Copper thief shot dead

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not a straw man, it's pointing out the implications of the sloppily worded post.

If the poster is going to say EVERYTHING in big caps, then guess what?

Why don't you try posting what you mean to say, instead of what you don't mean and then calling the response to what you actually said a 'straw man'?

How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.

Craig is simply pointing out he logical conclusion of your position that the criminal is responsible for EVERYTHING (in all caps, no less) that happens after he commits the crime that starts the chain of events. If this were the case then Craig is right, we could capture, hold and torture petty criminals with impunity. You need to admit that either your post was poorly worded and ill-conceived or that you advocate torture, brutality, sexual abuse and whatever else some sick vigilante feels like doing to a captured thief.

It's impossible for me to predict the level of stupidity and non sequiturs that someone may invent in order to detract from the topic at hand. Here's another one: a kid steals a camera that a tourist sets down on a ledge. An alien spacecraft then flies overhead. The tourist goes to take a picture, but cant since his camera is stolen. This prevents disclosing proof of alien life. Because of that the world doesn't prepare for an imminent alien invasion and we're caught unawares, falling under the control of our new alien overlords. Because of that you would claim that I believe that all people that steal cameras should be shot on sight, in order to prevent inter-galactic war...right?

Seriously, anybody can find a ridiculous set of circumstances to anything. We're talking about rather or not a citizen should be solely responsible for the violence that ensues as a direct result of intervening in criminal actions against them. Within that context, I feel the criminal is the one responsible for everything that transpires.

Perhaps you need to take a class in logic because you really suck at it. Try starting here, because clearly you don't know what a non sequitur is.

Your conclusion from the alien example does not follow from your argument (hhmmm, does not follow. Wonder what that is in Latin?). The correct conclusion is that you are free to do whatever you feel like doing to the kid after he steals the camera as long as what you are doing stems from the chain of events following his stealing of the camera. Your argument says nothing at all about what you should do so I won't draw any conclusions in those terms.

We were talking about force in response to a crime in progress.
I said it was reasonable, and that the responsibility of that violence was upon the criminal.
You said I was fine with torturing the family of a criminal.

Now, how exactly did we go from the specific argument of the use of force to stop a crime in progress, to torturing the family of the criminal? Very easily: you pulled it out of your ass in an attempt to discredit, and/or confuse the issue. In other words, you made up a conclusion which did not follow within the confines of the argument being had.

The alien story merely showed how ridiculous it can be to make up stuff and then apply someones actual position to the fictional event.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's hard to have any sympathy for thieves being killed. In fact, I'm glad because there's less of them now. When my car stereo was stolen they broke my window and tore my dash apart. If I could push a button or pull a trigger and eliminate those who did it they would be dead.

I know how you feel. When my stereo was jacked I felt the same way.

Wait a second...no I didn't. I realized that even though it was a really nice Rockford-Fosgate with MP3 capability (this was one of the first model head units to offer it about 7 years ago) I was pissed.

But I realized that I have insurance and I can get another stereo. I would never get over the knowledge that I just ended a life for a couple hundred dollars and an ability to listen to MP3s in my car.

I don't know how it works with the elites, but we common folk generally have pretty decent insurance deductables. I couldn't (nor would I) claim a broken window and a $200 stereo on my insurance. Even if the loss was a few hundred bucks over my deductible I wouldn't claim it.

We aren't talking about a broken window and a stereo though. We are talking about a families livelihood. Its not just the $10K (or 6) that it cost him to replace the few hundred bucks worth of copper the thieves took. How many people do you think go shopping for furniture during July in Texas in a store without AC?

Even if we aren't talking about lost revenue, its still a significant amount of money that he most likely is not able to claim on his insurance. At what point should a person be able to defend his/her livelihood with deadly force? Before their children are hungry or after? Would you kill someone stealing food from your hungry child or would you let your child go hungry instead?
I think your priorities (and Nebor's) are out of whack when it comes to this topic. If you or your family are in danger and you have the ability to defend yourself (including deadly force) please do so. I will gladly say you were in the right. But when you feel that death is an appropriate response to petty theft, you have become as depraved as the thief at that point.

