shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Ah, so no longer are there laws, or even principles, to be followed, Now it's a "moral take" on each situation. Thus, if my "moral take" is to pursue, I'm in a life-threatening situation, and I can shoot-to-kill. But if your moral take is different, you aren't allowed to shoot-to-kill in the same situation.
Sorry, your "system" stinks. It's a good thing we have laws rather than "moral takes" to decide whether shooting someone is legal or illegal.
LOL, you get an "F" in reading comprehension. Who said there wasn't laws? You may think i said that in your deluded, emotional, kneejerk reaction you appear to have top everything I say, but I never said that so quit acting like I did.
Your attempting to critizize me for what I think is right based on my moral judgments. I never said or implied that my moral judgments take precendent over the law or anyones else's moral judment. I wouldn't shoot someone who dropped the loot. That's me and it has nothing to do with what's legal. It's what I personally would do based on MY morals. Someone else may feel justified doing more OR less based on their morals.
Geesh, buy them books and send them to school and this is what you get?
Your attempting to critizize me for what I think is right based on my moral judgments. I never said or implied that my moral judgments take precendent over the law or anyones else's moral judment. I wouldn't shoot someone who dropped the loot. That's me and it has nothing to do with what's legal. It's what I personally would do based on MY morals. Someone else may feel justified doing more OR less based on their morals.
Geesh, buy them books and send them to school and this is what you get?
Great thread :thumbsup: Great job by the shooter :thumbsup:
Now we can finally see who in this forum loves law abiding citizens and who loves criminals....
A job well done.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Now we can finally see who in this forum loves law abiding citizens and who loves criminals....
A job well done.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Are you totally daft, I've been saying the same thing all along. Your just finally begining to comprehend it.
So your telling us that you would take the life of another human being even if you thought it was immoral?
Do YOU have suicidal tendancies?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Unlike you, the only situations where I could conceive of taking another's life would be:Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you totally daft, I've been saying the same thing all along. Your just finally begining to comprehend it.
So your telling us that you would take the life of another human being even if you thought it was immoral?
Do YOU have suicidal tendancies?
1) If a close family member in excruciating, terminal pain, with no prospect for quality of life, - in full possession of their faculties and not under pressure from family members - asked for an increased dosage of a painkiller that would likely hasten death.
and
2) Direct self-defense in response to a real threat to life and limb.
and
3) A few other fringe cases where killing someone is necessary in legitimate defense of viable human life.
It is unimaginable to me to try to kill someone who is fleeing with stolen property, and my opinion of those who would is that they are slime.
Originally posted by: shira
Unlike you, the only situations where I could conceive of taking another's life would be:Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you totally daft, I've been saying the same thing all along. Your just finally begining to comprehend it.
So your telling us that you would take the life of another human being even if you thought it was immoral?
Do YOU have suicidal tendancies?
1) If a close family member in excruciating, terminal pain, with no prospect for quality of life, - in full possession of their faculties and not under pressure from family members - asked for an increased dosage of a painkiller that would likely hasten death.
and
2) Direct self-defense in response to a real threat to life and limb.
and
3) A few other fringe cases where killing someone is necessary in legitimate defense of viable human life.
It is unimaginable to me to try to kill someone who is fleeing with stolen property, and my opinion of those who would is that they are slime.
It must be nice to living in that Ivory Tower, but all the same I could really care less what you think of me. My moral values are between me and my God and your "holier then thou" attitude doesn't mean a thing to me. These thieves knew that death could be a possible outcome of their actions but that didn't stop them.... Joe Horn did though and I judge his actions justified. Such is morality.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I doubt "your God" has had anything to say on the subject. Instead, you've come up with a rationale for killing that is solely your own. I don't trust ANYONE to make "moral judgments" in situations rife with passion and fear - I prefer to defer to the rule of law.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: shira
Unlike you, the only situations where I could conceive of taking another's life would be:Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you totally daft, I've been saying the same thing all along. Your just finally begining to comprehend it.
So your telling us that you would take the life of another human being even if you thought it was immoral?
Do YOU have suicidal tendancies?
