Perhaps that homeless guy could take advantage of the many social programs available to feed him? Maybe that homeless guy could KNOCK on the frickin door and ask for food? Less the chances of him getting his head blown off in a breaking and entering attempt at an law abiding citizens home who will protect his family.ReTox wrote:
And what of the homeless guy breaking into a house to steal food because he hasn't had anything to eat in three days?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.
Guilt is to be decided by the courts because there tends to be a lot more going on then just the 5:00 PM headlines let on. I'm not saying one shouldn't defend oneself but ALL actions have consequences, whether for ill or not everything we do has a result. It's called karma. I've defended myself from aggressors before, even from thugs with knives and I've yet to feel a need to kill someone for it... and I have been injured and felt scared of it happening again. I never wanted to kill the dude though, never once.
I think excessive force should be prosecuted even if that person is a victim. Nothing like the bullied kid turning into the bully to keep the cycle of violence going.
"An eye for an eye will only leave the whole world blind" -Ghandi
Robbery and drunk driving are not grounds for execution that is rediculous. However, if both were killed in their attempts, then all that is left to say is, probably better they didn't drive drunk, or attempt a home invasion on an armed law abiding citizen. Sympathy is out of the question.Marinejuana wrote:
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.
I was going to post this on the 'other' thread, but never got round to it, so I'll post it here (as it seems that's exactly where this thread is going).
I see no justification in any way or form for someone to shoot a 'non-threatening' thief especially when its not even on your property.
But Apart from all that crap, how can he be so sure the 2 people in question where actually thieves?
I have on numerous occasions broken into my own home and friends places for various reasons, most times it was just to get in. But one instance my mate had gone up north (about 1200 KM), but forgot to take his TV and had no desire to drive back for it. As I and a couple of other people were to meet him 2 days later he asked if we could bring it up. Having no keys of our own we had to find a way in. Long story short he has a second floor window which doesn't lock properly so we climbed up opened the window, went inside and took the TV (and a couple of other small items).
None of his neighbours would have any clue who we were, and what we were doing must have just screamed out 'robbery'. So in this case do you think I should have got a 12 gauge to the back? because that's what some of you are implying would be the right thing for his neighbours to do.
The above is just one instance of why citizens should never take justice into their own hands as they most probably don't have all the facts and are not trained to deal with the circumstances in question.
I see no justification in any way or form for someone to shoot a 'non-threatening' thief especially when its not even on your property.
But Apart from all that crap, how can he be so sure the 2 people in question where actually thieves?
I have on numerous occasions broken into my own home and friends places for various reasons, most times it was just to get in. But one instance my mate had gone up north (about 1200 KM), but forgot to take his TV and had no desire to drive back for it. As I and a couple of other people were to meet him 2 days later he asked if we could bring it up. Having no keys of our own we had to find a way in. Long story short he has a second floor window which doesn't lock properly so we climbed up opened the window, went inside and took the TV (and a couple of other small items).
None of his neighbours would have any clue who we were, and what we were doing must have just screamed out 'robbery'. So in this case do you think I should have got a 12 gauge to the back? because that's what some of you are implying would be the right thing for his neighbours to do.
The above is just one instance of why citizens should never take justice into their own hands as they most probably don't have all the facts and are not trained to deal with the circumstances in question.
I think this is my favorite post: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 !
"2 people lost their lives and you call that justice?" translated out of liberaleze means.......2 felons were shot while attempting a home invasion on a law abiding citizen and you think they should have been shot while they commited this crime. The answer is yes. I hope all felons are shot by their victims, in their attempts to harm the innocent. If they happen to survive their encounter with their victims and actually make it to the judicial system, let the law prevail.
If you want sympathy from me, it would have to read something like this:....2 people lost their lives in an attempt to bring food to the homeless shelter, or maybe, 2 people lost their lives while attempting to rescue 15 blind kids from their burning school. Now ya have my sympathy.
As for the justice part. No these two felons did not receive justice, they never made it that far. They probably shoulda picked up a safer hobby like scrap booking or something. Something where they didn't need to be judged in the first place.
Look to your government for absolute protection and control, eh?Havok wrote:
America would quickly become the safest nation on Earth.
1. I haven't read whatever article this was all about, but when you commit a crime against someone, you risk angering them to the point where they respond with deadly force. Whether or not it is justified is a matter for the courts, but if you've died, you screwed up. Aftermath: how about, instead of "oh, no, a thief was trounced," we go with "oh no, people are trying to steal stuff." There's a lesson somewhere in that.Varegg wrote:
12 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 !
2The 2nd amendment is destroying your country, 3you 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. 4Double standards ftw !
2. By that logic, automobiles are destroying our country. Instead of attacking one of the many tools of a problem, go for some of the sources: crippling taxes, federal business red tape and and government overspending.
3. What...oh wait, you must've watched Jesus Camp. Yup, that's exactly how all religious institutions are...
4. Rushed grammar ftl.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-01-02 05:08:03)
hmmmm, i wonder why....Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
My house has been robbed 3 times
What I'm curious to know from the folks who think pacifism with respect to an intruder in your home should be required is two things:
1: Why is the burden on me, the law-abiding homeowner to wait and see what the burglar's intentions are with regard to the application of violence against me?
2: How long should I wait before I shoot at the burglar, considering the fact that, if I wait too long, I may discover the burglar intends violence only when his round pierces my chest?
1: Why is the burden on me, the law-abiding homeowner to wait and see what the burglar's intentions are with regard to the application of violence against me?
2: How long should I wait before I shoot at the burglar, considering the fact that, if I wait too long, I may discover the burglar intends violence only when his round pierces my chest?
Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2008-01-02 09:52:52)
I think the law decides, as if the death was justifiable (warranted), excusable (reasonable as an excusable "accident"), or criminal. If criminal, your probably looking at manslaughter or murder, etc.HollisHurlbut wrote:
What I'm curious to know from the folks who think pacifism with respect to an intruder in your home should be required is two things:
1: Why is the burden on me, the law-abiding homeowner to wait and see what the burglar's intentions are with regard to the application of violence against me?
2: How long should I wait before I shoot at the burglar, considering the fact that, if I wait too long, I may discover the burglar intends violence only when his round pierces my chest?
People have different interpretations on what is a "threat" of course, but it's whether the average person would react the same way. Sure, I know you're asking a loaded question...but answer for you anyway.
And Spark's from Australia. It could be a culture difference...I'm not sure if that country has the same concept of property ownership as ours has evolved where it includes self-defence.
On a secondary note, I saw some stuff about "shooting in the foot", etc. I'm wondering if we should be looking at it from a different way. If you use deadly force (aka a gun) shouldn't the same emphasis be put on contemplating the action?
In other words, I believe if you are going to shoot a gun, your intention is ALWAYS to kill someone no matter where you aim.
BTW I'd defend my family. If I knew they were just going to take stuff & leave, go ahead I have insurance. But my belief is if the robber is carrying a gun, knife, or bat = intention to kill. It isn't self-defence for a robber, is offense. I would stop if the robber was incapacitated, but I'd be trying to kill him immediately if possible.
My thoughts on HOME DEFENSE and the use of lethal force are this:
1) I will "defend" my family with whatever force I have available...even if it's overwhelming force (me & handgun vs. robber & bare hands). I live in California where I am pretty much obliged to be passive in theft of items in home and only shoot at the last possible moment before bodily harm will befall myself, my wife, or my children. I am a lawful citizen but I will not be waiting to that extreme before reacting..but I will not chase anyone beyond my front door or windows once they've fled to apply lethal force. Also, I'd be going for a couple center mass shots and maybe a head shot if I could manage it. Not too many shots because hey, California won't like that.
2) I will not shoot someone in the back in my home (recipe for felony in CA), but I will clear my house once my family is secure. If someone in my family were wounded in the least from the robber, I would reconsider shooting them in the back if I had no choice of where to shoot them..again, i would not pursue beyond my door.
3) I would NOT shoot at a burglar robbing my neighbor's house, even if they stepped through my yard (as was the situation in Texas cited earlier). I might attempt to subdue them with other means but only after knowing if they had a gun or not. **I've actually deterred burglars/home invaders/robbers of my neighbors without shooting them and it worked**
4) If I witnessed a shooting or chase of people shooting and I had a concealed weapon, and I didn't have certainty of who was the good guy and who was the bad guy and one of them was about to kill, I would not intervene with lethal force...and I would like not intervene at all, even if I could with minimal risk.
I'm also aware that EACH INCIDENT is unique. I also am aware that until you've been in the real deal situation, you can't respond with complete accuracy. I can plan, practice, and train all I want and hope I respond properly, but knowing in advance what to do most of the time is impossible. I also think the critics in this thread telling people what they should and shouldn't do is senseless. Spark, criticizing our country/state has some validity in terms of hypocrisy, but it's out of context. Spark, you'd be better suited to answer for yourself only rather than criticizing the nation as a whole just for not being as aggressive with intruders as you'd not be.
1) I will "defend" my family with whatever force I have available...even if it's overwhelming force (me & handgun vs. robber & bare hands). I live in California where I am pretty much obliged to be passive in theft of items in home and only shoot at the last possible moment before bodily harm will befall myself, my wife, or my children. I am a lawful citizen but I will not be waiting to that extreme before reacting..but I will not chase anyone beyond my front door or windows once they've fled to apply lethal force. Also, I'd be going for a couple center mass shots and maybe a head shot if I could manage it. Not too many shots because hey, California won't like that.
