Ad Posted to a U.S. "Personals"

who exactly was the real criminal?

 

lol

 

I wonder if they'll end up sharing a cell...

 

i doubt it. if that were actually published and really happened, the guy who intended to commit the original crime never *actually* did anything more than aggrivated assault. Probably get probation if caught. I guess it looks like he held the other guys jacket for a second while he pulled a gun. The guy with the gun committed the big crimes because he held the power in his hand. Makes gun people look bad.

 

In reference to the ridiculousness of Om's post (nothing against you Om, it is the "laws" that allow this to happen) I would do what us country boys have always been taught and that is.

"If you ever HAVE to pull a gun on someone, you better you use it." What I mean by this is a dead man can't lie or argue in court.

Too many times in recent history has a person defended himself and the attacker/robber gets away and sues, or a lawsuit is brought against the defender and/or even jailtime. Whereas if the attacker/robber was killed then you will not have anyone to argue against you and to lie about what there motives were.

In reference, a case recently a burglar was shot in the darkness of a kitchen, since it was dark the homeowner did not know the burglar was unarmed. Well at the trial since the burglar was alive he argued on the stand that he was "poor and hungry, because he lost his job in this economy, and only wanted some food and to feed his kids" the jury felt sorry for him and awarded him a large sum of money. Hmmm, who says crime doesnt pay? This legal system is really buggered up at the moment.


Sorry for ranting, this is a REALLY sore subject with me.

***Edit, would like to add I do not condone all the other stuff he did like the gas on the card, the phone calls and the keyed car. I did like the phone call to "momma" though.***

 

where did that happen, oak? the case with the kitchen burglar, I mean. I have always heard if a robbery is in progress and someone is in your home, you have the right to shoot them in self defense however if they're done robbing your house and in the process of running out the door, it is then against the law to shoot them because you are no longer in danger. I'd love more details about that case.

I had a friend who was home sick one day and saw a man taping up his glass door to prepare to break into his house. My friend shot the man through the glass door. He never actually entered the house. It was really controvercial, but the other man was dead and even though the dead man's family tried to sue, my friend won because evidence proved the dead guy was trying to break in.

 

I was taught this, too. And while I agree that there are situations in which this is appropriate, killing someone over fifty bucks in cash and a Mastercard that you can cancel after the guy runs away is, to be frank, barbaric. We live in a civilized society which has seen the Christian Enlightenment; we have the capacity to be better than this.

I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment; I have lived in places where some sort of firearm is essential due to dangerous wildlife, but that's just incidental -- the core of my reasoning is that I don't think the government should be banning mere ownership of anything, or creating any category of victimless crime. At the same time, I dislike gun-rights advocacy which revolves around the principle of killing people.

 

To Om: as Hamma stated the castle doctrine is a good start. But in the previous case the homeowner shot in the dark at a burglar, it was proven the burglar had no weapon at all, he had broken in unarmed and so was not a threat. Hence the reason as you stated above, a person has a right to defend themself if they are in danger. Not for any other reason.

To Symen: Yes, that robber may take your cash and CC but what happens when he tries to rob a single woman that he thinks is just too pretty? Or an old lady who is so frightened she has a heart attack? Where would it stop? Or they guy steals a few things from your house while your gone and decides to come back with a few friends while you and your family are home?

To put it bluntly....I was in the military and we were taught to "take out the trash"....Put that however you like it.

Every man has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What liberty, life, and happiness is there when your afraid of someone taking some of that from you?


News article from todays newspaper where I live:
http://www.pnj.com/article/20091030/NEWS01/910300322

17 y/o Teenager arrested after being tracked by dogs for robbing a waffle house with an ASSAULT rifle, he is also being questioned about involvement in another waffle house burglary from a few nights prior.

Is this the kind of society we want to live in when 17 y/os are running around with assault rifles robbing places. HMMM, if more law abiding citizens carried firearms and "took out the trash" I think this would send more of a message to this scum then a slap on the wrist in juvenile court only to have your record sealed permanently. I say this because he was probably provoked by an older crowd who knew nothing would happen to him if caught. I have seen it happen personally where an adult gets a juvenile to commit a crime for them knowing they wont get in as mush trouble.

 

Emphasis mine. I think this is the important part.

In all those cases, the perpetrator should be arrested, tried, and if convicted, should serve the sentence which the law provides for. If someone is trying to end your life and you shoot to kill them, that's self-defense, and I have no problem with it. Openly carrying a gun as a deterrent, I see no problem with either. However, I don't agree with vigilante justice, and it is outlawed for good reason.

