BF2S Forums Shoplifter killed over toothpaste

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Suspected criminal, not a criminal at that point.

If you support the death penalty for suspected criminals you're a fascist.

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?
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.

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.

the premise is the same, if you are caught committing a crime, then suspicion from those you have engaged in while doing so is pretty much out the window.

never said he should have been killed, I said I don't care that he was. when you commit a criminal act, you very well may be putting your life at risk. As proven in this case..He fucked with the wrong guy and lost.

Also your comment seemed to blanket cover all suspects vs. criminals I guess you are gunna back off of that then?

Lets review, http://forums.bf2s.com/post.php?tid=137 … id=3154542

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-13 03:34:30)

I'm stating the truth. It's like discussing a sexual harassment case and using a gang rape case as an example to backup your argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

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.

the premise is the same, if you are caught committing a crime, then suspicion from those you have engaged in while doing so is pretty much out the window.

never said he should have been killed, I said I don't care that he was. when you commit a criminal act, you very well may be putting your life at risk. As proven in this case..He fucked with the wrong guy and lost.

Also your comment seemed to blanket cover all suspects vs. criminals I guess you are gunna back off of that then?

Lets review, http://forums.bf2s.com/post.php?tid=137 … id=3154542

I see, so anyone committing a misdemeanour should expect instant death because there might be some raving Batman wannabe lurking in the shadows in a cape and unitard?

You're mad, there is no point arguing with you.

Didn't say that, but there s no denying that when you fuck with someone, they might fuck you harder....Lesson being, don't fuck with people, because they might fuck back.

THis has nothing to do with our legal system, it has everything to do with interactions between people.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-13 04:25:31)

lowing wrote:

THis has nothing to do with our legal system

If you didn't keep talking about crimes and criminals then this statement wouldn't be the bullshit it is.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

THis has nothing to do with our legal system

If you didn't keep talking about crimes and criminals then this statement wouldn't be the bullshit it is.

Well if this is true then you should be arguing against our legal system and not my personal opinions, as it is you are only arguing against me. So pretty much if there is any bullshit, it is yours.

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

you don't care if a suspected criminal is killed while attempting ANY crime?

rrriiiiiiight

nope, it is the risk you take when you try and fuck with someone, since just about every crime has something to do with infringing on someone else. It should be assumed the victim may not like it and actually fight back.

The guy wasn't 'fucking with someone', he stole a tube of toothpaste and an employee - who wasn't affected in the slightest by the crime - killed him.

I guess if a kid steals a grape in a supermarket you'd grab a can of beans and mash their head to a pulp?

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

nope, it is the risk you take when you try and fuck with someone, since just about every crime has something to do with infringing on someone else. It should be assumed the victim may not like it and actually fight back.

the fact you think its ok to strangle someone to death because they tried to steal a tube of toothpaste pretty much says it all tbh.

lowing wrote:

Well if this is true then you should be arguing against our legal system and not my personal opinions, as it is you are only arguing against me. So pretty much if there is any bullshit, it is yours.

lol wut?

I have never said it was ok to kill anyone. I said, and will continue to say until you acknowledge it, I do not care if a criminal gets killed while committing as crime. This has nothing to do with our legal system

Our legal system does not endorse it, so stop talking about our legal system in my opinions. Legalities have nothing to do with it.

Jaekus wrote:

To be fair here, lowing's separating his opinion from law. I think trying to tie the two together here isn't really what this is about and is derailing the thread. Just because you disagree with it (which I do, but that's not the point) doesn't mean he's saying that's the way things should be.

Agree to disagree, etc.

welcome back

The guy stole toothpaste, the clerk killed someone under what may be argued as good intentions, but heinous as a result. Both are criminals in my eyes. Let the courts decide.

Jaekus wrote:

The guy stole toothpaste, the clerk killed someone under what may be argued as good intentions, but heinous as a result. Both are criminals in my eyes. Let the courts decide.

There ya go.....was wondering when someone was going to say it.

Do I care if the criminal was killed? Nope, never do.

Do I hope the CVS guy gets off light if not completely scott free, you bet your ass I do.

But whne it comes down to it, it is up to the courts and the law to decide.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The guy wasn't 'fucking with someone', he stole a tube of toothpaste and an employee - who wasn't affected in the slightest by the crime - killed him.

I guess if a kid steals a grape in a supermarket you'd grab a can of beans and mash their head to a pulp?

So, where do you draw the line where a criminal can expect bodily harm?  Let's draw up a list and post it in every store and home.  It'll tell the criminal what crimes he can get away with with full disclosure that he won't risk bodily harm. 

Care to open a convenience store, unmanned and without a checkout counter?  Just put a basket out and expect people to pay accordingly.  Honor system you know.  And if the person didn't pay accordingly, well, that's just ok, because according to the mom of the criminal, why would you chase someone for stealing toothpaste.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I understand that the situation and the crime can affect what people consider as acceptable in reaction toward a criminal, but I'm still not getting this "forfeiting the right to live" idea.

1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.

2) When you violate the contract, you void the contract.

3) When the contract is void, you no longer have access to the same rights you used to, including the right to life.

Wtf are you on mate smack?


fucking contract to life I've never heard so much bullshit in my life.


no one has the right to take anybody Else's life, unless obviously its life or death ie, War , very dangerous situations and even then its only because its you or them,  not for some tooth paste.

Last edited by LostFate (2010-05-13 10:54:06)