It was just a general remark, free food is tasty.
Ah.jord wrote:
It was just a general remark, free food is tasty.
Personally, it's not about how much it costs. For me, it's tastier when I'm hungry.
But to stay on topic, don't piss off clerks in shoplifting prone stores.
Am I the only one that appreciates the irony in this post?LostFate wrote:
Lowing you are so fucked up its unreal, if i ever met you in person i would fucking beat you.lowing wrote:
THey ask why would you kill someone over toothpaste. I ask why would you risk your life over toothpaste?
I do love the families assertion, " oh sure he was a convict, and a drug addict, but he was such a good person". I don't think I will loose any sleep tonight.
Here is more irony, if you plan on attacking me because "I am so fucked up" and heartless and callous , you better do it with a gun, because chances are, I will have mine, and you wouldn't wanna be shot for something worth even less than 50 cent toothpaste, ...........all of our opinions.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-11 13:14:30)
glad to help.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Your posts on this forum restore my faith in humanity.lowing wrote:
THey ask why would you kill someone over toothpaste. I ask why would you risk your life over toothpaste?
I do love the families assertion, " oh sure he was a convict, and a drug addict, but he was such a good person". I don't think I will loose any sleep tonight.
9 out of 10 dentist approvedlowing wrote:
glad to help.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Your posts on this forum restore my faith in humanity.lowing wrote:
THey ask why would you kill someone over toothpaste. I ask why would you risk your life over toothpaste?
I do love the families assertion, " oh sure he was a convict, and a drug addict, but he was such a good person". I don't think I will loose any sleep tonight.
Well, I have to admit... this is probably the strongest argument you've made in this thread and possibly in this forum.lowing wrote:
who said anything about it being reasonable? But it is clearly undeniable that it is within the realms of reality. Law abiding citizens can be crazier than a criminal, so it is best not to fuck with anyone. Thus ending the lesson.Turquoise wrote:
No kidding...mikkel wrote:
You ask that because your sense of justice is warped. You do not risk your life stealing a tube of toothpaste any more than you risk your life taking a walk around the block. Meeting death as a consequence of either is wholly unreasonable.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Read between the lines on that one
And not being bothered when someone is killed for such trivial reasons is very fascist in its overtones.lowing wrote:
law and order is not fascism and what happened is not endorsed by our laws. I simply don't give a shit when a criminal is killed while committing a crime. I think we have been through this.Turquoise wrote:
For a guy who dislikes fascism, you seem not to mind it in law enforcement.lowing wrote:
THey ask why would you kill someone over toothpaste. I ask why would you risk your life over toothpaste?
I do love the families assertion, " oh sure he was a convict, and a drug addict, but he was such a good person". I don't think I will loose any sleep tonight.
Well, we at least agree on the second paragraph.lowing wrote:
How is it you can not accept there are uknowns for criminals to face everytime they turn against their fellow citizens? Why should all the unknowns be faced by the victims? He was killed during a crime fuck'emTurquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, not all of us look at it in draconian terms, and I would posit that your assumptions are incorrect as shown by various societies that do not dole out draconian punishments nor accept vigilante justice but still have low crime -- much lower than ours in fact.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Crime and punishment is not a zero-sum game. The results of crime are not of a nature that can be "paid back" to society by the offending party, assuming the justice system even gets a hold of the perpetrator. To maintain the rights of people that break the social contract is to either 1) assume no crime will exist or 2) accept a state where society will crumble in a relatively short period of time. If people think they can get away with anything and face at worst consequences equal to their crime then the incentive is there to commit crime. It is impossible to maintain order in a system with that characteristic.
That's why for the period of time you are actually breaking social contract, you are absolutely on your own. If you break it, escape, and later turn yourself in then of course it is imperative that limits are placed on the system to maintain the rights of the possibly innocent, that's what the Bill of Rights is for. When someone is actually in the act of burglary, rape, murder etc. and to extend those same rights to them as if they are a member of society is to provide protection to those that have shrugged the responsibilities of being a member of society.
That's why though he clearly should not have been killed, I feel no sympathy for the thief. As I would feel no sympathy for the man who killed him if another person tried to stop the man from killing the thief if he had accidentally killed him. When you are actively working against a stable society you forfeit your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I would also say one big reason our crime is higher, is because we are an instant gratification society. We want something and we want it now. ALL of us have little patience to satisfy our wants, most of us can do so legally, some of us won't wait for legal means for their gratifications and will turn against another and steal their rewards.
Not giving a shit if a criminal gets killed while committing a crime is fascist??? DO tell me more about.Turquoise wrote:
And not being bothered when someone is killed for such trivial reasons is very fascist in its overtones.lowing wrote:
law and order is not fascism and what happened is not endorsed by our laws. I simply don't give a shit when a criminal is killed while committing a crime. I think we have been through this.Turquoise wrote:
For a guy who dislikes fascism, you seem not to mind it in law enforcement.
good, then feel free to carry on worrying about the well being of criminals, I will save my sympathies for their victims.Turquoise wrote:
Well, we at least agree on the second paragraph.lowing wrote:
How is it you can not accept there are unknowns for criminals to face everytime they turn against their fellow citizens? Why should all the unknowns be faced by the victims? He was killed during a crime fuck'emTurquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, not all of us look at it in draconian terms, and I would posit that your assumptions are incorrect as shown by various societies that do not dole out draconian punishments nor accept vigilante justice but still have low crime -- much lower than ours in fact.
