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.
Exactly. If you don't want this sort of thing happening, then it's very simple--leave other people's belongings alone. Period. If it's not yours, don't touch it. Get off your lazy [donkey] and earn it.
People tried earning money selling drugs but it also lead to jail and what should they do if nobody is hiring them in today's tough economic times??
Hopefully you won't be on any juries since you're making decisions without considering the facts of the case
That's really a main concern... I have no problem with people defending their property and lives, but some of them can use it as an excuse to attack people.... Invite someone you don't like into your house... shoot him, and then claim you have no idea who "the stranger" was and how he was going to rape and kill your family.
Not everyone wants to break the commandment, "thou shall not kill". Some people do have some standards which they live by.
To be fair, there has been discussion to cover that this commandment does NOT include self defense, but to apply only to homicide and the like (killing without justification)
Were those mug shots taken before or after they were tortured for hours? I want to know the EXACT extent of what was done to them. (Any one remember the "Torture Photos"?). Is scaring them and threatening to shoot them now considered torture?
I couldn't care less what happens to criminals and terrorist, but according to our laws the store owner was wrong. Fine him $1 and release him.
I can understand the shop owner's anger, but he would had been far better off simply detaining the two men he found breaking in and immediately calling the police or summoning help (I find the no-phone excuse a little hard to believe---apparently the police could not substantiate the shop phone's wires being cut).
By doing what the owner supposedly did, he not only causes legal trouble for himself and his two companions (who came in a hour after the two burglars were initially caught), but makes for a good possibility that the two men in question, the burglars, might not get as stiff of a punishment than they would had otherwise--the scene was of course compromised when he had the two men strip down, get beaten, etc. If he really wanted to see justice done, he would had been better off simply doing what you're supposed to do: get the authorities.
Interesting.
Of course, if the shop owner broke the law we should also be wary of talking his word, should we not?
Also, not all abuse leaves marks that would be visible in the linked photos.
This is why vigilante justice is rightly not the preferred method - it does a terrible job considering all the facts and not relying overly on emotion.
The store owner is entitled to defend his property, as for what went on there are no independent witnesses, so the case would have to hinge on injuries sustained, unless of course there is CCTV, however no CCTV is mentioned.
You can't possible convict someone with evidence based solely on the testament of two people who were going to commit a burglary, unless of course they can demonstate injuries which can be directly linked to events.
Remember when dealing with the 'Criminal Law' there has to be over 99% certainty which must be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-29-2016 at 08:10 AM..
I'm certainly not condoning burglary but do you believe that burglars can also be the victim of a crime or can one do whatever they want to a burglar?
How about other instances of law breaking?
I don't know that I do. I certainly think property owners need to appraise a situation intelligently because there have been occasions of people being too trigger happy and shooting "intruders" who happened to be friends of theirs, and I think there is something to be said for not having such an itchy trigger finger that such happens, or that an elderly person with dementia etc ends up dead, I absolutely think a property owner has a HUGE responsibility to appraise a situation legally that way.
However, were it not for such possibilities, I'd be totally in favor of a property owner being able to "booby trap" his property to where a trespasser gets dealt with in very permanent ways. A person has the right to be left alone on his/her own property totally 100% free of any possibility of a burglary, and anyone who tries stealing from someone right on their own place deserves ANYTHING that happens to them, period.
Exactly! "Their drug dealer probably beat them up for not paying. I know nothing about it. Never seen them. I don't know why they're lying."
Their DNA is in my store? "Hmm I guess the little bastards really did break in. I wasn't there. I don't know what they did. I've never seen them."
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.
