Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 7

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

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

Are the people making death threats people who think he's a murderer for taking the law into their own hands? because if so lol

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Are the people making death threats people who think he's a murderer for taking the law into their own hands? because if so lol

If they killed him, they wouldn't be doing anything different than he did would they?

They'd be a third party deciding to act against someone who violated the property rights of two others (in this case, their lives are the property in question)

I'm not sure how you can be for one and against another.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If they killed him, they wouldn't be doing anything different than he did would they?

They'd be a third party deciding to act against someone who violated the property rights of two others (in this case, their lives are the property in question)

I'm not sure how you can be for one and against another.

per the law he didn't violate their rights... and the irony is all that I was laughing at.

WickedLou9 · 07-02-2008, 05:18 PM

It's a ridiculous anarchist wild west sort of mentality. There is no morality, only the individuals right to own property. It's an amoral sort of concept. There is no value placed on human life. theft is theft. property is property.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:19 PM

He wasn't thinking about the law and punishment for theft when he killed them, why would they?

They weren't given the benefit of a court and a trial, he was, but lets say they killed him before the grand jury came back with their verdict, how would it have been any different?

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's a ridiculous anarchist wild west sort of mentality. There is no morality, only the individuals right to own property. It's an amoral sort of concept. There is no value placed on human life. theft is theft. property is property.

I'm all for property rights, but this guy wasn't defending his own property.. he was a third party who was only involved in the situation because he interjected himself into it.. which is again, why I've asked if the people defending his actions would be okay with me shooting someone in the back if they violated someone's property rights by letting go of a shopping cart and letting it damage a car

It's logically the same justification

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:24 PM

Or how about this

Lets say the man saw two people defacing the property instead of stealing it, they broke the windows, spray painted the house, or set it on fire.. should he be within his rights to shoot and kill them?

What about if he sees them breaking into a car on the street? Stealing hubcaps? Can he shoot them?

Phantom · 07-02-2008, 05:24 PM

seems simple, life > property, and that's the law in civilized societies.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Or how about this

Lets say the man saw two people defacing the property instead of stealing it, they broke the windows, spray painted the house, or set it on fire.. should he be within his rights to shoot and kill them?

What about if he sees them breaking into a car on the street? Stealing hubcaps? Can he shoot them?

In that case I believe it's clear that he would be within his rights to shoot them per texas law.

I don't want to see anyone die, but if they choose to engage in those actions, then they are putting themselves at risk.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

In that case I believe it's clear that he would be within his rights to shoot them per texas law.

I don't want to see anyone die, but if they choose to engage in those actions, then they are putting themselves at risk.

Forget Texas law, this guy wasn't thinking about the law and punishment for the crime of theft when he ended the thieves lives

I'm asking if you think it's justified, and if so, why? I'd like an answer to my hypothetical situations

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

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

I would not be ok with it. However, if a person was deliberatively going around with a shopping cart and damaging thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of damage to vehicles, then I wouldn't have all that much problem with someone shooting him.

But then again, none of this matters, because the impartial judicial system found him innocent.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 05:41 PM

They came on his property and they were committing a crime. If he was fearful of his life he was within his rights to shoot them. However, he was on the phone with police and was instructed to wait inside his house. He should have listened to what the police told him to do. Burglary is a property crime. A property crime is not worth killing someone over. That is inexcusable.

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's a ridiculous anarchist wild west sort of mentality. There is no morality, only the individuals right to own property. It's an amoral sort of concept. There is no value placed on human life. theft is theft. property is property.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The very right of ownership of property begins with ownership of self. So, life is much more important than property.

However, if you go around damaging people's properties or their lives, then yes, that is a crime.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I would not be ok with it. However, if a person was deliberatively going around with a shopping cart and damaging thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of damage to vehicles, then I wouldn't have all that much problem with someone shooting him.

But then again, none of this matters, because the impartial judicial system found him innocent.

If we were in a school library and I picked up your laptop and slammed it on the ground do you think you'd be within your rights to shoot me for it? Do you think it would be ethical?

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm all for property rights, but this guy wasn't defending his own property.. he was a third party who was only involved in the situation because he interjected himself into it..

And once again, this is what government itself is. How you can chastise this man for doing the same thing government does - especially when government does it, it usually botches up the whole process somehow.

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If we were in a school library and I picked up your laptop and slammed it on the ground do you think you'd be within your rights to shoot me for it? Do you think it would be ethical?

Maybe not a shooting. But I'd certainly be within my rights to kick your ass.

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They came on his property and they were committing a crime. If he was fearful of his life he was within his rights to shoot them. However, he was on the phone with police and was instructed to wait inside his house. He should have listened to what the police told him to do. Burglary is a property crime. A property crime is not worth killing someone over. That is inexcusable.

But all crimes are property crimes. If someone kills you, they're violating your property. If you don't have a clear understanding of property, then you'll get the thousands of bullshit laws that don't make any sense that we have today.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:52 PM

Goddamnit. I hate the stupid back key on my laptop right by the arrow keys

I had a long post written up that was very interesting to myself at least

Anyway... I have no desire to shoot anyone and don't know that I could kill someone over property. However, I do believe that we should have the right to defend our property, so I will offer a conditional 'yes' to your question. What is the condition, you ask? The best answer I can offer to you is 'the totality of the circumstances'. Was it an accident that someone bumped the car? Are they intentionally attacking a bunch of cars?

A couple years ago, some punk was breaking into cars along my street. A neighbor saw it happening, came out with a shotgun, and held the guy at gunpoint until the police arrived. If the punk had caused him to feel fear for his life, which I don't think is a stretch in a tense situation like that, he would have been justified in shooting him per Washington law. I think that's acceptable and the rest of the neighborhood appreciated what this good samaritan did. Everyone got their stuff back, and because this guy had only targeted unlocked cars, no one really lost anything at all.

It was a good ending to a very dangerous situation. But again, that guy did exactly the same thing, only the punk in this case decided to obey him when he said to stop.

I wish I remembered the rest of my post that I lost

Phantom · 07-02-2008, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by lew

But all crimes are property crimes. If someone kills you, they're violating your property. If you don't have a clear understanding of property, then you'll get the thousands of bullshit laws that don't make any sense that we have today.

Do you at least recognize a difference between crimes against a person and crimes against things/animals/whatever else?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:54 PM

God I fail today. I meant to quote motivez post