YAY! My computer speakers work, AND I have time. Gotta lotta Jade's Atomic Array to catch up on.....
I highly recommend listening to them in backwards order... you can hear me getting happier and younger that way.
YAY! Now on top of my cold, I have THE stomach bug. Mebbe I can stretch the speaker wires to the crapper....*GOIK!*
Jackhammering colonic pains and Atomic Array. A winning combo!
Really sorry to hear your ailing has taken an even worse turn, bro. Dayumn. :(
It's cool.....I get to take a nap any time I want.
I haven't had a nap in years. My grandfather could win a medal in 'em. The few times I did take a nap they lasted between two and three hours, always, and when I awoke I felt like a truck hit me. A nap during the day also ensures I won't sleep all night. I loathe having sleep issues.
I'm going to have to add nap envier to my resume.
|
~thoughtful look~ I am Mr. Nice Guy, but if someone threatened my family, then they should fear for their life. I REFUSE to alow that to happen. The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers.When you step beyond the reasonable bounds of self-defense... you're a lawbreaker as well. One man's crime does not excuse the actions of the other.
Would you please define "reasonable bounds of self defense"?
In the OP's case, the gentleman followed his (and his families)assailant out of his home and into a public area where he then used force to restrain said assailant till the police arrived. For his trouble he is going to jail.
In a "hypothetical" case lets say a next door neighbor (that is large, fast and trained to work with criminal juvenile delinquents - "I throw em around ha,ha,ha") high on coke decided to use his victim for a punching bag after the victims girlfriend called to ask if the stereo could be turned down at 3 in the morning.
It happens so damn fast the victim never has a chance to defend himself. It's only luck he's not dead.
As after the predator left it took the police over a half hour to find the victims home, (then the police had to clear the house to make it safe for the emts to enter) The victim had little choice but to allow the system to follow it's course. PA has a nice law that requires one to retreat before defending oneself. So until the land lord got the predator evicted he was at the victims door or window yelling obsenities and challenges at the victim day and night (even brandishing a wooden table leg and threatening to smash windows out of the victims vehicle). Know what the cops said? Since the property is a common area he can do anything he wants (never mind the prosecuter promises the police will arrest him if he does the things he's doing).
Long story short it takes a year to get the predator into court and he makes a big joke of the whole proceeding. He does get a fine and a few weekends in county lockup. And he brags about it to his friends.
And the predator is free, the victim has to spend the rest of his life waiting for this scumbag to get coked up or drunk and decide to have some more fun teaching the victim a lesson.
In the second example the victim played by the rules, did what he was told by police and prosectors and judges and lawyers and priests and family. And he gets to watch over his shoulder for the next attack.
Perhaps "reasonable" is based on ones perspective?
As for those that believe the police are there to protect them from the predators, the Supreme Court has ruled the police have no such duty or responsibility. They only have to gather evidence and draw the chalk line.
Sorry for the rant, but it's easier to understand someones actions when you understand their experience. And what the victim in the OP's story did was not unreasonable. It's a normal human reaction to having ones life threatened and seeing ones family threatened.
His mistake was doing it outside in a public area and then pissing off the judge in the case. The fact that the predator is getting off is the REAL crime. But so often in life, they have a lot more experience than their victims and they know how to play the game and take advantage of their rights.
|
|
I would hardly call permanent brain damage as getting of lightly and where are you getting the idea that he pissed off the Judge the judge even said in his closing statement that he sympathised with the defendant hence a sentence of only months which would normally be years. Also when sentencing the judge has to consider what potentially could have happened as well as what actually happened.
Actually Kevin the man received a sentence of two and a half years.
|
|
Actually Kevin the man received a sentence of two and a half years.
30 months maximum compared to what would normally have been at minimum 7 years and he will be elligable for parole in half that and since it is a first offence and he had several positive character references I see no reason that he would not be released
|
|
I would hardly call permanent brain damage as getting of lightly and where are you getting the idea that he pissed off the Judge the judge even said in his closing statement that he sympathised with the defendant hence a sentence of only months which would normally be years.
The following statement leads me to believe the judge was ticked off:
"However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.
Of course, it is to be noted that it was never suggested by you or on your behalf in the trial that there was any justification for the attack upon Salem. You simply claimed that you were not involved in it."
However, upon reviewing the whole statement of the judge, in context, he attempts to sound reasonable in his judgement and sentencing. Perhaps I am wrong in assessing the judges feelings.
As for your statement: "Also when sentencing the judge has to consider what potentially could have happened as well as what actually happened."
