Charges dropped against Newton County homebuyers

[NYC_SKP]

Source: Atlanta Journal constitution

Charges have been dropped against a couple arrested at the home they had just purchased, the Newton County Sheriff's Office said Monday.

Jean Kalonji, an immigrant from the Congo, said that being confronted by armed neighbors brought back painful memories.

Jean Kalonji and his wife, Angelica, had just closed on a foreclosed home and were told by their real estate agent they should go over to the house and change the locks. But while they were at the home last week, they were confronted by gun-wielding neighbors who refused to believe the couple had purchased the home.

Instead, the neighbors called deputies to the home and the couple was arrested and charged with loitering and prowling. The Kalonjis didn't have the closing paperwork with them at the time deputies arrived and were forced to spend the night in jail after the arrest.





Read more: http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

---

I'm delighted that charges have been dropped and I wish I could go there and give them HUGS and welcome them!!!

But instead, I'm sad and embarrassed by those among us so filled with hate.

[Occulus]

1. They should pursue legal action against their new neighbors

Preferably, a civil suit for the value of their new home.

Wipe these asshole neighbors out. Completely. They deserve it.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I'll be they don't. I'll be they'll go one better and do nothing.

If others want to pursue some form of prosecution, fine.

I'll bet that these people just want to have a happy peaceful life and legal action would result in anything but that peace.

Peace be to them.

[Occulus]

55. Yes, well, I've spent most of my life doing nothing to people who do me wrong

It only encourages them.

[CreekDog]

79. you think it's better if they don't sue?

morally?

[NYC_SKP]

98. they will be happier to not pursue legal action, IMHO.

Do you think there's a moral responsibility for victims to work, to endure legal hassles?

I would love for the ACLU or others to pursue relief or punishment on their behalf, but I wish for them that they can move on.

[annabanana]

2. "dropping the charges" isn't enough.

False arrest springs to mind. And probably a bunch of other stuff related to the armed mob of "neighbors" that confronted them.

[happyslug]

6. Read the Article, the Neighbors did NOT make the arrest, the local police did.

People can confront people, as long as violence is NOT threatened such confrontation is perfectly legal (Such people can carry guns, as long as no one threatens anyone with the gun not a crime). That seems to appears to what happened here, the neighbors saw someone in a house in the neighborhood, gathered together to ask what they were doing. When the neighbors did NOT receive a reasonable response, they called the police. The police arrived and the Police arrested the new owners.

I have NOT seen anything done illegal by anyone, with the possible exception of the Police and the Police can cite the new owners had no paperwork to show it was their property and arrested them as possible trespassers. When the new owner produced the paperwork showing their were the new owners, they were released.

Compare this is the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman is believed to have confronted his victim and then the confrontation escalated. In this incident an armed neighbor confronted the new owners, and when no satisfactory answer was given, the armed neighbor went to his home and called the Police. Notice the key, the armed neighbor did NOT try to do anything himself, just asked the new owner by what right was he in the house. In the case of Zimmerman, Zimmerman seems to have confronted his victim and when the victim decided to leave, escalated the violence (i.e. appears to have tried to detain the victim). When the victim resisted, Zimmerman pulled his pistol he what he calls "Self-Defense".

The key is what was the neighbor doing? and how far did he do in avoiding having to pull his weapon. As long as the new owners did not threaten the neighbor, the neighbor saw no need to pull his weapon. Instead the neighbor retreated to his house and reported the new owner to the Police. The Police arrived and saw someone with no apparent right to be on the property, and arrested him for that. When paperwork showing the new owner was the new owner the police released him. Thus the "Armed" neighbor did not do anything other then report an possible crime to the Police and the Police upon investigation made an arrest based on the information they had. I do NOT see any liability of anyone in this situation. Everyone acted correctly, with the possible exception of the new owner, he entered his property without any evidence it was his property when who owned the property was unknowable by anyone else.

[annabanana]

10. So their coming armed isn't threatening?

I would sure as hell feel threatened...