I would also say one big reason our crime is higher, is because we are an instant gratification society. We want something and we want it now. ALL of us have little patience to satisfy our wants, most of us can do so legally, some of us won't wait for legal means for their gratifications and will turn against another and steal their rewards.
Was going to post "only in America" but I won't ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
exactly, this isnt a matter of him really needing toothpaste. what he really needed was to still be in jail because obviously he thought there would be no consiquence for him stealing a small item.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
why would the guy takes TUBES instead of a just a single tube if he really needed it?
It doesn't seem like the cvs worker meant to kill him, so there should be no charge.
Is he responsible for the guys death? in a way, yes. But the emotional effect on the worker will be enough punishment.
15 more years! 15 more years!
The killer may get off scott free but real irony would be having one of his kids grow up and exact revenge on this clerk. That would make me smile.
It's not 'in a way'. The answer is YES, because he killed him.Mitch wrote:
in a way, yes.
The killer will most likely receive a manslaughter charge. Killing someone under those circumstances is a crime. He wasn't trying to protect valued property, he wasn't being threatened and he had no reason to suspect the thief was a danger to himself.
Ironic how someone preventing a crime turns out to be the bigger criminal as a result.
Ironic how someone preventing a crime turns out to be the bigger criminal as a result.
Depends on what the jury thinks. I've been on jury trial where we let the defendant go because we didn't believe the testimony of the authorities. Barring some unknown dirt on the clerk, I'd charge him for manslaughter, but recommend a light sentence.Jaekus wrote:
The killer will most likely receive a manslaughter charge. Killing someone under those circumstances is a crime. He wasn't trying to protect valued property, he wasn't being threatened and he had no reason to suspect the thief was a danger to himself.
Ironic how someone preventing a crime turns out to be the bigger criminal as a result.
Yeah I'd say that's what is likely to happen. Either manslaughter and a couple years in the clink with the rest suspended or all suspended.
Suspected criminal, not a criminal at that point.lowing wrote:
Not giving a shit if a criminal gets killed while committing a crime is fascist??? DO tell me more about.Turquoise wrote:
And not being bothered when someone is killed for such trivial reasons is very fascist in its overtones.lowing wrote:
law and order is not fascism and what happened is not endorsed by our laws. I simply don't give a shit when a criminal is killed while committing a crime. I think we have been through this.
If you support the death penalty for suspected criminals you're a fascist.
But we know that from the thread where two guys got shot in the back running away from a neighbours house.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-12 19:28:29)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I see, so a car jacker is only suspected even though he has a gun to your head, and thus you had better give him the benefit of the doubt and not defend yourself?Dilbert_X wrote:
Suspected criminal, not a criminal at that point.lowing wrote:
Not giving a shit if a criminal gets killed while committing a crime is fascist??? DO tell me more about.Turquoise wrote:
And not being bothered when someone is killed for such trivial reasons is very fascist in its overtones.
If you support the death penalty for suspected criminals you're a fascist.
Get back with me when ya get real, and pose an argument
I never said I support the death penalty for suspected criminals. I support the death penalty for convicted violent felons.
still not sure how this is fascism but hey again, it is your opinion regardless as to how wrong it is.
You kids are wack.
but you don't give a shit when someone is killed by a civilian (not even one of the cawps you love so much) for stealing toothpaste? fucks sakelowing wrote:
I never said I support the death penalty for suspected criminals. I support the death penalty for convicted violent felons.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Well he won't be needing the toothpaste where he is going.
I don't care if a criminal is kllled in the attempt of committing a crime. Especially a criminal with his record and his level of stupidity.ruisleipa wrote:
but you don't give a shit when someone is killed by a civilian (not even one of the cawps you love so much) for stealing toothpaste? fucks sakelowing wrote:
I never said I support the death penalty for suspected criminals. I support the death penalty for convicted violent felons.
oh no he loves cops? oh no he is not some cool rebel like you...oh no. anti establishment died in the 60's and 70's, son.ruisleipa wrote:
but you don't give a shit when someone is killed by a civilian (not even one of the cawps you love so much) for stealing toothpaste? fucks sakelowing wrote:
I never said I support the death penalty for suspected criminals. I support the death penalty for convicted violent felons.
you know i actually dont believe you believe most of the things you say on here. you are just part of the "say opposite of whatever lowing says" crown. just like varegg, dilbert, and others. sad trolls are sad.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-05-13 02:44:11)
We're not talking about an armed carjacker, we're talking about someone suspected of stealing a tube of toothpaste - in which case summary death by strangulation is not appropriate.lowing wrote:
I see, so a car jacker is only suspected even though he has a gun to your head, and thus you had better give him the benefit of the doubt and not defend yourself?Dilbert_X wrote:
Suspected criminal, not a criminal at that point.lowing wrote:
Not giving a shit if a criminal gets killed while committing a crime is fascist??? DO tell me more about.
If you support the death penalty for suspected criminals you're a fascist.
Get back with me when ya get real, and pose an argument
I never said I support the death penalty for suspected criminals. I support the death penalty for convicted violent felons.
still not sure how this is fascism but hey again, it is your opinion regardless as to how wrong it is.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!