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.
..... Neither he nor his wife were in danger when he left his home and drove around the corner looking for the assailants. At that point he became the agressor and imo that was the wrong thing to do.
.....
Maybe so, but this doesn't make him guilty of murder which you are suggesting. I don't doubt that he showed poor judgement by attempting to follow the thugs, however what followed next is irrelevant to that point. One of them moved to attack him and he responded, appropriately. You have not made your case in the eyes of the law and what is proper.
Okay, you didn't really answer my question, did you?
I didn't ask you if you felt Mr. McClure should be sent to jail. I asked you - would you have a problem with "the injustice" of this if the perps had been shot on Mr. McClure's property, since the core of your argument is that you have a problem with the shooting taking place off his property. That is the core of your contention, is it not? You feel Mr. McClure had no right to defend himself off his property. Correct?
I answered both your questions the way I wanted to answer them. I'm not going to define my point using your terms. I never said anything about this being an "injustice". My core point has never been about where the shooting occured. It has been about the actions an individual took.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
And may I add, if you are responding to me, I have never said anything that would indicate I am justifying anyone's behavior. I clearly outlined why I felt the law was on McClure's side and indeed, you did not respond to my argument. And I certainly never argued that this worked out great cause there is one less thug in Charlotte, altho I do believe that all that seems to get through to these wild miscreants is violence. Pretty sad, eh?
I answered your questions specifically. The rest was not a response to you in specific. And yes, the entire situation is extremely sad.
I answered both your questions the way I wanted to answer them. I'm not going to define my point using your terms. I never said anything about this being an "injustice". My core point has never been about where the shooting occured. It has been about the actions an individual took.
I answered your questions specifically. The rest was not a response to you in specific.
Thanx for the clarification.
But you did not answer my question. You changed the issue to that of the sentence Mr. McClure should or should not have gotten (in theory).
What I specifically asked is . . . would you have had no problem with the injustice of this issue had Mr. McClure shot the perp while the perp was in his house?
You said you wanted to talk about situational ethics and justice. Your concern is based on Mr. McClure shooting the perp after the group had left the interior of his home.
But you did not answer my question. You changed the issue to that of the sentence Mr. McClure should or should not have gotten (in theory).
What I specifically asked is . . . would you have had no problem with the injustice of this issue had Mr. McClure shot the perp while the perp was in his house?
You said you wanted to talk about situational ethics and justice. Your concern is based on Mr. McClure shooting the perp after the group had left the interior of his home.
I'm not sure what about my answer was not clear. I said if he had been shot while committing the crime, this wouldn't have been a discussion. What is unclear about that statement??
The where does not matter to me. I have never said anything about the interior/exterior/property line... whatever. The ACTIONS matter. Commiting a crime - no issue. FLEEING a crime - now there is an issue.
I'm not sure what about my answer was not clear. I said if he had been shot while committing the crime, this wouldn't have been a discussion. What is unclear about that statement??
The where does not matter to me. I have never said anything about the interior/exterior/property line... whatever. The ACTIONS matter. Commiting a crime - no issue. FLEEING a crime - now there is an issue.
You are saying that in theory, since that didn't happen, there is no discussion. But that was not my question. I specifically asked - if the perp had been shot on Mr. McClure's property, would you then have had a problem with the injustice you perceive has occurred here?
In other words, your concern is not for the fact that someone died . . . your implication is that your concern is for what you perceive to be the letter of the law. You perception is that Mr. McClure had no right to follow someone who had broken into his home, beaten two people, unlawfully restrained them on their own property, and threatened them.
I am simply trying to get to the core of what you are objecting to with this issue and with what folks have posted as to their opinions of the justice in this situation.
You brought up situational ethics, which implies there is an ethical dilemma in this situation.
I'm not sure what about my answer was not clear. I said if he had been shot while committing the crime, this wouldn't have been a discussion. What is unclear about that statement??
The where does not matter to me. I have never said anything about the interior/exterior/property line... whatever. The ACTIONS matter. Commiting a crime - no issue. FLEEING a crime - now there is an issue.
if fleeing a crime is an issue for you, that is exactly what the thugs did but yet you don't speak out against it...
You are saying that in theory, since that didn't happen, there is no discussion.
Umm... that's not what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
But that was not my question. I specifically asked - if the perp had been shot on Mr. McClure's property, would you then have had a problem with the injustice you perceive has occurred here?
In other words, your concern is not for the fact that someone died . . . your implication is that your concern is for what you perceive to be the letter of the law. You perception is that Mr. McClure had no right to follow someone who had broken into his home, beaten two people, unlawfully restrained them on their own property, and threatened them.
I am simply trying to get to the core of what you are objecting to with this issue and with what folks have posted as to their opinions of the justice in this situation.
You brought up situational ethics, which implies there is an ethical dilemma in this situation.
What is the ethical dilemma?
Ani, I can't address your statement when it doesn't refelct my point. I feel I have been more than clear. Re-read my last statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: The ACTIONS matter. [shot while] Commiting a crime - no issue. [shot while] FLEEING a crime - now there is an issue.
end quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I can not get any clearer than this.
Situational ethics was a response to someone that felt my opinion would somehow be different if the situation happened to me.
Situational Ethics: n.(used with a sing. or pl. verb)
A system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.
The only witness to the shooting was McClure himself. He claimed that he was afraid the kid was going to shoot him, but no gun was found near the 15 yr old. I think McClure's story was carefully crafted to establish his self defense - defense. The DA just didn't have enough evidence to proceed with prosecuting what would have been a very unpopular case.
I'm about done with this. I don't see what in my logic would make you think that it would be ok for the assailants to shoot him if he followed them. I'll assume you really are serious. You can't call self defense while in the middle of a criminal act. But for the fact that they were committing a crime....
But you can't use that excuse past Part 1. And the victim doesn't get to say I can do what I want, because they started it. After McCLure left his home, imo, that is now Part 2.
As you said,
You want me to deal with what happened. He put himself in danger this time. He was wrong.
I'm not really concerned with what rationale the DA used because we both know that some decisions are made with public opinion at the forefront. The next election is 2010 I believe.
Logic? Is that what that is? I'm having trouble picking out anything in your post that makes enough sense to respond to.
The closest I can come to understanding your position is that you simply don't believe that Mr. McClure is telling the truth. Is that it? You think his stated reason for following them is a lie and are convinced that his intent was really to kill the thugs? If that's what your opinion is, well okay. I guess if he's lying about how it went down then there is indeed the chance that it wasn't self-defense. But if his version is true, it is self-defense, plain and simple.
So is that it? You think he's lying? If so, what do you base this on?
If that's not it... I give up. If you believe his version of the events and still don't think that's self-defense, I guess it's pretty pointless for me to keep trying to understand your view.
I recall the saying."DONT START NUTHIN AND THERE WONT BE NUTHIN" The thugs started it and the VICTUM finished it.......LOL nuff said
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.