[happyslug]

19. I have dealt with armed people all my life, not a threat unless it is pulled.

And the story does not say anything that anyone THREATENED the new owner with a weapon, just that an armed neighbor confronted him. When the police arrived, they were also armed, but again no one is saying the Police threatened the new home owner.

Please note, the new home owner did NOT leave the area, which would be an indication that he felt threatened, the new home owner stayed near the house till the police arrived. Again another indication of no actual threat ever being made.

[EFerrari]

22. That's ridiculous, from top to bottom.

And the police not only threatened the new owners, they ARRESTED them. You know what that means, right? It means these people were deprived of their liberty.

Good grief. I hope these people sue the asses off of everyone involved.

[happyslug]

29. That is the Police, not the neigbor.

Police have the right to arrest anyone they see doing what they believe is a crime. The home owner did NOT have any evidence on him that he owned the property so the police arrested the new owners for the crime of "Loitering and prowling". You may disagree with the arrest, but as far as the Police knew at the time of the arrest the new owners could have been "Loitering and prowling". I have seen homes gutted for their copper, it is a more common crime than many people think and it is often done by Meth addicts.

To many people are jumping to conclusions NOT supported by anything in the Article OR any other facts of the case. No evidence has been produced that shows anything illegal by anyone (including my comments about meth addicts gutting homes). A lot of Speculation of what MAY have happened, but lets stay with the facts we do know, not go onto tangents based on speculation.

[marshall gaines]

36. sleep

go back to sleep

[thc420]

23. “He say to put the hands up and get out from the house, otherwise he would shoot us”

Oh no, that's not threatening at all...They held them outside until the police showed up. Where are you getting your mis information? FOX "News" undoubtedly...

[happyslug]

26. Not in the Article, all the article said was the new owner was apprached by an armed neighbor

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Such a statement, which no one is saying was made, would have been a threat, but again no one is reporting such an incident AND no one was arrested until the Police arrived.


Please I added from this point AFTER people below made their comments below, it appears that they are TWO Articles in regard to this incident, the one that stated this thread that did NOT mention that the neighbor had ordered the new owners out of the house and an earlier one that did.

The earlier Article is in a related article NOT cited by the start of this thread, a report is made that a neighbor confronted the new owners in their home, but that was NOT the article we are commenting on. That article is here:

http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

Now that is a little bit different situation then what I have been commenting on, the article that started this thread is this one, and nothing it is reports any confrontation between the neighbor and the new owners:

http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

Just pointing out my comments was based on the facts in the article that started this thread NOT the earlier article where the actual confrontation is mentioned.

[EFerrari]

28. None of those people had any business in that house

or on that property. And obviously, their armed presence was itself a threat. Were there any justice in this country, they would all now be arrested for trespassing, disturbing the peace and brandishing weapons

[savalez]

31. No shit. The neighbor should have been arrested too for the same charge plus threatening.

[happyslug]

43. Again, you mention something NOT in the Article

No where in the Article does it state someone entered the home or the property, simply that the new owners "were at the home last week, they were confronted by gun-wielding neighbors". That could have been in the home but also on the street. People can "Confront" someone without entering that person's property and that seems to have been the situation, according to article no one may have entered the property.

[HiPointDem]

63. If someone comes onto my property with a gun and asks me to justify being there they're

threatening.

It's not *their* property. Your posts all have the underlying assumption that the neighbors, like zimmerman, had some kind of rights to investigate and question people on that property. They didn't. None. and yes, they were on the people's property. it's rural.

[EFerrari]

77. These two assholes are now being charged wth three felonies --

criminal trespass, assault and false imprisonment.

Good.

[freshwest]

90. RIGHT. They TRESPASSED on the couple's PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The property is 11 acres. That wasn't just a little jog over the fence there. But it had been, it would have still been wrong.

It has seemed to me for many years, that the actions of white people regarding POC, are always excused and justified. If done to another white person, they would find no defenders. Instead, we hear all this claptrap until it finally has no excuses left.

Look at this old couple. No respect for an old man and and an old woman, are these their version of family values and looking out for the community?

And the sacred private property that the conservative shriek about, where does that come in? Second Amendment rights? How about property rights?

This could have ended up exactly like Zimmerman with the 'not going to let these ___ get away' mentality. That's vigilantism, it's criminal.

It's not standing your ground, it's invading someone else's.

Why is the imagination so stunted in this country, that people cannot for a second put themselves in another person's shoes?

Would these guys have liked to see their parents or grandparents in the position to have people trespass on to their property and confront them at gunpoint?

A little bit of respect for others, a little empathy, would go a long, long way in preventing this crap.

You know, I'm beginning to empathize with the 1%.

If you have money, you can escape this ignorance. You can have security and not put up with this. So I understand their disdain for the masses, now.

[EFerrari]

91. I agree with you.

WTF is the matter with anyone who can rationalize this?

I don't even want to know. Or, I already know and don't want to dwell on it more than I have to because it's poisonous.

Yes, the 1% can avoid all of this -- at the cost of our lives, but it is nice not to have to deal with it.

We are a country that has to know the color of the victims before we know what to think about violent crimes against us.

What the f#ck is that?

[freshwest]

93. WTF that is... Is insanity on a mass scale. Looking at the cover of the book, only. Non-thought.

I remember when Rosa Parks was arrested for daring to sit down on a bus against orders to do so. I was a few states away, but in the South, and was angry, although I may not have heard it correctly.

I heard she was an older woman, told to give up her seat for a white man. For the color of her skin with no respect to gender or age. Just that very last layer of pigment, and nothing more!

Where I lived, a man gave up his seat for a woman or a girl. And a younger person gave up their seat for an older person, male or female. I recall when blacks sat at the back of the bus. But there was custom for the whites in the front to do as I explained here.

There wasn't a conflict over seats, because people migrated to one end or the other of the bus without being ordered. But in the case that we ran out of seats, the rules I've stated applied.

So I asked, what is a MAN doing having a WOMAN get up, and not only that an OLD WOMAN give him her seat when he is well able to stand? I mean things have changed since then, but that how it was back then.

If I'd been there, she could have had my seat. It took a while for me to know just how things were, asking my family what in the world was going on. And they told me a lot of things about the South, the KKK, the lynchings, the poll taxes and tests to stop blacks from voting, the fraternity pranks of white men going out and raping black women, the replacement for the plantation system whichwas the sharecroppers, etc.

The patience and religion of AAs amazed me, and I knew plenty who clearly saw ME as a human being, despite all of that history, which is what some white people seem unwilling to do, still.

And guess what, when the blacks started sitting at the front of the bus, I was glad. I always hated sitting in the front and I went with my friends to the back and starting cutting up and laughing since we weren't under the evil eye of the bus driver. LOL.

[EFerrari]

94. Testify.

Up here in the East Hills of the Santa Clara Valley aka Silicon Valley, I see black folks where there weren't any 20 years ago. This whole valley was red-lined since it opened up to development in the late 50s, so somebody has been asleep at the switch.

My mom was shunned in our neighborhood in the late 60s over a rumor she was going to sell a house to a black couple. Since no black families were beating down a path to this valley, I don't know who our genteel local Klan was worried about.

Anyway, today, this neighborhood is largely Latino of every status. You don't have to even hear English unless you go looking for it. But in the last few years, I'm seeing black customers at the nearest store to us, a QwikStop. Where did they come from? All I can think is, the surge in Latinos here in the 80s and 90s made an inclusive space for people fleeing the gentrification of the East Bay.

I love the East Side. "Here is my space" -- Antony & Cleopatra.

[thc420]

35. Come on Slugo

Just look at the original article linked to in this article and you can read exactly what threat was made. It's called research, a lot of people do this prior to posting things that make them look like a fool...Being a paid poster like you are you probably don't have time as you're getting paid by the post...

