Do criminals have rights while in the commission of a crime? (legal, accuse)
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.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
he was in his right to shoot them. was he supposed to quiz them beforehand to try and figure out if they're armed? and even if he did, should a criminal's word be trusted while they're standing in your living room after a break-in?
that said, he should face charges for burning and burying the bodies. He had absolutely no right to do that.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
Your position is indeensible, ludicrous and barbaric. One can't just murder someone for no other reason that he broke into a place. For example, you break into an old abandoned warehouse, you have no weapon. A security guard sees you inside the vast warehouse, and, unseen, draws his revolver and shoos you dead. You're a young guy looking out of curiosit, or for any historical relics left behind, In your world, he could be shot, tortured, doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
Your position is indeensible, ludicrous and barbaric. One can't just murder someone for no other reason that he broke into a place. For example, you break into an old abandoned warehouse, you have no weapon. A security guard sees you inside the vast warehouse, and, unseen, draws his revolver and shoos you dead. You're a young guy looking out of curiosit, or for any historical relics left behind, In your world, he could be shot, tortured, doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
your analogy is laughable. there is a huge difference between someone breaking into an abandoned warehouse and the home where your family lives
Your position is indeensible, ludicrous and barbaric. One can't just murder someone for no other reason that he broke into a place. For example, you break into an old abandoned warehouse, you have no weapon. A security guard sees you inside the vast warehouse, and, unseen, draws his revolver and shoos you dead. You're a young guy looking out of curiosit, or for any historical relics left behind, In your world, he could be shot, tortured, doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
Ummm....that's a slight exaggeration.
But, there are consequences to breaking the law. Some people learn that at an early age, some never learn it.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
Firstly, you never forfeit your rights. That's about as un-liberal (classical sense of the word, of course; it's terribly words like liberal and conservatives has so many damn meanings anymore...) as it gets. Why do you think we give people accused of crimes a trial? It's because you always have rights. We'd do good to remember that for once.
However, I think a reasonably argument could exist for the man who's home was broken into to defend himself and his property, as well as his family. His shooting could be justified. Now, they were unarmed, so he'd have a bit of a case to make, unless SC has a Stand your Ground Law. However, he also burned and buried the bodies. I see that as being an admission of guilt and he is not this innocent guy. He obviously felt he'd done something wrong by shooting those men, enough to hide the evidence he did so, which speaks volumes to the validity of the shooting in the first place.
However, he still has rights and deserves a trial to make his case because everyone should always have rights.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
Is this the case where one of the men shot was a cab driver who had just given the shooter a ride home and was invited into the house by the shooter while he retrieved cab fare? The other victim was apparently a co-passenger/friend of the shooter.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
Correct.
That's Universal Law. If you engage in a crime you forfeit your rights.
Your position is indeensible, ludicrous and barbaric. One can't just murder someone for no other reason that he broke into a place. For example, you break into an old abandoned warehouse, you have no weapon. A security guard sees you inside the vast warehouse, and, unseen, draws his revolver and shoos you dead. You're a young guy looking out of curiosit, or for any historical relics left behind, In your world, he could be shot, tortured, doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
it isn't murder.
killing isn't murder. murder is a legal term.
In Texas if you break into someones home, the law is clear that you have the right to shoot them until dead. its called the Castle Doctrine.
your analogy is laughable. there is a huge difference between someone breaking into an abandoned warehouse and the home where your family lives
You response is laughable. The OP made no stipulation on what was being broken into, or the state of the criminal. Perhaps you are not aware of "due Process". You just can't shoot a criminal because, for example, he broke into your store, but when confronted surrenders, or if you go in behind him, shoot him dead while he drinks a free Gatorade. Sad you can't see that, or do you just want to shoot people.
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.