If military officials are encouraging soldiers to violate the law, then those officials should be disciplined, possibly severely, for their attempts to undermine our laws and our country (it is against the law to encourage others to break the law). If they have a problem with a law (I can hardly blame them, there are a lot of laws I don't like), they have the right to take it up with their representatives just like the rest of us.

I disagree with the "trash" portion of your statement. While a robber may well be trash, he may also be desperate and trying to feed his family. It's not up to you or I to make that determination; that's why we have a justice system.

(Emphasis mine). Remember, the robber is a man, too, and he also has the right to life. By shooting him vigilante style, he is being denied that right.

Living in fear is a choice that you make, not one that is made for you. I have no combat training, and I'm not particularly physically demonstrative, but I have no fear of being a victim of a violent crime.

He was caught and arrested. I'd say the system is working properly in this case (not that it always does, but no system will). Nobody had to die. The court, not you and I, gets to decide if he's "scum" or whatever.

I have a friend who, when he was about that age, robbed a liquor store at gunpoint. He was caught and went to prison. While he was in prison, he realized the error of his ways, and that he was the only person responsible for his situation. After serving his sentence, he became a law-abiding citizen. If he had been shot in that liquor store, he wouldn't have had that opportunity, and the world would be a lesser place for it.

In our post-Enlightenment society, we recognize that human life has value, and we don't take it capriciously.

 

Ok, Symen in most of your comments you perpetuate your opinion based on one simple theory that each and every crime commited means justice will be served. That is NOT the case in America.

You think if someone robs me at knifepoint, with a mask and run off. That I can give a description to a police officer and they will magically find this person. No way. That person will get off clean and free and in that case crime pays.

I would agree with you 100% if when a crime is committed and the "right" person gets caught and goes to jail. But that does not always happen, matter of fact I dont think it happens most of the time. Around my area most robberies, home invasions and other crimes go unsolved. When that happens then yes, those people live in fear of being targets and victims once again.

In response to you stating a criminal committing a crime has the right to life and liberty, well I dont know what to say about that. Seems that person gives up his rights when he threatens anothers. But I will drop that.

About your comment about soldiers "taking out the trash" and being held accountable I find highly laughable as I guess you think we should go overseas with chocolates and flowers and welcome the terrorists who commit atrocities against there own people for silly religious beliefs not to mention the tragedies committed against Americans for being "infidels". I guess maybe if they kill enough of our soldiers then maybe they will run out of bullets and stop fighting huh? No, these people are "trash" and I will never believe otherwise.

BTW: When I mean trash, I dont mean anyone different than us. Yes, if a soldiers commits a crime against a civilian of a foreign land then they should be tried and brought to justice just like anyone else. But when you are in a 3rd world country and 90% of those people can/are/could be the enemy you dont have but precious little time to distinguish if your life is one the line.


I am not cold hearted and out for blood for anyone that commits a crime. I have done some bad things when I was young like I am sure most people have. BUT, I have never threatened anyone elses life or wellbeing and I think anyone who does should face the SAME consequences. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as simple as that.

Again, I agree I our justice system is broken, there are innocent people in jail, and guilty people on the streets. But, if those guilty where killed/ or wounded committing the crime no doubt the right person was served justice then, eh.

 

One last thing though, I LOL at this one. I guess you live in a magical world of sunshine and unicorns. But dont tell me that the victims of the 9/11 attack had a choice on whether they died or not on those planes, or in the towers. Don't tell me people working day in and day out at there jobs as cabbies, fast food workers, hotel employees, convenience store employees do not fear for there lives when a certain ilk whats into their store. And that it is there choice to live and work in such an area that such a crime can be committed.

Seems I live in a city that has a high crime rate, I guess it is my choice to live and work here and I should move to "La-La Land" where no crime exists and I can live free and happy to the end of my days. Well, only one problem with that. Such a place does not exist, except one that you make of it. I guess when I hit the lottery I will buy me an island somewhere and live on my own self sustenance. But even then if I travel by boat it seems "pirates" are all the rage, there is a couple on the news right now being ransomed for $7 million or their "flesh" will be peeled off. But hey, the Pirates just need a little money cause they are starving and need food, they have rights to ya know.

First page of Fox News, didnt take long to find this. Guess why, it happens EVERY day.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570628,00.html
Seems a formerly convicted rapist who spent a meager 15 years in prison, had a 6 "dead' bodies in his house. Guess those 6 people shouldnt have feared for their life because "our" legal system did such a FINE job of protecting them and rehabilitating this fine example of an American citizen. And hey, if they were captured, raped, and killed by this man it was their fault for being anywhere he could have access to them. Lets be sure we protect this man and his liberties. Hell with that, I say we make a public execution after his trail, sell tickets like the superbowl and then we can flay and quarter this man, make sure he suffers. That might discourage a few would-be violent criminals IMO.

Oh no my friend, it is not our choice when a violent crime is committed. It is the fault of our legal system because the criminals are no longer afraid of getting caught, they are no longer afraid of you and I because we as lab-abiding citizens find it harder and harder to own guns to protect ourselves and our family.

Anyways, I will not comment on this anymore, I respect your and anyone elses opinions, but trying to type and convey my point is hard enough when it is obvious we believe so differently. And I think your point would be just as hard to convey as well.

Seacrest Out.

 

Ohh, been a while since I have gotten worked up like this.

I am feeling a little frisky.

Maybe, I need to get into some TF2.

"Spah sappin mah sentry"

 

I agree completely that our system is not perfect. I think some reforms could be good, too (automatic life in prison for conviction of a violent crime, higher evidentiary standards, automatic death penalty for police/prosecutors knowingly convicting the wrong party, constitutional ban on the creation of laws which create victimless crimes would be a good start), however that's a whole separate discussion.

The core of our disagreement is that you think the criminal gives up his inalienable rights upon commiting his crime, and I think he gives them up upon conviction. Reasonable people can disagree on complex issues.

We have a miscommunication here -- as this is a discussion about a domestic incident, I though you were referring to being taught to "take out the trash" in that context. In actual combat situations, I agree with you 100%.

However, I think it's important to note that criminal justice is not the same as a combat zone. If it was, every time a crime was committed, the police would simply raze the neighborhood in which it happens. While this would be effective at stopping crime, we wouldn't be here having this conversation if this was what actually happened.

On the "chocolates and flowers" thing, come on, really? Not that I haven't used similar language before, to be fair, but that kind of crap just cheapens the discourse, because nobody who is not clinically insane believes this, and both of us know it.

I do understand what you mean, and I never though you meant anything like this, don't worry.

I don't necessarily disagree with you in all situations. However, as a student of history, I know what it was like when vigilante justice was the norm (really, much like a combat zone at times), and our current system, imperfect as it is, is miles better.

 

Crime reduction is actually a separate discussion, and can be quite a fascinating topic (as an aside, I read a law-enforcement study a couple of months ago that indicated that in most cases, all violent crime in a major metropolitan area is committed by an average of half a dozen people. Interesting stuff.)

Believe it or not, violent crime is still at historic lows (though it has increased a bit in the past decade). The prevailing wisdom used to be that it was primarily related to lack of economic opportunity, but that has been proven to be mostly false. It's really more about social issues: Police work that seeks to work with criminals, community organizing, and access to abortion are actually the most effective ways to reduce crime. Responding to violence with more violence just creates more violent crime later, though. That criminal is always going to have a friend or brother who resents that the criminal got shot, and is going to find someone else to take it out on, and the cycle will never end.

I'm not necessarily against the death penalty (though I do think there should be very high evidentiary standards to make sure the right guy is executed). I don't think it's right to make a spectacle of it and treat it as entertainment, though. Aside from the ugliness of that, it will just turn the executed into a martyr, and start the cycle of violence again.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Ten years ago, ownership was restricted to hunting rifles and certain handguns. Now, we can buy a whole bunch of stuff that used to be classified as "assault rifles", the Supreme Court declared handgun bans to be unconstitutional, and President Obama even signed a cool law allowing the carrying of guns on certain Federal lands. I'd say it's a great time to be a gun owner.

Hey, as I said before, it is perfectly normal for reasonable people to disagree on complex issues. If nothing else, it makes for interesting conversations.

 

Sounds fair enough, it seems in response to a few of my points that were responses to yours things did get a little misconstrued as they are apt to do on an internet forum. And we are not in total disagreement on most things just a little bit further on each side of the spectrum.

And I am sure that we would find our ideals and opinions run a little closer than we think if we could actually discuss this better than back and forth on this forum.

 

Aye, but in some neighborhoods it seems this would not be too bad of an idea.