Posted on 08/18/2007 8:13:06 PM PDT by nmh
Rather than shooting people, I’d be more concerned whether or not my daughter would be using protection. A 17 year old girl is going to do what she wants to do. Of course none of my daughters are teens, and I may have a very different viewpoint then. I DO have several firearms to choose from. ;p
Yeah this thread was up a couple weeks ago. Got real ugly — at me as I recall.
According to this page:
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
16 is the legal age of consent in Arkansas. So yes, she could legally invite someone “in”.
The father is an idiot through and through. As are those supporting him shooting the kid, or attacking him with a pool cue.
You nailed it!
(Another father)
I commented on what you said in post 3. Quess that homeowners @$$ will belong to some boys in prison now. Sure his teenage daughter will miss him. He’s a real man!
Yes, she can legally “invite” someone in between her legs.
However; she doesn’t own the domicile. If the owner tells his child (for whom he is legally responsible) that he forbids guests then his word is “law.” The other thread had more info. Apparently she wasn’t allowed to have boys over when Mom and Dad were away.
She could always go to the guys house. Or they could do it next to the dumpster behind the 7-11.
Don’t get me wrong. The father had some serious issues and really screwed up. They likely contributed to the problems. Many lives were ruined here.
You can think that’s the “law” all you want.
The second you start enforcing it with pool cues and/or firearms, the Law will own you, as it is owning this guy.
His daughter pretty obviously invited this kid into the house. This is not cause for attacking him, legally.
If you don’t have kids, and plan on it, I suggest you think long and hard on the above.
If, this is true; both sides went overboard; the father firing a gun through the door and the government charging him with terrorism.
I do believe the guy should get a stiff sentence. Not that my Dad ever found a boy in my bedroom; I would have been in trouble; but he if he really had reason not to like the boy; he told the boy or his father.
From hiredhand - Sheesh...did anybody actually understand what you said?! It seemed simple enough to me.
From rayvd - Sounds like he was probably drunk and has a temper problem to boot.
Other than hiredhand do any of you understand the words I am typing?
I really hope your comprehension problems do not lead you to enter my home without my permission. This isn’t a threat, please don’t misunderstand because that is not how it is intended. I feel like I drifted over to DU (whoa whoa whoa FEEEEEELINGS!).
About the little Chicky-Boom in the story? She obviously wasn’t too concerned with her “Boo’s” well being. I get the impression Daddy-kins made it clear that he had enough of her midmorning habits.
Hey rayvd, if you check out the other thread the father knew she was up to something. He left for work and parked down the road. He telephoned before going to the house. The daughter mentioned to the cops that he never did that before. She had told him she was “taking a nap.” He wasn’t drunk. Just angry and stupid.
A whole lot of individuals in this story really screwed up. That includes daddy and his little girl. As for Michael Guzman, aka Romeo? I don’t think any fathers have to worry about him sneaking into their houses any more.
I think I covered most of your comment in my #52.
Think old school. What happens in my house is my business. Daddy-O likely screwed up somewhere. Maybe he didn’t and the problem is a teacher is encouraging his daughter to exercise her right to knock boots. I don’t know.
i think it’s more like this: when stuff like this is called terrorism, fatherhood is terrorism. when fatherhood is terrorism...well, draw your own conclusions.
“When stuff like this is called terrorism, the word loses its meaning. When terrorism loses its meaning, the resolve to fight it is weakened.
God help us when terrorism jumps the shark.”
Here’s the explanation from the earlier thread:
The Arkansas Code indicates that this language is just a bit of legalese unique to that state and pre-dates the “anti-terror” laws that we’ve heard so much about in recent years. Here ‘tis, oddly worded though it seems to be:
5-13-310. Terroristic act.
(a) For the purposes of this section, a person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person:
(1) Shoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property; or
(2) Shoots at an occupiable structure with the purpose to cause injury to a person or damage to property.
(b)(1) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class B felony.
(2) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class Y felony if the person with the purpose of causing physical injury to another person causes serious physical injury or death to any person.
(c) This section does not repeal any law or part of a law in conflict with this section, but is supplemental to the law or part of a law in conflict.
The only thing that even deserves consideration here is the fact that the father fired blindly through the door with his daughter on the other side. Could he possibly have been more stupid and irresponsible?
“i think it’s more like this: when stuff like this is called terrorism, fatherhood is terrorism. when fatherhood is terrorism...well, draw your own conclusions.”
So part of fatherhood is firing blindly through a door when your daughter is on the other side? I hope you don’t have any daughters.
please cite the words you just put in my "mouth," you imbecil.
He was a guest of the daughter. The daughter abused her privilege to invite guests over and he should of politely asked the guest to eave, then beat his daughter with a pool stick. Then she would be a easy target to shoot. This will teach her not to invite guests over.
Read post 55 for the reason he was charged with terrorism. It has nothing at all to do with 9/11 or what we think of as terrorism. You might try to learn a little before you spout off.
I don’t see where I put words in your mouth. The guy was charged with terrorism for shooting blindly through a door and hitting the boyfriend. His daughter was on the other side and could have been hit just as easily. You called what this guy did “fatherhood.” Sounds like you’re the imbecile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.