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.
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.
It's your right for you to go cower in the corner when the bad guys show up, but most of us won't follow suit.
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.
This is an ad hominem red herring fallacy. Nothing to address beyond that.
------------------
It is fascinating to watch people make every attempt to put the victims in jail while absolutely forgetting the actions of the criminals.
This is an ad hominem red herring fallacy. Nothing to address beyond that.
No it's not. You said the fact that the thief in the truck never threatened the lives of the brothers is irrelevant. That thief never pointed a gun at them, the thief in the other car did. They never fired on the other car, they fired on the truck. You think it's alright to kill people for not threatening your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
It is fascinating to watch people make every attempt to put the victims in jail while absolutely forgetting the actions of the criminals.
Talk about red herrings. Literally no one here has said auto theft is alright.
If what the brothers are saying is true and that one of the thiefs pulled out a gun first and started shooting at them, then the brothers ARE NOT at fault here.
By all accounts, they were following the stolen truck of theirs, and reporting the location to 911 in the mean time.
No it's not. You said the fact that the thief in the truck never threatened the lives of the brothers is irrelevant. That thief never pointed a gun at them, the thief in the other car did. They never fired on the other car, they fired on the truck. You think it's alright to kill people for not threatening your life.
That's about the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You have several Criminals, committing a felony crime, armed, and showing intent to use deadly force if needed, and you want the victims to determine if the Criminal poses a threat? What reasoning do you use to determine that the Criminals did not intend on using firearms, yet brought them along, knowing they where going out to commit a felony? Explain what you imagine they brought guns along for? I am curious.
At the first appearance of a gun, in the criminals hands, I would consider all bets off, and self defense takes over, no matter which one had or pointed the gun. Its safe to assume "intent" and they where working in unison to the same goal or end, so they share complicity in all acts by them. None of them made any attempt to prevent the crime, so one is as guilty as the other, regardless of which of them had guns. That's the view the Law takes. You don't have to be the Bank Robber that shot the teller, to be equally guilty in the crime.
No different from a gang coming at you, and see only one with a gun, shooting at you. By your rules, you would only be able to shoot the guy with the gun, and no one else, even if they where a team or group rushing at you, since no one else was firing or showing a gun, and in your eyes, not a threat? At what point, in your own mind, do they become a threat? After they kill you?
If what the brothers are saying is true and that one of the thiefs pulled out a gun first and started shooting at them, then the brothers ARE NOT at fault here.
By all accounts, they were following the stolen truck of theirs, and reporting the location to 911 in the mean time.
But even if they are telling the truth they fired on and killed the thief that didn't have a gun. Their story is that they pursued as the stolen truck and the thieves' vehicles sped away. Somewhere along the way, the driver of the thieves' vehicle pulled a gun and pointed it at the brother's pursuing vehicle. They then proceeded to fire upon the stolen truck, force it off the road, and continue firing at and into the truck. At no point did they open fire on the vehicle driven by the thief with the gun. If they were afraid for their lives why did they fire on the wrong vehicle and kill the wrong thief? And if these thieves had guns why didn't the one doing the actual crime have one? Doesn't it seem a little convenient that the thief who got away had a gun but the other didn't?
I don't know if the brothers are lying about it, but it doesn't add up. I think the most likely explanation is that they pursued the truck, started firing on it, kept firing once it was stopped and off the road specifically to kill the thief, and then lied about the other thief having a gun since that claim can't be rebutted later. All they have to do is say that the other thief had a gun so they were scared and the other thief's attorney could never convincingly show otherwise. I think a lot of you are too quick to jump to the defense of these brothers because they're good ol' down home ****kickers and they done fried up a lowlife Texas-style(!). The events don't make sense as the brothers tell them and at the very least the lot of you should question what really happened and think about it like empathetic human beings. Would you want these yokels speeding through the your streets, firing into traffic? Would you feel comfortable living in their neighborhood, with your family potentially getting in their crosshairs? What happens if they get away with this and continue their reckless behavior? George Zimmerman is proof that when someone gets away with murder they act like they got away with murder.
That's about the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You have several Criminals, committing a felony crime, armed, and showing intent to use deadly force if needed, and you want the victims to determine if the Criminal poses a threat? What reasoning do you use to determine that the Criminals did not intend on using firearms, yet brought them along, knowing they where going out to commit a felony? Explain what you imagine they brought guns along for? I am curious.
At the first appearance of a gun, in the criminals hands, I would consider all bets off, and self defense takes over, no matter which one had or pointed the gun. Its safe to assume "intent" and they where working in unison to the same goal or end, so they share complicity in all acts by them. None of them made any attempt to prevent the crime, so one is as guilty as the other, regardless of which of them had guns. That's the view the Law takes. You don't have to be the Bank Robber that shot the teller, to be equally guilty in the crime.
No different from a gang coming at you, and see only one with a gun, shooting at you. By your rules, you would only be able to shoot the guy with the gun, and no one else, even if they where a team or group rushing at you, since no one else was firing or showing a gun, and in your eyes, not a threat? At what point, in your own mind, do they become a threat? After they kill you?
If what the brothers are saying is true and that one of the thiefs pulled out a gun first and started shooting at them, then the brothers ARE NOT at fault here.
By all accounts, they were following the stolen truck of theirs, and reporting the location to 911 in the mean time.
He didn't start shooting at them. He displayed his gun to scare them off. They started shooting.
Tell me why I have to permit slugs to steal my car? It's my car, not theirs. They have no right to come onto my property and put their filthy hands on it. I work for what I own. The car gets me back and forth to my job. My family and I depend on it to keep the bills paid. Too many people in here are weeping for the damned thieves.
Exactly. Too many people are pushovers and that is why crime is thriving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSun
man, sounds like we need a new nonlethal weapon to render an attacker helpless that is just like a gun except not deadly or even harmful. That will take out the attacker allowing you to bind and gag him or her until the cops get there.
A needless death just because the moron wanted to steal a truck. It wasn't worth his life.
Well, the moron made a choice and felt it was worth it. It his life and if he wanted to risk death for a truck, so be it. I am glad we have one less to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The moron is dead because of choices he made. Don't blame the victim or the weapon he used.
Exactly. Maybe if they shoot enough of them, the word will get out that stealing can get you killed.
Again, I am glad the criminal is dead. Read the TX law and love it. I may rethink moving to TX. It is time to do something about crime and this shooting is a step in the right direction.
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.
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.