2) I will not shoot someone in the back in my home (recipe for felony in CA), but I will clear my house once my family is secure. If someone in my family were wounded in the least from the robber, I would reconsider shooting them in the back if I had no choice of where to shoot them..again, i would not pursue beyond my door.
3) I would NOT shoot at a burglar robbing my neighbor's house, even if they stepped through my yard (as was the situation in Texas cited earlier). I might attempt to subdue them with other means but only after knowing if they had a gun or not. **I've actually deterred burglars/home invaders/robbers of my neighbors without shooting them and it worked**
4) If I witnessed a shooting or chase of people shooting and I had a concealed weapon, and I didn't have certainty of who was the good guy and who was the bad guy and one of them was about to kill, I would not intervene with lethal force...and I would like not intervene at all, even if I could with minimal risk.
I'm also aware that EACH INCIDENT is unique. I also am aware that until you've been in the real deal situation, you can't respond with complete accuracy. I can plan, practice, and train all I want and hope I respond properly, but knowing in advance what to do most of the time is impossible. I also think the critics in this thread telling people what they should and shouldn't do is senseless. Spark, criticizing our country/state has some validity in terms of hypocrisy, but it's out of context. Spark, you'd be better suited to answer for yourself only rather than criticizing the nation as a whole just for not being as aggressive with intruders as you'd not be.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-01-02 10:36:38)
I thought the shooter made it very clear when he said he was not going to let them get away. He left his house and pursued them because he was upset they were getting away. He did not kill them because he felt his families life was in danger. It's two different scenarios. I would certainly give the shooter more leeway if these guys were in a position to commit a violent crime (the law allows deadly force in these circumstances). However, the average untrained citizen playing the role of the law enforcement is not only dangerous to themselves but to the entire community as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think your ideas would change if someone tried to break into your house.Spark wrote:
Mmmkay.
So that justifies the use of excessive force.
Not in my book, no.
"Dont do the crime if you cant do the time(or get shot)"
lulz.
But honestly. If someones a big enough asshole to try and rob someone or steal, they deserve to be anally fucked.
See, I'm not asking about the law. The law varies from state to state, from Florida where you can stand your ground to California where they expect everyone to piss themselves and run away, hands flailing about in the air, screaming like a little girl.Pug wrote:
I think the law decides, as if the death was justifiable (warranted), excusable (reasonable as an excusable "accident"), or criminal. If criminal, your probably looking at manslaughter or murder, etc.
What I'm asking is for the pacifists here to answer those questions. The people the questions are directed at are the ones who think we should assume the best intentions from someone who's already displayed a disregard for the law.
That'd be a weird punishment. "You are sentenced for six hours alone with Bubba...No lube."eusgen wrote:
I think your ideas would change if someone tried to break into your house.Spark wrote:
Mmmkay.
So that justifies the use of excessive force.
Not in my book, no.
"Dont do the crime if you cant do the time(or get shot)"
lulz.
But honestly. If someones a big enough asshole to try and rob someone or steal, they deserve to be anally fucked.
Right, I said it was a loaded question.HollisHurlbut wrote:
See, I'm not asking about the law. The law varies from state to state, from Florida where you can stand your ground to California where they expect everyone to piss themselves and run away, hands flailing about in the air, screaming like a little girl.Pug wrote:
I think the law decides, as if the death was justifiable (warranted), excusable (reasonable as an excusable "accident"), or criminal. If criminal, your probably looking at manslaughter or murder, etc.
What I'm asking is for the pacifists here to answer those questions. The people the questions are directed at are the ones who think we should assume the best intentions from someone who's already displayed a disregard for the law.
What Marine said is accurate.
They're still people if you hadn't realised.lowing wrote:
I think this is my favorite post: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 !
"2 people lost their lives and you call that justice?" translated out of liberaleze means.......2 felons were shot while attempting a home invasion on a law abiding citizen and you think they should have been shot while they commited this crime. The answer is yes. I hope all felons are shot by their victims, in their attempts to harm the innocent. If they happen to survive their encounter with their victims and actually make it to the judicial system, let the law prevail.
If you want sympathy from me, it would have to read something like this:....2 people lost their lives in an attempt to bring food to the homeless shelter, or maybe, 2 people lost their lives while attempting to rescue 15 blind kids from their burning school. Now ya have my sympathy.
As for the justice part. No these two felons did not receive justice, they never made it that far. They probably shoulda picked up a safer hobby like scrap booking or something. Something where they didn't need to be judged in the first place.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So are serial killers, child molesters and rapists, do you wanna guess what I think should happen to these people if their victims ever got the upper hand on them? Oh, and I already understand that the law does not warrant death for child molesters or rapists, but go ahead. ask me anyway.Spark wrote:
They're still people if you hadn't realised.lowing wrote:
I think this is my favorite post: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 !