1) If a close family member in excruciating, terminal pain, with no prospect for quality of life, - in full possession of their faculties and not under pressure from family members - asked for an increased dosage of a painkiller that would likely hasten death.
and
2) Direct self-defense in response to a real threat to life and limb.
and
3) A few other fringe cases where killing someone is necessary in legitimate defense of viable human life.
It is unimaginable to me to try to kill someone who is fleeing with stolen property, and my opinion of those who would is that they are slime.
It must be nice to living in that Ivory Tower, but all the same I could really care less what you think of me. My moral values are between me and my God and your "holier then thou" attitude doesn't mean a thing to me. These thieves knew that death could be a possible outcome of their actions but that didn't stop them.... Joe Horn did though and I judge his actions justified. Such is morality.
Originally posted by: shira
I doubt "your God" has had anything to say on the subject. Instead, you've come up with a rationale for killing that is solely your own. I don't trust ANYONE to make "moral judgments" in situations rife with passion and fear - I prefer to defer to the rule of law.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: shira
Unlike you, the only situations where I could conceive of taking another's life would be:Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you totally daft, I've been saying the same thing all along. Your just finally begining to comprehend it.
So your telling us that you would take the life of another human being even if you thought it was immoral?
Do YOU have suicidal tendancies?
1) If a close family member in excruciating, terminal pain, with no prospect for quality of life, - in full possession of their faculties and not under pressure from family members - asked for an increased dosage of a painkiller that would likely hasten death.
and
2) Direct self-defense in response to a real threat to life and limb.
and
3) A few other fringe cases where killing someone is necessary in legitimate defense of viable human life.
It is unimaginable to me to try to kill someone who is fleeing with stolen property, and my opinion of those who would is that they are slime.
It must be nice to living in that Ivory Tower, but all the same I could really care less what you think of me. My moral values are between me and my God and your "holier then thou" attitude doesn't mean a thing to me. These thieves knew that death could be a possible outcome of their actions but that didn't stop them.... Joe Horn did though and I judge his actions justified. Such is morality.
Again, I don't care what you think and I care even less who you trust. Your not God, are you.
I do trust myself to do what I believe is right. Neither of us were there to see exactly what happened, that's why I was asking if they had dropped the loot, which for some reason you took exception too and decided to "school me" in your particular brand of morality. I think we can agree that we differ there but that doesn't make my interpretation wrong and yours right, so I fail to see why you continue with your assinine attempts to act like you won the argument? I doubt "your God" has had anything to say on the subject either, so it's sown to your opinion against mine.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
http://www.finalcall.com/artma...ish/article_4269.shtml
Joe Horn Case Cause for Succession!
Our so-called citizenship is an empty promise devoid of the respect and security that true citizenship confers on its holder.
We cannot continue to suffer like this; it is time to leave our former masters and create a new reality, a reality that will offer freedom, justice and equality for all who embrace it.
It?s time to separate.
Our Native American brothers of the Lakota Nation recently declared their intention to revoke all treaties with the U.S. government, treaties that have not been respected and promises that have not been kept. They have also had enough of the suffering, death and deprivation under the hands of White America.
Leaving the slave master may be a fearful thing for a 21st century, high-tech slave, still dependent on his master. But for free thinking Black men and women, it is a viable solution to a 400-year-old problem. We deserve to be free, we just need to be strong enough to embrace our freedom.
Joe Horn Case Cause for Succession!
Our so-called citizenship is an empty promise devoid of the respect and security that true citizenship confers on its holder.
We cannot continue to suffer like this; it is time to leave our former masters and create a new reality, a reality that will offer freedom, justice and equality for all who embrace it.
It?s time to separate.
Our Native American brothers of the Lakota Nation recently declared their intention to revoke all treaties with the U.S. government, treaties that have not been respected and promises that have not been kept. They have also had enough of the suffering, death and deprivation under the hands of White America.
Leaving the slave master may be a fearful thing for a 21st century, high-tech slave, still dependent on his master. But for free thinking Black men and women, it is a viable solution to a 400-year-old problem. We deserve to be free, we just need to be strong enough to embrace our freedom.
