Ya...I see muggers a giving box of chocolates to their victims all the time.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
Because not every criminal threatens life.
But they often threaten QUALITY of life.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
Because not every criminal threatens life.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Why care about someone who damages other people's lives, who themself don't give a fuck about who they harm?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
Perhaps he actually cares about other people's lives.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.
Owch, he got ya there mateusmarine2005 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.
Nope, the jaywalker was not being deviant or malicious in his actions, he wasn't prepared to or attempted to hurt anyone. I am sorry whether or not you break into an empty house, you ARE hurting that family, financially and emotionally.some_random_panda wrote:
Let's look at this in a different way, Rooster Cantrell. Jaywalkers threaten life by causing drivers to swerve if close, and perhaps crash and kill others or die themselves. Do we shoot the jaywalker?
If the jaywalker got killed during his actions, and that action was t ocause harm to someone sure, he had it coming.
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-01 20:57:35)
Oh hey honey! Lets go relax in the living room and watch a movie!You make it sound like every criminal threatens life.
No honey, I can't I am to afraid of someone trying to rob us, We have to be on our guard.
Why can they not watch a movie? Because they we're robbed by someone who did not hurt them psyically but mentally. People have to be paranoid and on their guard 24/7 even while you sleep, It's a fucking downer but to those that it has happened to it sucks.
Well, I earlier said, death is extreme for any crime, but using your example, I think it wouldn't be out of line if someone, jaywalked, cause a car accident, and if there was significant injury, I don't think it would be too far to give them some jail time for reckless endangerment.some_random_panda wrote:
Let's look at this in a different way, Rooster Cantrell. Jaywalkers threaten life by causing drivers to swerve if close, and perhaps crash and kill others or die themselves. Do we shoot the jaywalker?
The litigation behind proving that would be ludicris i'm sure, but that's par for alot of the Justice System.
True, but if they made a mistake, and someone (unarmed) was home, would the robbers apoligize and leave, or go to extreme measures to prevent getting arrested?some_random_panda wrote:
By the sounds of it, the robbers knew the owner was out of the house. Thus they either didn't want to hurt him, or they didn't want to commit murder as well. As for stolen goods, well, I've had it done to me before, and insurance paid up.
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-01-01 20:59:02)
Squatters are criminals. I don't hear of many squatters harming other people.
Also, my relatives overseas woke up to see a face peering into the kitchen window, despite there being a large fence around the house. They got up, more or less raised hell, and the person ran and never came back.
They're not paranoid at all.
Also, my relatives overseas woke up to see a face peering into the kitchen window, despite there being a large fence around the house. They got up, more or less raised hell, and the person ran and never came back.
They're not paranoid at all.
I'd run, actually.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Well, I earlier said, death is extreme for any crime, but using your example, I think it wouldn't be out of line if someone, jaywalked, cause a car accident, and if there was significant injury, I don't think it would be too far to give them some jail time for reckless endangerment.some_random_panda wrote:
Let's look at this in a different way, Rooster Cantrell. Jaywalkers threaten life by causing drivers to swerve if close, and perhaps crash and kill others or die themselves. Do we shoot the jaywalker?
The litigation behind proving that would be ludicris i'm sure, but that's par for alot of the Justice System.True, but if they made a mistake, and someone (unarmed) was home, would the robbers apoligize and leave, or go to extreme measures to prevent getting arrested?some_random_panda wrote:
By the sounds of it, the robbers knew the owner was out of the house. Thus they either didn't want to hurt him, or they didn't want to commit murder as well. As for stolen goods, well, I've had it done to me before, and insurance paid up.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2008-01-01 21:00:53)
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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.Kmarion wrote:
Thats where you are mistaken. Nobody wants crimes or to see people victimized. But you seem unable to tell the difference between that and someone saying they do not believe in subverting the law when life is not in danger.lowing wrote:
Yer absolutely correct. I am catching 20 kinds of hell because I do not give a shit about the demise of the robbers. LOL
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Where?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya I called. You retards are blaming the beer for the DUI.
In rare cases, but even the people who "defend" themselves with lethal force better get ready for thier own long and drawn out legal battle.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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.Kmarion wrote:
Thats where you are mistaken. Nobody wants crimes or to see people victimized. But you seem unable to tell the difference between that and someone saying they do not believe in subverting the law when life is not in danger.
It's not handed over.
People will defend themselves if necissary. Stupid people will go too far and overreact. If you can cure stupidity, I think we'd have something there
I have a problem with a justice system where justice doesn't exist. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!!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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.Kmarion wrote:
Thats where you are mistaken. Nobody wants crimes or to see people victimized. But you seem unable to tell the difference between that and someone saying they do not believe in subverting the law when life is not in danger.
Does anyone have the right to take the law into their own hands?lowing wrote:
I have a problem with a justice system where justice doesn't exist. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!!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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.
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.Stingray24 wrote:
You're misapplying verses again.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;
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."
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.
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?
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.
Please enlighten me to why?
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.
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.lowing wrote:
I have a problem with a justice system where justice doesn't exist. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!!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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's the conservatives!!!! Fucking short haired, tie wearing conservatives!!!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?
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.
People make the argument that the amount of force used in situations like this one are criminal and thus they can be punished.lowing wrote:
I have a problem with a justice system where justice doesn't exist. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!!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.lowing wrote:
Oh I know the difference, I just do not care if the world is missing to frickin thugs.
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
Well maybe we should wait until the courts have decided.......
According to the constitution of this country, that is what one is entitled to...or have you selectively forgotten about the things for which you signed up to protect?usmarine2005 wrote:
Well maybe we should wait until the courts have decided.......
Say what?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
According to the constitution of this country, that is what one is entitled to...or have you selectively forgotten about the things for which you signed up to protect?usmarine2005 wrote:
Well maybe we should wait until the courts have decided.......
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?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
According to the constitution of this country, that is what one is entitled to...or have you selectively forgotten about the things for which you signed up to protect?usmarine2005 wrote:
Well maybe we should wait until the courts have decided.......
I think I will make a sign to post in front of my house, "Come in at own risk, 10 gauge on duty."
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?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
According to the constitution of this country, that is what one is entitled to...or have you selectively forgotten about the things for which you signed up to protect?
whatusmarine2005 wrote:
Say what?
had to do that
but that quote from Ghandi was actually very clever
"An eye for an eye will only leave the whole world blind" thats wisdom right there.