"2 people lost their lives and you call that justice?" translated out of liberaleze means.......2 felons were shot while attempting a home invasion on a law abiding citizen and you think they should have been shot while they commited this crime. The answer is yes. I hope all felons are shot by their victims, in their attempts to harm the innocent. If they happen to survive their encounter with their victims and actually make it to the judicial system, let the law prevail.
If you want sympathy from me, it would have to read something like this:....2 people lost their lives in an attempt to bring food to the homeless shelter, or maybe, 2 people lost their lives while attempting to rescue 15 blind kids from their burning school. Now ya have my sympathy.
As for the justice part. No these two felons did not receive justice, they never made it that far. They probably shoulda picked up a safer hobby like scrap booking or something. Something where they didn't need to be judged in the first place.
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-03 03:46:42)
unless you shoot a person in a limb every shot can be deadly, yeah overreacting, or aiming for a limb and he throws himself in front of it, I mean hell ; most parts you hit would mean either instant death, fast death, slower death or bleeding to death. We're fragile, mistakes happen you don't consciously kill someone for something like that, especially awkward that nobody mentions how traumatized the guy must be that shot the other person.SharkyMcshark wrote:
*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?
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
Mistakes happen, don't commit crimes, don't get into stupid situation, avoid your chances of getting killed considerably. I totally agree with marine on this one, ofcourse death wasn't something he deserved but he shouldn't've commited the crime in the first place, no crime, no risk to be taken.
inane little opines
Its easy really, if someone breaks into your own home when you're there, or attacks you or your family you defend yourself as far as you can.What I'm asking is for the pacifists here to answer those questions. The people the questions are directed at are the ones who think we should assume the best intentions from someone who's already displayed a disregard for the law.
If you see someone apparently running away from someone elses house you don't pursue them and shoot them in the back, you call the Police and let them deal with it (or not as seems usual).
Nobody here is Judge Judy and Executioner, LOL, even the Police can't mete out instant justice unless life or limb is threatened - as far as I know they are generally required to arrest people and bring them to court, not just shoot them on the spot for suspected property theft.
Civilians need to stop reading Guns and Ammo and hoping for a spot on the 'justified homicide' page or whatever its called these days.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-01-03 04:21:20)
Fuck Israel
bull fucking shit. You would find a reason to wine and complain even if it was the family member or property owner that shot the bastards. "Death Penalty for stealing pizza money...." remember asshole? dont get all prissy now because the story is just a tad bit different that what you usually here. Maybe you should read the fucking OP.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its easy really, if someone breaks into your own home when you're there, or attacks you or your family you defend yourself as far as you can..
Hey Gunslinger:
- Read the OP yourself - I was responding to the post by HollisHurlbut
- Read the forum rules
- Learn English - I know Mexicans with better spelling and grammar than you.
- Read the OP yourself - I was responding to the post by HollisHurlbut
- Read the forum rules
- Learn English - I know Mexicans with better spelling and grammar than you.
Fuck Israel
kinda the point isnt it.usmarine2005 wrote:
oh jesusmcminty wrote:
I find it ironic that this mentality of 'shoot first' comes from the same nation that brings us the 'Sanctity of Life'.
mexicansDilbert_X wrote:
Hey Gunslinger:
- Read the OP yourself - I was responding to the post by HollisHurlbut
- Read the forum rules
- Learn English - I know Mexicans with better spelling and grammar than you.
This could turn nasty.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
mexicansDilbert_X wrote:
Hey Gunslinger:
- Read the OP yourself - I was responding to the post by HollisHurlbut
- Read the forum rules
- Learn English - I know Mexicans with better spelling and grammar than you.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Oh my.Spark wrote:
This could turn nasty.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
mexicansDilbert_X wrote:
Hey Gunslinger:
- Read the OP yourself - I was responding to the post by HollisHurlbut
- Read the forum rules
- Learn English - I know Mexicans with better spelling and grammar than you.
This guy could have just hid and did nothing. The perp would have gotten the stash and gotten away. He could have also shot the clerk and everyone else in the store. Turns out the gun he had wasn't loaded.Some News agency wrote:
While the suspect demanded cash from workers, Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the robber and ordered him to put down his weapon, the report said. After a moment the suspect placed his gun and the cash on the counter, removed his mask and lay on the floor. Merrell held him at gunpoint Monday until police arrived and arrested the suspect.
or
This guy's gun could have been loaded. The good intentioned fellow draws his gun and points it at the perp. Perp turns towards guy, guy shoots at perp, misses. Perp shoots guy, then clerk. He then gets away free and clear.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)