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

Spark wrote:

PspRpg-7 wrote:

Havok wrote:

Are you endorsing robbery?  If the intent to steal was present, death sounds like a nice way of saying "Way to go low-life".  Call it strict punishment but if death was the punishment for all life-threatening crimes (IE robbery, drunk driving, etc.), America would quickly become the safest nation on Earth.

But the population would plummet, BUT the average IQ would go up.

And the place would turn into a showpiece for anarchy.

Vigilante justice = fail IMO.

@PSP: Sounds like a win-win to me.

@Spark: Vigilante justice as in Batman doesn't exist.  If a store clerk is getting ready to close up his shop and a masked man runs in with his hand under his shirt to insinuate he has a gun, the store clerk isn't going to ask "Hey there, is that a real gun?"  No, that clerk is going to do one of two things.  He's either going to give up the money, or assault the robber in self defense, be it with a gun or other weapon.  I support that.  I don't support one man shooting another man for robbing on old lady or something like that.  That kind of vigilante justice is dangerous.  In that situation, the man who wants to help should incapacitate the criminal until the police arrive because his life was not put at risk by the robber, rather the man put his own life at risk to save the old lady's purse.  In short, I support lethal self defense, not lethal vigilante justice.

Spark wrote:

Confrontation =/= use of deadly force. Learn a martial art and that's the first thing they tell you.

Because we all know that the best way to incapacitate a guy pointing a gun at you is with your fists.  Sorry, you're just going to get shot.

Marinejuana wrote:

Are you retarded? Sure lets replace all the petty crime with executions, I'm sure it will be a happier country. Fucking idiots. This is not a flame. You are recommending a holocaust. You deserve a harsh reply.

I just read your post about how the punishment is too tough on drunk drivers.  You have no right to be calling other people retarded.  Also, point out where I called for a holocaust.  A holocaust, in my opinion, is the rounding up of innocent people and killing them.  A criminal is not an innocent person.

Spark wrote:

I'm sure the USSR under Stalin was a happy place.

Don't intentionally threaten somebody's life and you have nothing to fear.

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."

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."

And that sums up why the bible is stupid.

Just don't break the law in the first place?
I wouldn't let people rob my house and get away with it.

Spark 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."

Now we could make a whole 'nother debate out of those two verses.

But you can't deny that the first one is much more commonly known.

Plus, that was an entirely different society - one that was, by our standards, far less secure.

Plus, very few people would even attempt to live by the "turn the other cheek" doctrine.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

First, what on earth am I supposed to be baiting for?

Second, don't make this personal.

Don't make this personal? Then do not quote me to start another flame thread

You notice that I didn't include your name?

That was done for a reason.

Plus, where in this thread have I attacked YOU, personally?

LOL, Spark, everyone knows where this bullshit came from. Gimme a frickin break!!

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Don't make this personal? Then do not quote me to start another flame thread

You notice that I didn't include your name?

That was done for a reason.

Plus, where in this thread have I attacked YOU, personally?

LOL, Spark, everyone knows where this bullshit came from. Gimme a frickin break!!

Maybe I was too subtle in my OP.

Your response was, by far, the easiest to find of the type.

It was meant to be representative

AllmightyOz wrote:

I have a loaded Mossberg 20 ga. by my bedroom door. If someone sneaks into my house at night, and I catch them taking my shit, I'm not going to wait and see if they have a gun or what their intentions are. I will shoot them. I will then shoot them again. I would not however go over and shoot someone robbing my neighbors house. That is his problem. The guy who did that was in the wrong. No one was at his neighbors house, no one was in potential danger. However if he just HAD to shoot the guys, shoot them in the legs at least. This guy was an imbecile. He will be punished for this most likely, depending on the jury.

Yer absolutely correct. I am catching 20 kinds of hell because I do not give a shit about the demise of the robbers. LOL

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Christ almighty.


[b]This is in response to an ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.

This is just one of a string of responses like this in recent weeks

What kind of fucking democracy are you guys trying to create? One where a basic robbery earns you a death warrant?

I gotta wonder sometimes.

Even shariah law isn't this harsh.

The first time it shouldn't, but the second yes. A person can make a mistake once, and they should have a chance to not repeat it. However, if they do it again, painfully harsh penalties should be levied (like 25+ years in prison). No one will commit a robbery if they face 25 years in prison, and if someone actually does, then there is nothing to feel sorry for; they had the opportunity to become a functioning member of society, but refused, and need to learn the consequences.

I follow your line of reasoning, but deterrents are less effective then we would all like to believe.

Obviously, this would be solely with nonviolent crimes. DUIs, for example should be punished harshly from the beginning, because there is no excuse for being a danger to others.

I know this is a useless argument, but robberies have to be assumed violent.

Additionally, this penal reform would have to come with a reformation of the jail system. Inmates should be slightly less comfortable than they are now, because it is ridiculous how much we spend on their prison care.

Within limits, of course.

However, we need to make the transition back into society much easier and more helpful than 20 dollars in their pocket. A major reason for recidivism is that socioeconomic conditions that caused the first crime are unchanged after the first prison term, so the criminal is driven to commit the crime again. If we strive to help the criminal ascend out of an impoverished, unstable existence, they will be less likely to commit a second crime.

For that you get a +1.

1. I know, but anything to reduce helps.

2. Normal robbery and armed robbery would be considered different.

3. Well, yes. Nothing like French prisons in the 1600's, but less comfortable than Hotel Taxpayer Dollar.

4. Yay, thanks.

And to the guy with the loaded gun, you wouldn't shoot to kill, right? A shot in the foot and arm is enough to disable them for the police.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-01-01 20:24:21)

some_random_panda wrote:

AllmightyOz wrote:

I have a loaded Mossberg 20 ga. by my bedroom door. If someone sneaks into my house at night, and I catch them taking my shit, I'm not going to wait and see if they have a gun or what their intentions are. I will shoot them. I will then shoot them again. I would not however go over and shoot someone robbing my neighbors house. That is his problem. The guy who did that was in the wrong. No one was at his neighbors house, no one was in potential danger. However if he just HAD to shoot the guys, shoot them in the legs at least. This guy was an imbecile. He will be punished for this most likely, depending on the jury.

I would actually kick the guy in the face, seeing as he's sitting to take a crap.  As most people will tell you in martial arts, after the initial kick, the other person will be sufficiently stunned to put into a hold or knock out with ease.

*Or I'd get my cricket bat and more or less do the same thing.

I'll join you with the cricket bat.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

The first time it shouldn't, but the second yes. A person can make a mistake once, and they should have a chance to not repeat it. However, if they do it again, painfully harsh penalties should be levied (like 25+ years in prison). No one will commit a robbery if they face 25 years in prison, and if someone actually does, then there is nothing to feel sorry for; they had the opportunity to become a functioning member of society, but refused, and need to learn the consequences.

I follow your line of reasoning, but deterrents are less effective then we would all like to believe.

Obviously, this would be solely with nonviolent crimes. DUIs, for example should be punished harshly from the beginning, because there is no excuse for being a danger to others.

I know this is a useless argument, but robberies have to be assumed violent.

Additionally, this penal reform would have to come with a reformation of the jail system. Inmates should be slightly less comfortable than they are now, because it is ridiculous how much we spend on their prison care.

Within limits, of course.

However, we need to make the transition back into society much easier and more helpful than 20 dollars in their pocket. A major reason for recidivism is that socioeconomic conditions that caused the first crime are unchanged after the first prison term, so the criminal is driven to commit the crime again. If we strive to help the criminal ascend out of an impoverished, unstable existence, they will be less likely to commit a second crime.

For that you get a +1.

1. I know, but anything to reduce helps.

2. Normal robbery and armed robbery would be considered different.

3. Well, yes. Nothing like French prisons in the 1600's, but less comfortable than Hotel Taxpayer Dollar.

4. Yay, thanks.

And to the guy with the loaded gun, you wouldn't shoot to kill, right? A shot in the foot and arm is enough to disable them for the police.

Damn, you're on a roll here!

Ok, so why do we have 2 threads on the same subject again?

nukchebi0 wrote:

Spark wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

The first time it shouldn't, but the second yes. A person can make a mistake once, and they should have a chance to not repeat it. However, if they do it again, painfully harsh penalties should be levied (like 25+ years in prison). No one will commit a robbery if they face 25 years in prison, and if someone actually does, then there is nothing to feel sorry for; they had the opportunity to become a functioning member of society, but refused, and need to learn the consequences.

I follow your line of reasoning, but deterrents are less effective then we would all like to believe.

Obviously, this would be solely with nonviolent crimes. DUIs, for example should be punished harshly from the beginning, because there is no excuse for being a danger to others.

I know this is a useless argument, but robberies have to be assumed violent.

Additionally, this penal reform would have to come with a reformation of the jail system. Inmates should be slightly less comfortable than they are now, because it is ridiculous how much we spend on their prison care.

Within limits, of course.

However, we need to make the transition back into society much easier and more helpful than 20 dollars in their pocket. A major reason for recidivism is that socioeconomic conditions that caused the first crime are unchanged after the first prison term, so the criminal is driven to commit the crime again. If we strive to help the criminal ascend out of an impoverished, unstable existence, they will be less likely to commit a second crime.

For that you get a +1.

1. I know, but anything to reduce helps.

2. Normal robbery and armed robbery would be considered different.

3. Well, yes. Nothing like French prisons in the 1600's, but less comfortable than Hotel Taxpayer Dollar.

4. Yay, thanks.

And to the guy with the loaded gun, you wouldn't shoot to kill, right? A shot in the foot and arm is enough to disable them for the police.

Actually I am betting a shot in the head would also disable them.