A couple of questions for you.....
What does it matter if they "dropped the loot" or not? If they didn't, they were most likely running away from you negating your claim of self defense. In this case if they did and you shot them in the back like police say happened here...they were still not a threat to you negating your claim to self defense.
Is human life truly valued <$300 (probably can't get or carry a tv that weighs more than that for more than that price)?
Why should we trust that your belief (or anyone else's for that matter) in themselves is justified or warranted? Simply because you tell us that your judgment would be sound?
I'm guessing that you are Protestants/Christian (or some other Judeo-Christian sect). If so, how do you square away your beliefs that you can be judge, jury and executioner with your Savior's command of "Judge not least ye be judged" or "Let he without sin cast the first stone"?
I didn't bring religion into the mix....he did.
Edit: I am merely trying to find out how he justifies his beliefs of what his actions would be within the confines of his religion's founder's beliefs. (That is going on the assumption that he is of Judeo/Christian belief)
If they dropped the loot then there is no reason to try and stop the crime because they went from stealing to just breaking and entering. It's not worth the risk to MY life to try to bust them for that.
I've addressed that and since I wasn't there to witness this first hand I'm willing to give the shooter the benifit of the doubt that he was acting in good. To not do so opens up a big can of worms and nothing can be proven either way, so why not give the person who did his best to follow the law the benifit of the doubt rather then the thieves?
They had a sack, who's to say what was in it? There's an old proverb. It goes something like this:
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost
For want of a shoe, a horse was lost
For want of a horse, a rider was lost
For want of a rider, a battle was lost
For want of a battle, the war was lost
Since the goods were in a sack the shooter had no way of knowing exactly what was being taken. WOuld he have shoot them if all they had was a TV? I don't know, but that's not the case here.
Obviously your not, look at the attention that this has garnered.
I'm not very religious. I believe in "God", but not the one the organized religions would have us believe in. Would I have shot the thieves? I don't know but I can tell you I won't condemn this man for his actions on the facts as they are known. Indeed, he can even move next door to me if he likes.
[/quote]
A simple follow up....
Even if it was suspected that they had the Hope Diamond in their sack....
Is there any possession or piece of material that is worth more than a life?
Your antidote is simply a justification for conflict and not a rational thought process. It's basically a slippery slope argument that makes those that follow it blindly feel as if anything that they do is a-ok as long as they are doing it for some higher reason. Whatever that reason may be.
The facts of this case are pretty clear.
Was it premeditated? I wouldn't quite go that far. Was it manslaughter? Most definitely.
These men posed no risk to Mr. Horn at all. He created the risk by leaving the safety of his house where he was armed and secure. He clearly stated the laws that he could use to justify any actions that he might take. He clearly stated that if he was going out it was with the intent to shoot them. They were shot in the back clearly providing evidence that they were fleeing were not posing any eminent risk to Mr. Horn.
If that is the kind of person that you want living next to you....good luck to ya. I just hope that you return any tools that you might borrow or just don't confront him if you aren't getting yours back in a timely manner.
[/quote]
Yeah, in this particular case it doesn't look good for his motives, but what you conviently don't acknowledge is that he tried to call the cops and get them there. He didn't want to have to act and no matter what you think, you'll never convince me that once he went out with a gun that it wasn't a life threatening situation for him. He told them to freeze, but they didn't. They didn't even drop the goods. Maybe the shooter will burn in hell for his actions, I don't know? I do know the thieves will.
And I'd take this guy for a neighbor anyday, you can have the theives in your "hood" and we'll see how long you let them rob you blind before you see the light.
The problem here is not whether one should be able to use force to stop criminals, or whether you can defend yourself in your own home, or defend some other person in danger. Without a doubt you should be able to use force to stop someone from hurting you or others, no arguments there and the law allows it. Different story when you use deadly force to protect property, when the criminal is no physical threat to someone else. Let the cops shoot them or tazer them, but no way in hell do I want to give the right to shoot a suspected burgler to anyone. you guys have to stop thinking about if you were the guy with the gun, and start thinking about what if he lives next to you?
