    I notice that quite a few of you are collectors (or buying a new toy every 30 days). Do you guys just keep submitting new requests every 90 days? Would it be better to apply for 6 permits and renew them after 90 days if you plan on buying one a month?

     

    Many forum members constantly have PPP's on-hand in case a good deal pops up. It's routine for them to request permits twice a year and extend them to the full 180 days. It's WAY better than relying on your local PD to process a PPP in a timely fashion.

     

    I doubt I would really buy that many but there are at least 4-5 that I want. If I can find a good deal on something gently used, I would immediately get it but would need a permit handy.

     

    See above, the criminal check is $18 and each permit is only $2. If you can get them extended, then it only costs you $36 per year, plust cost of permits to practice your specifically-enumerated, Constitutional right.....<yakov schmirnov> what a country </yakov>

     

    Hope this helps.

  18. Posted

    Welcome.... I'm a new member also. There is no secret handshake......or at least they haven't shown me one but there's something about pie that everyone knows about but is not sharing.

     

    The first rule about the pie is.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    We do not talk about the pie. :keeporder:

  21. Posted

    Sadly, this Bill has been flopping around Trenton for the past 8 years.

     

    It will be introduced. Then the idiot leadership in the Senate will send it to the committe on Law and Public Safety, where the idiot leadership there will let it languish for the remainder of the 2012 legislative session.

     

    I've written my "representatives:" Nia H. Gill, Thomas P. Giblin and Sheila Y. Oliver. They wouldn't dignify my brief, calm, polite letters which took quite some time to write, and requested responses with any kind of response. Not a peep out of those three clowns.

     

    Perhaps you could write your representatives. Maybe they respect your vote. :thsmiley_deadhorse:

  22. Posted

    I carry my "expensive cutlery" (SOG Tomcat 3.0) everywhere, every day. I use it on a regular basis both at home and away from home.

     

    It holds an edge better than any blade I've ever had, the action is smooth and the grip is extremely comfortable.

     

    I only need a "lawful reason" to carry my SOG. My lawful reason? For anything that a good folding knife is useful for. You want details? I want my lawyer. You want to "confiscate" it? You'll regret it.

  23. Posted

    I don't know what all the bashing is about. A cup of drip coffee at Starbucks costs about the same as anywhere else. Plus, the staff understands "small, medium and large." It's not like they'll spit on you for asking for a medium cup of drip, black or with room for milk. In fact, they'll smile and say "$2.05, please."

     

    Better, yet, if you want some "skinny, frappa mappa, chai, machiato," they have the staff that can provide that product, too! It's funny how all you "free marketers" bash a place that's done such a great job of succeeding in a nearly totally OPEN/FREE market. Engage in hypcricy much?

     

    I'll be at Starbucks on the 14th. Open your minds, and you might go back after the 14th.

    • Like 3

  24. Posted

    Lmao I read it and missed it, good point, even if the teen was conducting the ding dong ditch, and did threaten to rape and.murder her and her kids, the actions she did still aren't right. I'm not sure of ny home defense laws.but it happened out side if theee anything like.nj she had a duty to retreat and notify leos, not retreat grab a gun wait for.him again and pull a gun on a.kid, then you say u shot a warning shot to prove it was real, idk.sounds shady and there is.more going on then what er can read

     

    Damn phone and auto correct I give up set for the poor grammar

     

    NY State is one of the FEW "duty to retreat states." I guess she missed that part in her bar exam studies? If there is an opportunity for the "victim" to retreat in complete safety, they must do so, no lethal force is permitted. There are few exceptions, but playing "Gran Torino" isn't one of the exceptions.

    post-1718-0-08405900-1327513104_thumb.jpg

  25. Posted

    But police said the teen, who was not charged, had nothing to do with the prank and the young man’s mother insisted he was walking home from a friend’s house after watching the Giants game and drinking beer.

     

    Anyone else catch this one? :facepalm:

     

    Now, I'm not naive. I know some kids drink. But mom appears to be in on it and condone the activity. I think it's a little stupid to just spout this little fact out to the police and the media. Stay classy, LI!

×
×
  • Create New...