[happyslug]

47. I have read the entire article, and even cited it

The problem is the article report is limited, no facts as to HOW the neighbors "Confronted" the new owners, just that they were "Confronted"

Now in a related article NOT cited by the start of this thread, a report is made that a neighbor confronted the new owners in their home, but that was NOT the article we are commenting on. That article is here:

http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

Now that is a little bit different situation then what I have been commenting on, the article that started this thread is this one, and nothing it is reports any confrontation between the neighbor and the new owners:

http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

Some people even cited facts stated in the earlier article when referring to my previous threads, but never gave it as a reference, nor stated they were using another source then the one that started this thread. The earlier article has several different facts then the article that started this thread, first is the actual entrance into the property and the demand that the couple put up their hands. Now that is false arrest and the neighbors can be charged with that action. One can NOT make a Citizen Arrest in most states unless it is for a felony, and gutting a house for its copper is NOT a felony in all the jurisdiction that I know of. Thus the neighbor committed a crime that the Police should have arrested him for. i.e. false arrest.

That gets me to a second question, why the change between the articles? I will try to avoid speculation but something caused the change, may be new facts, may be someone wanted the second article only to cite facts mentioned by the Police. I don't know. Could be the Police are looking into a Charge of False Arrest, but the article state two set facts, with the earlier article stating a fact that clearly shows criminal action by the neighbor. The second article does NOT mention anything that comes close to criminal actions by the neighbor. Thus the situation demand on what is the fact, and till we now we are all speculating.

[HiPointDem]

64. they came onto the people's property with ASSAULT RIFLES and accused them of breaking and entering.

then they called the police. that's threatening behavior, from trespassing to guns to accusing people of a crime to calling the police on them.

not to mention the man was 61 and the woman 57 -- not your usual burglars.

not to mention:

They grabbed their AR-15s and snuck up behind a man and woman fiddling with the front door lock.

"Shut up or I'll shoot," Canoles allegedly told the couple after they tried to explain that their son now owned the modest home sitting on 11 acres. Canoles asked to see the closing paperwork, which the Kalonjis didn't have.

For roughly 10 minutes, the Kalonjis -- who moved to the U.S. from Zaire in the late 1990s to escape persecution from the brutal Mobutu regime -- stood nervously, arms lifted over their heads, backs turned to the gunmen."I didn't know who they were," Jean-Joseph Kalonji told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Monday. "Were they there to rob us?"

Their fears were lifted when deputies from the Newton County Sheriff's Department, contacted by Canoles, arrived. But their relief was short-lived. The deputies, demanding proof the home was theirs, handcuffed the Kalonjis."I told them, ‘Call my son, he'll tell you,' " said Jean-Joseph Kalonji, a teacher in Zaire who found work as an electrician after moving to America. "I begged them to call him, but they wouldn't do it."

The couple were booked into jail, charged with loitering and prowling.
Canoles, meanwhile, said he was lauded by the responding officers.

"The police told me I did a good job," said Canoles, 45, who was never questioned that night. He spoke again with deputies on Friday and said he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

http://www.ajc.com/news/newton-county-may-charge-1424231.html


despicable behavior on the part of the neighbors and the police both. yeah, a 61-year-old man and a 57-year-old woman are too scary to deal with without assault rifles, handcuffs and jail.

it could have all been averted with a single phone call. the sad thing is the couple sound like they'd be great neighbors.

luckily they have a high-powered lawyer.

[LanternWaste]

76. We are commenting on the totality of the story...

"but that was NOT the article we are commenting on..."

We are commenting on the totality of the story, not merely the stories which may or may not reinforce your own assertions.

[happyslug]

96. Then DO NOT start with a Cite to one Article, mention ALL of them

How is anyone is know what you are talking about UNLESS to give a cite, not bring in facts without any source. This thread started with A CITE and until another CITE is given, that is ALL ANYONE HAS TO GO ON. My comment was on that CITE, the ONLY CITE given till I and others posted other cites that had additional facts.

This is a discussion forum, to have a valid discussion you can NOT have HIDDEN facts and then complain when someone gives an opinion NOT based on those unknown to the writer facts. Give your citation of what facts you are making your statements on, that is all that I am asking. My comments were based on the FACTS stated in the Original cite that started this story. The facts cited therein did not indicate ANY criminal act by ANYONE. Thus my comments was BASED on those facts. Now I find myself attacked because I made comments based on the facts cited at the start of this thread by people who knew additional facts and then complained that my comments were unjustified based on those facts that were UNKNOWN TO ME.

It may sound ridiculous to have to repeat facts you have read elsewhere, but in a Forum like this it makes sure EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE OF FACTS.

[EFerrari]

92. How many authorities do you need to do your thinking for you

before you get that this was wrong?

The "neighbors" are in custody and facing multiple felony charges from assault, trespassing and false imprisonment.

Reality check.

[marshall gaines]

37. sleep

go back to sleep

[marshall gaines]

33. sleep

go back to sleep

[Lochloosa]

49. A reasonable response would have been to call the police and report a prowler and let them handle it.

[happyslug]

53. That was my impression after reading the articled cited

The problem is that seems NOT to have been the case. The original article is here, there is nothing in that article that indicate any crimes being committed by the neighbors:
http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

On the other hand, two other articles, NOT cited at the start of this thread, state enough facts for a Criminal Charge against the Neighbor:
http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

And in another cite added by a third person:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-homeowners-met-gun-wielding-neighbors/nMd7C/

[HiPointDem]

65. except there was no prowler.

[quakerboy]

70. "Shut up or I'll shoot,"

Thats from the article in the OP. Reading is your friend.

The new owners didn't leave because they were told to put their hands up and face the wall or be shot to death.

Also, I'd like to see you "pull" and AR-15. Or to point the muzzle of one at another person in a non threatening manner.

[happyslug]

74. That phase is NOT in the Article that started this thread

It is in a related article from the same source, but NOT the source cited at the start of this thread.

Now, a source as of today, April 24, 2012, does mention an assault rifle, but that was NOT mentioned in the article I was responding to.

The source of the Assault rifle being used::
http://www.ajc.com/news/newton-county-neighbors-charged-1424231.html

I was responding to the original article, the facts stated therein did NOT justify any criminal charges:
http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

On the other hand enough facts for a Criminal Charge against the Neighbor is mentioned in another article from the same source:
http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

And in another cite added by a third person:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-homeowners-met-gun-wielding-neighbors/nMd7C/

Just a comment that my prior comments were based on that first article, and I pointed out NOTHING IN THAT ARTICLE JUSTIFIED ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE. On the other hand the other articles do MENTION ENOUGH FACTS TO JUSTIFY A CRIMINAL CHARGE.

[quakerboy]

78. You need to re-read the article.

There is only one article linked to in the OP. It is the only article I read. It is the article that had that quote in it.

Seriously. Click on the article link in the OP. Fifth paragraph. First sentence. "Shut up or I'll shoot,"


Though I also notice that your first two links (both the AJC links you posted) both take me to the same exact story. Looks like AJC is just revising their story as more info becomes available. as of this morning, it now includes a bit about the neighbors turning themselves in and being held in custody that was not there when I read it last night. So the story you first saw is gone, or at least altered to add all the newer details. I apologize for the snarky "reading is your friend comment".

[thc420]

11. Reasonable respones?

Had they been white, would this have even happened? We all know the answer...

[melm00se]

16. You assume that

the neighbors were white.

the racial make up of the county is 55/45 (white/black)

[thc420]

20. Not assuming anything...

...I saw them on a local news cast...

[marshall gaines]

38. no assumption

no assumption here, guaranteeeed they were good white americans,

[paulk]

58. Mrs. Kalonji IS white

but you watched the newscast, right?

[HiPointDem]

66. but her husband isn't. if she were alone, doubt it would have played out as it did.

[thc420]

14. Just can't let it be...

When they told the truth, was that not a reasonable response? What would have made it reasonable in your eyes?

[thc420]

15. Typical Reich Winger

Blame the victims. Those poor armed neighbors gathering a mob together, how dare anyone question THEIR motive...

[EFerrari]

18. "gathered together to ask what they were doing there" is vigilantism.

There is nothing "reasonable" about arming yourself and "confronting" anyone in a group. That's a throwback to turning black families out of their homes to stop integration. At least no fire was "accidentally" started in this home.

Sheesh.