Even if we aren't talking about lost revenue, its still a significant amount of money that he most likely is not able to claim on his insurance. At what point should a person be able to defend his/her livelihood with deadly force? Before their children are hungry or after? Would you kill someone stealing food from your hungry child or would you let your child go hungry instead?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: jonks
And when a teenager is shot dead for going on a roof to get back a frisbee or baseball or something, it will be called a tragedy, but what can you do, it's part of the cost of defending property by blowing people away. If a few teenagers have to die so someone doesn't steal my copper, so be it.

Either human life is worth more than material things, or it's not. When your life is not in danger, shooting and killing someone is just not warranted.

Insert certifiably insane argument here: "I buy material things with my hard earned money so when someone steals from me they are stealing my life and I have a right to defend my life"

I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question. I completely understand if you don't want to answer but..


Do you have kids?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not a straw man, it's pointing out the implications of the sloppily worded post.

If the poster is going to say EVERYTHING in big caps, then guess what?

Why don't you try posting what you mean to say, instead of what you don't mean and then calling the response to what you actually said a 'straw man'?

How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.

Craig is simply pointing out he logical conclusion of your position that the criminal is responsible for EVERYTHING (in all caps, no less) that happens after he commits the crime that starts the chain of events. If this were the case then Craig is right, we could capture, hold and torture petty criminals with impunity. You need to admit that either your post was poorly worded and ill-conceived or that you advocate torture, brutality, sexual abuse and whatever else some sick vigilante feels like doing to a captured thief.

It's impossible for me to predict the level of stupidity and non sequiturs that someone may invent in order to detract from the topic at hand. Here's another one: a kid steals a camera that a tourist sets down on a ledge. An alien spacecraft then flies overhead. The tourist goes to take a picture, but cant since his camera is stolen. This prevents disclosing proof of alien life. Because of that the world doesn't prepare for an imminent alien invasion and we're caught unawares, falling under the control of our new alien overlords. Because of that you would claim that I believe that all people that steal cameras should be shot on sight, in order to prevent inter-galactic war...right?

Seriously, anybody can find a ridiculous set of circumstances to anything. We're talking about rather or not a citizen should be solely responsible for the violence that ensues as a direct result of intervening in criminal actions against them. Within that context, I feel the criminal is the one responsible for everything that transpires.

Perhaps you need to take a class in logic because you really suck at it. Try starting here, because clearly you don't know what a non sequitur is.

Your conclusion from the alien example does not follow from your argument (hhmmm, does not follow. Wonder what that is in Latin?). The correct conclusion is that you are free to do whatever you feel like doing to the kid after he steals the camera as long as what you are doing stems from the chain of events following his stealing of the camera. Your argument says nothing at all about what you should do so I won't draw any conclusions in those terms.

We were talking about force in response to a crime in progress.
I said it was reasonable, and that the responsibility of that violence was upon the criminal.
You said I was fine with torturing the family of a criminal.

Now, how exactly did we go from the specific argument of the use of force to stop a crime in progress, to torturing the family of the criminal? Very easily:

Right answer: You saying that EVERYTHING - your caps - that occurs following the first wrong is the responsibility of the person who did the first wrong.

You are incapable of writing what you're trying to say, or taking responsibility for doing so, and so you get yourself into these situations.

Wrong answer: "you pulled it out of your ass in an attempt to discredit, and/or confuse the issue. In other words, you made up a conclusion which did not follow within the confines of the argument being had."

Why don't you point specifically to the confines in the phrase you used that EVERYTHING is the fault of the first wrongdoer, and maybe have some realization what you actually said?

If what you meant to say was constrained, such as everything that happens IF the thief chooses to threaten the victim, or some such, *THEN SAY THAT*, not what you did say.

