Parker
isteal
+1,452|6364|The Gem Saloon

rawls2 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Parker wrote:


common sense?

so, property is equal to a persons life?


this right here gentlemen, is inexperience talking.
Yeah, it is. You're stupid enough to enter someone's house and steal from them, expect getting shot. They shouldn't have done it in the first place.

You can give as much "Human life no price blah blah blah" Bullshit, but at the end of the day if you're stupid enough to go stealing from people, expect that somewhere, someday you're going to get fucked right back.

Play with feathers, you get your arse tickled.
There's this group of white kids always hanging outside my lawn. Sometimes they fuck around and litter it and shit. Now if I come home and they are there I'm popping a 357 slug in each one of those fuckers cuz I'm being trespassed on. Thank you Texas for making me realize my rights to kill lawbreakers. Woot and I'm Mexican. Think about how that story would fly.
make sure you get em in the back, or it doesnt count
chittydog
less busy
+586|6805|Kubra, Damn it!

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


1) They take extreme punishments into practice after due process of law - we have the wonderful eighth amendment.

2) We have laws that should be upheld, and as the jury in this case just determined they were upheld. This man was completely within his rights, so though there is discretion left to citizens at the time of a crime, there are still limitations.

3) You say they don't warrant it. Many people and institutions, including the only one that matters here, the State of Texas, disagree.
1. You don't like the eigth amendment? So you'd be fine with getting beaten the next time you get pulled over for speeding?

2. Shooting people in the back who haven't threatened you or stepped foot in your property is not within your rights.

3. The state of Texas didn't disagree. Nine of his peers disagreed. By your reasoning, retailers should be shooting people for shoplifting.
That was not sarcasm. The eighth amendment is a good thing.

I refer you back to the jury who just ruled that it was Mr. Lawyer.

Nine of his peers, as selected by our jury process upheld state law. They did not see whether they agreed with his actions or not, they judged him against the law of the land.

Yeah, they should. Some do.
I retract my comment. It doesn't mean nine people agreed. They were going for a conviction, which means that at least one person agreed. Without a unanimous decision, he gets off.

By the way, go find a friend or someone in your family who has shoplifted (everyone knows at least one) and tell them you wish they'd been shot dead for it.

Well, at least we agree on something. The constitution rocks.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

this thread is basically saying that its OK to condemn robbers to death.

well what if they are underage? what if they are a woman? what if they only have your TV, and not your fucking Blu-Ray player?


and what if someone steals a pack of cigarettes?
should they die cause they knew they shouldnt have done that?


and what about speeding tickets?

i mean, this will put an entirely DIFFERENT spin on "getting pulled over".

can someone now pull me over and shoot me if they feel like im going too fast?








ya, theres a reason the public doesnt take the law into their own hands......
Show me the twelve year old that is breaking and entering, and I'll tell you it's not okay to shoot minors. Though if they do get shot, the blood is on the hands of the parent.

I'm not sexist.

I don't care if they took my lawn gnome.

Uh, a speeding ticket? Now this is just getting silly. You just went from citizen security of the immediate area from serious crimes to almost anarchical citizen enforcement. Come on now.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

chittydog wrote:

By the way, go find a friend or someone in your family who has shoplifted (everyone knows at least one) and tell them you wish they'd been shot dead for it.
I don't know for a fact of anyone in my family that has shoplifted. I can guess one that probably has, given other worse things that she has told me she has done in her childhood. She was an alcoholic for a long, long time, divorced from a very poor marriage that I think was based on a pregnancy, had three children, one of which is in college now and is having problems with her circle of friends, drugs, and grades, and the other two children just recently got out of the house (at age 25+), maybe not permanently. She is finally doing okay for herself career wise. I wouldn't be surprised if she wished she was shot sometimes.
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6459|Gogledd Cymru

So you'd shoot someone for stealing a loaf of your bread FM?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

The Sheriff wrote:

So you'd shoot someone for stealing a loaf of your bread FM?
Especially since I would have shared if they had asked.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6364|The Gem Saloon

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Show me the twelve year old that is breaking and entering, and I'll tell you it's not okay to shoot minors. Though if they do get shot, the blood is on the hands of the parent.
i dont know about Texas, but breaking laws isnt limited by age here.
in fact, its quite common to have an older shitheel get a younger shitheel to do it. as records go away at a certain age, it works out better for the older shitheels.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm not sexist.
so you would just as soon watch the life leave a females eyes, as you would a males.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't care if they took my lawn gnome.
shooting someone over a lawn ornament?
you definitely have a stronger conscience than i.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uh, a speeding ticket? Now this is just getting silly. You just went from citizen security of the immediate area from serious crimes to almost anarchical citizen enforcement. Come on now.
yes, come on now.
a man shot two people in the back that were not a threat to him.

im glad he never saw me speeding....then we would have found out who the better shot was.






see, the thing is....the laws used to be like this. we as a society have evolved from killing people for theft.

now, this thread would like us all to revert to fucking Neanderthals.

my line. you no cross. i hit you with club.

