BF2S Forums What in the world has happened to your sense of criminal justice?!

Kmarion wrote:

That is why the emotionally charged should not be making the decisions.

Isn't emotion what a lawyer tries to impress upon a jury?

Moo? Si! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That is why the emotionally charged should not be making the decisions.

Isn't emotion what a lawyer tries to impress upon a jury?

Amongst other things... like evidence and explaining the law. You are making a rather huge jump in comparing someone in a courtroom and someone personally involved. That's why not all jurors make it into the courtroom.

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That is why the emotionally charged should not be making the decisions.

How do you remove emotion from someone trying to steal your shit?

You mean his neighbors shit? It's called personal responsibility. We all have emotions, hiding behind them to explain our actions does not equate to justice.

Ya...I know my neighbor very well.  His shit is my shit so to speak.

The govt gives the right to our citizens to carry guns.  They require training on how to use them in some cases.  Unfortunately, there is no training on deadly force.  I cannot fault a civilian who has been given the right to own a gun yet not trained correctly when to use it.

I know they did not need to be shot.  If I owned a gun, I would not have shot them.  But that is my training.

Again.....if people get put in extreme circumstances, the law must be applied.  I say wait for the law to be applied.

mcminty wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...

What about the lack of it from those amongst us advocating the civilian execution use of deadly force on people for petty crimes. Where is the benefit of the doubt there on the part of the criminal?


They could have a weapon, but it doesn't really look like it. Nah, fuck em', they are criminals after all... *BANG*

Well he made a mistake IMO.  People are human.  If the court finds him wrong then so be it.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ya...I know my neighbor very well.  His shit is my shit so to speak.

legally? no.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Again.....if people get put in extreme circumstances, the law must be applied.  I say wait for the law to be applied.

how is watching a robbery from the safety of your own home an extreme circumstance?  I understand your arguement.  The guy overreacted, and may have to pay a price for it.

Moo? Si! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

Isn't emotion what a lawyer tries to impress upon a jury?

Amongst other things... like evidence and explaining the law. You are making a rather huge jump in comparing someone in a courtroom and someone personally involved. That's why not all jurors make it into the courtroom.

The evidence shows the criminals came at him, whether they knew or didn't know he was there.  He defended his property.  They were shot.  He gets to tell a jury his story.  Let's see what happens before saying he was guilty

Which evidence is that exactly? The part where he told the officer that he wasn't going to let them get away with it and he left his home and went after them? So why is it that a killer gets a trial and not a thief? You ask that we don't pass the judgment of guilt without a trial while demanding we condemn the dead.

Well that is just great.  We just sit back and watch a crime being committed and do nothing.  Ya I know "call the cops"....but the chances of the crime being stopped or the suspect apprehended is slim.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well that is just great.  We just sit back and watch a crime being committed and do nothing.  Ya I know "call the cops"....but the chances of the crime being stopped or the suspect apprehended is slim.

just tell the cops you have a new shotgun and really wanna try it out.  they'll be there real fast.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well that is just great.  We just sit back and watch a crime being committed and do nothing.  Ya I know "call the cops"....but the chances of the crime being stopped or the suspect apprehended is slim.

just tell the cops you have a new shotgun and really wanna try it out.  they'll be there real fast.

Mention the word gun and cops come flying........but most people do not know that.

I thought the magic word was donuts .

Kmarion wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Amongst other things... like evidence and explaining the law. You are making a rather huge jump in comparing someone in a courtroom and someone personally involved. That's why not all jurors make it into the courtroom.

The evidence shows the criminals came at him, whether they knew or didn't know he was there.  He defended his property.  They were shot.  He gets to tell a jury his story.  Let's see what happens before saying he was guilty

Which evidence is that exactly? The part where he told the officer that he wasn't going to let them get away with it and he left his home and went after them? So why is it that a killer gets a trial and not a thief? You ask that we don't pass the judgment of guilt without a trial while demanding we condemn the dead.

The evidence is on the 911 tape, scene of the crime, he told the officers they came at him and he had no choice.  Again, going solely by what was on the 911 tape.

The problem with this debate is, we can only argue ideals until we know how it plays out.  If the court of his peers says evidence was sufficient, that they came at him and he fired upon them in self defense, then he acted according to the laws of Texas.  My opinion is he was pissed and scared, went too far and blasted a couple of criminals.  I'm not condemning the dead, I am defending this man's rights to protect himself, which from the 911 tapes, I think he appears to be doing as it was his right according to the State of Texas.

Varegg wrote:

2 people lost their lives and you guys call that justice ? ... shot by a guy pissed scared they would steal something material that most certainly was insured anyways ... what a perfect society !

The 2nd amendment is destroying your country, you guys have your own version of sharia laws and defend it just as fanatically as the muslims you are so eager to condemn for doing the exact same thing. Double standards ftw !

im tired of talking to these dipshits. i just hope they realise that by having guns thieves will:

1. also carry guns
2. roam in larger groups

the second problem is that they over estimate their abilities without consideration for the abilities of the thief. everyone who is "pro shooting a robber" seems to think that a robber is probably just some bumbling idiot who would be standing there in a daze waiting to be shot. you realise they case the place before they go in, most of them don't run in blind intending to kill people for a television.

what about the three overlooked things i don't think anyone has mentioned:

1. insurance
2. calling the police
3. your emotional reaction after you have just killed someone for stealing appliances from your house

do these not even count? your belongings only belong to you while you are alive. just get out of the house, call the cops and hope for the best. if you are insured you should be fine.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Mention the word gun and cops come flying........but most people do not know that.

i thought the magic word was "white woman in trouble! white woman in trouble!"?

Last edited by twiistaaa (2008-01-02 02:25:20)

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Most of us don't. I have a problem with the entire justice system being thrown out and handed over to individuals who are frustrated, angry, and armed.

I have a problem with a justice system where justice doesn't exist. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!!

I agree that the system is imperfect. But digressing into our ancestorial wild west days will not resolve criminal behavior on the whole. As demonstrated in this thread people aren't always in agreement with the punishment for the crime. Leaving decisions such as these up to the emotionally affected is almost certainly a bad idea. Judgment should not be passed by those with cloudy reasoning.

I agree completely..........................................assuming the criminals survive their encounter with their intended victims.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Matthew 5:38-5:39

‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

You're misapplying verses again. 

Luke 22:36 would be more appropriate.  He said to them, "Now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."

I don't believe it means you can kill someone every time the opportunity arises to defend yourself, let alone your neighbor and his property. We definitely can defend ourselves when our life, family, or friends is threatened, but in a scenario like this where Mr. Horn disobeyed the 911 operator and went ahead and killed those two men, I don't think it applies, unless the law allowed him to defend his neighbor's property with lethal force. Mr. Horn could have definitely handled that situation differently though.

Lowing, from what I know, those two "thugs" only had a few minor scraps with the law. I know what they did was wrong, but I'd rather they get arrested and do some time. It is possible the two (or hopefully one) could clean their act and be normal law abiding citizens afterwards. I believe in second chances.

Maybe they can get their second chance in, "the next life", this time around, they blew it.