How?!lowing wrote:
I will be even simpler,...........YOU left the OP when you started quoting Texas penal codes.
I'm prob gonna leave it at this. God you live up to your admin note.OP's SMH Article wrote:
The killing of two Texas burglars renews debate over whether deadly force is justified to defend property, writes Ian Munro.
Whoa Whoa Whoa! The Xbox is a new toy, im playing it lots and lots recently, but i need to start revision soon. And anyway, i cycle rather a lot, lots of trails near my house!lowing wrote:
Ok but TECHNICALLY, you do not have to go in reverse in order to peddle backwards. If ya ever find yourself off of the couch or away from your XBOX 360, get on 10 speed and give it a whirl.FatherTed wrote:
You know you can't really backpeddle on a bike? They don't do "reverse".lowing wrote:
Be sure to roll up your pant legs, ya don't wanna get them caught in the chain as you back peddle.
Just thought i'd point that out.
Haha, what a great way to come full circle without actually answering anything. Just ignore it all and repeat the same tripe you did before. You're full of it, Lowing.lowing wrote:
I guess as opposed to the FOR SIGHT required to understand that if you try and burglarize a house you might get fuckin shot??mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.lowing wrote:
Funny your 20/20 hindsight perspective on events after the fact are uncanny. Perhaps you could use your gift to inform would be thieves burglars and robbers that they might get shot if they try and fuck with the wrong family.
Good riddance.
Hail to all gun owners who stand in defiance of victimization by the criminal element. You are all indeed, heroes!!!
mikkel wrote:
You're full of it, Lowing.
Why is it so hard to understand that YOU quoted TEXAS penal codes in reference to the punishment of burglars and that death was not mentioned in it. You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.mcminty wrote:
How?!lowing wrote:
I will be even simpler,...........YOU left the OP when you started quoting Texas penal codes.I'm prob gonna leave it at this. God you live up to your admin note.OP's SMH Article wrote:
The killing of two Texas burglars renews debate over whether deadly force is justified to defend property, writes Ian Munro.
No not really I simply love the fact that 2 felons are dead in the attempt to victimize innocent hard working people. I really don't care what the law says about it. I hope this guy gets away with it.mikkel wrote:
Haha, what a great way to come full circle without actually answering anything. Just ignore it all and repeat the same tripe you did before. You're full of it, Lowing.lowing wrote:
I guess as opposed to the FOR SIGHT required to understand that if you try and burglarize a house you might get fuckin shot??mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.
Good riddance.
Hail to all gun owners who stand in defiance of victimization by the criminal element. You are all indeed, heroes!!!
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...lowing wrote:
You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.
Honestly probably not, but I tell you now that I would love to have a neighbor that is willing to get involved if my family is victimized while I am back overseas.Kmarion wrote:
Would the Castle Doctrine apply to your neighbors home?
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense. He quoted it in general terms for all applications of the codeTheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...lowing wrote:
You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.
Thankyou. That saved me the trouble.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...lowing wrote:
You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.
no not really, you still have to defend your believe that a home owner has no right to kill an intruder because burglary does not warrant the death penalty. You remember the penal code you quoted and asked me to highlight the word "DEATH" in regards to burglary?mcminty wrote:
Thankyou. That saved me the trouble.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...lowing wrote:
You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.
Yeah, I said that.lowing wrote:
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...lowing wrote:
You were talking about Texas law NOT this case.
Haha, Lowing, read what you're replying to. I'll even quote it for you.lowing wrote:
No not really I simply love the fact that 2 felons are dead in the attempt to victimize innocent hard working people. I really don't care what the law says about it. I hope this guy gets away with it.mikkel wrote:
Haha, what a great way to come full circle without actually answering anything. Just ignore it all and repeat the same tripe you did before. You're full of it, Lowing.lowing wrote:
I guess as opposed to the FOR SIGHT required to understand that if you try and burglarize a house you might get fuckin shot??
Good riddance.
Hail to all gun owners who stand in defiance of victimization by the criminal element. You are all indeed, heroes!!!
Now, have I left any rock unturned, or any question unanswered in the exploration of this thread and my opinion of it? If I have left you wondering at all how I feel about criminal behavior and their victims, please ask.
Where's the answer?mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.
Herein lies the problem of street justice. Imagine the possibilities for explaining murder... Applying the law selectively without due process is dangerous.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.lowing wrote:
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
Yup maybe he will be found guilty of murder, my PERSONAL OPINION is I support his actions regardless of what the laws says to protect felons rights.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.lowing wrote:
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Texas law is what the article is talking about, is where the intruders were killed, and it under debate as a consequence...
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
Nope, I am saying after being attacked, whether the criminal then runs or not, I can completely understand a victim being so full of emotion and adrenalin that he might shoot his attacker in the back, I also have no problem with it. Does that clarify it?mikkel wrote:
Haha, Lowing, read what you're replying to. I'll even quote it for you.lowing wrote:
No not really I simply love the fact that 2 felons are dead in the attempt to victimize innocent hard working people. I really don't care what the law says about it. I hope this guy gets away with it.mikkel wrote:
Haha, what a great way to come full circle without actually answering anything. Just ignore it all and repeat the same tripe you did before. You're full of it, Lowing.