[Posteritatis]

21. "As long as violence is not threatened" -what do you think brandishing firearms is? (nt)

[happyslug]

45. Not in the Article, all the article said was "gun-wielding neighbors"

"gun-wielding neighbors" is a very broad term, if violence was threaten I suspect it would have been in the article. Merely "wielding" a weapon is NOT a threat. If that was the case every time someone was given a ticket by a police officer wearing a pistol could claim he was threatened. That is NOT the law. You need something more then neighbors wielding a weapon.

One of the problem with this thread is that there are TWO ARTICLES people have read, the one cited at the start of this thread and an earlier one with more "facts".


The problem is the article cited is limited, no facts as to HOW the neighbors "Confronted" the new owners, just that they were "Confronted"

Now in a related article NOT cited by the start of this thread, a report is made that a neighbor confronted the new owners in their home, but that was NOT the article we are commenting on. That article is here:

http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

Now that is a little bit different situation then what I have been commenting on, the article that started this thread is this one, and nothing it is reports any confrontation between the neighbor and the new owners:

http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

[M0rpheus]

48. From one of the original news item...

[div class="excerpt" ]
Jean and his wife, Angelica, said a man and what appeared to be his son, confronted them with guns in their hands.

"He say to put the hands up and get out from the house otherwise he would shoot us," Jean Kalonji said.

"I get up my hands up, they put by the wall," Angelcia Kalonji said.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-homeowners-met-gun-wielding-neighbors/nMd7C/|

[happyslug]

50. Not in the article that started this thread

Now at least I have someone who actually post a cite that differed from the original cite that started this thread. Those facts are different then in the Article that stated this thread, it states the neighbors had "guns in their hands" which is different then merely carrying a gun. That reaches to the level of an assault.

Please note the original cite actually has a reference to an earlier article that states that the neighbor pulled their guns and ordered the new owners out of their home. That is clearly as assault, and false arrest. Both Crimes. Walking up to someone, while armed, and asking them what they are doing is legal, pulling the weapon and telling them to stop is NOT. The article that started this thread did NOT mention how the confrontation occurred and thus by the facts set forth in that article no criminal activity took place. Based on this article and the earlier related article, if those facts are true, clearly a crime was done by the neighbor.

[M0rpheus]

56. I appreciated your argument, as you originally stated it.

I realized that it was based on the facts stated in the posted article.
Since no one had posted the earlier articles, I thought it might be helpful to have that information to clarify your point.

Back to lurking

[HiPointDem]

69. AR-15's. Hard not to "wield" them, since they don't fit in a holster.

"Shut up or I'll shoot." Hands on the head, face to the wall. 10 minutes with an assault rifle at the back of their heads.

[Blue_Tires]

82. "If that was the case every time someone was given a ticket by a police officer wearing a pistol

could claim he was threatened..."

By definition, you cannot "wield" a holstered weapon...If the cop takes it out and points, then it is wielding

[obamanut2012]

84. Technically brandishing, which is a felony

And, Menacing, if you are assaulted with it, as these folks were, which makes the charge aggravated assault with a weapon.

[vankuria]

27. WTF

My husband and I purchased our new home 3 years ago and the first time we went over to check on things before moving (and no we didn't have our closing papers with us) we were greeted by many of our new neighbors. I could not imagine being confronted by gun toting idiots to ask why we were there, let alone the police showing up and locking us up for the night. You describe this situation like this something normal and the new homeowners were at fault for not having closing documents to prove the house was theirs. Is this what we've come to as a nation where everyone is under suspicion and you better have documented proof why you have a right to be where you are?

[thc420]

42. This is exactly...

...the America the Reich wing wants. Show me your papers or get shot or go to jail.

[marshall gaines]

32. sleep

go back to sleep

[HiPointDem]

62. In what universe is "We live here" not a reasonable response? I didn't realize we now had to

show the title to the neighbors when we move into our new home.

[Bandit]

81. When being held against their will at gun point, it is hard to say they weren't under arrest.

Look up the meaning of the word arrest.....

[drdtroit]

4. The headline should be that they are suing the shit out of those psychopaths! n/t

[ut oh]

5. They should sue

the police department for false arrest and sue the neighbors for tresspass and bodily threats on their own property.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Disagree. They should lead the peaceful life they came to dream about.