/chestpound
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6459|Gogledd Cymru

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The Sheriff wrote:

So you'd shoot someone for stealing a loaf of your bread FM?
Especially since I would have shared if they had asked.
Wow, and people say that Islam as a religion is living in the middle ages.
chittydog
less busy
+586|6805|Kubra, Damn it!

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

chittydog wrote:

By the way, go find a friend or someone in your family who has shoplifted (everyone knows at least one) and tell them you wish they'd been shot dead for it.
I don't know for a fact of anyone in my family that has shoplifted. I can guess one that probably has, given other worse things that she has told me she has done in her childhood. She was an alcoholic for a long, long time, divorced from a very poor marriage that I think was based on a pregnancy, had three children, one of which is in college now and is having problems with her circle of friends, drugs, and grades, and the other two children just recently got out of the house (at age 25+), maybe not permanently. She is finally doing okay for herself career wise. I wouldn't be surprised if she wished she was shot sometimes.
Sorry to hear that. There's one in my family whose story is almost identical to that. Well, her job still sucks but at least she's found a decent husband.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

i dont know about Texas, but breaking laws isnt limited by age here.
in fact, its quite common to have an older shitheel get a younger shitheel to do it. as records go away at a certain age, it works out better for the older shitheels.
Only limited by the enforcement after the fact as far as I know.

My point was if you can actually find a case where a kid who was too young to know better was breaking and entering, then no they shouldn't be shot. The fact is though that if there is a kid out trying to break into a house, they probably know what they're doing. Sesame Street says stealing is bad, kids know (whether they do it or not) that stealing the other kid's blocks is bad. I can agree with sometimes older kids getting younger kids to do the shit work...but neither kid is usually that young.

Parker wrote:

so you would just as soon watch the life leave a females eyes, as you would a males.
ummmm...is this a trick question?

I think it's more uncomfortable seeing a dog die...that doesn't mean I want to have sex with it.

Parker wrote:

shooting someone over a lawn ornament?
you definitely have a stronger conscience than i.
The material is irrelevant, it's the act. There is no difference between the lawn gnome and $1000 not because I value the lawn gnome so much, but because I value the money so little. We're talking about human lives here, what in particular is being stolen is of little interest.

Parker wrote:

yes, come on now.
a man shot two people in the back that were not a threat to him.

im glad he never saw me speeding....then we would have found out who the better shot was.






see, the thing is....the laws used to be like this. we as a society have evolved from killing people for theft.

now, this thread would like us all to revert to fucking Neanderthals.

my line. you no cross. i hit you with club.

/chestpound
There was threat to a friend's property, and to the moral fabric of humanity.

Evolution implies the change was for the better. We already have too many people, why are we bothering so hard to protect the obvious anchors on society?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

The Sheriff wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The Sheriff wrote:

So you'd shoot someone for stealing a loaf of your bread FM?
Especially since I would have shared if they had asked.
Wow, and people say that Islam as a religion is living in the middle ages.
The real question is why was that person touching my bread. We ain't communists.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6364|The Gem Saloon

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The material is irrelevant, it's the act.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There was threat to a friend's property, and to the moral fabric of humanity.
those are all i needed.



ATTENTION USA!
ANYONE THAT IS FOUND TO BE A THREAT TO THE MORAL FABRIC OF HUMANITY MAY NOW BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED BY ANYONE THAT OWNS A FIREARM**.



*gun owner may use own discretion about what is an actual threat to the moral fabric of humanity.


*for further effect, make sure you shoot the unarmed threats in the back.
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6459|Gogledd Cymru

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The Sheriff wrote:

Wow, and people say that Islam as a religion is living in the middle ages.
The real question is why was that person touching my bread. We ain't communists.
I'm sure you'd be more suited to live here then.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The material is irrelevant, it's the act.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There was threat to a friend's property, and to the moral fabric of humanity.
those are all i needed.



ATTENTION USA!
ANYONE THAT IS FOUND TO BE A THREAT TO THE MORAL FABRIC OF HUMANITY MAY NOW BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED BY ANYONE THAT OWNS A FIREARM**.



*gun owner may use own discretion about what is an actual threat to the moral fabric of humanity.


*for further effect, make sure you shoot the unarmed threats in the back.
If all the bad apples would just jump out of their homes and try to steal something that would be great.

Seriously, our judiciary system generally does a great job, and should be allowed to do its job. However, if someone gets screwed over in the act of a crime...oh shucks.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6364|The Gem Saloon
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Mancage_in_Afghanistan_1921.JPG


hey, when you got caught stealing in afghanistan in the 20s, they strung you up in one of these things.


now there is a good idea....lets let people die from dehydration when they steal. that will definitely teach them....right?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

The Sheriff wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The Sheriff wrote:

Wow, and people say that Islam as a religion is living in the middle ages.
The real question is why was that person touching my bread. We ain't communists.
I'm sure you'd be more suited to live here then.
So why was he touching my bread? Perhaps because he lives in a broken society that can't feed itself? Kinda weird how he got all the way over here, where there is plenty of food to go around and places for people to get food when they can't make ends meet. I know if that 8 year old reached allllllll the way over here and asked for bread would be people, including me, to give it to him.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … n_1921.JPG


hey, when you got caught stealing in afghanistan in the 20s, they strung you up in one of these things.


now there is a good idea....lets let people die from dehydration when they steal. that will definitely teach them....right?
cruel and unusual

Do you guys not understand the difference between acts by citizens during the act of a crime and absurd judicial punishment dealt after the fact, or do you choose to ignore the difference?
Home
Section.80
+447|6817|Seattle, Washington, USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There was threat to a friend's property, and to the moral fabric of humanity.

Evolution implies the change was for the better. We already have too many people, why are we bothering so hard to protect the obvious anchors on society?
What I find especially ironic is that plenty of people, especially considering your stance on this issue, would consider you an obvious anchor and a threat to the moral fabric of humanity. Myself included.

Last edited by Home (2008-07-01 15:14:30)

Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Home wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There was threat to a friend's property, and to the moral fabric of humanity.

Evolution implies the change was for the better. We already have too many people, why are we bothering so hard to protect the obvious anchors on society?
What I find especially ironic is that plenty of people, especially considering your stance on this issue, would consider you an obvious anchor and a threat to the moral fabric of humanity. Myself included.
Step back. Who is breaking the law?

Even if you think my disregard for human life is an abomination, you must recognize my sanity and respect for the law would keep me from going on some insane spree.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6364|The Gem Saloon

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If all the bad apples would just jump out of their homes and try to steal something that would be great.

Seriously, our judiciary system generally does a great job, and should be allowed to do its job. However, if someone gets screwed over in the act of a crime...oh shucks.
too bad "If" doesnt count.
the man that shot two unarmed people should be tried for murder.


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Parker wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … n_1921.JPG


hey, when you got caught stealing in afghanistan in the 20s, they strung you up in one of these things.


now there is a good idea....lets let people die from dehydration when they steal. that will definitely teach them....right?
cruel and unusual

Do you guys not understand the difference between acts by citizens during the act of a crime and absurd judicial punishment dealt after the fact, or do you choose to ignore the difference?
cruel and unusual?
so you have a bleeding heart for people suffering, but not dying.

cruel and unusual happens a lot from gunshots.
cruel and unusual is trying to breath and hearing that fucking gurgling sound because you have holes in your chest.
cruel and unusual is shooting two people in the back that didnt even know they were at gun point.


dont talk to me about cruel and unusual and your willingness to shoot people in the same thread.



also, please remember that im not just some kid sitting here punching the keyboard. i have more experience with firearms than 95% of this forum. you would be hard pressed to find a BIGGER firearms enthusiast than me.
everything i am saying here is from experience, so please think about what taking a life means.

if you were ever in that situation, i think it would be much different than what it is now.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6460|Northern California

lowing wrote:

No this is the equivelent of a man who is looking out for his nieghbor and gets involved........You guys would be cscreaming what a piece of shit this guy is, if it had been found out that the homeowner and his little girls were murdered inside and the nieghbor did nothing but watch....Fuck PC, 2 criminals were killed in their attempt to harm a law abiding citizen, SALUTE!!  ( oh and if you think getting robbed is harmless then you have never bee nrobbed)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  You need to read the articles.  This is unlawful and unethical involvement that gets people murdered.  What if it wasn't a burglary at all?  THe dude said he didn't know that neighbor, probably assumed the dirty wetbacks entering the home were burglars, and wanted none of that happening on his tough guy watch, and went out to kill them..period.  What if the neighbor knew those guys, had them sent to his house to pick up something, and the neighbor murdered them?  Obviously Horn knew they were bad guys...but what about the other toothless inbreds down the street seeing something similar to what Horn saw...only this time it was one of them evil black guys hopping the fence to get into the house because he lost his key...then nosey inbred takes his pa's 12 gauge over the same fence to confront the evil dark man, and the black guy also legally carries a gun and pulls it to DEFEND HIMSELF, and inbred neighbor shoots as he gets shot and two people are dead...because nosey inbred had to go "get involved."