Now, have I left any rock unturned, or any question unanswered in the exploration of this thread and my opinion of it? If I have left you wondering at all how I feel about criminal behavior and their victims, please ask.Where's the answer?mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.
So is putting felons rights as a higher priority for leniency, over victims rightsKmarion wrote:
Herein lies the problem of street justice. Imagine the possibilities for explaining murder... Applying the law selectively without due process is dangerous.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.lowing wrote:
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense.
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
But you continue to miss the major point of the issue. His hearth and home was not under direct threat. At what point to do we realize that while owning guns does not allow us to nuke the scum robbing the house next door? Yes I hate these douchebags that would deprive me of what I have worked for, accountability and punishment in line with what the law allows does not call for the death sentence.lowing wrote:
Yup maybe he will be found guilty of murder, my PERSONAL OPINION is I support his actions regardless of what the laws says to protect felons rights.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.lowing wrote:
Yes, but he quoted the penal code as if NO burglar that is killed in the attempt of home invasion should be killed in the attempt by the home owner because theft is not a capital offense.
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
Now, are you going to stand by your belief that a home owner should NOT have the right to use deadly force in the defense of his hearth and home because the penal code has no provisions to kill burglars?
I said that the OP's case (as my arguements have been in reference to that) should not have used deadly force becuase he was not defending "his hearth and home". Don't you fucking get it?lowing wrote:
Now, are you going to stand by your belief that a home owner should NOT have the right to use deadly force in the defense of his hearth and home because the penal code has no provisions to kill burglars?
The problem is the shooter became a felon as well. By your logic the families of the deceased have every right to hunt down and kill Mr.Horn.lowing wrote:
So is putting felons rights as a higher priority for leniency, over victims rightsKmarion wrote:
Herein lies the problem of street justice. Imagine the possibilities for explaining murder... Applying the law selectively without due process is dangerous.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
So what you're saying is that you have no problem with people using guns irresponsibly, and that you support the pardoning of any crimes committed by the shooter as a result of this irresponsibility? Yeah, I think I've got it now.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am saying after being attacked, whether the criminal then runs or not, I can completely understand a victim being so full of emotion and adrenalin that he might shoot his attacker in the back, I also have no problem with it. Does that clarify it?mikkel wrote:
Haha, Lowing, read what you're replying to. I'll even quote it for you.lowing wrote:
No not really I simply love the fact that 2 felons are dead in the attempt to victimize innocent hard working people. I really don't care what the law says about it. I hope this guy gets away with it.
Now, have I left any rock unturned, or any question unanswered in the exploration of this thread and my opinion of it? If I have left you wondering at all how I feel about criminal behavior and their victims, please ask.Where's the answer?mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-01 18:41:18)
If you would not defend your home and your family up to and including death then you are either a liar, or a coward.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
But you continue to miss the major point of the issue. His hearth and home was not under direct threat. At what point to do we realize that while owning guns does not allow us to nuke the scum robbing the house next door? Yes I hate these douchebags that would deprive me of what I have worked for, accountability and punishment in line with what the law allows does not call for the death sentence.lowing wrote:
Yup maybe he will be found guilty of murder, my PERSONAL OPINION is I support his actions regardless of what the laws says to protect felons rights.mcminty wrote:
Yeah, I said that.
This guy went out of his way, against the stern advice of the emergency services, to execute some robbers who posed NO THREAT to HIM. He played judge, jury and executioner in application of a punishment that the law does not even call for (in that particular crime of larceny).
If there is some obscene clause that does allow it, then the laws in question are draconian. They are in serious need of revision.
Now, are you going to stand by your belief that a home owner should NOT have the right to use deadly force in the defense of his hearth and home because the penal code has no provisions to kill burglars?
Are you truly a person of God? Do you honestly belive you can justify standing before your god and justifying the death of another because physical posessions were being taken from you?
If you do, that makes you worse than the Islamic terrorists our troops have to fight day in, and day out. You are a domestic threat far beyond any nuclear weapon. You are the tool that only the most sick and demented could ever hope to have amongst a civilized society.
Nope you spoke in general terms. If you do not believe it then clarify now. Tell me if it is ok to defend your home from burglary up to and including deadly force, forget the OP.mcminty wrote:
I said that the OP's case (as my arguements have been in reference to that) should not have used deadly force becuase he was not defending "his hearth and home". Don't you fucking get it?lowing wrote:
Now, are you going to stand by your belief that a home owner should NOT have the right to use deadly force in the defense of his hearth and home because the penal code has no provisions to kill burglars?
If deadly force were to be used, the occupant would have to demonstrate that he or she behaved reasonably on both an objective and a subjective view.
Hey Lowing, next time a couple of 14-15 year olds try and break into your house to steal some booze and maybe the XBox, are you gonna get out the good 'ole 12 guage and paint the sidewalk with their brains? They are, after all, felons...