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.
Im getting your sarcasm quite clearly. The thing is - most skim readers and keyword jumpers wont.
For that matter, as a society, don't we get mad when the cops kill a criminal too? Yep - they dont have a right to defend themselves either.
I guess everyone needs to leave the criminals alone. Just let them do what they want to do, and shoot at who they want to shoot at. Afterall, we can clearly see no one cares that they used a gun to try to defend themselves - its just the cops and law-abiding citizens doing it that cant be tolerated.
Funny thing is, the brothers were at home that night minding their own business, and look where it got them? Ah, the irony of it all. What a crazy world, lol.
Maybe in order to "get along" and be "compassionate" in today's society we should buy 2 of everything. 1 for us and 1 for whomever feels they need it/want it more than we do but are "unfortunate" to not be able to/want to pay for it?..
You forgot to include, "when the theif starts shooting at you?"
Is it reasonable to kill someone for stealing when the theives start shooting at you? Wait! Doesnt the crime change from theft to attempted murder when the theif produces a gun and starts firing in your direction??
Yes, in this case it is reasonable for you to defend yourself. But my understanding of the story was that thieves didn't have any weapons. So that's the premise I'm going on when I ask my questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
It's the criminals who are responsible for their deaths when they made the choice to commit a violent crime against these brothers.
They didn't commit violent crime against the brothers. They took a truck without assaulting or threatening anyone. That's all.
Yes, in this case it is reasonable for you to defend yourself. But my understanding of the story was that thieves didn't have any weapons. So that's the premise I'm going on when I ask my questions.
They didn't commit violent crime against the brothers. They took a truck without assaulting or threatening anyone. That's all.
They stole a truck, they made a choice and one of them paid the price. If they did not want to die, they should have not stolen the truck. Maybe if more ended up like that, the remainder will have second thoughts about stealing.
....
They didn't commit violent crime against the brothers. They took a truck without assaulting or threatening anyone. That's all.
You were not there and do not know what happened. This sounds like you are being an apologist for the criminals. It was their choice, and their choice alone that was responsible for one of them getting drilled.
No matter, the FBI calls robbery a violent crime and as I said earlier you have absolutely no idea what threats they made towards the victims. Yes the victims, the ones you obviously want to punish.
Yes, in this case it is reasonable for you to defend yourself. But my understanding of the story was that thieves didn't have any weapons. So that's the premise I'm going on when I ask my questions.
They didn't commit violent crime against the brothers. They took a truck without assaulting or threatening anyone. That's all.
Wow....you make it sound like it's on the same level of just so happening to forget to pay for that pack of gum in your shopping cart..no big deal!!
So what you're basically saying here is that assuming no weapons are brought with, you really wouldn't mind if someone just came and took your cars...and hell, while they're at it, perhaps they'll take your TV, computer, maybe some jewelry or family heirlooms...because hey, they're just things right?
What about this: a man or a woman is down on their luck and they are starving. They see a loaf of bread in the bakery window and they steal it. Do you feel it is reasonable to kill them for this?
Should a person arrested by the police for stealing a loaf of bread receive the same punishment as person who steals a car a gun point?
I'm assuming you believe they should receive the same punishment since you seem to think we believe they should receive the same punishment.
I watched this on my local news tonight. A car thief was in the process of stealing a truck with the help of an accomplice in another vehicle. When he started the truck up the alarm went off, the truck's owner and his brother heard the alarm, and came outside. They followed him and shot the car thief, killing him. An accomplice escaped in another vehicle. I'm not sure how I feel about the brothers' actions toward the thief. What are your thoughts?
Portland-Metro area is having a helluva time with theft like this. There are few things I hate worse than a thief. In this case I think the brothers could have apprehended him without killing him (maybe). But the thief put himself in harm's way when he decided to interlope and steal. I have NO sympathy for him at all.
I do know that if someone broke into my house while either of us is here, that person may very well find himself dead.
This sounds like you are being an apologist for the criminals. It was their choice, and their choice alone that was responsible for one of them getting drilled.
"drilled". Interesting choice of words.
In any case, my opinion is that if someone points a gun at you, then it is reasonable for you to shoot them. If someone assaults you with some weapon like a knife or crowbar, then it is reasonable for you to shoot them.
But if someone doesn't have a weapon and they are not physically assaulting anybody, then it is not reasonable for you to shoot them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbex
So what you're basically saying here is that assuming no weapons are brought with, you really wouldn't mind if someone just came and took your cars...and hell, while they're at it, perhaps they'll take your TV, computer, maybe some jewelry or family heirlooms...because hey, they're just things right?
They're just things. they're not worth shooting and killing someone for it. The amount of physical altercation needs to match the situation.
To the people who need to Google search the definition of "Immediate" (you know who you are), this is a map of about where the incident took place and around where it ended.
From their subdivision into a dense retail corridor. Not immediate. Illegal.
Immediate means that they took defensive action right away. They didn't let an hour or a day go by before they took action.
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.
The thing is - most skim readers and keyword jumpers wont. 
1 for us and 1 for whomever feels they need it/want it more than we do but are "unfortunate" to not be able to/want to pay for it?..
