Do criminals have rights while in the commission of a crime? (enemy, terror)
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.
I agree with the OP. I think the criminal gives up his rights when he is in the act of committing that crime but of course the punishment should fit the crime. In the end it all comes down to the lawyers, judge and jury to decide.
If someone kicks in your door you have the right or should to do whatever it takes to ensure that the kicker cannot hurt you.
Perverts in the bathroom is a current topic considering it is now OK for men to hang out in the ladies room so say a pervert is caught spying on your little girl going tinkle. He deserves a beating but does he deserve to die?
Let the punishment fit the crime.
The guy was wrong to burn and bury the bodies but if someone breaks into your house you should be able to defend your castle.
A few weeks back there was the kid that shot the burglar in the leg. The problem was the guy had gone outdoors and was shot while climbing a fence. Once the criminal was out of the house the threat to the kid was over yet he pursued him with deadly force.
Shooting the 2 is up to the courts to decide if it was necessary or not but I say the guy is in big trouble for burning and burying the bodies. The courts will decide.
The part of the OP that encapulated his opinion (as opposed to his preamble discussion which is merely providing background and stage setting) is quoted below. I challenge you to find any mention of house or home in these words.
"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."
Further, he didn't even limit to it actual B & E, but mere decision to do the crime forfeits your rights. If you having difficulty with this, have someone help you with the words. It is simple, but you may be having issues with the language.
well then we apparently were talking past one another. I assumed the case involved ones domicile.
I have provided Texas law, which does not agree with the above in Red. although the laws involved to provide some leeway when dealing with someone who is actively taking your property.
my personal opinion? I don't think people should die for speeding.
I also think outrage when someone dies committing a crime saying things like "they shouldn't have gotten the death penalty" is also stupid. if you decide to commit a crime, you deal with the fallout.
But, there are consequences to breaking the law. Some people learn that at an early age, some never learn it.
Maybe I'm remembering your posting history incorrectly, but aren't you a firm Constitutionalist? Is there something in the Constitution that says a citizen committing a crime gives up all his rights?
That's Universal Law. If you engage in a crime you forfeit your rights.
In the Universe of dementia, perhaps, but not in the "real" one. Any state that takes such a position, needs to be kicked out of the Union, post haste. Join the barbarians who cut off the hands of children for stealing a crust of bread in order to survive. Have you heard of the concept of proportionality?
well then we apparently were talking past one another. I assumed the case involved ones domicile.
I have provided Texas law, which does not agree with the above in Red. although the laws involved to provide some leeway when dealing with someone who is actively taking your property.
my personal opinion? I don't think people should die for speeding.
I also think outrage when someone dies committing a crime saying things like "they shouldn't have gotten the death penalty" is also stupid. if you decide to commit a crime, you deal with the fallout.
One does not shoot a shoplifter in the back as he walks out of the store - proportionality!
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.
Liberal anti gun nuts always make themselves so easy to identify.
Self righteous indignation - check
Use extreme, outrageous example completely out of context - check
Make excuses for criminal breaking the law - check
Total ignorance of the law - check
Liberal anti gun nuts always make themselves so easy to identify.
Self righteous indignation - check
Use extreme, outrageous example completely out of context - check
Make excuses for criminal breaking the law - check
Total ignorance of the law - check
Neither Liberal (dittohead since 1988)
Not anti-gun (been in the NRA since I was a teen. American Rifleman, thank you. Own several Garands (including my pride and joy Harrington and Richards), M1A (SA), 22-250 Rem Model 700 VS, 280 Rem (Model 700) and an AR (well and two Brown. Hi-Powers.
You are what they call an epic fail Wrong on ALL counts!
So YOU do shoot shoplifters in the back. Well at least we know who to...
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.
the homeowner was within his rights, to do what he did, to a point. once he burned the bodies, and buried them that was committing a felony, tampering with evidence, etc.
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.
That may be your stance, but its not the law or practice in any democratic, developed country on the globe today. Fortunately, individuals do not make their own laws. Self defense: you can fire your weapon only if your life or the life of your family were in immediate danger. For those who don't understand: you cannot kill any person just because he is (or looks like) a criminal, has a bad character, has been incarcerated, etc, etc. The only condition is if your life was under threat.
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.