Ever lock yourself out of your house and have to "break in"? Come home late at night? Move that PC out of your house to go to a LAN party, or bring a new build to your brother? Now imagine that this guy is your neighbor. Sure there will not be too many mistakes, but if I am the victim of that one mistake then my day, and life, is ruined.
Sure, most people would not act like this guy, though to different degrees. But the problem isn't was he right in hindsight but was he right before he shot them? If this guy is not made an example of then the message is loud and clear, if Bob thinks you are committing a crime, then Bob can shoot you. Hope i don't live next door to Bob. Better yet, I hope the judge throws the book at this guy, not because he did anything morally wrong, but because I do not want to live in a society where anyone feels it is right to shoot someone over stuff.
Next time grab a camera instead of a shotgun.
Ever lock yourself out of your house and have to "break in"? Come home late at night? Move that PC out of your house to go to a LAN party, or bring a new build to your brother? Now imagine that this guy is your neighbor. Sure there will not be too many mistakes, but if I am the victim of that one mistake then my day, and life, is ruined.
Sure, most people would not act like this guy, though to different degrees. But the problem isn't was he right in hindsight but was he right before he shot them? If this guy is not made an example of then the message is loud and clear, if Bob thinks you are committing a crime, then Bob can shoot you. Hope i don't live next door to Bob. Better yet, I hope the judge throws the book at this guy, not because he did anything morally wrong, but because I do not want to live in a society where anyone feels it is right to shoot someone over stuff.
Next time grab a camera instead of a shotgun.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I agree with your post. To solve your societal dilemma, basically just don't live in Texas or one of the 3 or 4 states that allow deadly force to protect property. This is a state law and no one is forcing you to live in a society where such acts are condoned. Unless by society you include all of the US, but considering the vast cultural divides that exist throught the country, I don't think that's appropriate. You can say you don't want to live in a society that doesn't have electricity, cool, don't live in Lancaster, PA. I don't and wouldn't want to live in such a society either. Either the shooting kind or the no electricity kind.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Awww yeah, ressurecting the gem!
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st...=news/local&id=6155956
Goes to grand jury next month. I'd bet no charges emerge.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st...=news/local&id=6155956
Goes to grand jury next month. I'd bet no charges emerge.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
As I've said 10000000 times.
The key here is escalation.
You are completely in your right to defend your property with the minimum force necessary. That means forcibly removing the property from their position. That means baring them from leaving private property while in possession of your personal property (you have just as much right to detain someone stealing from your home as a private security guard has to detain you for shoplifting). That means you can chase, tackle, and struggle with a purse snatcher on public property in the absence of police officers (ie: only if you pursue him into a house or other private property do you cross the line with "taking the law into your own hands).
You are completely in your right and can be presumed to be acting reasonable as a law abiding citizen to attempt to stop or inhibit a crime in progress until authorities arrive to make an arrest, even if that intervention is on behalf of a third party (ie: protecting your neighbors property from suspicious or criminal activity, giving chase to a purse snatcher, etc).
Once the crime in progress ceases (ie: the property is released, a threat is rescinded, etc) then you must also deescalate and allow him to leave peacefully (again, attempting to detain or punish after the crime has ceased would cross into the "taking the law into your own hands" boundary) Now if in the event, of using reasonable and lawful non deadly physical force to maintain control of your own property, the criminal creates a physical or deadly threat in retaliation, you can then escalate to use matching force to defend yourself. Note the two completely unrelated situations: you chased him to recover your property; you shot him because he tried to stab you. You did not "provoke" him to stab you, as you were acting reasonably in protecting your property, the burglar was not acting reasonably when escalating by presenting a weapon. Do not connect the two and say "you shot him because he had your TV".
You are NOT the cause of the criminals escalation; you are acting lawfully when escalating in step with the criminals unlawful escalations. You have no legal obligation to allow the person to leave with your property. You have no legal obligation to retreat or stand idle and watch a crime in progress while you wait for proper authorities to arrive and take over.
Contrary to popular beleive, "normal citizens" have the same rights as police officers and must follow the same laws when it comes to a crime in progress; the only difference is that once officers arrive on the scene, control must be deferred to uniformed arbitrators. Police are merely paid to perform, as a full time job, a duty that is inherent in every citizen.