The brain damaged one used a knife while threatening to kill the mans family. Could he have followed through with the threat? This was a high stress, high pressure situation that the predator initiated and the victim ended. Could the victim have watched his families throats slit one by one if things happened just a little differently? Really the only person responsible for what happened that night, based on what I have read so far, is the predator. He choose to enter this mans home and commit the crimes described. How many other families has he done this to, how many more would this crime spree include? Wold the violence escalate? If the judge is to consider what ifs......
Frankly I am surprised the brain damaged predator lived under the circumstances. His medical condition does not exonerate him of burglary, kidnapping, assualt, attempted murder and terroristic threats. He is a felon of the worst order and if he is not mentally competent to stand trial and serve time in the penal system then by all means confine him to a mental institution for the criminally insane.
I am not suggesting anyone follow a violent armed criminal out into the street. The law is clear as has been shown in prior posts. And I would never council another to cause bodily harm except in the direst of circumstances. But I don't think this guy should do jail time under the circumstance I read. He should have owned up to his actions, yes, but his attorney may have counciled him not to. I don't know.
|
|
No the judge simply followed the letter of the law. fighting the guy in his own property okay. chasing the guy and cornering him again okay using reasonable force to subdue him once again okay. when he is unconscious beating him repeatedly not okay. Also as I said the judge also has to consider what could have potentially happened in this situation
|
|
No the judge simply followed the letter of the law. fighting the guy in his own property okay. chasing the guy and cornering him again okay using reasonable force to subdue him once again okay. when he is unconscious beating him repeatedly not okay. Also as I said the judge also has to consider what could have potentially happened in this situation
Kevin, I respect your feelings. I took the high road and live with the consequences of that choice. This man gave in to his emotion, adrenalin, tunnel vision whatever you want to call it. And he will live with the consequences of his decision. All I am saying is I understand where he is coming from and don't feel he deserves jail time. I am not saying he deserves a medal either. But taking the high road has it's costs as well. For you and those around you and those the predator decides to victimize next.
I am not suggesting anyone follow a violent armed criminal out into the street. The law is clear as has been shown in prior posts. And I would never council another to cause bodily harm except in the direst of circumstances. But I don't think this guy should do jail time under the circumstance I read. He should have owned up to his actions, yes, but his attorney may have counciled him not to. I don't know.
And what of the social consequences of opening the doors to vengeance attacks?
Reading about things like this make me glad I live in Texas, where the judges and law will be on my side if I ever need to use my 870 on an intruder. (The "Castle-Law" amendment passed a few years ago allows us to use maximum force on any threatening intruder, with no warning and with no Duty To Retreat first.)
It both saddens and disgusts me that Britain has fallen to the state that it has, where criminals are allowed to go free and viewed as oppressed victims of society, while law-abiding citizens are both not allowed to bear arms and also not allowed to defend themselves. But, at least judging from the ridiculous court cases I hear about, this seems to be a trend in England: Hate all traditional british culture, hate everything that made western civilization great, protect the criminal and punish the citizen.
Reading about things like this make me glad I live in Texas, where the judges and law will be on my side if I ever need to use my 870 on an intruder. (The "Castle-Law" amendment passed a few years ago allows us to use maximum force on any threatening intruder, with no warning and with no Duty To Retreat first.)
It both saddens and disgusts me that Britain has fallen to the state that it has, where criminals are allowed to go free and viewed as oppressed victims of society, while law-abiding citizens are both not allowed to bear arms and also not allowed to defend themselves. But, at least judging from the ridiculous court cases I hear about, this seems to be a trend in England: Hate all traditional british culture, hate everything that made western civilization great, protect the criminal and punish the citizen.
A few things, (1) the guy was not in the victim's house, and (2) British are allowed to use full force against home intruders due to recent legislation. In fact, this case is seen as a test of the limits of that legislation.
I'm a Canadian. But my understanding from US media explanations of US law is that you are not allowed to run down the street attacking an intruder who has fled from your house, either. In your house, sure. Again, that's just what I got from reading your magazines and newspapers.
Were you to beat the man in the head with a baseball bat after chasing him down the block, ignore pleas to stop before you kill him, and continue beating him in the head with the bat after he is clearly unconscious and also despite continue please to stop (or put a few more bullets in him), my impression is that the US justice system would have something to say about that.
In Texas, if you assaulted a helpless man on someone else's property, you'd be going to jail, too. The particular act for which this guy is going to jail was done to someone who had ceased to be threatening and ceased to be an intruder.
There was recently a case in Texas where a man shot two intruders breaking into the neighbor's house. The man knew the neighbor was gone so nobody's life was in danger. He told the 911 operator he was going to kill them both. He did kill them. 0 time in jail
Remind me not to volunteer to cat-sit for friends if I move to Texas!
You're not kidding -- big spat of accidental shootings immediately after that; everyone wanted to be a big hero and protect their neightbors' house (acually, hell with the neighbors; they just wanted to be a "big hero" and shoot someone). Luckily, we're not at the point yet where you're more likely to be killed by a neighbor than a junkie. And neighbors and junkies together don't come close to the massive numbers slain by drunk drivers here -- drivers who are of course Heathansson's "prey," because they're obviously not out to hurt anyone, they was just having a good time.
|
|
That part is fine. It's the part where he then maimed the unconscious burglar over his neighbor's cries for mercy that got him convicted.
And the neighbor probably had no idea what had preceded the attack she witnessed. Had she, she may have turned a blind eye or even joined in. Or perhaps still held to the high road.
And what of the social consequences of opening the doors to vengeance attacks?
Honestly I don't see this as a "revenge" act but as a continuation of the conflict that began in the victims home. I understand the law sees it differently and in a civilized society rightly so. If it was hours or a day or more later, if the victim tracked this guy down after the fact and instead of notifying the police initiated this beating then that would be a revenge attack.
I won't speak for what the victims motivation or mindset was while fracturing the criminals skull after witnessing a knife held to his daughters throat and his own life being threatened. But I don't think he deserved jail time.
The three home invaders DO deserve incarceration regardless of their mental capacity. To let any of them off with less than the maximum penalty available under the law sends a message that if your victims defend themselves you will get away with your crime. None of this would have happened if the three armed home invaders had stayed out of the victims home.
The biggest differentiating factor here seems to be that he didn't manage to do this in his home but followed the criminal down the street. And I agree that was foolish. It seems this is riding the thin line and thats what made this case against the victim possible.
I guess it really depends upon the state you live in; but my dad always said make sure you kill them; that way when you go to court there is only your side of the story; this seems to lead credance to that idea.
Man fights off burglars, severely injures one, receives jail sentence--burglar goes free.
I would have put this in the 'Today in the News' thread, but I think this one deserves its own space and discussion.
Your comments?
You're not kidding -- big spat of accidental shootings immediately after that; everyone wanted to be a big hero and protect their neightbors' house (acually, hell with the neighbors; they just wanted to be a "big hero" and shoot someone). Luckily, we're not at the point yet where you're more likely to be killed by a neighbor than a junkie.
Never heard of that. Do you have a link? P.S. Don't put up a link that refers to anything written by the Houston Chronicle or Austin American Statesman. I wouldn't believe a damn thing they put in their papers. ;)
|
That part is fine. It's the part where he then maimed the unconscious burglar over his neighbor's cries for mercy that got him convicted.
And the neighbor probably had no idea what had preceded the attack she witnessed. Had she, she may have turned a blind eye or even joined in. Or perhaps still held to the high road.
And what of the social consequences of opening the doors to vengeance attacks?Honestly I don't see this as a "revenge" act but as a continuation of the conflict that began in the victims home. I understand the law sees it differently and in a civilized society rightly so. If it was hours or a day or more later, if the victim tracked this guy down after the fact and instead of notifying the police initiated this beating then that would be a revenge attack.
I won't speak for what the victims motivation or mindset was while fracturing the criminals skull after witnessing a knife held to his daughters throat and his own life being threatened. But I don't think he deserved jail time.
The three home invaders DO deserve incarceration regardless of their mental capacity. To let any of them off with less than the maximum penalty available under the law sends a message that if your victims defend themselves you will get away with your crime. None of this would have happened if the three armed home invaders had stayed out of the victims home.
The biggest differentiating factor here seems to be that he didn't manage to do this in his home but followed the criminal down the street. And I agree that was foolish. It seems this is riding the thin line and thats what made this case against the victim possible.
There are two victims. One is a victim of a vicious burglar who threatened his family with a knife. The other is the victim of a vicious assault that left him mentally incapable of pleading. Do you have any idea how brain damaged you have to be that you can't enter a plea? Nice concept of justice there: Well, he can't understand what's going on, can barely avoid drooling but hell, let's lock him up anyway he clearly hasn't been punished enough. How do you expect him to defend himself if he's so brain damaged he can't even cope with guilty or not guilty? Oh, right, he's a criminal. F**k him sideways and ignore due process completely, he deserved it.
