Jump to content

2 Home Invasions With VERY Different Outcomes


bgr39
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 Home Invasions With VERY Different Outcomes.
Posted by Admin On November 26, 2013 0 Comment
..................................................
Four arrested after home invasion in Columbia, Pa.
UPDATED 7:15 PM EST Nov 05, 2013

Columbia Borough Police say four people have been arrested after a violent home invasion and robbery on Tuesday morning.

The incident happened around 3:08 a.m. at a home in the 300 block of Walnut Street.

Responding officers located a car that had fled from the scene and became disabled. Police arrested Randy Helm II, 22, Stephen Myers, 34, Scott Reisinger, 34 and Elizabeth Andrews, 27, all of Columbia.

Police say all four suspects allegedly forced entry into the home, while wearing masks and carrying baseball bats.

Several people who lived in the home were able to flee. One of the females was sexually assaulted and another sustained a broken arm after she was struck with a baseball bat.

All four suspects are facing multiple charges including Burglary, Attempted Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Criminal Conspiracy.

.......................................................
2 Robbery Suspects Shot During Home Invasion in West Columbus
Wednesday November 20, 2013 5:51 PM
UPDATED: Wednesday November 20, 2013 11:25 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Columbus police say two robbery suspects were shot during an attempted home invasion on the west side of Columbus Wednesday evening.

The shooting was reported around 5:30 p.m. near the Wildwood Village Apartments on Cascade Court.

Police said three men and a woman attempted to force their way into an apartment.

Officers said one of the men living inside fired at the suspects, hitting two of them.

Both were critically injured.

Neighbor Jerry Marret said this is not the first time the two people living inside the apartment have been victimized.

They were robbed before, about a year ago, and one of the fellas was hit so hard on the side of the head cut his ear in half with a baseball bat," said Marret.

Officers are questioning the man who opened fire as they continue to investigate.

Watch 10TV and refresh 10TV.com for the latest news.

 

Gee, I wonder why none of the people in the home were injured or raped in the second story? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good emotional argument, but it is a weak argument in total as it relies on the tenuous fact that guns don't end up killing the wrong people, ever, for it to be a consistent argument.

Addressing our economy would do more to address wanton violence by removing the circumstances that promote wanton violence. Meme-like posts do nothing for the anti-gun argument, or for the pro-gun argument, but it does a ton for the Status Quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good emotional argument, but it is a weak argument in total as it relies on the tenuous fact that guns don't end up killing the wrong people, ever, for it to be a consistent argument.

 

Addressing our economy would do more to address wanton violence by removing the circumstances that promote wanton violence. Meme-like posts do nothing for the anti-gun argument, or for the pro-gun argument, but it does a ton for the Status Quo.

 

Excellent reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in one case the homeowner could have shot and killed their son, their neighbor, the police, anybody actually.

 

But in this case, while statistically they would almost certainly be dead now if who they were shooting at also had guns, they got away with luck like I wanna take to the casino with me next time I go.

 

Guns are for immature children.

 

surprise surprise the vast majority of people who love them are rightwingers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how does the liberal expect the commoner to react?

To home invasion, your home? Protect your family the best way you know how, of course.

 

We need to defeat the circumstances that cause desperate people to crazy things. Getting rid of guns won't change things, Guns in every home won't change things either. Food on the table, and clothes on the kids will, in time.

 

This gun debate is a farce, a distraction. Simply put, we need to reduce the size of our Army dramatically (not our Navy), to free up spending at home. Unfortunately, when you have a society with so many single parents, the rest of us become foster parents like it or not; the assumption being poverty = wanton violence. Back to guns, with a smaller Army, the teeth of tyranny has been removed, and our defense can be handled by a well-regulated militia and our Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in one case the homeowner could have shot and killed their son, their neighbor, the police, anybody actually.

 

But in this case, while statistically they would almost certainly be dead now if who they were shooting at also had guns, they got away with luck like I wanna take to the casino with me next time I go.

 

Guns are for immature children.

 

surprise surprise the vast majority of people who love them are rightwingers

strange how you pos progressive commie socialist libloons dont like god or guns,

but when you need help, you pray to god someone with a gun shows up asap...

 

arent there any countries where you can go live gun free ?

 

here in the real world we need protection from the democrat controlled crime riddled clusters of high taxes and libloons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To home invasion, your home? Protect your family the best way you know how, of course.

 

We need to defeat the circumstances that cause desperate people to crazy things. Getting rid of guns won't change things, Guns in every home won't change things either. Food on the table, and clothes on the kids will, in time.

 

This gun debate is a farce, a distraction. Simply put, we need to reduce the size of our Army dramatically (not our Navy), to free up spending at home. Unfortunately, when you have a society with so many single parents, the rest of us become foster parents like it or not; the assumption being poverty = wanton violence. Back to guns, with a smaller Army, the teeth of tyranny has been removed, and our defense can be handled by a well-regulated militia and our Navy.

If only most liberals thought like you do. Unfortunately, it IS your side that is instigating getting rid of guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only most liberals thought like you do. Unfortunately, it IS your side that is instigating getting rid of guns.

Are you for a massive reduction in the size of our Army, to say 25% of it current size? Just like the ratio of paid fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters?

 

By doing so, you negate the concern of a Tyrannical government, but it comes at the cost of Democratizing our defense at home. We would have to step up and volunteer to defend our country. Well regulated, meaning trained and accountable volunteers, would seem to be a better people to have possession of M4's than a some guy who thinks they are pretty cool, and has convoluted thoughts of sedition as liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for a massive reduction in the size of our Army, to say 25% of it current size? Just like the ratio of paid fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters?

 

By doing so, you negate the concern of a Tyrannical government, but it comes at the cost of Democratizing our defense at home. We would have to step up and volunteer to defend our country. Well regulated, meaning trained and accountable volunteers, would seem to be a better people to have possession of M4's than a some guy who thinks they are pretty cool, and has convoluted thoughts of sedition as liberty.

 

25% seems excessive. I have no problem reducing spending 50% though. Doing that many people would be able to keep their jobs and instead we wouldn't spend countless billions on air superiority fighters that no other country comes close to...(yes the F22 is a waste of money no matter how cool it is). But if we are going to reduce military spending we need to reduce social welfare spending by just as much while also cutting taxes for citizens and promoting small business instead of taxing them into failure. I think the national guard should be bigger and the rest of the military smaller. I think we need to pull out our military personnel from all countries except for a small number of them.

 

Basically become more isolationist except in trade. Until our own country is fixed who are we to say what other countries should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

25% seems excessive. I have no problem reducing spending 50% though. Doing that many people would be able to keep their jobs and instead we wouldn't spend countless billions on air superiority fighters that no other country comes close to...(yes the F22 is a waste of money no matter how cool it is). But if we are going to reduce military spending we need to reduce social welfare spending by just as much while also cutting taxes for citizens and promoting small business instead of taxing them into failure. I think the national guard should be bigger and the rest of the military smaller. I think we need to pull out our military personnel from all countries except for a small number of them.

 

Basically become more isolationist except in trade. Until our own country is fixed who are we to say what other countries should do.

Isolationist is a misnomer if you think about it, you are forced to engaged in diplomacy, and better trade policies. So no real disagreement; just throw that out if you are ever called an isolationist as an insult.

 

Now to the part that makes me liberal rather than a Ron Paul Libertarian (though he has cuaght my vote for the fact that he is honest), I would argue that Infantries are fairly easy to raise, especially when you have a truly well-regulated militia of volunteers. You would need to keep in place a nucleus of our best and most highly trained 'advisors' to make this possible, but no larger than necessary to activate volunteers to regulars (I say it's 25% of current, you say 50%, either way it's the right direction). You would still need to fund armor in peace time, since it would be impractical to do so after hostilities have broken out. I would argue that in the short term, we would would need to address the ills of poverty, not by prolonging it through the welfare state, but through direct aid for measureable improvements for our nation's poor. This would mean funding technical degrees, and in some cases bachelor degrees. All of this would need to be merit based, and would have to be for career field that would lead to gainful employment, (think engineers etc.) sorry art majors, you need not apply. This socialised funding of higher education should relieve the dole, and bring in more taxpayers. As the ghettos are de-ghettoed, we can roll back this direct aid. When you remove the excuse of tutition and books for higher education as a prohibitive factor, people will either rise or fail accordinlgy to own initiatives and aptitiudes.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolationist is a misnomer if you think about it, you are forced to engaged in diplomacy, and better trade policies. So no real disagreement; just throw that out if you are ever called an isolationist as an insult.

 

Now to the part that makes me liberal rather than a Ron Paul Libertarian (though he has cuaght my vote for the fact that he is honest), I would argue that Infantries are fairly easy to raise, especially when you have a truly well-regulated militia of volunteers. You would need to keep in place a nucleus of our best and most highly trained 'advisors' to make this possible, but no larger than necessary to activate volunteers to regulars (I say it's 25% of current, you say 50%, either way it's the right direction). You would still need to fund armor in peace time, since it would be impractical to do so after hostilities have broken out. I would argue that in the short term, we would would need to address the ills of poverty, not by prolonging it through the welfare state, but through direct aid for measureable improvements for our nation's poor. This would mean funding technical degrees, and in some cases bachelor degrees. All of this would need to be merit based, and would have to be for career field that would lead to gainful employment, (think engineers etc.) sorry art majors, you need not apply. This socialised funding of higher education should relieve the dole, and bring in more taxpayers. As the ghettos are de-ghettoed, we can roll back this direct aid. When you remove the excuse of tutition and books for higher education as a prohibitive factor, people will either rise or fail accordinlgy to own initiatives and aptitiudes.

 

 

 

 

I agree, dump the money we save from military and welfare spending into secondary education and restructure the way primary schools work now. Instead of wasting all this money on sports technology needs to be pushed harder as does critical thinking math. That way schools can still push for college but by subsidizing it more it will be an affordable option for more and more students. I can't tell you how many people I have met that didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. Even community college is starting to get close to $100 a unit if you aren't low income.

 

Also I think "liberals" would be more open to cutting welfare if we make college affordable because then there isn't really any excuse for why someone failed.

 

Why can't government work like us. Two seemingly rational people who agree about a lot and disagree about a few things could easily come to compromises about most things. (this is rhetorical)

 

Your definition of Liberal and mine must be different though because I wouldn't consider you liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surprise surprise the vast majority of people who commit crimes involving firearms are leftwingers

 

obviously we should ban democrats from possessing firearms

idiot, i would ask you to prove that but since we both know there is no such data and that you are making it up

 

idiot

 

next you are going to say

 

CHICAGO :D

 

you racist garbage are so predictable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, dump the money we save from military and welfare spending into secondary education and restructure the way primary schools work now. Instead of wasting all this money on sports technology needs to be pushed harder as does critical thinking math. That way schools can still push for college but by subsidizing it more it will be an affordable option for more and more students. I can't tell you how many people I have met that didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. Even community college is starting to get close to $100 a unit if you aren't low income.

 

Also I think "liberals" would be more open to cutting welfare if we make college affordable because then there isn't really any excuse for why someone failed.

 

Why can't government work like us. Two seemingly rational people who agree about a lot and disagree about a few things could easily come to compromises about most things. (this is rhetorical)

 

Your definition of Liberal and mine must be different though because I wouldn't consider you liberal.

Ask me about my take on single payer healthcare then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for a massive reduction in the size of our Army, to say 25% of it current size? Just like the ratio of paid fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters?

 

By doing so, you negate the concern of a Tyrannical government, but it comes at the cost of Democratizing our defense at home. We would have to step up and volunteer to defend our country. Well regulated, meaning trained and accountable volunteers, would seem to be a better people to have possession of M4's than a some guy who thinks they are pretty cool, and has convoluted thoughts of sedition as liberty.

Women will tell you, size doesn't matter. It's how you use it that counts.

 

The only thing that negates the concern of a tyrannical government is to stop creating laws and punishing people for breaking laws without "just cause" instead of "just because it's the law" and to start respecting each others liberty instead of attacking everyones liberty because a tiny fraction misused theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...