I agree. I admit I misinterpreted your response to which I replied.usmarine2005 wrote:
What I am saying is they already think the guy is guilty for shooting them. I say to them wait until the court decides.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If I misinterpreted your response as sarcasm, then I apologize. You said that maybe we would wait for the court to decide.usmarine2005 wrote:
Say what?
I don't know and in the context don't really care, though in my mind I seriously doubt that this is the case.David.P wrote:
But yet when the criminals kill people in their homes because of the failed robbery attempt there is no outrage from the anti gun groups?
Please enlighten me to why?
...wut?I dont feel like argueing with you today spark. So i'm just gonna say if they were white you would have not heard about this.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It is not that those who criticize the force used against these criminals are wishing to exonerate criminal behaviour, but that the response was unjustifiably strong. There is problems with both parties. There is no wish for a lack of a judicial process, but a correct one. The deaths of the criminals is a shame and a wrong, something that could have been avoided. These men were doing a wrong act, but did not deserve death.
On justice, I believe that there exists the want for punishment. The willingness for a far measure of punishment worries me, as an analogous policy to any hardline dictatorial state; most will use the Soviet Union as a broad example. However, there should be a measure of isolation in justice, not punishment nor automatic rehabilitation. If there is a person who has committed a crime, it would be profitable for the public good to isolate the person in a prison to remove him from society for any attempts for further crime. It should not necessarily be for punishment; obviously, there must exist an element of punishment, but there is a capability for criminals to become lawful citizens again. There is no need to lock up someone who will not commit further crimes. But I disagree that there should be punishment, of disagreeable treatment in prison or execution, when the primary purpose should be to isolate a criminal from society. He remains a person. The object is to better society, and excessive punishment does not accomplish that. The ideals of society should be for safety and reduction of crime. If it serves society better to remove criminals, then that remains the focus of justice.
On justice, I believe that there exists the want for punishment. The willingness for a far measure of punishment worries me, as an analogous policy to any hardline dictatorial state; most will use the Soviet Union as a broad example. However, there should be a measure of isolation in justice, not punishment nor automatic rehabilitation. If there is a person who has committed a crime, it would be profitable for the public good to isolate the person in a prison to remove him from society for any attempts for further crime. It should not necessarily be for punishment; obviously, there must exist an element of punishment, but there is a capability for criminals to become lawful citizens again. There is no need to lock up someone who will not commit further crimes. But I disagree that there should be punishment, of disagreeable treatment in prison or execution, when the primary purpose should be to isolate a criminal from society. He remains a person. The object is to better society, and excessive punishment does not accomplish that. The ideals of society should be for safety and reduction of crime. If it serves society better to remove criminals, then that remains the focus of justice.
Havok wrote:
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.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.
Robbery and drunk driving are grounds for execution? Only in the most fascist, Nazi states. If this was the case, then we would have more to fear from the state than ourselves and our own life decisions. Why on earth would we want to arbitrarily create a much larger and more serious problem for ourselves? I thought this forum was all hardcore on personal-responsibility, where are those far right-wingers now? I'll reiterate Havok, the things you said are retarded. Stop begging for a holocaust of petty criminals, accused of being "threatening."Havok wrote:
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.
apparently a lot of people here have never been victims before
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I bet I can find a lot of examples where no-one was harmed at all. Not every criminal threatens lifeRoosterCantrell wrote:
I bet I can find alot of examples where someone who was robbed, ended up mentally damaged, and constantly afraid. That's ok though eh?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You make it sound like every criminal threatens life.I bet you've illegally downloaded a song before. Did you threaten to kill/hurt anyone for that song? Did you cause people mental instability from it? Is there an artist, sitting in their house now paranoid that someone else is going to download their song?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya...I see muggers a giving box of chocolates to their victims all the time.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
Because not every criminal threatens life.
I'm not defending what criminals do, I'm defending people's most fundamental right (The right to life). No-one should be able to take that away, no matter the reason.QFEPhrozenbot wrote:
I believe in second chances.
My house has been robbed 3 times (Once for the actual house, twice for the garage). 2 times I wasn't here for it, the other I wasn't threatened. Neither do I sit in my room, paranoid that someone my steal from me again.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
apparently a lot of people here have never been victims before
It's quite sad really.
Another example is that thread in "Everything Else" about a woman who pretended her kid's dad was a dead soldier to get tickets.
We had suck responses as
In the middle east the 'vigilante' punishment for theft has traditionally been cutting off hands.
In America the 'vigilante' punishment for theft , death.
Go figure.
EDIT: Edited for clarification for usmarine because he can't understand English sentence structure.
Another example is that thread in "Everything Else" about a woman who pretended her kid's dad was a dead soldier to get tickets.
We had suck responses as
I want to see her hang
With the Joe Horn thing, some were happy because now the state wouldn't have to pay the penal fees for keep them in jail. I quoteShe needs to die in a fire
It's amazing how little value these people put on life.usmarine2005 wrote:
True. Very true.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Two less douchebags to worry about.
In the middle east the 'vigilante' punishment for theft has traditionally been cutting off hands.
In America the 'vigilante' punishment for theft , death.
Go figure.
EDIT: Edited for clarification for usmarine because he can't understand English sentence structure.
Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2008-01-01 23:29:17)
No no no. If nothing happened, they would get like maybe 6 months in jail in America. Stop being wrong.SharkyMcshark wrote:
In the middle east the 'vigilante' punishment for theft has traditionally been cutting off hands.
In America, death.
Go figure.
sure is a great deterant knowing someone can legally shoot you for the pettiest of crimesSpark wrote:
Christ almighty.This is in response to an ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.I love it!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 more felons thet will never harm another person again.
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.
15 more years! 15 more years!
