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.
That's not going to get you very far in this discussion, given that the law you cite is a Texas law, and if your implications are taken as valid all you're pointing out is how immoral the government of Texas is.
The law is correct, it was correctly interpreted, there is no if here.
What I find immoral are people who praise criminals and demand conditions to which a person may protect from an offense of another. What is immoral is siding with those who violate the liberties of others.
When you steal, you disrespect the liberty of another. It is a childs argument to demand the aggressors liberties be respected in the act of their violation of another.
It really is simple. Don't steal from another and this won't happen.
Sometimes I wonder if those here vehemently defending theft do so because they rationalize theft in their own life and worry that justice of this nature will eventually catch up to them.
Lastly, the solution to this is to stay out of states like Texas. If you don't want to risk having lethal force used on you in the commission of such a crime, then don't come to Texas, don't live in Texas, stay away. We barbarians can live just fine without you folk. Go live in those states that praise criminals.
The law is correct, it was correctly interpreted, there is no if here.
The point of the "if" is to move past that disagreement out and just focus on the point I was making, which was applicable either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
What I find immoral are people who praise criminals
Me too, so your saying so is pointless. What were you actually trying to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
and demand conditions to which a person may protect from an offense of another.
So shoot people for shoplifting. Shoot people for cussing. Maybe you're going to claim you have a right to shoot people who preach a religion you don't like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
What is immoral is siding with those who violate the liberties of others.
Like violating the right to live of someone because they took some money from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
When you steal, you disrespect the liberty of another.
When you kill, you disrespect God, you disrespect life, you disrespect everyone other than yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
It really is simple.
It really is simply: Don't kill people because they took some money from you. Have them arrested and jailed; sue them for restitution. Don't kill them. Killing is wrong.
The point of the "if" is to move past that disagreement out and just focus on the point I was making, which was applicable either way.
Me too, so your saying so is pointless. What were you actually trying to say?
Your position praises the criminal. That is, you defend the thief. It is an argument of semantics I know, because you have your own belief of what is criminal, but keep in mind that the act of the defense by the man was a reaction to the origin offense (the theft). If he had shot her without any provocation, he would be the criminal. All you are doing is saying that using lethal force is criminal and it is a pointless argument in the context of the offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
So shoot people for shoplifting.
Read the law, it covers this. I think using lethal force as I have already explained when it is reasonable is acceptable. The law covers the details of what that is. Take a look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Shoot people for cussing. Maybe you're going to claim you have a right to shoot people who preach a religion you don't like?
No, that would be an offense. Don't you see the absurdity of your mention? In the first example, it is a defense from theft. In this example you are describing an action of aggression. A person can not harm you with words, they can not stop you, or infringe on you in anyway. It takes action to achieve such, so it is rather stupid to exaggerate such an occurrence and shows your lack of ability to proper reason what an offense is.
It makes me wonder that maybe you view free speech as a major offense that you would bring it up as an example of when to use ANY force. I think you are confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Like violating the right to live of someone because they took some money from you.
Who is the aggressor? You have a right to live, but you also have a responsibility to respect the liberty of others. If you ignore such, then you disregard your own rights as you disregard others. The absurdity here is that you are justifying theft by placing "conditions" on a persons protection of their property, which in many cases is directly related to their ability to live. When you steal from another, you endanger their life through indirect means.
Don't forget... the act of needing to defend property in such a manner does not exist without the offense. Moral of the story is... don't steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
When you kill, you disrespect God, you disrespect life, you disrespect everyone other than yourself.
Your comment shows extreme ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It really is simply: Don't kill people because they took some money from you. Have them arrested and jailed; sue them for restitution. Don't kill them. Killing is wrong.
If they get arrested.
Sue them? You mean go out and hire a lawyer, spend more money and time respecting the criminal?
You don't know much about the loss of property and the aspect of recovery do you? In most cases, you don't recover the property. It is a loss.
Guess you are going to say buy insurance then right?
My grandfather has had several break ins in his home. Many things stolen (one where he caught the guy, but was unable to stop him from getting away), none of the property was recovered and only one was caught to which he was a thug who had nothing to his name, so suing him would be pointless. This was in CA, in Texas, he could have used his rifle to stop the guy. The result would have likely been a warning to any other thieves. Thieves like easy targets, which is why they support people like you in your position.
Don't steal in Texas, you won't die. Don't like it... Don't steal, don't come to texas. If you can't respect my property, then I can't be bothered to be concerned for the safety of your life. It is all in your hands, the choice is yours, only your action will produce that result. You kill yourself in such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Don't they teach that in kindergarten anymore?
Learn responsibility. Though I guess they only teach entitlement these days, which is why people complain about the consequences to their actions when they infringe on others.
Like I said, stay out of Texas if you are worried about the consequences of your theft.
For you who think the law is stupid, how would you suggest the victim to recover the stolen properly?
You can't just say "tough luck", can you?
I don't know perhaps not engaging in illegal activies? By not supporting an industry where child explotation and human trafficking is common?
How did The nutjob know the escort was not part of of a human trafficking ring? If the escort was 13 years old would you feel the same way?
Yes I can say tough luck to a person who engages in prostitution(or any other ilegal activity full of unscrupulous criminals). I love it how you feel so strong about defending human garbage like this guy.
The logical result of this case is simple. If a person decides to steal something from someone they should kill them first and leave no witnesses. In this particular case killing the would be victim becomes justifiable homocide because it prevented him killing the petty theif. After all the hooker was the person violently attacked.
She was not doing this on her own, the story said she gave the money to a guy. The people in charge of whatever kind of ring it was didn't get hurt at all, only the girl. I have a feeling if it wasn't a female, and wasn't a prostitute, most of those saying she deserved it would feel differently. Plus the man was breaking the law himself, since soliciting prostitutes is illegal.
Kind of doubtful if I came on here and said my neighbor killed my kitten because he peed on his lawn, so I shot him and got away with it because he did it at night, that the same people applauding this travesty of justice would be applauding me. Females and especially prostitutes have no value in some people's eyes, which to me is a shame.
I don't know perhaps not engaging in illegal activies? By not supporting an industry where child explotation and human trafficking is common?
How did The nutjob know the escort was not part of of a human trafficking ring? If the escort was 13 years old would you feel the same way?
Yes I can say tough luck to a person who engages in prostitution(or any other ilegal activity full of unscrupulous criminals). I love it how you feel so strong about defending human garbage like this guy.
I don't care how old a thief is. You stole at night and got shot? Tough luck.
I have all the sympathy for the victim.
I firmly believe that prostituion should be legal and regulated so that there won't be human traffiking or children involved. What consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of our business.
Kind of doubtful if I came on here and said my neighbor killed my kitten because he peed on his lawn,
What is your kitten doing on his lawn? You are responsible for your pets, not the lawn owner. If your pet is caught peeing on someones lawn and they shoot it, well... they are within their right.
Now if they come back over to your place after the fact and kill it, that is not in accordance with the law. When a crime is "after the fact", the damage is already done, it becomes a civil or criminal action requiring the law. Lethal force is not a willy nilly use in Texas. There are specific requirements to meet it.
In the end, in your example, the offender would be you in the irresponsible management of your animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
so I shot him and got away with it because he did it at night, that the same people applauding this travesty of justice would be applauding me. Females and especially prostitutes have no value in some people's eyes, which to me is a shame.
Again, read the law. It doesn't work like that. If he came on to your property at night to kill your cat, yes... but you going on to his property in a retaliation for him protecting his property because your cat was on it peeing on it is absurd. You have your understanding of why the law exists messed up.
You take an offense on your part and then try to justify a further offense.
While it may be possible to "abuse" the law, your example isn't it.
As for the female prostitute thing, I see a lot of assumptions that are irrelevant to the issue. She stole, period. The reasoning she did is irrelevant as the man defending his property is not required to get her life story in order to determine his actions.
I'm even more troubled by the number of individuals who think taking from others is ok, and that you not only shouldnt be punished for it, but rewarded, and there shouldnt be consequences to the action.
Rewarded? No. And who is condoning theft? No one. Theft does not warrant murder. A person could burgle my entire house & that still would not warrant murder. Whoever feels it does is a sick individual. The problem with society is people with a mindset like that.
For the record, I told many people about this story & also about the conservative mindset in the posts on this thread. Every single person I told thinks you people condoning murder over theft are stark raving crazy. And that includes my libertarian father who is all about gun rights.
I don't care how old a thief is. You stole at night and got shot? Tough luck.
I have all the sympathy for the victim.
I firmly believe that prostituion should be legal and regulated so that there won't be human traffiking or children involved. What consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of our business.
Yep, that is type of reasoning is why I left CA. They want you to go into some long consideration about why they are there, who they are, their story, their intent, etc... it is absurd and dangerous, it is a means for a criminal to take advantage of the victim. They hide behind the law knowing that peoples hands are tied.
I agree with the prostitution thing. I mean, "personally" I don't but I think what consenting adults do is their own business and it is absurd we waste taxpayer money chasing this sort of "social" crime.
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.