"The alien story merely showed how ridiculous it can be to make up stuff and then apply someones actual position to the fictional event. "

No, the alien story, as Astronomer so eloquently explained was a non-sequitor that only went to show how you are not able to understand what you said - that having the implications of *what you did say* pointed out to you is something you don't understand any more than you understand an alien story.

To beat the dead horse, I'll illustrate with a simplified analogy.

I look at a murder and say "man, guns are evil because they kill people". You respond by saying, how about the guns police use to save lives? I then say "what the hell does that have to do with what I said, I didn't say police, all I said was that murder is bad, not about aliens coming and using their space guns to end war!"

Deconstruction: I said something that was different that I mean, and you pointed it out, and instead of getting a clue and acknowledging it, I attacked you for 'changing what I said', in the process showing how I don't realize what I said, won't listen to anyone point out what I said, and will make up alien stories to try and make the point that it was your mistake, as if what you said was just as off-base.

You still don't get this, I'm betting, (we're past the third time is a charm), but what the heck.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: ericlp
Well, another death for theft. I believe your gonna trespass and bring your tools to steal something off your property ... I am glad that these idiots are getting what they deserve.

I think these owners should have a few pit bulls. That would stop anyone from coming on to the property.

Just remember if your gonna pull these stunts... Make sure the MoFo is DEAD! You don't want to have a court case on your ass it makes it much simpler if the thief dies and can't come back to sue the shit out of you for his hospital bills.

Well you don't have to worry about that in Texas. If you are justified under the law, then they cannot sue you. No one can sue you about the action or any ramifications it had on the criminal or his family/friends.

Yeah but I don't live in Texas. I don't plan on shooting anyone but if I did I'd reload if he / she was still squirming. You know just to stop the from suffering like you would a bee or any other animal.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not a straw man, it's pointing out the implications of the sloppily worded post.

If the poster is going to say EVERYTHING in big caps, then guess what?

Why don't you try posting what you mean to say, instead of what you don't mean and then calling the response to what you actually said a 'straw man'?

How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.

Craig is simply pointing out he logical conclusion of your position that the criminal is responsible for EVERYTHING (in all caps, no less) that happens after he commits the crime that starts the chain of events. If this were the case then Craig is right, we could capture, hold and torture petty criminals with impunity. You need to admit that either your post was poorly worded and ill-conceived or that you advocate torture, brutality, sexual abuse and whatever else some sick vigilante feels like doing to a captured thief.

It's impossible for me to predict the level of stupidity and non sequiturs that someone may invent in order to detract from the topic at hand. Here's another one: a kid steals a camera that a tourist sets down on a ledge. An alien spacecraft then flies overhead. The tourist goes to take a picture, but cant since his camera is stolen. This prevents disclosing proof of alien life. Because of that the world doesn't prepare for an imminent alien invasion and we're caught unawares, falling under the control of our new alien overlords. Because of that you would claim that I believe that all people that steal cameras should be shot on sight, in order to prevent inter-galactic war...right?

Seriously, anybody can find a ridiculous set of circumstances to anything. We're talking about rather or not a citizen should be solely responsible for the violence that ensues as a direct result of intervening in criminal actions against them. Within that context, I feel the criminal is the one responsible for everything that transpires.

Perhaps you need to take a class in logic because you really suck at it. Try starting here, because clearly you don't know what a non sequitur is.

Your conclusion from the alien example does not follow from your argument (hhmmm, does not follow. Wonder what that is in Latin?). The correct conclusion is that you are free to do whatever you feel like doing to the kid after he steals the camera as long as what you are doing stems from the chain of events following his stealing of the camera. Your argument says nothing at all about what you should do so I won't draw any conclusions in those terms.

We were talking about force in response to a crime in progress.
I said it was reasonable, and that the responsibility of that violence was upon the criminal.
You said I was fine with torturing the family of a criminal.

Now, how exactly did we go from the specific argument of the use of force to stop a crime in progress, to torturing the family of the criminal? Very easily:

Right answer: You saying that EVERYTHING - your caps - that occurs following the first wrong is the responsibility of the person who did the first wrong.

You are incapable of writing what you're trying to say, or taking responsibility for doing so, and so you get yourself into these situations.

Wrong answer: "you pulled it out of your ass in an attempt to discredit, and/or confuse the issue. In other words, you made up a conclusion which did not follow within the confines of the argument being had."

Why don't you point specifically to the confines in the phrase you used that EVERYTHING is the fault of the first wrongdoer, and maybe have some realization what you actually said?

If what you meant to say was constrained, such as everything that happens IF the thief chooses to threaten the victim, or some such, *THEN SAY THAT*, not what you did say.

"The alien story merely showed how ridiculous it can be to make up stuff and then apply someones actual position to the fictional event. "

No, the alien story, as Astronomer so eloquently explained was a non-sequitor that only went to show how you are not able to understand what you said - that having the implications of *what you did say* pointed out to you is something you don't understand any more than you understand an alien story.

To beat the dead horse, I'll illustrate with a simplified analogy.

I look at a murder and say "man, guns are evil because they kill people". You respond by saying, how about the guns police use to save lives? I then say "what the hell does that have to do with what I said, I didn't say police, all I said was that murder is bad, not about aliens coming and using their space guns to end war!"

Deconstruction: I said something that was different that I mean, and you pointed it out, and instead of getting a clue and acknowledging it, I attacked you for 'changing what I said', in the process showing how I don't realize what I said, won't listen to anyone point out what I said, and will make up alien stories to try and make the point that it was your mistake, as if what you said was just as off-base.

You still don't get this, I'm betting, (we're past the third time is a charm), but what the heck.

I think you know that we both 'get it', we're just busy beating on each others failure to acknowledge.

We're not writing laws here, we're talking opinion and theory within a very limited context, therefore anything anyone says should obviously be taken within that context. You didn't do that however, instead you made the jump from using force to stop a crime in progress being the fault of the criminal, to torturing the criminals family. There is no logical connection in that jump within the confines of the argument being had. Sure, I could have carefully limited what I said and avoided the whole thing but I saw no cause as only an idiot or a freak would bother to make up potential situations where what I said could be viewed as unfounded. If it makes you feel better though:

I amend my original statement to read: Within the confines of the subject being discussed (ie the use of force against a criminal during the commission of a crime) the person who first commits an illegal act should be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens as a result, since if he/she had obeyed the laws nothing else would have happened. This responsibility extends to the reasonably perceived end of the incident (ie a bystander trampled while the criminal flees is covered, but not the reporter breaking a nail three days later while writing the story). I would furthermore be willing to extend this to apply to injuries sustained without the presence of an innocent person - in other words, if a burglar hurts himself breaking in it's his responsibility, if he knocks over a lamp and starts a fire it's his responsibility, etc. Even though no innocent person was present the immediate consequences subsequent to the initial illegal act continue to be the responsibility of the criminal.


Is that better? Doesn't change in any way the discussion we're having, it just prevents you from going off on wild imaginary tangents rather than addressing the issue. I would prefer people be capable of self-moderating, but if you're incapable of it fine, I'll point to the elephant.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You didn't do that however, instead you made the jump from using force to stop a crime in progress being the fault of the criminal, to torturing the criminals family.

The only jump is you jumping from what you said and didn't mean to you not wanting to take responsibility for what you said.

There is no logical connection in that jump within the confines of the argument being had.

Of course there is. 'Logical connection' is based on the words you type, not what you wish you had typed.

Sure, I could have carefully limited what I said and avoided the whole thing but I saw no cause as only an idiot or a freak would bother to make up potential situations where what I said could be viewed as unfounded. If it makes you feel better though:

When the facts are against you, try name-calling, the best defense is a good offense.

I amend my original statement to read: Within the confines of the subject being discussed (ie the use of force against a criminal during the commission of a crime) the person who first commits an illegal act should be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens as a result, since if he/she had obeyed the laws nothing else would have happened.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, but now on to your attempt to add some limits, in contradiction to your all-caps EVERYTHING period.

This responsibility extends to the reasonably perceived end of the incident (ie a bystander trampled while the criminal flees is covered, but not the reporter breaking a nail three days later while writing the story). I would furthermore be willing to extend this to apply to injuries sustained without the presence of an innocent person - in other words, if a burglar hurts himself breaking in it's his responsibility, if he knocks over a lamp and starts a fire it's his responsibility, etc. Even though no innocent person was present the consequences subsequent to the initial illegal act continue to be the responsibility of the criminal.

OK, your attempt to qualify it is fine as far as ti goes, but you leave a big space between your EVERYTHING and your specific examples without any position.

Let's say there are four thieves, and when caught, all of them put their hands in the air and say they surrender, and then he kills them all in cold blood. That sure falls inside 'EVERYTHING is the responsibility of the first person to commit a criminal act', yet isn't addressed by your relatively mild exampled, which are your attempt to make a boundary that's too sloppy to actually make one, as you try to stubbornly keep the original EVERYTHING language to not admit any error.

Let's say there is one thief, who runs and the guy shoots and is hit in the leg, and he falls, unarmed, rolling in pain. Say the victim is pissed off and gets a bat and spends an hour beating the guy breaking his feet and fingers and legs before finally killing him. That clearly falls under 'EVERYTHING the responsibility of the person who committed the first criminal act', but isn't addressed by your examples.

In other words, you needs to learn how to say what you're trying to say, and not say something else and the refuse to take responsibility.

I could write a common sense version of what you might be trying to say given your examples for you, but sorry, I don't see any reason to do so.

The deterioration of the discussion is the responsibility of the person who polluted it first, you.[/quote]

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You didn't do that however, instead you made the jump from using force to stop a crime in progress being the fault of the criminal, to torturing the criminals family.

The only jump is you jumping from what you said and didn't mean to you not wanting to take responsibility for what you said.

There is no logical connection in that jump within the confines of the argument being had.

Of course there is. 'Logical connection' is based on the words you type, not what you wish you had typed.

Sure, I could have carefully limited what I said and avoided the whole thing but I saw no cause as only an idiot or a freak would bother to make up potential situations where what I said could be viewed as unfounded. If it makes you feel better though:

When the facts are against you, try name-calling, the best defense is a good offense.

I amend my original statement to read: Within the confines of the subject being discussed (ie the use of force against a criminal during the commission of a crime) the person who first commits an illegal act should be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens as a result, since if he/she had obeyed the laws nothing else would have happened.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, but now on to your attempt to add some limits, in contradiction to your all-caps EVERYTHING period.

This responsibility extends to the reasonably perceived end of the incident (ie a bystander trampled while the criminal flees is covered, but not the reporter breaking a nail three days later while writing the story). I would furthermore be willing to extend this to apply to injuries sustained without the presence of an innocent person - in other words, if a burglar hurts himself breaking in it's his responsibility, if he knocks over a lamp and starts a fire it's his responsibility, etc. Even though no innocent person was present the consequences subsequent to the initial illegal act continue to be the responsibility of the criminal.

OK, your attempt to qualify it is fine as far as ti goes, but you leave a big space between your EVERYTHING and your specific examples without any position.

Let's say there are four thieves, and when caught, all of them put their hands in the aid and say they surrender, and then he kills them all in cold blood. That sure falls inside 'EVERYTHING the responsibility of the first person to commit a criminal act', yet isn't addressed by your relatively mild exampled, which are your attempt to make a boundary that's too sloppy to actually make one, as you try to stubbornly keep the original EVERYTHING language to not admit any error.

Let's say there is one thief, who runs and the guy shoots and is hit in the leg, and he falls, unarmed, rolling in pain. Say the victim is pissed off and gets a bat and spends an hour beating the guy breaking his feet and fingers and legs before finally killing him. That clearly falls under 'EVERYTHING the responsibility of the person who committed the first criminal act', but isn't addressed by your examples.