And, Gary, given that Texas is also the place where lost Japanese tourists are shot dead for the vicious crime of KNOCKING ON A DOOR and no one gets punished because the frightened moron who shot them was 'protecting his home' from these dangerous tourists, I hardly think it's a good example of somewhere that's got the balance right.
EDIT: Last paragraph removed at request below
There are two victims. One is a victim of a vicious burglar who threatened his family with a knife. The other is the victim of a vicious assault that left him mentally incapable of pleading. Do you have any idea how brain damaged you have to be that you can't enter a plea? Nice concept of...
That part is fine. It's the part where he then maimed the unconscious burglar over his neighbor's cries for mercy that got him convicted.
And the neighbor probably had no idea what had preceded the attack she witnessed. Had she, she may have turned a blind eye or even joined in. Or perhaps still held to the high road.
And what of the social consequences of opening the doors to vengeance attacks?Honestly I don't see this as a "revenge" act but as a continuation of the conflict that began in the victims home. I understand the law sees it differently and in a civilized society rightly so. If it was hours or a day or more later, if the victim tracked this guy down after the fact and instead of notifying the police initiated this beating then that would be a revenge attack.
I won't speak for what the victims motivation or mindset was while fracturing the criminals skull after witnessing a knife held to his daughters throat and his own life being threatened. But I don't think he deserved jail time.
Show me where I condoned the guy's action or that I said it was a balance.
The three home invaders DO deserve incarceration regardless of their mental capacity. To let any of them off with less than the maximum penalty available under the law sends a message that if your victims defend themselves you will get away with your crime. None of this would have happened if the three armed home invaders had stayed out of the victims home.The biggest differentiating factor here seems to be that he didn't manage to do this in his home but followed the criminal down the street. And I agree that was foolish. It seems this is riding the thin line and thats what made this case against the victim possible.
Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*.
|
|
Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*
Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
No problem. I've gotten hot headed once or twice(ok, more than that!) on these boards. Could you do me a favor? Could you please remove your last paragraph on the post I quoted? That could cause a big time flame war if others see it. I would appreciate it.
|
|
No problem. I've gotten hot headed once or twice(ok, more than that!) on these boards. Could you do me a favor? Could you please remove your last paragraph on the post I quoted? That could cause a big time flame war if others see it. I would appreciate it.Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
It's been removed. Sorry about that one, too. Obviously not in a good frame of mind to be arguing on the Internet at the moment.
It's been removed. Sorry about that one, too. Obviously not in a good frame of mind to be arguing on the Internet at the moment.No problem. I've gotten hot headed once or twice(ok, more than that!) on these boards. Could you do me a favor? Could you please remove your last paragraph on the post I quoted? That could cause a big time flame war if others see it. I would appreciate it.Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
Thanks mi amigo.
|
|
Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
# 1 actually I think the Japanese student you are refering to was shot in Louisiana on halloween. He did not understand english and did not obey shouted orders to stand down, back off or whatever. A horrible tragedy.
#2 I am confused - did I accuse Garydee of something or am I being accused of something? Please clarify.
|
|
Show me where I condoned the guy's action. Yeah, Japanese tourists are always getting blasted here in Texas. It's a major societal problem. *rolls eyes*Strangely enough, people don't get charged for beating up burglars a lot over here either. It's very rare with most cases being legitimate self-defence and no case is even brought. Yet from the reactions of the people here, including you upthread, you'd think people who tickle burglars with a feather were being sent to jail for life.
Also, you're right. That was at Tom rather than you. I'm just so used to you being the other side to me (and therefore wrong ;-) ) in this thread that I targeted you by reflex. I apologise for that.
# 1 actually I think the Japanese student you are refering to was shot in Louisiana on halloween. He did not understand english and did not obey shouted orders to stand down, back off or whatever. A horrible tragedy.
#2 I am confused - did I accuse Garydee of something or am I being accused of something? Please clarify.
First paragraph that Garydee quotes is pretty much a direct response to your view that the burglar who is now mentally unfit thanks to the beating he received should still be prosecuted in this case.
Second paragraph was in reference to to his comment about the shooting in Texas referring to A Man in Black's comment. My reading at the time was that he was condoning this rather than just stating it and holding up Texas as what should be allowed. When I replied I got confused as to who had written what and thought I was responding to you not him. Now if that's any clearer, I should apologise to you for saying you said something you didn't, so I will. The first paragraph, where I really should have stopped, still applies.
EDIT: And if it was in Louisianna, then I'm showing my memory isn't perfect and that should be ignored.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The tourist issue is conflating two incidents.
The germane one: a British tourist visiting Houston in January, 1995 got drunk and lost. He gave the taxi driver a garbled address and ended up wandering around an unfamiliar suburban neighborhood, very late at night. He knocked at a random home's front door. The occupant fired his shotgun through the front door, killing the tourist.
I was on a church choir tour in Texas at the time, and it received a fair amount of media attention. Mostly of the "damned fool tourist, what did he expect?" variety.
The next month, I was attending a conference in London. It was still receiving a lot of media attention, of an entirely different spin.
--+--
Regarding the recent fellow ho shot the guys burglarizing his neighbor's home: it appears he opened fire after he confronted them, armed, and they approached him on his property. At that point, yeah, if I'd been him, I'd be afraid for my personal safety.
--+--+--
Rhubarb, I really don't know what to say to you, other than to invite you to read a book on civics. For good or ill, we are a nation of laws. If somebody's going to be punished for a crime, it has to happen after they get arrested, tried, and found guilty.
Vigilante beatings, shootings, and lynchings are great, I suppose, so long as the vigilantes aren't after you, either because they're mistaken, or because somebody decided to rouse up his neighbors against you, or a host of other reasons.
--+--
I am keen to the irony of the way we're having this conversation on a board dedicated to role-playing vigilantes in a medieval fantasy setting.
|
|
First paragraph that Garydee quotes is pretty much a direct response to your view that the burglar who is now mentally unfit thanks to the beating he received should still be prosecuted in this case.Second paragraph was in reference to to his comment about the shooting in Texas referring to A Man in Black's comment. My reading at the time was that he was condoning this rather than just stating it and holding up Texas as what should be allowed. When I replied I got confused as to who had written what and thought I was responding to you not him. Now if that's any clearer, I should apologise to you for saying you said something you didn't, so I will. The first paragraph, where I really should have stopped, still applies.
EDIT: And if it was in Louisianna, then I'm showing my memory isn't perfect and that should be ignored.
Ok, if I am confusing rather than clarifying my point, I'll drop this dead horse. I get the feeling the line is drawn and both sides have their view which is not gonna change anyway. And it seems the two sides are split by the fact that the beating took place outside the home vs the fact it happened at all.
And yea, google shows two shootings of Japanese students - 2 shot in LA by gang members and one shot in Louisiana on halloween during a percieved home invasion. Not to say none have been shot in Texas or anywhere else. Evidently after the shooting in Louisiana the Japanese government issued a pamphlet of phrases tourists should understand in America (back off, go away, stand down, surrender, hands up, that sort of stuff).
|
|
--+--
I am keen to the irony of the way we're having this conversation on a board dedicated to role-playing vigilantes in a medieval fantasy setting.
Yes, it's intersting we have all probably done stuff in game, in character that we would never do in the real world.
But then again in the real world the bad guys don't come convienently wrapped in green skin, have scales or bat wings or ping everytime the paladin detects evil.
|
|
The tourist issue is conflating two incidents.
The germane one: a British tourist visiting Houston in January, 1995 got drunk and lost. He gave the taxi driver a garbled address and ended up wandering around an unfamiliar suburban neighborhood, very late at night. He knocked at a random home's front door. The occupant fired his shotgun through the front door, killing the tourist.
Is this the incident you're talking about? In 1994?
my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.YAY! My computer speakers work, AND I have time. Gotta lotta Jade's Atomic Array to catch up on.....I highly recommend listening to them in backwards order... you can hear me getting happier and younger that way.
Soda Snot. Now THAT is a great name for a punk band. :)
my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.
For CJ :)
my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.For CJ :)
I hereby dub that an internet humor condom.
|
|
i'm not talking about randomly beating law abiding citizens, i'm talking about criminals, i don't need a civics lessons to learn right from wrong, i learned that when i was a child. i've known people who had their home broken into and not only had their property stolen but their house destroyed for no good reason. the people responsible where high school students who got community service after paying a fine that was no where near the damage they caused. i don't creep around at night looking for crimes so i can go all vigalante on somebody, but there is a point where it's obvious that 2 strange people are carrying your neighbors tv out his broken backdoor that i think its perfectly ok to say that they are goblins, er i mean thieves and whoop some ass in the name of whats right
Until you find out they're friends of your neighbours who are moving his old tv out to make way for his new one. Ooops.
Besides which, who appointed you judge, jury and executioner of the law? This is not Mega City One and your name is not Dredd.
{casts Eternal Sidekick at the Man: Rob Schneider is summoned to torment him}