U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-10-2015, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,692,857 times
Reputation: 5617

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
But we do agree on this. Twice you've posted that they shouldn't have fired, they should have disengaged as soon as the gun was pointed at them.

I think he said "HE" would have disengaged, not that he agrees with you. There is a difference. He also said he would not speak for others, that have a different view. Each person has the right to make their own decisions, and live with the consequences. A Jury will decide, if they are charged, and that is that.

One of the reason we have so much crime, is because there are "Bleeding Hearts" that have vigils in front of Prisons, when some child molesting murderer is executed. I am all for killing criminals where ever they are found and when they are found. People that feel sorry for them have options. Send flowers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 02:37 PM
 
29,191 posts, read 15,346,951 times
Reputation: 19864
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
So the shooters owned the highway?
They stole from the bothers' truck from the brothers' property before being chased toward the highway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 02:37 PM
 
44,482 posts, read 17,762,937 times
Reputation: 18709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5 View Post
Like I said, if you can't understand the seriousness and potential ramifications of a situation like this, I can't help you.



It's a hypothetical situation that they were speeding while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?

It's a hypothetical situation that they were driving erratically while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?

It's a hypothetical situation that they were shooting in a public space while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?

Who the hell chases/purses someone going the speed limit and driving cautiously? You do realize the article said they drove up next to the truck, firing off rounds - by your (LOL) logic (LOL), that would suggest the assailant wasn't speeding or driving erratically, either.

The people of C-D never cease to amaze me.
Answers to your questions:
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes
  3. No - never denied this one as the law allows for it.
  4. Apparently you care about it. You have carried on about speeding several times now.
  5. Your amazement is irrelevant. If you are presenting it as argument, then it's an authority fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 02:43 PM
 
Location: H-Tine, Texas
6,742 posts, read 4,113,488 times
Reputation: 8528
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
So, to understand this, you don't have a problem with them even pursuing the thieves, you're issue is when they fired.

You feel that when the thieves pointed a gun at the brothers, they should not be allowed to defend themselves by firing at the thieves.

We will never agree on this. I feel that once a person threatens your life, you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force.

I've said many of times that I would have disengaged at that point, but I don't feel I have the right to say another person shouldn't defend their life and (not or, but and) property at that moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
But we do agree on this. Twice you've posted that they shouldn't have fired, they should have disengaged as soon as the gun was pointed at them.
We apparently agree on this, Pedro. Follow at a safe distance and speed, and stay on with 911. Do not take the law in your hands, especially over a piece of property. You keep leaving out an important part of this entire discussion - when innocent people are potentially involved. Can I fire off rounds at someone in a crowded mall who brandished a knife at me because I felt my life was in danger? Where do we draw the line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
What if the Robbers had shot and killed one of the victims in the robbery? What if they ran over a neighbors child running away? What if, What if...


A Security Guards instruction is part of his condition of employment. A Security Guard is not the one losing his property. A Store is more worried about "Liability" than Justice or the Law. Lousy example.
That doesn't give them the right to potentially put others in harm - WHY is that difficult for some of you to understand?

It's actually a great example, that's why the law says "immediate" action. They're more concerned with the potential ramifications and the liability then someone's property, if someone were to chase an assailant all over town, firing off rounds. You are no longer on your own private property, you are in a public space endangering others. Over what? A piece of property?

The last thing a city or state needs is the parents of a 10-year old demanding some sort of justice because Rick and Randy shot and killed their kid by mistake chasing someone who stole something from them 5 miles away from where the crime actually took place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
So the shooters owned the highway?
Lol. Yeah, apparently so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:02 PM
 
44,482 posts, read 17,762,937 times
Reputation: 18709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5 View Post
We apparently agree on this, Pedro. Follow at a safe distance and speed, and stay on with 911. Do not take the law in your hands, especially over a piece of property. You keep leaving out an important part of this entire discussion - when innocent people are potentially involved. Can I fire off rounds at someone in a crowded mall who brandished a knife at me because I felt my life was in danger? Where do we draw the line? That doesn't give them the right to potentially put others in harm - WHY is that difficult for some of you to understand? It's actually a great example, that's why the law says "immediate" action. They're more concerned with the potential ramifications and the liability then someone's property, if someone were to chase an assailant all over town, firing off rounds. You are no longer on your own private property, you are in a public space endangering others. Over what? A piece of property? The last thing a city or state needs is the parents of a 10-year old demanding some sort of justice because Rick and Randy shot and killed their kid by mistake chasing someone who stole something from them 5 miles away from where the crime actually took place. Lol. Yeah, apparently so.
They have not been charged with putting innocent people in danger. Hence your entire point is nonsense. Yet another hypothetical situation created to avoid dealing with the facts and the law. And the arm chair lawyering concerning zip codes, property lines is irrelevant.

The only thing fascinating here is your desire to put the victims in jail and to make every excuse for what the criminals have done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:09 PM
 
1,431 posts, read 708,212 times
Reputation: 1311
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5 View Post
Like I said, if you can't understand the seriousness and potential ramifications of a situation like this, I can't help you.
So you're trying to write me off as not comprehending the bigger picture because I questioned the validity of your stance?

Smh. If the brothers get let off, then you're assuming that there will be countless more cases like this where people get wrongfully murdered for crimes they committed. Others will be encouraged to take up arms and have shootouts in public places because of this one instance here. Ok.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:17 PM
 
29,191 posts, read 15,346,951 times
Reputation: 19864
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5 View Post
That doesn't give them the right to potentially put others in harm - WHY is that difficult for some of you to understand?
If you are in your home and a burglar breaks a window, climbs in and comes charging at you, would firing your gun at him POTENTIALLY put your neighbors in harms way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:19 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,493,268 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You absolutely don't know this.
I absolutely do. They engaged in a high speed pursuit through city streets while firing handguns into traffic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
The brothers were not trying to shoot up and wreck their truck. They were trying to keep their truck in site while calling 911. It wasn't until the thief aimed a gun at them that they fired upon the thieves.
The thief in the other vehicle supposedly pointed the gun, not the thief in the truck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
We shouldn't punish someone for defending themselves. That's what happened after the thieves pointed a gun at them.
No it isn't. The thief in a second car supposedly pointed a gun at the brothers. They proceeded to shoot at the stolen truck, run it off the road, and then continue shooting into it. That's not self defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
If you own a gun, I'm assuming it just to show off.
Because you're a moron who jumps to baseless conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
Sell your guns. You don't need them, and they could end up in a Criminals hands, since I have serious doubts you would ever use the gun when needed. By the time you justified it, and checked all the Laws, the criminal would have your gun and money, and be gone.
What is it about the internet that turns small people into tough guys?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
They have not been charged with putting innocent people in danger. Hence your entire point is nonsense.
So illegal activity isn't illegal if no one is charged for it? If I rob a store but never get charged for it then I didn't do anything wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:24 PM
 
44,482 posts, read 17,762,937 times
Reputation: 18709
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
I absolutely do. They engaged in a high speed pursuit through city streets while firing handguns into traffic.

The thief in the other vehicle supposedly pointed the gun, not the thief in the truck.

No it isn't. The thief in a second car supposedly pointed a gun at the brothers. They proceeded to shoot at the stolen truck, run it off the road, and then continue shooting into it. That's not self defense.

Because you're a moron who jumps to baseless conclusions.

What is it about the internet that turns small people into tough guys?

So illegal activity isn't illegal if no one is charged for it? If I rob a store but never get charged for it then I didn't do anything wrong?
I generally don't bother with dull out of context line by line rebuttal posts, but I'll indulge you in this instance.
  1. Repeating something over & over doesn't make it fact.
  2. Irrelevant.
  3. Pointless insult
  4. Pointless insult
  5. Red Herring.
You have failed to establish that you are correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 03:28 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,493,268 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
I generally don't bother with dull out of context line by line rebuttal posts, but I'll indulge you in this instance.
  1. Repeating something over & over doesn't make it fact.
  2. Irrelevant.
  3. Pointless insult
  4. Pointless insult
  5. Red Herring.
You have failed to establish that you are correct.
So, in WaldoKitty's world you can kill anyone if you've been threatened at some point. Doesn't matter if you kill someone who didn't threaten your life. Also, WaldoKitty can't count.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top