In other words, you needs to learn how to say what you're trying to say, and not say something else and the refuse to take responsibility.

I could write a common sense version of what you might be trying to say given your examples for you, but sorry, I don't see any reason to do so.

The deterioration of the discussion is the responsibility of the person who polluted it first, you.

[/quote]

Don't be obtuse. There is an expectation in ANY discussion that in the absence of predetermined limits the conversation will be contained to the topic at hand, and anything outside of that should be considered extraneous at best. Without this common sense approach everyone would be forced to spend 7/8 of every statement making disclaimers and applying limitations that everyone else already accepts without prompting.

Ok, at least this time with your examples you're sticking within the confines of the discussion, so I don't mind having the debate.

In your first example, I personally believe that the man in question went too far and would like to think that I wouldn't behave similarly. That doesn't mean I feel the least bit bad for the criminals as they invited harm to themselves when they initially chose to break the law. I would say that I would accept a defense of 'altered mental state caused by the actions of the criminals'. In other words, while I think it's wrong to go that far I can completely understand how someone could 'snap' in such an instance. If the criminals, or their families, don't like it then maybe they should have thought about the possibilities before committing the crime.

I would make the same statement about the second example. While I don't condone it, it's understandable how someone could go that far and in the end it's the fault of the criminal for starting the whole thing. I don't believe in either case there should be ANY civil liability for the original victim, though if he were to face criminal trial for his actions I would understand. I would accept his plea of altered mental state if offered, or push for lenient sentencing in any event.

Perhaps, having considered your somewhat more reasonable examples, I would be willing to further amend my initial statement to differentiate between civil and criminal liability. Perhaps not...I'll need to consider it further. I am still inclined to tell the criminals, tough shit, that's what you get. This is especially true if you make examples that are more likely to actually occur. Again, the further you get from rational discussion the easier it is to find fictional situations that you can bend to your purpose. When you stick to more likely events it's much harder to do.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
PoW and SpecOp007 both seem to be under the delusional belief that criminals magically lose all of their constitutional protections and civil liberties once they've committed (or in this case, once they've contemplated committing) a crime. Their basis for this thought (if you could call it that), is that a convicted felon loses his/her right to own a firearm. So by extension, they therefore have NO rights whatsoever.

Yup, that's how it works.

No, actually that's not at all how I arrive at my stance, but thanks for trying.

No one is required to allow themselves to be a victim. The best chance of stopping a crime in progress and any subsequent losses is for the person who witnesses it to intervene (this is because it frequently takes police too long to arrive). This is completely within every citizen's rights. Violence and crime go together. It is reasonable for a person to believe that when they intervene in a crime in progress that they will be in danger from the criminal. After all, if someone is willing to commit one crime it is reasonable to assume that they will be willing to commit another, possibly violent crime. It is reasonable to assume that a criminal is armed and dangerous (given the amount of crimes in which the criminal is armed, and the amount of violent crimes that occur).

That's a whole lot of assumptions. But let me address that by saying there's a huge difference between someone forced to defend themselves and someone who puts themselves in harm's way because they are a vigilante hero. The law, if it doesn't differentiate between these scenarios, should do so.

So now we're in a situation where an innocent person, acting in accordance with law and morality, is in a dangerous situation that was caused by the illegal actions of someone acting without moral foundation. There is no reasonable question of the criminals guilt, since we're talking about someone who is witnessing the crime in progress.

There is always reasonable questions about someone's guilt, that's why criminals are entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Vigilante justice is quite imperfect by nature, that's why we're having this discussion. I don't exactly trust the judgment of some gun-toting dude on top of his dad's furniture store to dispense justice.

Now, if during that intervention the criminal does ANYTHING which could be interpreted as a danger to the innocent person, that person has every right to protect themselves since they have very good reason to believe that they could be seriously harmed or even killed. We won't even go into the fact that so many states have laws that allow for the use of deadly force to stop a felony, even if in practice courts have implemented an unwritten requirement of impending harm. The bottom line is that a person can reasonably believe that EVERY criminal IS a threat to them.

