I am pro death penalty. I am pro guns. I am pro justice.
But what you said is quite terrible.
The two men were thieves. I am in total agreement. But our country was founded on a few very basic principles - one in particular is the right to a fair trial. An individual has no right to be the judge, jury, and executioner when his immediate well-being is not in peril (it was 100% not).
Furthermore:
Would the police have shot and killed these men? I would argue no, but really it's hard to tell. I know that I know many officers who have encountered similar situations here in NJ, and none have had to pull their gun, let alone pull the trigger.
I understand Texas' laws give some leeway to the situation - and I believe the jury made the correct decision with the laws available. I simply disagree with the laws. I am opposed to laws which are open for interpretation - as quoted in the article:
Race definitely played a part in this. If you deny it, you are oblivious to the world. As said, if the criminals were white, or young, or women - or if the shooter was black, or an illegal immigrant - the outcome would be solely different.
Am I sad the criminals are dead? No. Absolutely not. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks they just needed a step in the right direction. Chances are they were scum. But once we start skewing the principles of being American, the ultimate outcome will be in no one's benefit.
Deadly force to protect a few possessions is a bad idea, shows a lack of respect for life. Not that I side with criminals, if you're breaking the law you gotta expect severe consequences. However there's no way it should be legal to kill a person over something like theft.
How are they innocent?
They had a bag of loot. Period. How is this any different then if a police officer had shot them? Yes the officer would have tried to detain them without killing them first, but assuming the office could not and the only option he had was shoot them or let them get away so he shoots them. Would you still say the officer shouldn't have because they are "innocent until proven guilty"? They were guilty. End of story.
Option B is they were illegal immigrants, so they broke that law. Either way they broke a law, and for either of those 2 laws I don't have issues with people getting killed because of.
So the punishment for petty theft is murder? I suppose in Texas it is. Also in China.
Also, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - right to a fair trial, more than speaks for itself.
I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html
This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.
In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.
This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.
In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.
Wow, look at the chain of events that this law allowed to occur. I don't think you can better define absurdity.
You're honestly going to argue that the penalty for trespassing should be death? I suppose we may as well start amputating shoplifters' hands, that'll teach 'em!
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,386
- 19,669
- 146
If you're not willing to kill/risk your life to protect your rights, you don't deserve them.
Thankfully, brutal men stand ready to do just that for you while you whine about the life and rights of those who violate the rights and lives of others.
Remember that when you have a nation of hand wringers who stay cowering in their homes, criminals and despots take over.
The police are NOT there to protect you, or your property. They are only there to clean up the mess and catch the criminal AFTER the fact. The protection of yourself and property is YOUR responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does nothing but make you a favorable victim to criminals.
The law had nothing to do with the Kaufman shooting. The old guy is a well known ahole and will be convicted and sent to prison.
So by your logic if someone tells you to shut up, shoot em in the head because they're infringing on your right to free speech. You can protect your rights without resorting to deadly force. A violation of a right does not mean an automatic call to arms.
They didn't even file charges at first due to the law. I'll wager that this guy may not have fired had this law not existed. Sure, he may have fired anyway, but the bottom line is that this law gives enough of a grey area where he could easily think he's in the right. I'm glad he's getting his.
So where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say I have the right to kill someone if they impose upon my rights?
And where does the line get drawn?
Again, I am all for civil liberties and fighting for and protecting your rights as an American citizen. The thing is, we have a judicial system for a reason.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
Um if i catch you in my house, your guilty. I'm not going to wait for a jury to show up and give me the ok.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
This law reminds me of the South Park episode with the Mexican Jumping Frog. All Ned had to do was yell "It's getting ready to attack" as the frog sat on a log, and he could legally kill it.
Texas penal code allows fo rth euse of deadly force if the actor reasonably believes the act is nessicary to prevent the commission of the crime or if he is in fear of his life or their is belief that there is no other way to retrieve the property.
911 operate can't TELL him to do anything. He can suggest, but he has no legal authority over the person on the other end of the line. You may not believe it is right, but most Texans and free thinking people think it is correct. Go ahead and put a sign up in your yard that says you will not defend your self or property and leave your door wide open, since it's only a few thousand dollars of stuff they might take.
Let us know how that turns out.
Where are you getting your bullshit about not having permission. Read the interview with the homeowners. They explicity said they are glad Joe did what he did. That IS permission.
Here in Texas we still have a sense of community. We look after our neighbors. We care about the people we live next to. We are not liek your highly civilized cities where we lay down and die and give criminals more rights than victims. The only thing I'm sorry about in this case is that the guys were illegals and Joe has nothing to gain by suing their family for emotional distress.
Just because some of us don't condone murder to prevent theft we don't condone theft.
There's some really bad logic going around. It's as if when we won't defend our property with deadly force we deserve to have it stolen.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
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter