Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 2

lew · 07-02-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

YouTube - Man Kills 2 . . . [Joe Horn - Full Tape]

wft......listening to the tape, this guy should get the death penalty for premeditated murder

Then so should people that carry out executions.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's not the whole of someone's life, but it is a part of someone's life.

Which is why they get a part of their life taken away sitting in a jail cell and rotting for a number of years.. but trying to equate a television or stereo or whatever they took with the value of someone's life (even a horrible person) doesn't make any sense

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Of course they're one of the victims in this case, but certainly not the only ones.. and not the important ones for discussing whether or not the guy who shot them was right to act as he did since his rights were not being violated at the time

You seem to be equating whatever it was they stole as being of equal value as the lives of the thieves. So, should we start executing people for theft?

The thieves reduced the value of their life to that of what they stole when they put their life in jeopardy by robbing a house in Texas. I didn't set the value, they did.

No, I don't believe that government should execute for theft. But I have no sympathy for them in this case.

They chose to take the risk, and what some in this thread propose is that we make it relatively risk free for them. Therein is the problem. If one can rob a house and know that the worst that will happen is they go to jail for 2 years, but know that they can probably get away with 40 robberies before being caught, thus providing for themselves for 5 years, it's still profitable in spite of the risk. Well, depending on your criteria I suppose, but hopefully you get the idea.

When there is a risk that you'll lose your life, suddenly the risk vs reward ratio really changes the equation, wouldn't you say?

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:14 PM

This guy also put the police who were responding to the call in danger by exiting his house and trying to go after them.. he could have mistaken one of the police officers for the criminals as he rounded a corner or whatever.

It was an all around stupid move, though like I said, he certainly had good intentions. But we all know what road was paved with the best of intentions..

His rationale is that he was protecting himself, but that's bullshit as they weren't on his property or in his home.. there was no confrontation with them except for the one he sought to create

lew · 07-02-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

A government is elected by the people, laws and punishments for crimes are decided by the people.

The crime for theft is not death. Are you advocating it should be?

So can I go and shoot someone for getting into an argument in public for verbal harassment? What other crimes should individuals be able to 'execute justice' as they see fit with a gun?

Laws and punishments are NOT decided by the people.

If they were, marijuana would undoubtedly be legal and jury nullification would be practiced all of the time.

I actually wouldn't have a problem if there were only three or four crimes that existed and all were punishable by death.

You're equating freedom of speech with theft?

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

The thieves reduced the value of their life to that of what they stole when they put their life in jeopardy by robbing a house in Texas. I didn't set the value, they did.

What are you talking about?

If the home owner had been the one responding to the break in, you might have a point, but since it was an unrelated party, you don't.

Rouger2 · 07-02-2008, 03:16 PM

I would not have shot them, but I am not saying he was wrong.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by lew

You're equating freedom of speech with theft?

You're saying it's fine and dandy for a citizen who's completely unrelated to an incident taking place to dole out justice with a gun as that individual sees fit.. so what other crimes can I go shoot someone for of my own accord?

Verbal harassment? What if a girl slaps a guy on the street? That's assault!

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What are you talking about?

If the home owner had been the one responding to the break in, you might have a point, but since it was an unrelated party, you don't.

Would you say the same thing if he had somehow apprehended the thieves while preserving their lives? That he shouldn't have gotten involved because it wasn't his property, I mean?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

This guy also put the police who were responding to the call in danger by exiting his house and trying to go after them.. he could have mistaken one of the police officers for the criminals as he rounded a corner or whatever.

It was an all around stupid move, though like I said, he certainly had good intentions. But we all know what road was paved with the best of intentions..

His rationale is that he was protecting himself, but that's bullshit as they weren't on his property or in his home.. there was no confrontation with them except for the one he sought to create

The world is a marginally better place after his confrontation with them.

lew · 07-02-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You're saying it's fine and dandy for a citizen who's completely unrelated to an incident taking place to dole out justice with a gun as that individual sees fit.. so what other crimes can I go shoot someone for of my own accord?

Verbal harassment? What if a girl slaps a guy on the street? That's assault!

But governments dole out justice to people that they are completely unrelated to every single day.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

The world is a marginally better place after his confrontation with them.

You're trying to put me in a position where I have to defend the people he shot, I'm not going to bother with that.. I'm talking about whether this guys actions were correct, given the fact that he wasn't involved in the situation, didn't have his rights violated, and did not shoot in self defense

WickedLou9 · 07-02-2008, 03:22 PM

If the police had shot those two men, they would have been immediately fired and probably put in jail. Think about that.

Why is it OK for a private citizen to kill a criminal but not the police? That makes no sense to me. The man comitted cold blooded muder. He wanted to do it. He planned it on the phone. He said he was going to go do it, and he did it. The criminals were outside leaving someone elses house. They posed no danger to anyone. If the cops had showed up and gunned them down they would no doubt be in jail. Stealing material property is not punishable by death.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by lew

But governments dole out justice to people that they are completely unrelated to every single day.

That's because society empowers them to do so. Why should this guy could be allowed to judge, jury, and executioner when he wasn't in danger or defending himself?

And if he can do it legally, why can't I for other crimes where the official punishment isn't death?

You're speeding, I'm going to shoot you for breaking the law.
You just jay-walked, I'm going to shoot you for breaking the law.
You just put a dent in that guy's car with your shopping cart, I'm going to shoot you for damaging someone's property

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You're trying to put me in a position where I have to defend the people he shot, I'm not going to bother with that.. I'm talking about whether this guys actions were correct, given the fact that he wasn't involved in the situation, didn't have his rights violated, and did not shoot in self defense

Nah, I'm not trying to put you in a position where you have to, but you are defending their right to life. I understand that and might even make the same argument in some cases, but in this case, I'm arguing that they surrendered their inalienable right to life the moment they commenced their theft, because they violated other people's right to property (which I believe is important to self ownership).

Apparently the grand jury that they convened for this guy - I'm pretty sure it was this guy - agrees with me. Sorry for the appeal to authority there but I get it all the time so you can enjoy a little of it as well

7960 · 07-02-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's not the whole of someone's life, but it is a part of someone's life.

so if someone steals your favorite jimmy buffet t-shirt you can take his life because you worked 22 minutes at your minimum wage job and it's "part of your life"?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If the police had shot those two men, they would have been immediately fired and probably put in jail. Think about that.

I would argue that no, they wouldn't. They would have received paid leave while it was investigated and most likely they would have been put back on the force.

Why is it OK for a private citizen to kill a criminal but not the police? That makes no sense to me. The man comitted cold blooded muder. He wanted to do it. He planned it on the phone. He said he was going to go do it, and he did it. The criminals were outside leaving someone elses house. They posed no danger to anyone. If the cops had showed up and gunned them down they would no doubt be in jail. Stealing material property is not punishable by death.

I don't see how you can say he 'wanted' to kill someone. He 'wanted' to see these guys come to justice, and the cops weren't showing up in time.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Then so should people that carry out executions.

sorry, i didn't realize there was a trial between when horn called 911 and when he went outside and said "boom you're dead"

motivez · 07-02-2008, 03:25 PM

And I'm saying that it wasn't his call to make because it wasn't his property being taken, it wasn't his life in danger.. Had this been the home owners, I would say good for them for defending themselves.

This is no different than anyone out on the street seeing some crime not punishable by death taking place and deciding to shoot the offenders

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

so if someone steals your favorite jimmy buffet t-shirt you can take his life because you worked 22 minutes at your minimum wage job and it's "part of your life"?

A poor man's property right is no more violable than a rich man's property right.

If it's justified for one, then it should be justified for the other. In this case we don't even know for sure what they stole unless I missed that too