So what did this kid on top of the roof decide was immiment danger? Honestly, I don't think you can even answer that question since every single accounting has lacked any detail in this regard. Yet you continue to defend his actions not knowing one bit of detail about what exactly transpired.

Let's go even further. There is only one thing in the universe that is likely finite - our time. We have a limited amount of time to live. It is the ultimate currency. A property crime isn't about the dollar value of what is taken, but the time value of what is taken. You aren't stealing my money, you're stealing the time spent to earn the money, the time spent with the object, etc. You are also stealing the emotional value attached to the item - and emotional values cannot be insured or replaced. You are also stealing my safety, and my peace of mind. Therefore a property crime is a theft of a portion of my life, a portion of my mind, and a portion of my heart...you are, in essence, robbing me of bits of my life. That, to me, is a SERIOUS attack that warrants the willingness to use equal force in response.

You obviously place too much value in your stuff, that much is apparent.

Of course there is a basic understanding that harming without reason is bad. Every member of society therefore enters into an agreement with every other member of society, as well as the society as a whole. The agreement is that an individual won't visit harm upon you, and in return you won't visit harm upon them. When one individual chooses to remove themselves from that agreement, they release the other party from the agreement as well. That's the crux of my views on self-defense. I would never visit harm on someone I wasn't certain had invited that harm by removing themselves from contract. Once I knew they had in fact done that, they no longer have an expectation of safety/security and moreover I will be responding to what I view as an attack on my life (even in the case of property crimes), AND I will have a reasonable fear for my safety during the intervention. This all accumulates to create an allowance for the use of force.

This "contract" you speak of, only exists inside your head. No law in the land supports such a thing, with the possible exception of Texas, which of course prompts some serious questioning in the rest of the 49 states...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Property owners shoot copper thief dead, when found climbing on roof with cutting tools, 'nuff said.




edit; added a ",".

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: cruzer
Don't think of it as killing a criminal, think of it as a retroactive abortion. Liberals love abortion, right?

Not nearly as much as christian conservatives love the death penalty.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234

You need to follow the discussion It's not about what you DO, it's about the logic of what was said.

If you posted we should repeal murder laws and make it legal for everyone to kill anyone they want, and I then said so you're in favor of legalizing neighbors killing each other over arguments, you wouldn't make any sense to tell me how you don't kill your neigbors over arguments. The point is that you called for legalizing it, not whether you do it.

Your position included what I said, so you didn't answer the question.

That's because what you said was a pointless load of horseshit.

I believe the pointless load of horseshit, is the person with numbers in his name that would rather give a criminal a blow job than to punish him for his actions.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.

How about you learn high school level reading comprehension and logic?

So people replying to messages and then you pulling some bs about finding someones family and torturing them is any better? How about you learn how to debate at the level of at least a grown up. Use facts. Post relevant provable statistics. Not complete horseshit out of your ass.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.

How about you learn high school level reading comprehension and logic?

So people replying to messages and then you pulling some bs about finding someones family and torturing them is any better? How about you learn how to debate at the level of at least a grown up. Use facts. Post relevant provable statistics. Not complete horseshit out of your ass.

You can join him in the class. I post facts when they're relevant; when I'm responding to a piece of crap post to point out its flaws, facts weren't relevant.

What was relevant was what I posted, pointing out the sort of outrageous thing that he unwittingly called for because he didn't know how to write what he was trying to say.

Good luck in the class. You would be better off waiting to post again until you learn from it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234

You need to follow the discussion It's not about what you DO, it's about the logic of what was said.

If you posted we should repeal murder laws and make it legal for everyone to kill anyone they want, and I then said so you're in favor of legalizing neighbors killing each other over arguments, you wouldn't make any sense to tell me how you don't kill your neigbors over arguments. The point is that you called for legalizing it, not whether you do it.

Your position included what I said, so you didn't answer the question.

That's because what you said was a pointless load of horseshit.

I believe the pointless load of horseshit, is the person with numbers in his name that would rather give a criminal a blow job than to punish him for his actions.

Irony of the week goes to Jeff (not for his lies, which don't deserve any recognition), well earned.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The bolded two sub-paragraphs call bullshit on the right to shoot just because they are caught in the act. The prosecutor has a duty to show the circumstances for the shooting to the grand jury. By remaining mute on the subject they are in gross violation of their public duty as a public official. Failure to perform a specific duty as an official is covered in the U.S. Constitution. But you obviously don't read so well because you made the leap of faith to support shooting thieves caught in the act and ignored the key circumstances one must mete in order to be justified.

 

[kage69]

Irony of the week goes to Jeff (not for his lies, which don't deserve any recognition), well earned.

Hands down! Thanks Jeff, I'm a little hung over and the huge laugh that gave me was just what I needed.
Here I was thinking chuck and PJ cornered the forum on ridiculous, laughable bullsh!t. Man was I wrong.




The shooter should have just blown away the guys knees. Wouldn't kill him, and it would be an abrupt end to his illegal career. Sorry, I have no sympathy for thieves.

 

[Svnla]

As a person who got his hard earned properties stolen by thieves, I have absolutely no mercy for lazy scumbags that didn't want to work but to steal.

Very simple = get a job = get your own stuffs = won't get shot/kill by property owner(s).

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The bolded two sub-paragraphs call bullshit on the right to shoot just because they are caught in the act. The prosecutor has a duty to show the circumstances for the shooting to the grand jury. By remaining mute on the subject they are in gross violation of their public duty as a public official. Failure to perform a specific duty as an official is covered in the U.S. Constitution. But you obviously don't read so well because you made the leap of faith to support shooting thieves caught in the act and ignored the key circumstances one must mete in order to be justified.

umm, u need to get a ruling on this... methinks what it really means is that if he were to ask the bad guy nicely or try to shoo him away the bad guy might decide to hurt him, so feel free to blast away from a nice, safe distance...

it's the same problem we had until last year here in fl... i was supposed to run or wrestle with a miscreant before shooting him... i am an old guy and don't do either of those things as well as most crooks... they fixed the law and now we cut out the part about me getting hurt and i can just shoot the piece of shit... sometimes they get it right, finally...

 

[MadRat]

No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is just fucking stupid.

If he's not an immediate danger to you you can't kill him, hell, you can't do that in a WAR ZONE without getting charged, unarmed, running away, you're fucked in a war zone but in Texas, it's a-ok.

I mean, you don't get away with that being in the military in Afghanistan but in Texas you do?

Something is fucked up here and it's not the Afghani laws.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

If this had happened in the middle of a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet your arse they would have been charged with it.

now, seriously, isn't it strange that soldiers in a war zone have to abide by stricter laws than civilians in texas?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

If this had happened in the middle of a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet your arse they would have been charged with it.

now, seriously, isn't it strange that soldiers in a war zone have to abide by stricter laws than civilians in texas?

Texas, home of the brave, shootin' thieves in the back who are runnin' away. Sounds like a country-western song, if you ask me.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
No, you don't get it. The RULING comes from the authority appointed by law. You, me, everyone else doesn't matter jack squat what we think. By circumventing the grand jury process the elected official is committing a crime.

The official is not required to present all cases to the Grand Jury.
They present cases to the Grand Jury that they feel can be won. That decision is based on experience, evidence and gut feeling on how a jury will rule.

If this had happened in the middle of a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet your arse they would have been charged with it.

now, seriously, isn't it strange that soldiers in a war zone have to abide by stricter laws than civilians in texas?

Texas, home of the brave, shootin' thieves in the back who are runnin' away. Sounds like a country-western song, if you ask me.

Reminds me of something I saw on the news a while back. Reporter was in a morgue in Texas and the asked why a guy was tagged as suicide that had a bullet hole in his back. The Coroner said ?Its suicide running from a Texas Ranger?.