|
Post by akamai on Dec 2, 2011 15:44:22 GMT -5
Jim,' Let me put it another way. No one, individual, group of people. court, government or country, should have the right to kill another human being for stealing. Lawful or not, stealing should never be a capital crime, and the Castle Doctrine allows it. I vehemently disagree with the Castle Doctrine and how it can and has been applied in Texas. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 4, 2011 9:39:43 GMT -5
Jim,' Let me put it another way. No one, individual, group of people. court, government or country, should have the right to kill another human being for stealing. Lawful or not, stealing should never be a capital crime, and the Castle Doctrine allows it. I vehemently disagree with the Castle Doctrine and how it can and has been applied in Texas. Akamai nope. the crazy idea that a punk isn't totally responsible for his actions is insane. he, and he alone, has the onus on him when he chooses to commit a crime, and completely accepts whatever the results of that choice might be. NO ONE else bears ANY responsibility for his choice, in any way, shape, or form
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 4, 2011 9:47:41 GMT -5
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. that is why we work exactly. as the rolling stones sang in one of their best songs ever, you can't always get what you want. you do NOT have a right to have what you want. you don't even have a right to have what you need if you make the choice to not have it, for whatever reason, drugs, alcohol, or whatever. if you are able to work, you work and get what you are able to get. as i said before, NO ONE is entitled to have a pair of hundred dollars shoes, no matter how bad they want them. you can get shoes for twenty bucks, and if that's all you can afford, that's all you can have. end of story this trash obviously didn't want to survive, and its comical that they didn't
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 4, 2011 9:50:29 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 not at all. if the punk burglarizes someone who doesn't have a gun, or is too chicken shit to kill it, i have no objection to it's continued existence. as always, it is TOTALLY the thief's choice, not mine
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 4, 2011 11:14:03 GMT -5
Jim,' Let me put it another way. No one, individual, group of people. court, government or country, should have the right to kill another human being for stealing. Lawful or not, stealing should never be a capital crime, and the Castle Doctrine allows it. I vehemently disagree with the Castle Doctrine and how it can and has been applied in Texas. Akamai nope. the crazy idea that a punk isn't totally responsible for his actions is insane. he, and he alone, has the onus on him when he chooses to commit a crime, and completely accepts whatever the results of that choice might be. NO ONE else bears ANY responsibility for his choice, in any way, shape, or form Jim, whether the punk is worthy or not, no individual, group of individuals, court, government, or country, should have the right to kill a human being only for theft. In Arab countries, they cut of the hand of a thief. Even THAT is too severe a punishment for only stealing. Our courts do not sentence people to death for anything other than murder and child rape. YOU, as a citizen, should be allowed to protect yourself, your family, and your friends from bodily harm using deadly force IF NECESSARY, but killing a thief for stealing only is ridiculous. AK
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 4, 2011 11:16:47 GMT -5
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. that is why we work exactly. as the rolling stones sang in one of their best songs ever, you can't always get what you want. you do NOT have a right to have what you want. you don't even have a right to have what you need if you make the choice to not have it, for whatever reason, drugs, alcohol, or whatever. if you are able to work, you work and get what you are able to get. as i said before, NO ONE is entitled to have a pair of hundred dollars shoes, no matter how bad they want them. you can get shoes for twenty bucks, and if that's all you can afford, that's all you can have. end of story this trash obviously didn't want to survive, and its comical that they didn't Jim, We work, but not everyone works. Not all illegal immigrants can get a job, while any able bodied citizen in this country can. AK
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 4, 2011 11:21:23 GMT -5
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 not at all. if the punk burglarizes someone who doesn't have a gun, or is too chicken shit to kill it, i have no objection to it's continued existence. as always, it is TOTALLY the thief's choice, not mine Still Jim, The courts NEVER sentence a thief to death in this country, We should not be allowed to kill a person for only stealing. Robbing is different, because a person robs with a threat, which justifies self defense using deadly force. BUT theft? If you believe you are going to die because of the theft, then self defense may be applicable, but if not, I cannot justify killing anyone for a simple theft, or non-violent buglary. AK
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Dec 4, 2011 12:12:16 GMT -5
The courts NEVER sentence a thief to death in this country Au contraire - espionage, which is ultimately theft, of course...
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 5, 2011 0:55:50 GMT -5
The courts NEVER sentence a thief to death in this country Au contraire - espionage, which is ultimately theft, of course... No! You are wrong. When you have espionage, the sentence of death is NOT for the theft. You are sentenced to death for giving what you have stolen to the enemy, or attempting to give or sell what you have stolen to the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Dec 5, 2011 2:15:56 GMT -5
Au contraire - espionage, which is ultimately theft, of course... No! You are wrong. When you have espionage, the sentence of death is NOT for the theft. You are sentenced to death for giving what you have stolen to the enemy, or attempting to give or sell what you have stolen to the enemy. Semantics, I suggest. After all, if you didn't steal the secrets, you couldn't attempt to pass them on. Therefore it follows that you are sentenced to death as a direct consequence of your theft. QED
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Dec 5, 2011 13:12:16 GMT -5
No! You are wrong. When you have espionage, the sentence of death is NOT for the theft. You are sentenced to death for giving what you have stolen to the enemy, or attempting to give or sell what you have stolen to the enemy. Semantics, I suggest. After all, if you didn't steal the secrets, you couldn't attempt to pass them on. Therefore it follows that you are sentenced to death as a direct consequence of your theft. QED Actually, I don't recall the US putting anyone to death for espionage since the Rosenbergs in 1953. I am not sure if their crime would have resulted in an execution today. It might have.
|
|