Utopia Talk / Politics / Actual Gender Issue

Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 08:26:57 Apparently women in Manassas, and undoubtedly VA at large, are expected to smile at burglars and thank them for breaking in to steal their things. One step closer to the United Cuckdom. http://www...0d-11e7-b51d-57280fcd4711.html A woman is accused of firing a shotgun at a man when he allegedly tried to take items from a Manassas-area home, Prince William police spokesperson Officer Nathan Probus said. Judith Ashley Hopkins, 34, of 7984 Deward Court, Manassas, was charged with attempted malicious wounding and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Little-David Arris Bowser Mason, 29, of 7311 Rokeby Drive, Manassas, faces a burglary charge. Mason flagged down an officer around 8:20 a.m. Wednesday in the 10600 block of Dumfries Road to report Hopkins had attempted to shoot him, Probus said. Investigators determined Mason had entered the house without permission to take unspecified property and the two got into an argument. As Mason was attempted to load items into a car, Hopkins allegedly grabbed a shotgun and fired two rounds toward Mason before she went back into the house, Probus said. The bullets struck Mason’s car. No injuries or additional property damage was reported. Hopkins is being held without bond. Mason is being held in lieu of a $5,000 secured bond. Both are expected to appear in court Aug. 18.
hood Member	Fri Aug 11 08:37:39 Do the to know each other? Are they acquaintances? Exes? There seems to be more to this than is reported.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 11 08:46:56 "Judith Ashley Hopkins, 34, of 7984 Deward Court, Manassas, was charged with attempted malicious wounding and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony." Mason is the one who was committing the damn felony.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 09:08:46 They knew each other. http://www...pt/police/pages/dir081017.aspx
hood Member	Fri Aug 11 09:17:28 Yeah. Makes a lot more sense that they knew each other. Might still be a ridiculous charge, but not nearly as ludicrous.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 09:38:10 Tried to rob an acquaintance.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 09:41:05 It comes down to what the law says. There appears to be a provision for protection of property in discharging a firearm (not in a person's direction, though). However, there doesn't seem to be such an exception for attempting to shoot someone to protect your property. And from what we know so far, there doesn't seem to be an issue of self-defense.
Paramount Member	Fri Aug 11 09:45:01 Wasn't it something similar like this that got O.J Simpson in jail? Except that O.J never fired a shot or anything.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 09:50:18 OJs friends had guns and it does say the guy is charged w/ burglary too... even if he's an ex or whatever (article is crap)
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 10:30:10 Yep, comes down to what the law says. At the end of the day, if a man breaks into your home and is carting shit off, thank him for taking your belongings, and if you're a woman, wait until he leaves to call police, to avoid retaliation. B-b-but at least they can be programmers
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 10:57:38 Terrible troll attempt. There aren't very many states (if any?) that allow you to shoot an unarmed person who stealing your shit.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:07:09 So, little recourse for a woman being robbed. More severe consequences for defending her property than for the robber. Again, smile at him and thank him for taking her things.
hood Member	Fri Aug 11 11:07:55 This seems like it's pretty fucking fail.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:11:13 What does gender have to do with it beyond being troll bait? Most, if not all, states have laws that pretty much show human life, even criminal life, is valued more highly than property. This is one of those laws.
Trolly McSerious Member	Fri Aug 11 11:28:36 Or the sheer fact this was a domestic situation and should be a civil standby.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:31:27 Yes, it's not even some random intruder that she'd have to describe to the cops, but wouldn't know his name, etc. She knew the guy, so the cops probably wouldn't have much trouble tracking him down.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:35:26 "What does gender have to do with it beyond being troll bait?" That women, as an aggregate, are vulnerable to men in physical confrontations. That without a weapon, she would face the very real possibility of violent retaliation if she attempted to exercise her only legal alternative - to call the cops. And as court precedent has established that police have zero legal obligation to protect individuals, her only real protection is what she can muster herself. "this was a domestic situation" "acquaintance" != "domestic situation", or he wouldn't be charged with burglary.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:42:15 I realize you're an overly dramatic cynic when it comes to the police, but if you call the cops and tell them an intruder is in your house right now, they're going to show up quickly. As for protection, she could have easily grabbed her gun and then called the cops. In fact, it appears that she could have even fired her gun into the ground or something and not been charged. There appears (from my reading) to be a stipulation protecting someone from that, even if they are protecting their property. However, she (apparently) shot at the man, which is totally different in the eyes of the law.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:46:46 Are you really pulling the "warning shot" line? How fucking childish, cliche, and naive. It ignores basic precedent, and further puts an onus on the victim to exercise 100% sound judgment during an extraordinary situation. We give that benefit of doubt to cops, but not to normal citizens. Further, voicing judicial precedent is not being an "overly dramatic cynic", it's telling you what reality is.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:48:00 Please take a concealed carry class and harp your nonsense about a warning shot. Fucking lol. So ignorant.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:49:35 No, reality is that if you call the cops and report an intruder currently in your home, they are going to show up. The reality is also that you are breaking the law, in (I'm willing to bet) every single state, if you shoot (or shoot at) someone on your property who is not presenting imminent bodily threat.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:51:50 The big difference is whether you are in your own (castle, I think) or somewhere else on your property and have a reasonable method of retreat. State law varies greatly in those regards. But all are based around self-defense, which is not an issue here.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:52:04 *own home
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:52:34 Yes, reality is they'll show up. Eventually. If it's an hour and a half later, as is fairly common in shitty larger cities, because other stuff is going on, tough luck.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 11:53:55 "every single state" Thank God for Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:57:15 I'm willing to bet he was still technically breaking the law. Feel free to look up the law in Texas - I'm curious what you will find. However, it's definitely true that these cases do not always end up with prosecution.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 11:59:42 "Yes, reality is they'll show up. Eventually. If it's an hour and a half later, as is fairly common in shitty larger cities, because other stuff is going on, tough luck." It's possible. And if a person decides not to wait and shoots at the person, they are risking charges and being prosecuted. You don't like the laws. I get it. Tough shit.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 12:06:20 Yeah. Actual gender issue. The law disenfranchises the least physically able of our society in favor of the predations of criminals.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 12:08:12 Or more likely you're just using the gender card because it's convenient and you think it helps your cause of wanting property owners to be able to shoot trespassers legally.
TJ Member	Fri Aug 11 12:08:35 She is in trouble according to Virginia law. In order to use deadly force it takes an overt act of perceived immediate danger of life. Her in the house and him at the car with no weapon she will be found guilty. If she had stayed in her home and locked herself in a room, called 911, and remained pointing the weapon toward the door she would have been safe unless he broke into the room at which point she would have had the right to use deadly force. Even if he rightfully owned what he was taking. Face the facts, since he already broke into the home, again another opportunity where he could have been legally shot does not bode well for her defense. She has an impossible task to clam innocence under Virginia law. She is fortunate that he wasn't killed or injured. Before you pull the trigger make sure you know your rights of self-defense and act accordingly.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 12:10:15 "again another opportunity where he could have been legally shot" Actually, I'm pretty sure not in this case (based on the information we have).
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 12:13:59 In order for it to be self-defense, it usually (probably always) has to be in defense of yourself against someone committing a *violent* crime. This person was unarmed, at least as far as we know, so the only real self-defense case would be if he was physically assaulting her (or about to).
TJ Member	Fri Aug 11 12:15:40 Actually if she wanted to deceive about what was happening she would have had a better chance in her defense. Not that she wouldn't have still been found guilty. That is the thing about hindsight. You are right.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 12:17:52 Oh yeah, if she wanted to shoot the guy, doing so in her home and claiming he was about to assault her or whatever would have been the way to go. At least then there is a potentially defensible case.
TJ Member	Fri Aug 11 12:22:50 Exactly... But..., since we know that wasn't the case, she will be found guilty.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Aug 11 12:28:37 If it goes to full trial, yeah. A grand jury might decide not to bring charges, though - it's not super rare, I guess. In a preliminary trial where it's just a judge, yeah, probably going to full trial along with a guilty conviction.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Aug 11 13:41:30 if he was a random burglar i doubt he would've complained to the cops... or parked in her driveway while she's home... or stole items in front of her... a home invader would be at least tying her up seems more like a 'bitches be crazy' situation
hood Member	Fri Aug 11 13:56:58 Nobody has ever accused forwyn of being intelligent.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 11 15:23:40 'bitches be crazy' Except he was charged with burglary.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 10:30:02 When forwyn tries to dicuss anything regarding law, he either misinterprets it or he doesn't understand it. "but but go to handgun class, cuz stuff." Except in this case you imbecile as this was one, domestically related as apparent they new each other. Let's set aside the acquaintance since you're hung up, it has no matter to it. The point is they knew each other, or more to the point they used to live together. Which adds more to the point that he probably went to retrieve property that he considered "his" who knows. The issue is that yes, while he entered the home without permission, they got into an argument and then he was outside of the home, this is where the threat stops and it is going to be difficult to articulate that she felt her life was threatened and elected to grab the shotgun and fire at him. Yeah, guess what, she is at fault too, and if she had hit him or killed him, most likely, she would ended up being charged, which ultimately she was anyway. Castle Doctrine plays a role. And yes, you cited the Joe Horn incident, good job. However it still stands, but in this case the Grand Jury didn't see there was enough evidence. This still doesn't negate the fact that he potentially violated the castle doctrine by exiting his home to engage others that were actually not on his property. But there are many factors that contributes to subjectivity in such matters. Bottomline, she was not in fear for her safety as he had already loaded his vehicle and was about to leave. The way you are trying to express this situation is purely sensationalism and you're being a bitch.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 10:30:26 Sorry, *forseb.
Forwyn Member	Sat Aug 12 11:28:31 "or more to the point they used to live together." You have absolutely zero proof of this. So it's pretty hilarious that you would accuse others of sensationalism. He was charged with burglary, not trespassing.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 11:36:23 " You have absolutely zero proof of this. " Considering he went to her place to retrieve property, they ended up in an argument, and she shot at him he went to the police.....most likely scenario they used to live together or were together. "So it's pretty hilarious that you would accuse others of sensationalism. " No, just you, fag. "He was charged with burglary, not trespassing." Yes. And?
Forwyn Member	Sat Aug 12 11:41:12 "Considering he went to her place to retrieve property" "Yes. And?" And retrieving your own property isn't a crime, you fucking idiot. This would entail trespassing. Burglary implies the intent to commit another crime, i.e. theft/robbery. You are a dumbass.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 11:48:17 "And retrieving your own property isn't a crime, you fucking idiot." Notice I didn't say his own property you, forseb. I said "to retrieve property" this eludes to different scenarios if they were in some type of partnership. Either they got property from rent a center together, or purchased property together that he felt was his. Or perhaps it was a gift given to her and now he is like, no I want it back. Who knows? But those could be some scenarios. Which goes back to the fact that he went there to get them. But no, forseb is forseb and those possibilities cannot happen. Let us not forget the fact that you started with OP on a false fucking pretense anyways. Stop being bitch. "This would entail trespassing. Burglary implies the intent to commit another crime, i.e. theft/robbery. " Not necessarily. You cannot commit a 'burglary' or theft without any other intention. You have to include other parameters into it. But, I will leave you to forseb logic, because that is what you do. Bitch.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 11:50:10 "*you can commit a 'burglary' or theft without any other intention." I shall elaborate, you may want to look into more domestic cases in regards to this.
Forwyn Member	Sat Aug 12 11:53:45 Or it's Joe from a party. Or he's a drug dealer. Or he lent her some money. You're ascribing a living situation to "acquaintance" as if it's the only possibility. The point is, you're making shit up. There are any number of reasons to use the word acquaintance, and just as many debunk your theories as support them. He could just as easily have been trying to jack her shit because he knew she lives alone as trying to get some old clothes. "You have to include other parameters into it." Yes, other parameters is important, as without other parameters, it's simply trespassing.
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 12:05:20 "Or it's Joe from a party. Or he's a drug dealer. Or he lent her some money. You're ascribing a living situation to "acquaintance" as if it's the only possibility. " No, you are ascribing that he was truthful when the guy said he was "acquaintance" and have been sticking to it ever since, not giving to the thought of other situations. The outcome, he was charged with burglary with a bond. She was charged and does not have a bond. Point is there is more to the story than is what is revealed and just reading into thus far especially the charges and how the bonds are set, and why he was there. There is some history. You wanted to pretend there wasn't. "Yes, other parameters is important, as without other parameters, it's simply trespassing." Yet he was only charged with burglary and not trespassing. Where in this scenario he could have been charged with both. Not entirely sure what you keep harping on this.
Forwyn Member	Sat Aug 12 12:28:46 you are ascribing that he was truthful when the guy said he was "acquaintance" 1. The opposite could be true. He could have no idea who she is. 2. If she is an ex-lover, he is better off saying she is an ex-lover, as trespassing to retrieve your belongings is a less serious crime than burglary. "Yet he was only charged with burglary and not trespassing. Where in this scenario he could have been charged with both. Not entirely sure what you keep harping on this." Because I'm hoping eventually you'll actually read up on the terms and realize that burglary is a more serious offense than trespassing, and that entering an ex-lover's house to retrieve his own property would qualify as the latter, not the former.
kargen Member	Sat Aug 12 15:16:15 She would be in trouble in Colorado. "Introduced in 1985 as the Homeowner Protection Act, “make my day” gives Colorado residents the right to shoot and kill an intruder if they believe the person intends to commit a crime and use physical force, “no matter how slight.” That extraordinary right stops at the door. Front porches and backyards don’t count."
delude Member	Sat Aug 12 15:35:44 "1. The opposite could be true. He could have no idea who she is. " Fact is they knew each other. But the inference you placed on that word were a lesser value. I am begging to differ. I am of the opinion that there was more a connection between them. "2. If she is an ex-lover, he is better off saying she is an ex-lover, as trespassing to retrieve your belongings is a less serious crime than burglary. " And she was better off getting taking his information and reporting to the police instead of stupidly getting her gun, going outside of her residence and firing a shot, then going back inside. If he was a 'true' criminal, since you want to play word games, he would not have reported to the police and just 'get away'. But no, he reported it, so therefore, there was more between them because he probably looked at it as "alright bitch, ill show you." which ultimately fucked him over and more so her. But sure, sit in your world, forseb. "Because I'm hoping eventually you'll actually read up on the terms and realize that burglary is a more serious offense than trespassing, and that entering an ex-lover's house to retrieve his own property would qualify as the latter, not the former." You would be wrong, he is still susceptible to be charged with either or both.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: