Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 9

Ezra Smack · 07-02-2008, 11:52 PM

Human life is more valuable than property. But when it is YOUR property compaired to the life of some thug you never met who is trying to take it from you, things change. It is a part of nature to protect yourself, your property and your liberty.
Try and take food from an hungry dog and you will get bitten. Surely your hand is more valuable than a bowl of dog food right? Not to a hungry dog it's not. Surely your daughters chastity is valuable but not as valuable as a human life. But what if it is the life of some child molester who is climbing through her bed room window in the middle of the night? If you are any kind of fit parent you would shoot the intruder.

The amount of crime and violence a society has to suffer is in direct preportion to how much they will tolerate.

motivez · 07-02-2008, 11:57 PM

I don't think anyone is saying people don't have a right to defend themselves or their property.. what's in contention is whether it's correct for an unrelated third party to interject themselves into a situation where their life and property aren't at risk and decide to kill someone over it

6SpeedTA95 · 07-03-2008, 12:14 AM

Not goign to read 8 pages, but this guy is clearly NOT a murderer. Furthermore the two individuals shot and killed were illegal aliens, one of whom had already been deported for cocain distribution and both were a part of a mexican gang targeting asian americans.

Texas law is clear, that this guy had every right to shoot these assholes. End of story.

lew · 07-03-2008, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

No you wouldn't.

Yes, I would.

lew · 07-03-2008, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I can't believe you're actually having to explain that. I need to stop reading this thread.

Agreed. You guys are getting pretty ridiculous.

JaJae · 07-03-2008, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes, I would.

I don't think there is a single state that would allow you to assault someone over that example.

7960 · 07-03-2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Furthermore

I already addressed these.

the two individuals shot and killed were illegal aliens,

he did not know that when he shot them

one of whom had already been deported for cocain distribution

he did not know that when he shot them

and both were a part of a mexican gang targeting asian americans.

he did not know that when he shot them

7960 · 07-03-2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think there is a single state that would allow you to assault someone over that example.

but he's been saying it'd be ok to shoot and kill you for it

thewise1 · 07-03-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

but he's been saying it'd be ok to shoot and kill you for it

Let's keep the facts straight here - he actually didn't say that.

7960 · 07-03-2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Let's keep the facts straight here - he actually didn't say that.

keeping the facts straight.

he said it was ok to kill these guys for what they took because it was a violation of property rights.
i asked if it would have been ok to kill someone if all he took was your favorite jimmy buffet t-shirt.
he implied yes when he answered (paraphrased) "why are the rights of the poor any different?"
then he went on to say "but this was so much more than a t-shirt"

so......since a decent laptop can easily approach $2k apparently it would be ok to kill someone if he smashed yours.

thewise1 · 07-03-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

keeping the facts straight.

he said it was ok to kill these guys for what they took because it was a violation of property rights.
i asked if it would have been ok to kill someone if all he took was your favorite jimmy buffet t-shirt.
he implied yes when he answered (paraphrased) "why are the rights of the poor any different?"
then he went on to say "but this was so much more than a t-shirt"

so......since a decent laptop can easily approach $2k apparently it would be ok to kill someone if he smashed yours.

Actually I asked why the property rights of a poor man are worth less than the property rights of a rich man, not lew... so focus that annoyance on me, not him

You're also leaving the part out about totality of circumstances, last resort, etc in an attempt to use hyperbole.

7960 · 07-03-2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Actually I asked why the property rights of a poor man are worth less than the property rights of a rich man, not lew... so focus that annoyance on me, not him

my bad............... but same response either way.

You're also leaving the part out about totality of circumstances, last resort, etc in an attempt to use hyperbole.

totality of circumstance? a property rights violation is a property rights violation, isn't it? this guy was in no danger but went out of his way to create a danger so he could legally "fix" it.

Ezra Smack · 07-03-2008, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think anyone is saying people don't have a right to defend themselves or their property.. what's in contention is whether it's correct for an unrelated third party to interject themselves into a situation where their life and property aren't at risk and decide to kill someone over it

What do you think we have police for?

They are a third party hired by the people to keep watch. And yes, police can and do use deadly force. If they do catch a criminal in the act they will arrest him but if the criminal resists they will resort to force. If the criminal resists effectively enough he will be shot. Even the most minor crime can be escalated to a deadly force situation if the criminal fights back.

thewise1 · 07-03-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

my bad............... but same response either way.

totality of circumstance? a property rights violation is a property rights violation, isn't it? this guy was in no danger but went out of his way to create a danger so he could legally "fix" it.

And he was within his right to do so in that state and potentially some others based on what I've been reading. I think he's a good guy for it. Again, I don't know that I could pull the trigger on someone over property, but I appreciate that someone did thus making the world a better place.

Just like I appreciate the guy down the street from my house that held some punk at gunpoint until the police arrived for breaking into cars and stealing shit. He created a similar situation and it worked out in a less tragic manner, but ultimately he took the same course of action, and I think it was a good one.

It's increasingly clear that the best we're going to do is agree to disagree, I guess.

7960 · 07-03-2008, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's increasingly clear that the best we're going to do is agree to disagree, I guess.

I agree.

thewise1 · 07-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I agree.

Yeah? well I disagree. Now wat

JaJae · 07-03-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

What do you think we have police for?

They are a third party hired by the people to keep watch. And yes, police can and do use deadly force. If they do catch a criminal in the act they will arrest him but if the criminal resists they will resort to force. If the criminal resists effectively enough he will be shot. Even the most minor crime can be escalated to a deadly force situation if the criminal fights back.

It is no longer a minor crime if the criminal fights back. And it would only be a justified shooting if the cop used his firearm to protect because his life was in imminent danger.

Ezra Smack · 07-03-2008, 05:00 PM

It is no longer a minor crime if the criminal fights back. And it would only be a justified shooting if the cop used his firearm to protect because his life was in imminent danger.

Not in Texas

I saw a film clip of a riot where people were looting a store. I think it was in New Orleans during Katrina but it could have been the LA riots. It was hard to tell but everyone was black including the cops. People had smashed a store window and were carrying off stolen property when the cops showed up. As one surley looter strolled out with a TV, a cop pointed a shotgun at him and ordered the looter to put the TV down. The looter just glared at the cop and said "Or what, shoot me? They will put yo ass under the the jail." and he turned his back and strolled off with the stolen TV knowing that the cop would not shoot.

Is this what you liberals want?

Phantom · 07-03-2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

Not in Texas

I saw a film clip of a riot where people were looting a store. I think it was in New Orleans during Katrina but it could have been the LA riots. It was hard to tell but everyone was black including the cops. People had smashed a store window and were carrying off stolen property when the cops showed up. As one surley looter strolled out with a TV, a cop pointed a shotgun at him and ordered the looter to put the TV down. The looter just glared at the cop and said "Or what, shoot me? They will put yo ass under the the jail." and he turned his back and strolled off with the stolen TV knowing that the cop would not shoot.

Is this what you liberals want?

I would not want that guy shot and killed. Letting the person steal the TV is a better outcome than anyone dying over it.

It's shocking to me that persons in a civilized society would advocate lethal for to prevent someone from stealing a TV.

thewise1 · 07-03-2008, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I would not want that guy shot and killed. Letting the person steal the TV is a better outcome than anyone dying over it.

It's shocking to me that persons in a civilized society would advocate lethal for to prevent someone from stealing a TV.

How do you propose to protect property then?