|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 18:36:51 GMT -5
Ah but Jim ... what if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child? that would have worked forty years ago. it don't today. with all the programs out there, no one needs to steal to feed anyone
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 21:33:06 GMT -5
Jumbo, Joe Horn was in his rights in Texas, But if he was in most other states, espeically California he would have been indicted for murder. because the Castle Junction covers you only if the intruder is in your dwelling. I agree, that the thieves were wrong in burglarizing the neighbor's home, but I don't agree with unnecessary killing of people without a trial. Joe Horn was not protecting anything of his own, and he killed two thieves, who were illegal immigrants, but they were unarmed, and leaving when he fired. As I see it, Joe Horn got away with murder, and he had the public supporting him. Akamai texas has the castle doctrine perfect, exactly the way that it should be, everywhere. if the trash wouldn't have had any of his neighbor's possessions when they were leaving, joe could not have killed them. the fact that they did totally justifies his killing them. whose property it was is irrelevant. the fact is that they had stolen it, he had seen them steal it, and when he told them to stop, they didn't. they deserved to die also, in this particular case, they weren't just illegal immigrants. they were criminals who had already been deported once, and snuck back into the country. they won't be sneaking back in again I disagree. You just don't condemn a person to death for a non-violent crime. The Castle Doctrine simply allows it.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 21:34:20 GMT -5
Ah but Jim ... what if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child? that would have worked forty years ago. it don't today. with all the programs out there, no one needs to steal to feed anyone Jim, you have to remember that the two that were killed were illegal immigrants. They really didn't qualify for the programs you are thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 1, 2011 8:18:42 GMT -5
that would have worked forty years ago. it don't today. with all the programs out there, no one needs to steal to feed anyone Jim, you have to remember that the two that were killed were illegal immigrants. They really didn't qualify for the programs you are thinking about. rescue missions and community soup kitchens don't check ids. in any fairly large city, anyone can get at least two meals a day. NO ONE in the u.s. is forced to steal to eat. but, that's totally irrelevant in this case especially. this trash was not stealing to eat. they were drug dealers, and just plain worthless pieces of shit. they were stealing because they CHOSE to steal. it truly is heartwarming to know that they will never steal again
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 1, 2011 8:21:34 GMT -5
texas has the castle doctrine perfect, exactly the way that it should be, everywhere. if the trash wouldn't have had any of his neighbor's possessions when they were leaving, joe could not have killed them. the fact that they did totally justifies his killing them. whose property it was is irrelevant. the fact is that they had stolen it, he had seen them steal it, and when he told them to stop, they didn't. they deserved to die also, in this particular case, they weren't just illegal immigrants. they were criminals who had already been deported once, and snuck back into the country. they won't be sneaking back in again I disagree. You just don't condemn a person to death for a non-violent crime. The Castle Doctrine simply allows it. that's where you go awry. no one is condemning anyone to death. the criminal is the only one who makes the conscious, wilful decision that someone's tv is worth his worthless life
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 1, 2011 9:18:16 GMT -5
are you going to try and tell me that this punk didn't deserve to die?
Store Owner Shoots, Kills Suspected Robber
Posted: Dec 01, 2011 5:42 AM CST Updated: Dec 01, 2011 7:42 AM CST
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A store owner shot and killed a man who allegedly tried to rob him at a market in south Nashville late Wednesday night.
It happened around midnight at the Quick Tobacco Market on Millwood Drive and Murfreesboro Pike.
Police said the store owner told them a man barged into the store, jumped over the counter and pulled out a knife. The store owner pulled out a gun, and shot the man in the chest.
The 25-year-old suspect was taken to the hospital where he died.
The market owner told police that he had been robbed before, and that is why he had a gun.
There were no witnesses, and the surveillance system was not operational.