Someone else should bring on the pain.

Why are people so sue happy?

I feel for these people, legal action would only make them age more quickly.

[Enrique]

13. pros and cons

yes, there's a price to pay for fighting, and we shouldn't judge anyone that doesn't want to do it.

But there are benefits, for example Trayvon Martin's family chose to fight and there is a chance that justice will be done.

[marshall gaines]

40. what?

Yeah, welcome to america! Apologist everywhere for people acting out their skewed and lost feeling of white entitlement

[CreekDog]

80. that's how i read it

[tinrobot]

7. Welcome to the neighborhood.

[bluesbassman]

9. If they are really "concerned neighbors" they'll all be over there with tools and paintbrushes...

to help the Kalonjis fix the place up and get moved in. I won't hold my breath.

As for the Newton County Sheriff's Office, I won't hold my breath on the results of the "investigation" either.

[happyslug]

24. They may do so the next time they see the new owners

But I have seen a lot of homes gutted after they were foreclosed on and it is possible the neighbor was worried about the house being guttered since it was foreclosed on. It is a common problems in many neighborhoods.

The neighbor saw someone and thus wanted to know what was his plans for the house was, i.e. was this Stranger to the areas a possible new owner or was he someone planning to gut the house for the copper inside the house? The neighbor may have been worried about the neighborhood, to many gutted homes increase insurance rates for area. The best way to see into the matter is to ask, but given that most gutting of homes are being done by meth addicts, going armed may not be a bad idea.

Just a comment, that the neighbor being armed is not that much of a problem unless he threatened someone with the weapon. Merely wearing it is NOT a threat.

[thc420]

25. He did threaten them...

...which is a crime in itself, called assault..."Under the U.S. common law system, the crime of assault is committed when a person intentionally puts another in fear of receiving serious bodily injury or offensive contact."

[happyslug]

39. Confront is NOT an assult, and that is the only word used in the Article that comes close an assult

I have to go by what was written in the Article, confrontation is NOT an assault, unless the weapon is actually "pulled" no assault took place. If a Police officer, walked over to you and ask you a question as to why you are where you are, is that an assault because he is armed? The answer is NO, the same for other people, an assault means some threat with is made with a weapon or other act that indicts an attack, not the mere wearing of a weapon.

[thc420]

46. It is assault..

If you do not go outside we will shoot you. They have given cause and action, that is an assault There is nothing in the law that says a weapon has to be involved to be an assault. I can say I'm going to break your neck if you don't give me your money and that is assault. Please provide the statutes that say a weapon has to be involved.

[happyslug]

51. That is NOT in the article we are discussing...

It is in another article from the same source:
http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

But not in the article that started this thread:
http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

My comments was to the article that started this thread, and nothing in THAT ARTICLE mentioned anything more then the word "Confrontation". The Earlier Article, an article NOT used to start this thread, points out that the neighbor entered the home and ordered the new owners out at gun point.

As I have said above, that is a Crime, False Arrest, terrorist threats, Assault etc. but NONE of that is in the article that started this thread. It is a different set of facts that lead to different set of legal results. One can "Confront" a neighbor while armed, but the weapon can NOT be viewed as a threat. The Article that started this thread did NOT state anything that justified any criminal action against anyone. The earlier article that was NOT cited at the start of this thread, on the other hand did state enough facts to justify criminal charges. The real question is why no criminal charges against the neighbors were filed.

[angie377]

73. Are these people related to you or something?

First of all, the fact that you are replying to one article, that doesn't list everything regarding the initial report, is not an excuse to continue justifying your initial statement. No one cares that you only read this one article. Just admit you're wrong. It's the grown up thing to do.

Second of all, read up on the charge of assault. Assault is the INTENT. These people went to the house armed. They weren't carrying handguns in a holster on their hip. They were carrying IN THEIR HANDS AR-15's. Therefore they were 'brandishing' weapons. What is the point in brandishing a weapon? To instill fear.

[obamanut2012]

87. +1

[obamanut2012]

86. Coming under sometimes property is CRIMINAL TRESPASSING

Confronting them is ASSAULT. Confronting them with a weapon not holstered or mag out with an open chamber pointed away from someone is AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON or MENACING, with can also include the charge of BRANDISHING. Holding someone at gunpoint is FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

These are all felonies.

[obamanut2012]

85. Confronting is criminal assault

Using a weapon to do it is menacing/aggravated assault with a weapon.

You, like some others on here, need to learn what criminal assault actually is.

[marshall gaines]

41. sleep

go back to sleep

[happyslug]

52. So I can miss the article that state that actual Criminal Acts?

Enough facts for a Criminal Charge against the Neighbor is mentioned in another article from the same source:
http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html

And in another cite added by a third person:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-homeowners-met-gun-wielding-neighbors/nMd7C/

But not in the article that started this thread:
http://www.ajc.com/news/charges-dropped-against-newton-1424231.html

[obamanut2012]

88. They were charged with three felonies and being held without bond

Criminal Trespass
Aggravated Assault with a Weapon
False Imprisonment

Father and son will never legally own a firearm again, and will be getting some type of time. I also think this should be investigated as a possible hate crime, and I hope the Deputies lose their jobs.

[HiPointDem]

67. hard to "wear" an assault rifle. they stick out of your pockets pretty much.

[happyslug]

72. In NONE of the articles on this subject is an Assault rifle mentioned

So I have to ask, where did you find that source??

[angie377]

75. Google is your friend

http://www.ajc.com/news/newton-county-neighbors-charged-1424231.html

[obamanut2012]

89. They each were armed with AR-15s

Not quite a Walther P22, eh?

[NOLALady]

12. I doubt

if they will ever feel safe in that neighborhood, with or without a suit.

And if they have kids, they will have more to fear.

[PoliticAverse]

17. That's some fine police work there, Lou...

Hopefully they won't be jailing anymore home owners for being in their own homes.

[marshall gaines]

30. bless

all night in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!god bless america and the skewed and lost sense of white entitlement shown by zimpunks and this guys so-called neighbors.

[paulk]

57. if you have proof or a picture that shows

that the neighbors were white I would appreciate a link.

I've watched the news reports and read the articles and haven't seen anything.

[patricia92243]

34. I would have called the real estate agency right there and then and have them vouch for me. n/t

[HiPointDem]

68. the couple asked the police to call their son. the police refused.

[marshall gaines]

44. glad

Glad there was no trigger happy zimpunk in the group. Would have been an american tragedy

[magical thyme]

54. sheesh! I would think the charges would be dropped!

loitering and prowling around their own home? Criminies.

btw, Welcome to Amerika, Mr. and Mrs. Kalonji

[Kaleva]

59. Neighbors facing possible charges

"On Monday, Canoles and his son were summoned for another interview with Newton County officials, who told them to bring in their guns.

"I don't know what they can charge me with," Canoles said late Monday afternoon, before the interview with authorities. "This is my Second Amendment right. Look, this is the county out here, and we protect our own.""

http://www.ajc.com/news/newton-county-may-charge-1424231.html

[NYC_SKP]

60. I wish nothing but peace for Mr. Jean Kalonji..

but I'm not sure that he'll get it.

Poor man, he may need to move again just to escape this tragic drama.

[pinboy3niner]

71. Thanks for posting the UPDATE

Sad that it has come to this:

Meanwhile, his neighbors are having second thoughts about moving into their new home, which Bruno Kalonji called a dream come true. He plans to build a soccer field on his land while his agrarian parents, who will share the home with their daughter-in-law and grandson, look forward to raising chickens on the bucolic spread.

"We're waiting to move," Bruno Kalonji said. "We're still afraid of what the guy next door might do."

[MountainMama]

83. This is so sad...

Makes me ashamed......of a lot of things.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. "Second Amendment right"!?! I don't remember threatening people on their own property being a...

a civil right in this country. What the fuck is this guy's malfunction?

[HiPointDem]

61. he's like 55-60 and overweight. sure looks like a dangerous burglar to me.

[pinboy3niner]

97. You should see him in his hoodie