What about an undercover cop detaining Horn's other neighbor at gun point, and Horn didn't hear the cop identify himself to the neighbor...and Horn goes out to kill him like he did the burglars...and bam, he shoots a cop.

There's plenty of scenarios like this that apply when contemplating castle doctrine's reach.  If Horn is justified (and therefore all other inbred Texas trash) in freely murdering two guys he suspected as being burglars...how long til some inbred tough guy pops some guy securing a young girl having a seizure because inbred thinks she's being raped?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6380|'Murka

I don't know about murder, but the guy should definitely have been convicted of manslaughter at a minimum.

I understand trying to stop crime, but they weren't affecting him or his property, they were already out of the house and running away from him. They posed no threat...at least based on the information that's been provided.

Perhaps there was additional information the jury had that bf2s didn't?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6460|Northern California

FEOS wrote:

I don't know about murder, but the guy should definitely have been convicted of manslaughter at a minimum.

I understand trying to stop crime, but they weren't affecting him or his property, they were already out of the house and running away from him. They posed no threat...at least based on the information that's been provided.

Perhaps there was additional information the jury had that bf2s didn't?
I only say "Murder" because he clearly discussed it (he used the word kill with the dispatcher), and apparently he was on that call for 10 good minutes while the dirtbags were doing their thing.  Murder in it's court approved definition denotes the planning, or forethought prior to doing.  There's no real time limit on it, though more time sure nails it down.  Manslaughter, like a drunk driver killing a kid on the sidewalk, getting jumped by some gangsters and killing one, etc is not the same as degree 1, 2, or 3 of murder.  I think that if Horn was startled, or otherwise caught off guard by these burglars..then yeah..a manslaughter charge would be apropriate.  But he sought them out..he pursued, was the aggressor, and was not "stopping" them legally..he was killing..the shots in the back support that heavily.

BUt again...the jury made that call after whatever evidence/testimony they had.  Good for them...bad for what the precedent means for other texans who are just as balsy as Horn..or as stupid as horn.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6676|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

too bad "If" doesnt count.
the man that shot two unarmed people should be tried for murder.
That man shot two unarmed criminals in the act of a crime.

Parker wrote:

cruel and unusual?
so you have a bleeding heart for people suffering, but not dying.

cruel and unusual happens a lot from gunshots.
cruel and unusual is trying to breath and hearing that fucking gurgling sound because you have holes in your chest.
cruel and unusual is shooting two people in the back that didnt even know they were at gun point.


dont talk to me about cruel and unusual and your willingness to shoot people in the same thread.



also, please remember that im not just some kid sitting here punching the keyboard. i have more experience with firearms than 95% of this forum. you would be hard pressed to find a BIGGER firearms enthusiast than me.
everything i am saying here is from experience, so please think about what taking a life means.

if you were ever in that situation, i think it would be much different than what it is now.
lol, you still refuse to respond to the second point.

Cruel and unusual punishment, a phrase thrown around a lot that refers specifically to sentences dealt by the judicial system after a trial. There can be no such thing as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment before a trial has taken place.

There are things much, much worse than dying. Suffering unnecessarily before death is much worse than death itself.

I realize who I am talking to, and I understand the extensive responsibility shouldered by someone who owns a firearm. I do not own a gun, my immediate family does not own a gun, and if I ever do own a gun I doubt that it will be kept loaded, or unlocked away from the ammunition. Chances are I would never shoot the people in this situation, but I will staunchly defend someone else's right to do so.

edit:

IRONCHEF wrote:

(and therefore all other inbred Texas trash)
oh, and thanks IRONCHEF for that little jewel
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6530

Parker wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Hakei wrote:


Yeah, it is. You're stupid enough to enter someone's house and steal from them, expect getting shot. They shouldn't have done it in the first place.

You can give as much "Human life no price blah blah blah" Bullshit, but at the end of the day if you're stupid enough to go stealing from people, expect that somewhere, someday you're going to get fucked right back.

Play with feathers, you get your arse tickled.
There's this group of white kids always hanging outside my lawn. Sometimes they fuck around and litter it and shit. Now if I come home and they are there I'm popping a 357 slug in each one of those fuckers cuz I'm being trespassed on. Thank you Texas for making me realize my rights to kill lawbreakers. Woot and I'm Mexican. Think about how that story would fly.
make sure you get em in the back, or it doesnt count
True. Better yet instead of shooting them I can line them up on the curb and take them out "American History X" style. Oh, I love the irony.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard