Burglary under common law was a different sort of robbery, by definition only at night and had stiffer penalties. The idea was, I guess, breaking into peoples homes when they are sleeping is a bit worse. I’m not sure why they changed terminology. Robbery would work in the restaurant incident.
Nitpick: Not a type of robbery, a type of breaking and entering.
Oh, I don’t know. My son’s effed up before, and he’s only ten. I don’t want to think about what mistakes he’ll be capable of in the future. I just hope he learns from them.
I do think he’s better behaved than about 75% of the other kids in this country, but he learned to say “please” and “Thank you” before “mine,” and he has never run around a restaurant, or kicked the back of anyone’s chair on a plane or in a movie theater.
I’m not in the pro-gun crowd, all for plenty of restrictions, don’t feel sorry for idiots that carry loaded guns into states where that is against the law, etc.
An unstable ex-employee dumb-ass with a gun is not the really a great poster child for your point. We do sadly get crazed shooters in this country that return to a former place of work and start shooting. Better him than an innocent.
Exactly. This makes no more sense than to say that the neutralizing of an active shooter by a SWAT team, is “execution without trial/conviction.”
Yup. The MSM misleading and lying through false-equivalence again.
The only “bolted down” drink machines I see are in pubic access places like malls, large cafeterias and food courts where there is a bank of them and I get the impression it’s more to secure them from theft than safety issues. All the stand alone soda machines I see in most office buildings, even state office buildings are not bolted down. Do you have a cite about the bolted down requirement being law?
Rivkah is talking about this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011021065711/http://www.cokemachineaccidents.com/index.html
If it’s not a hoax, his parents were never successful. They don’t have to be bolted down:
ETA: not even in Canada
Because the more general comment was made that “Stand Your Ground,” laws only apply when violence is in the mix. I pointed out Florida’s law as a counterexample.
I’m curious about one issue. The law x-ray vision quoted says “Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter”. So being invited to enter can be a legal point.
Does the law define who can invite you to enter? At one extreme would be another trespasser who broke into a house a few minutes earlier and called out to you “Hey, come on in here and check this out!” I don’t see how this would count as you having been legally invited to enter the building.
On the other hand, suppose one of the employees in a convenience store is a buddy of yours. And he invites you to come inside and hang out with him while he cleans the store up after it’s closed for the day. While you’re inside you commit some felony. Where you legally invited inside the store? You were invited inside by somebody who was legally entitled to be there.
They were successful in some voluntary bolting, I see now. They must have won and had it overturned, or something, because the last time I looked at it was in the late 1990s, and it looked like they’d won. Apparently on military bases, machines are bolted down, though.
Yeah, I know what you meant.
Where do you see that? I see this:
*"The recommendations of the report are equally unsatisfactory, as all of the recommendations have been made previously, — but not been adhered to — so much for voluntary compliance and corporate goodwill.
…
Preventing the reoccurrence of such accidents must become a public issue; voluntarism has not worked…"*
It’s more likely that you’re not remembering correctly. I’m sure that would have been news that made it to the internet.
Though? But that has nothing to do with this case, right?
Where do you see that that’s apparently so?
Different article. Apparently a Marine died the same way in 1989, so the military was OK with it.
It would be nice if you started linking to cites instead of waiting to be asked. 
And possibly a civil suit, which are typically much more likely to succeed than a criminal action. Because ultimately Mr Sanders is responsible for the death of her son. He was not supposed to have that gun in his place of employment. He was not supposed to have that gun as a felon. Whether or not this will sway a civil case would be interesting to see. We may not see it because Mr Sanders probably has no money or assets worth going after in a civil case, but it’s one of the mom’s options.
Enjoy,
Steven
JerrySTL and drewder were talking about the incident in the OP that happened fairly recently at a Pizza hut. You’re talking about an incident in a McDonald’s that occurred in 2007. If there was a civil lawsuit there is nothing about it I could find online.
My law prof in grad school said if you ever have to shoot someone, you say two things.
“I was in fear for my life.”
“I want to speak to my attorney.”
Then STFU.
I was going to post something similar when drewder said “if the attacker is not a physical threat to the shooter then your argument that you feared for you life is much less likely to be accepted.”
What argument? I would keep my mouth shut. In NC one is presumed to have held that fear if someone is or has unlawfully and forcibly entered your home, workplace, etc. I wouldn’t risk fucking that presumption up by making any arguments or justifications for fear (or say too much in any locale).
ME: That dead person there was trying to break into my home. I shot her.
THEM: Where exactly were you when you shot her?
ME: I’ve got nothing else to say.
THEM: Were you in fear for your life?
ME: I’ve got nothing else to say.