Police were still investigating. However, no charges are expected to be filed against the store owner since he acted in self-defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2011 11:53:12 GMT -5
You say the state sanctioned killing of an innocent is 'a price worth paying.' I'm saying there's no avoiding it, if there is to be a death penalty. If the state insists on killing people for what they've done, it follows that it will sometimes kill the wrong guy. The death of innocents accrue from other necessary government enterprises as well. The state sanctions the death of innocents when it builds bridges, dams, etc. It's the risk we all take. It's pre-meditated and it's murder. It's not murder if it's legal. we've gone over that a hundred times. Are you really saying you would have the Fritzl girl locked up had she killed her father? The question is whether or not she is guilty of the crime. If she is found guilty, she should face the same punishment as anyone else. Maybe we should just rewrite murder laws for the sake of women who want to kill their relatives with impunity. After being locked up for twenty years or more? In the case of murder, LWOP, at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2011 11:55:34 GMT -5
don't be daft. premeditated? probably. malicious? not by any stretch of the imagination. Under California law, it's malicious. there isn't a da around who would be insane enough to even take it to trial. you couldn't even get a manslaughter conviction on that Fair enough, but if it does go to trial, the law should be followed, and not human emotion. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time should apply to everyone -- not just to men, not just to gangbangers, not just to the unsympathetic.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Dec 1, 2011 12:33:38 GMT -5
don't be daft. premeditated? probably. malicious? not by any stretch of the imagination. Under California law, it's malicious. there isn't a da around who would be insane enough to even take it to trial. you couldn't even get a manslaughter conviction on that Fair enough, but if it does go to trial, the law should be followed, and not human emotion. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time should apply to everyone -- not just to men, not just to gangbangers, not just to the unsympathetic. But I didn't say that, Joseph!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2011 14:01:11 GMT -5
But I didn't say that, Joseph! I'll get better at this, I promise. I've been distracted from a massive Exchange 2003 server failure.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 1, 2011 19:37:48 GMT -5
are you going to try and tell me that this punk didn't deserve to die? Store Owner Shoots, Kills Suspected Robber Posted: Dec 01, 2011 5:42 AM CST Updated: Dec 01, 2011 7:42 AM CST NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A store owner shot and killed a man who allegedly tried to rob him at a market in south Nashville late Wednesday night. It happened around midnight at the Quick Tobacco Market on Millwood Drive and Murfreesboro Pike. Police said the store owner told them a man barged into the store, jumped over the counter and pulled out a knife. The store owner pulled out a gun, and shot the man in the chest. The 25-year-old suspect was taken to the hospital where he died. The market owner told police that he had been robbed before, and that is why he had a gun. There were no witnesses, and the surveillance system was not operational. Police were still investigating. However, no charges are expected to be filed against the store owner since he acted in self-defense. Jumbo, When there is no choice, then the self-defense rule should be in effect. However, when there is a choice, we should not make any personal decisions on who should die, and who should not. The Castle Doctrine puts that responsibility on people, who make the judgment on whether to use deadly force or not. As much as possible, that responsibility should be in the hands of the authorities. We should not have the right to kill someone because he is stealing without endangering the life or well being of another. The courts don't sentence thieves to death for stealing, and we should not be above the courts. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 2, 2011 6:55:34 GMT -5
are you going to try and tell me that this punk didn't deserve to die? Store Owner Shoots, Kills Suspected Robber Posted: Dec 01, 2011 5:42 AM CST Updated: Dec 01, 2011 7:42 AM CST NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A store owner shot and killed a man who allegedly tried to rob him at a market in south Nashville late Wednesday night. It happened around midnight at the Quick Tobacco Market on Millwood Drive and Murfreesboro Pike. Police said the store owner told them a man barged into the store, jumped over the counter and pulled out a knife. The store owner pulled out a gun, and shot the man in the chest. The 25-year-old suspect was taken to the hospital where he died. The market owner told police that he had been robbed before, and that is why he had a gun. There were no witnesses, and the surveillance system was not operational. Police were still investigating. However, no charges are expected to be filed against the store owner since he acted in self-defense. Jumbo, When there is no choice, then the self-defense rule should be in effect. However, when there is a choice, we should not make any personal decisions on who should die, and who should not. The Castle Doctrine puts that responsibility on people, who make the judgment on whether to use deadly force or not. As much as possible, that responsibility should be in the hands of the authorities. We should not have the right to kill someone because he is stealing without endangering the life or well being of another. The courts don't sentence thieves to death for stealing, and we should not be above the courts. Akamai WE are not the ones who make that choice. it is TOTALLY the individual who chooses to steal who makes the choice, especially here, or in other civilized places such as texas. there is a gun in virtually every mom and pop store in the state, and thirty percent of the population has a carry permit. several times, it has been a customer who has blown the garbage away. it just called being a good citizen. a worthless piece of shit chooses to die, and a real person grants his wish
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 2, 2011 6:58:54 GMT -5
under NO circumstance is committing a crime "making a mistake." as i often have to repeat to hazel, doing something you know you have no right to do is NEVER, ever, making a mistake. it is a conscious, wilful CHOICE, without exception
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 2, 2011 12:18:12 GMT -5
Jim, you have to remember that the two that were killed were illegal immigrants. They really didn't qualify for the programs you are thinking about. rescue missions and community soup kitchens don't check ids. in any fairly large city, anyone can get at least two meals a day. NO ONE in the u.s. is forced to steal to eat. but, that's totally irrelevant in this case especially. this trash was not stealing to eat. they were drug dealers, and just plain worthless pieces of shit. they were stealing because they CHOSE to steal. it truly is heartwarming to know that they will never steal again Jim, the two burglars wanted more than just survival. While you might be satisfied with just food and possibly shelter, most would want more. That is why we work. That is why some who cannot work, steal.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 2, 2011 12:22:55 GMT -5
under NO circumstance is committing a crime "making a mistake." as i often have to repeat to hazel, doing something you know you have no right to do is NEVER, ever, making a mistake. it is a conscious, wilful CHOICE, without exception Jim, I can see stopping a crime, and killing the criminal if necessary to preserve another human's or even a dog's life. I cannot see someone wasting a person who is stealing without threatening the life or health of another. The courts kill murderers. The Federal Government may kill a murderer or a person found guilty of treason. They do not kill thieves today. That is what you are supporting. AK
|
|