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.
What's with you guys? Whether it be a million dollars or 10 bucks..How can you folks sit here and justify shooting someone running off with your money? What about if you order a 100 dollar meal and it is horrible and you refuse to eat it and they refuse to give you a refund...Do you dash into the kitchen and start blasting away at the chef? You folks love your guns a little to much and any justification to use them is explored I see.
I'm betting in the not so distant future, your sample scenario will play out in Texas or Florida and the shooter will walk. Two states that will be losing tourism for sure.
At this point any service industry worker is at risk. What about getting a bad haircut and a refund is denied? So many possible instances of a disgruntled customer.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 08-01-2013 at 01:50 PM..
I assuming if there was no prostitution in this case your position would still be the same, correct?
If she simply grabbed the money and was running away he wouldn't have the right to shoot her in your eyes.
Is that in all cases or does your opinion fluctuated with the value of something being stolen? What if she was stealing someones car?
It's a honest question not trying to attack you on your opinions.
I do find it odd (I'll have to admit I know nothing of this case but what is written here) that a jury would not hold someone accountable or would justify the shooting while the theft was happening as part of another crime.
Many states including the south have laws on the books if your committing a crime and someone dies even not at your own hand, you can be charged for the death.
I am a little surprised a jury would sympathize with someone who was in the act of doing something illegal. By the way I don't believe it should be illegal. I also believe that someone who would "roll" a person engaging in this type of activity probably believes they could get away with it because that. I doubt many would call the police.
Back to the first point I was making.
Regardless of the prostitution activity do you have a right to protect yourself and property with force or deadly force?
When I was a teenager I was strong armed robbed walking down the street. Theft is a violent act regardless of the amount of violence.
Now, I can understand how people can say, well nobody was shooting at you or armed, so you didn't need to use deadly force. Is it really worth taking a life?
I don't approval of aggression towards others. I wish there was known but I also think aggression can be meet with force.
Personally, I wouldn't use possible deadly force for the immediate stopping of a person trying to flee with my property but I think I have a right to and believe others do. I would have to have violence and physical aggression upon myself. That's just my opinion. Taken someones life even a thief's would lay heavily on my mind.
I think when it comes right down to it the only difference here between opinions of those posting is the right to defend property from theft with force. I don't think it matters the amount, the type of property. Either you have the right to secure your possessions against theft with force or you don't.
I think you do. The only twist here was that the theft was being committee while both parties were engaged in a illegal activity.
I am surprised that a jury could set that aside, keep separate from the theft and defense of theft aspect.
But if it were legal and a person just took someone's money a ran, it would be just robbery. Robberies are meet with deadly force all the time and not much attention would be paid to this.
I guess the sex part (lack of it, here) and prostitution prompts attention.
if she performed the act and he didn't pay could she use deadly force?
The law says so but I doubt the law would rule in her favor.
Texas and Florida reach further into the south than any other state and both have some crazy laws when it comes to murder.
The law actually doesn't say that. You cannot create a legally binding contract for illegal services or one that otherwise violates the law. In other words, if you stiff a prostitute he or she has no legal recourse. That's part of the necessity of a pimp.
what bout a car salesman selling a bad car and denying to take it back and get killed by a customer? the customer could justify that by saying his money was stolen cuz the car is only worth 1k, but he paid 5k
Very different. You are not authorized to apply deadly force to stop someone from defrauding you and, of course, part of the freedom of contract is a presumption of sophistication, which essentially means that you are free to make a bad deal.
thats what it comes down to
that should be the official motto of TX and FL, it seems that critical thinking is against the law there, judging by how simple minded them people are
I would be careful with the simple minded accusations.
what bout a car salesman selling a bad car and denying to take it back and get killed by a customer? the customer could justify that by saying his money was stolen cuz the car is only worth 1k, but he paid 5k
We can joke, but it really is pathetic. These things are possible. Another instance of no witness other than the shooter and a victim that cannot respond. He could have made up any story to excuse his actions and no one will ever be the wiser. He shot her in cold blood because he was rejected. The woman might have done an about face after she saw the Neanderthal and we do not know what he asked of her and she might not have even gotten paid in the first place. Was this woman identified by anyone else that she supposedly scammed? The link did not give much in the way of details.
Hair splitting must be exhausting. Now try hard to follow this. I AM GOING TO SHOOT -- I AM GOING TO AIM FOR CENTER OF MASS -- THAT CAN BE A KILLING SHOT -- I AM GOING TO FIRE MORE THAN ONCE -- THAT INCREASES THE ODDS THAT I WILL KILL MY TARGET. So, was that my intent? To answer that you'd have to have been there, done that. But you haven't and won't.
Also consider this. Normal rules of engagement specify that you only shoot if there is an immediate threat of serious injury or death to you or someone else. For the record, serious injury can ultimately lead to death. Just want to clearly spell that out for you too. Under those circumstances, do you really think anyone but a complete wuss really cares what damage they do to the potential threat, or should? Well, you probably do.
Yeah. I know. That's all logical, therefore incomprehensible.
Not much different than the military mantra. "If I see it I can acquire it. If I acquire it I can shoot it. If I shoot it I can kill it." Oh my!
OK! That's enough. Still fruitless. It's one of two things. Either you actually believe your own drivel, which would be really sad, or you just love and need to argue.
You state you are going to fire more than once, why? Wouldn't you fire only as many times as is necessary to stop the action?
Point is... you are jumping to the end here. Using lethal force does not always result in death. That is a fact, but you are attempting to imply that it does, and you do this because it benefits your argument, but the fact is you can't disregard that fact just because it makes your argument look better.
thats what it comes down to
that should be the official motto of TX and FL, it seems that critical thinking is against the law there, judging by how simple minded them people are
Now you are making yourself look foolish.
You made a claim, I provided the law, you disregard the law and continue on with your subjective belief that is not supported by law or logic.
You are in no position to insult people, in fact... you really need to tone down the arrogance for it is driving your ignorance.
point is, it doesnt matter what cops would do cuz this guy was not a cop and was in no position to take the law into his own hands, never mind being the executioner
His actions were completely within the bounds of the law. That is why he was not convicted. I quoted the law, you can read it, or... you can continue to spout off ignorance.
yes, i will disregard it because retarded inbred laws need not exist
We should accept your reasoning simply because you say so? You haven't reasoned anything in this thread, and the more you are pushed on this point, the more childish you become. I think you need to take a break.
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.