If you look and listen closely to these stories or have ever been involved in something, officers and 911 operators only stress that they RECOMMEND you don't get involved; either because they are scripted to keep your personal safety in mind, or don't want to agitate things before officers arrive. However, as long as you are within the law, that is your choice and risk to weigh.
But there is no law that says you can't make a reasonable effort to stop a burglary in progress and prevent loss of property until police arrive. I don't remember all the details here, but it sounds like he took it too far shooting them in the back, an unreasonable escalation.
Now is there a risk? Certainly. You risk that the criminal will escalate, and you will have to lawfully shoot him to defend yourself, when you could have just let him go with your $100 bike. Regardless how happy or upset that makes you, you acted lawfully. You also risk that it will be you who is shot dead by the criminal. However there are no laws that force your hand, they are yours to decide on an individual basis, and nobody else's business.
The key here is escalation.
You are completely in your right to defend your property with the minimum force necessary. That means forcibly removing the property from their position. That means baring them from leaving private property while in possession of your personal property (you have just as much right to detain someone stealing from your home as a private security guard has to detain you for shoplifting). That means you can chase, tackle, and struggle with a purse snatcher on public property in the absence of police officers (ie: only if you pursue him into a house or other private property do you cross the line with "taking the law into your own hands).
You are completely in your right and can be presumed to be acting reasonable as a law abiding citizen to attempt to stop or inhibit a crime in progress until authorities arrive to make an arrest, even if that intervention is on behalf of a third party (ie: protecting your neighbors property from suspicious or criminal activity, giving chase to a purse snatcher, etc).
Once the crime in progress ceases (ie: the property is released, a threat is rescinded, etc) then you must also deescalate and allow him to leave peacefully (again, attempting to detain or punish after the crime has ceased would cross into the "taking the law into your own hands" boundary) Now if in the event, of using reasonable and lawful non deadly physical force to maintain control of your own property, the criminal creates a physical or deadly threat in retaliation, you can then escalate to use matching force to defend yourself. Note the two completely unrelated situations: you chased him to recover your property; you shot him because he tried to stab you. You did not "provoke" him to stab you, as you were acting reasonably in protecting your property, the burglar was not acting reasonably when escalating by presenting a weapon. Do not connect the two and say "you shot him because he had your TV".
You are NOT the cause of the criminals escalation; you are acting lawfully when escalating in step with the criminals unlawful escalations. You have no legal obligation to allow the person to leave with your property. You have no legal obligation to retreat or stand idle and watch a crime in progress while you wait for proper authorities to arrive and take over.
Contrary to popular beleive, "normal citizens" have the same rights as police officers and must follow the same laws when it comes to a crime in progress; the only difference is that once officers arrive on the scene, control must be deferred to uniformed arbitrators. Police are merely paid to perform, as a full time job, a duty that is inherent in every citizen.
If you look and listen closely to these stories or have ever been involved in something, officers and 911 operators only stress that they RECOMMEND you don't get involved; either because they are scripted to keep your personal safety in mind, or don't want to agitate things before officers arrive. However, as long as you are within the law, that is your choice and risk to weigh.
But there is no law that says you can't make a reasonable effort to stop a burglary in progress and prevent loss of property until police arrive. I don't remember all the details here, but it sounds like he took it too far shooting them in the back, an unreasonable escalation.
Now is there a risk? Certainly. You risk that the criminal will escalate, and you will have to lawfully shoot him to defend yourself, when you could have just let him go with your $100 bike. Regardless how happy or upset that makes you, you acted lawfully. You also risk that it will be you who is shot dead by the criminal. However there are no laws that force your hand, they are yours to decide on an individual basis, and nobody else's business.
Please post your address. I need to go shopping for some electronics and I know you won't stop me.
If you don't want to live in a society where people can't use force on someone to defend themselves or their property England is looking for you. You'll fit right in.
Better yet, just put all your belongings in your front yard and see how long it takes to have them cleared out, because apparently you don't value anything or anyone.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter