Posted on 01/04/2005 2:29:19 AM PST by kattracks
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. -- A man who shot and killed another man on his property has been indicted for second-degree murder, according to prosecutors. The grand jury indicted Charles D. Chieppa, 56, for the July 17 shooting of 26-year-old Frank Pereira Jr. with a rifle.The fatal shots were fired near Chieppa's property just before dawn. By sunrise, motorists drove past Mr. Pereira's body, honking their horns and shouting in support of the shooting, the Standard-Times of New Bedford reported.
Chieppa, a Vietnam War combat veteran, lived in his parent's old home and largely kept to himself, neighbors said.
The home was next to Alfie's bar, which is known for drug dealing and prostitution. Pereira had snatched a purse from an Alfie's patron just hours before he was shot, police said.
Police had initially said the shooting happened when Chieppa confronted a burglar breaking into his home around 4 a.m. A day later, detectives acknowledged that they were investigating whether Pereira had actually entered the house before Chieppa opened fire.
[snip]
"My son didn't deserve to die the way he did, even if he was trying to break in," said Evelina Salgueiro, the victim's mother. "You don't shoot someone in the back like that. He was shot in the street."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It still is -- if you're talking about the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport.
Yes, anything you say can and WILL be used against you.
Great! Good point ! I agree, but I don't own a gun....yet.
Depends how EEEEurrrrropeeeeean the state wants to be.
Perhaps this can be party of "Sandy" O'Connor's goal of harmonizing laws between all nations.
Sounds like really good advice.
There is no sense arguing with you because you are wrong as a matter of fact. The fact of the matter is that current law does not grant you legal fees. If you wish to change that, go ask your representatives. Otherwise, you are spitting in the wind.
Is that spin for the jury? Tell me how an opinion can be wrong as a "matter of fact".
To say again, people accussed of a crime and then found to be innocent, not guilty or acquited for lack of evidence should have their reasonable legal fees reimbursed by the government agency that brought charges against them.
Did you say you are an attorney?
...and then join the other liberals from that state that fail in a presidential bid.
Should they have their fees paid? Yes/No that is your opinion.
Are their fees paid currently if aquitted under the current system? No!
Case closed. If you want to believe otherwise that is fine. However, it is not fact. The fact is that under the current system you do not get your attorney fees paid by the taxpayer if you are aquitted.
Yes, I am an attorney. I do collection work for contractors and tradespeople.
It does not sound like we disagree on this. And if you want to close the case on discussion as to whether it should be that way, no problem.
If you want to believe otherwise that is fine.
Where in any of my comments do you find that I believe the system is as it should be? Seems this debate is now in bankruptcy. No problem, we've probably exhausted this topic anyhow. All the Best to you my friend! FReepRegards! BJN
How about this - I do collection work for contractors such as roofing, plumbing, etc. Some deadbeat homeowner or general contractor bounces a check or refuses to pay for services rendered for no valid reason. Now, either the plumber has to pay me hourly or by contingency just to get back what is owed. In 90% of the cases, even if the contract has language awarding attorney fees, courts and judges very rarely grant it to the winning plaintiff.
In all honesty, I try to avoid court and litigation as much possible since the system is so broken and slow, that it is not worth it to pursue a case if a decent offer is on the table.
It is a shame, but it is how things are. Clients get more upset at me when I urge them to take 85% on the dollar than they do at the deadbeat. They say - "its the principal that counts." This argument usually fails for one of two reasons, if not both:
1. The judge might not agree with their version of the "principal" and/or
2. They want the "pricipal" to be pursued on the back and dime of someone else.
You will get no argument from me that the court system is a mess. However, it is what is and you have to accept the reality of the system if you are going to do as good as possible.
Finally, I tell people all the time: Why do you assume the court system will be any better than the DMV or IRS office?
You have a tough job. A good friend of mine works the other side of it - an attorney giving you grief on behalf of his deadbeat clients.
This will make you cringe, at our company we open credit for just about anyone. Usually don't even require trade references and just start working on payment history to establish the high credit limit.
The small amount of bad debt we get in a year is just figured into the cost of doing business - divided out by all our other business it is a very small percentage. And getting 85% of what does go bad would make the bad debt completely negligable.
Your clients that won't accept 85% are crazy. The "principal of the thing" has nothing to do with making dollars-and-cents business decisions. Tell your clients to start asking for full payment up front and see how much business they get.
Its Massachusetts. The government's attitude is a home invasion is politically correct. Just be sure you're dead or you get charged with second degree murder for defending your castle.
I think a home invasion robbery qualifies as a threat to one's life. We're not talking about a robber breaking in when no one's around to make off with the loot.
Ok, I'm way off topic here, but aren't we "innocent until proven guilty?" And if someone is not proven to be guilty they must therefore be innocent (in the eyes of the law)?
That was in Dallas, the kids were trying to steal his expensive wheels. An earlier set had already been stolen. He fired at the kids, killing one in their vehicle. On several grounds he was within the law. Theft during the night, stoping a felonly crime in progress would be two of them. He shouldn't have even been charged. Maybe since he used an SKS on the punks?
That's assuming there are charges even filed. Although in some cases it might be a good thing to have the "no bill" on record, when the survivors of the "dearly departed" try to sue.
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.