So what you're saying is that an appropriate punishment for the crimes in question are?usmarine2005 wrote:
No no no. If nothing happened, they would get like maybe 6 months in jail in America. Stop being wrong.SharkyMcshark wrote:
In the middle east the 'vigilante' punishment for theft has traditionally been cutting off hands.
In America, death.
Go figure.
PS On a side note Texas Penal Code stipulates a minimum 5 years for the crimes the two deceased robbers committed, not this 6 months malarkey you've got here
No what I am saying is...and I have said yet nobody addressed...SharkyMcshark wrote:
So what you're saying is that an appropriate punishment for the crimes in question are?usmarine2005 wrote:
No no no. If nothing happened, they would get like maybe 6 months in jail in America. Stop being wrong.SharkyMcshark wrote:
In the middle east the 'vigilante' punishment for theft has traditionally been cutting off hands.
In America, death.
Go figure.
PS On a side note Texas Penal Code stipulates a minimum 5 years for the crimes the two deceased robbers committed, not this 6 months malarkey you've got here
DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES AND PUT ORDINARY PEOPLE IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MISTAKES WILL HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*boom* I appear to have made a mistake. *boom* oh look it happened again!usmarine2005 wrote:
No what I am saying is...and I have said yet nobody addressed...SharkyMcshark wrote:
So what you're saying is that an appropriate punishment for the crimes in question are?usmarine2005 wrote:
No no no. If nothing happened, they would get like maybe 6 months in jail in America. Stop being wrong.
PS On a side note Texas Penal Code stipulates a minimum 5 years for the crimes the two deceased robbers committed, not this 6 months malarkey you've got here
DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES AND PUT ORDINARY PEOPLE IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MISTAKES WILL HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Props to you for making a post longer than one line though
Man I hope you get put in that situation and have nothing to defend yourself with.
BI!!!!!!!!!!!!
BI!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGAIN with the black and white!usmarine2005 wrote:
Man I hope you get put in that situation and have nothing to defend yourself with.
BI!!!!!!!!!!!!
With you it either seems to be defend yourself via murdering someone or dont defend youself.
There are inbetween's you know... and a concept known as reasonable/equal force.
Actually you are wrong again. You say this guy is guilty. I say wait for the court to decide.SharkyMcshark wrote:
AGAIN with the black and white!usmarine2005 wrote:
Man I hope you get put in that situation and have nothing to defend yourself with.
BI!!!!!!!!!!!!
With you it either seems to be defend yourself via murdering someone or don't defend youself.
There are inbetween's you know... and a concept known as reasonable/equal force.
So...who is close minded?
It is not that we do not agree with this statement- We all agree that justice should be given to those guilty of crime.usmarine2005 wrote:
No what I am saying is...and I have said yet nobody addressed...SharkyMcshark wrote:
So what you're saying is that an appropriate punishment for the crimes in question are?usmarine2005 wrote:
No no no. If nothing happened, they would get like maybe 6 months in jail in America. Stop being wrong.
PS On a side note Texas Penal Code stipulates a minimum 5 years for the crimes the two deceased robbers committed, not this 6 months malarkey you've got here
DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES AND PUT ORDINARY PEOPLE IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MISTAKES WILL HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But we can also criticize the heavy-handedness of the response.
Quote me in the Joe Horn thread:usmarine2005 wrote:
Actually you are wrong again. You say this guy is guilty. I say wait for the court to decide.SharkyMcshark wrote:
AGAIN with the black and white!usmarine2005 wrote:
Man I hope you get put in that situation and have nothing to defend yourself with.
BI!!!!!!!!!!!!
With you it either seems to be defend yourself via murdering someone or don't defend youself.
There are inbetween's you know... and a concept known as reasonable/equal force.
So...who is close minded?
He should face charges, not he is guilty of said charges.He should at least face two charges of manslaughter. Probably first degree murder
Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...
What does that mean exactly? (No really I don't understand... it seems like you're saying that people thinking he's guilty doesn't seem to have any benefits but I'm not sure anymore with you)usmarine2005 wrote:
Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...
What I am saying is some of you automatically say GUILTY!!!!SharkyMcshark wrote:
What does that mean exactly? (No really I don't understand... it seems like you're saying that people thinking he's guilty doesn't seem to have any benefits but I'm not sure anymore with you)usmarine2005 wrote:
Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...
You may not say that exact word, but you sure as hell imply it.
Someone automatically said guilty as they unloaded their shotgun. The luxury of a court system only applies to the armed now... I guess.usmarine2005 wrote:
What I am saying is some of you automatically say GUILTY!!!!SharkyMcshark wrote:
What does that mean exactly? (No really I don't understand... it seems like you're saying that people thinking he's guilty doesn't seem to have any benefits but I'm not sure anymore with you)usmarine2005 wrote:
Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...
You may not say that exact word, but you sure as hell imply it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So would you say that the people that instantly presume HERO are having an equally negative impact? And if not why not?usmarine2005 wrote:
What I am saying is some of you automatically say GUILTY!!!!SharkyMcshark wrote:
What does that mean exactly? (No really I don't understand... it seems like you're saying that people thinking he's guilty doesn't seem to have any benefits but I'm not sure anymore with you)usmarine2005 wrote:
Well I see no benefit of the doubt from some of you...
You may not say that exact word, but you sure as hell imply it.
Someone was put in a difficult situation.Kmarion wrote:
Someone automatically said guilty as they unloaded their shotgun. The luxury of a court system only applies to the armed now... I guess.
You think I think he acted correctly? No.
But if I was in that situation, those dudes would have a "ping" pitching wedge indented on their skulls.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-02 00:17:02)
That is why the emotionally charged should not be making the decisions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How do you remove emotion from someone trying to steal your shit?Kmarion wrote:
That is why the emotionally charged should not be making the decisions.