Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 6

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Two burglars pose a threat to the neighborhood as a whole.

"the neighborhood" isn't a person.

Isn't that all that liberalism is about?

no

You know, collectivism, and all that? If someone robs my neighbor, it's the same as if they're robbing me.

this is directly counter to thewise1's property rights argument.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

it's only important to someone who thinks theft is worthy of death.

It should be important to anyone who looks at this from a rational standpoint instead of an emotional one. To call this guy who has been cleared of any wrongdoing a murderer but then completely ignore the crime committed by the deceased is clearly looking to elicit an emotional response.

Hell, I don't even favor the death penalty, but I just can't summon up any sympathy for these guys.

lew · 07-02-2008, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

it's only important to someone who thinks theft is worthy of death.

ALL crimes against life and property are theft.

If someone kills you, they've just taken [stolen] your ability to live. If someone rapes someone, they've stolen their sexual freedom.

All true crimes are theft, against either person or property.

lew · 07-02-2008, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

"the neighborhood" isn't a person.

no

this is directly counter to thewise1's property rights argument.

That's not my argument. That's what the argument of the liberals on this board should be.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by lew

ALL crimes against life and property are theft.

I'm not sure why you posted that fact so I'll post one that's also compeltely unrelated.

ALL mammals are vertebrates!

BTW, I was talking about the punishment for theft, not the definition of it. Putting someone to death for stealing a t-shirt is asinine.

lew · 07-02-2008, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not sure why you posted that fact so I'll post one that's also compeltely unrelated.

ALL mammals are vertebrates!

BTW, I was talking about the punishment for theft, not the definition of it. Putting someone to death for stealing a t-shirt is asinine.

Perhaps. But that's completely irrelevant in regards to this thread, since this was much more than someone stealing a t-shirt.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It should be important to anyone who looks at this from a rational standpoint instead of an emotional one.

It's rational to kill someone for theft?

To call this guy who has been cleared of any wrongdoing a murderer but then completely ignore the crime committed by the deceased is clearly looking to elicit an emotional response.

Nobody is ignoring the crimes the other two committed. If I punch you in the face and then you hit me with a bat they're going to talk to BOTH of us and figure out each separate case. Same here....the guys were stealing shit, we know that. Now we're talking about the guy who premeditatedly murdered them....separate case.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Perhaps. But that's completely irrelevant in regards to this thread, since this was much more than someone stealing a t-shirt.

You're right. It was someone stealing $2k in cash.

I guess anyone who steal money should be put to death.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not sure why you posted that fact so I'll post one that's also compeltely unrelated.

ALL mammals are vertebrates!

BTW, I was talking about the punishment for theft, not the definition of it. Putting someone to death for stealing a t-shirt is asinine.

Were the bodies on the shooter's yard?

By the way, was it "boom you're dead" or "move and you're dead"? Because the latter makes more sense and a lot of news articles are reporting that instead

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

It's rational to kill someone for theft?

Nobody is ignoring the crimes the other two committed. If I punch you in the face and then you hit me with a bat they're going to talk to BOTH of us and figure out each separate case. Same here....the guys were stealing shit, we know that. Now we're talking about the guy who premeditatedly murdered them....separate case.

According to the grand jury there is not enough evidence that he committed premeditated murder to indict him.

lew · 07-02-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

You're right. It was someone stealing $2k in cash.

I guess anyone who steal money should be put to death.

No, it wasn't.

It was two thieves that had violated property rights, broke into a home, ransacked the place, stole things, and then didn't listen to a man that had a gun on them to wait for the police.

They got what they deserved.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:43 PM

VERY interesting. We have two different transcripts being reported - one says boom you're dead, and the other says "move, you're dead".

I can't imagine this is sensationalizing it at all

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

According to the grand jury there is not enough evidence that he committed premeditated murder to indict him.

I've said more than once in this thread that the law is wrong.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No, it wasn't.

It was two thieves that had violated property rights, broke into a home, ransacked the place, stole things, and then didn't listen to a man that had a gun on them to wait for the police.

They got what they deserved.

sensationalize it some more.......... according to you it's all theft so whether they "violated property rights, broke into a home, ransacked the place, stole things, and then didn't listen to a man" or picked a wallet that has $2k in it, they deserve the death penalty.

nbiggershaft · 07-02-2008, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

VERY interesting. We have two different transcripts being reported - one says boom you're dead, and the other says "move, you're dead".

I can't imagine this is sensationalizing it at all

I've never read on transcript on this. I listened to the audio however many months ago and heard "boom, your dead", maybe it was a funny sound thing, but thats what it clearly sounded like.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I've never read on transcript on this. I listened to the audio however many months ago and heard "boom, your dead", maybe it was a funny sound thing, but thats what it clearly sounded like.

"Boom, you're dead" doesn't make sense to me, "Move 'n you're dead" makes a LOT more sense to me

I'm just sayin'

7960 · 07-02-2008, 04:55 PM

oh, and btw, the autopsy

...the two burglars ... were struck in the back, shoulders and arms by buckshot . The results affirm accounts of the shooting earlier disclosed by investigators.

The buckshot hit Ortiz in the back of both shoulders and elsewhere on the left side of his back, according to his autopsy. The pellets penetrated his left lung, heart, spleen, aortic root, left jugular vein and other areas, the Medical Examiner's Office reported.

Torres had buckshot wounds in the left lateral chest and posterolateral torso, left posterior arm and other areas.

Quanell X, victim's fiancee plan rally to protest Horn decision | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

let's see, back back back, posterior, back back.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

oh, and btw, the autopsy

let's see, back back back, posterior, back back.

Don't think anyone is arguing that. Texas law allows you to shoot them to prevent flight and have it not be murder.

These guys won't terrorize any other neighborhoods, although the person or people making death threats on their behalf likely will...

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

... although the person or people making death threats on their behalf likely will...

More vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, that's what this type of thinking breaks down to

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No, it wasn't.

It was two thieves that had violated property rights, broke into a home, ransacked the place, stole things, and then didn't listen to a man that had a gun on them to wait for the police.

They got what they deserved.

But it boils down to property rights. The man saw them violating someone else's property rights and took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner, and shot them in the back.

So, would you be okay with me shooting someone in the back as they left the scene of a grocery store after they let a cart hit someone else's car?

If not, then your logic doesn't stand up, because the two situations boil down to a third party intervening and deciding to "execute justice" (your terminology) for a violation of property rights