Do criminals have rights while in the commission of a crime? (society, liberals)
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.
Notwithstanding the body-burning because that's a different issue, the suit reflects exactly what gun-grabbers believe: that criminals shot by victims aren't given the opportunity to get away with it....er....due process.
Too bad their (and your) sympathy isn't directed towards the many victims surprised and accosted in their own damn homes by these dregs of humanity.
OK Rambo, whatever you want to to do. And if someone steals your horse, you can string him up too.
Propulser, you seem fixated with Rambo and rednecks. What gives?
I question your claimed bonafides as a member of the law enforcement community. You should be able to understand breaking and entering isn't always just breaking and entering. For example, when someone is at home, many jurisdictions will classify a B&E as a home invasion. This sets up a very different circumstance. Many jurisdictions do provide for the use of lethal force since some jurisdictions allow someone to shoot if they are attempting to stop a felony. No one here takes seriously the claims of a sleeping drunk on the couch. Sure, it has happened. Most people can recognize the difference and act appropriately.
You seem to suggest that anyone who will shoot an intruder in their home is a mouth-breathing redneck and the cause of our rights being eroded. No sir, our rights are being eroded from inside the voting booth.
I would also recommend you not question the legal knowledge of a few posters here. I am confident they have a better grasp of more laws than your typical LEO. There's one or two I would say know more about firearms laws than many DAs.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful.
Are you willing to announce your physical address to our internet community and stand by your beliefs?
No? Good answer. I don't expect you to nor want you to. That would certainly open your personal life and space up to potential crazies, wouldn't it? The funny thing is, the people YOU think are crazy, those "Rambo-wannabes," those "gun nuts, those "armchair commandos," those are among the last people who WOULD break into your place. They are busy protecting their own. The people who would give you the opportunity to test your belief, and bet your life on by the way, are those you'd try to protect; the drug addicts, the young gangbanger-to-be, dare I mention the aspiring rapper?
When people freak out over criminals killed in their line of work, given their outrage, you'd think some homeowner protecting themselves and their property were kicking in the Pope's door at 2 AM to assassinate him in cold blood. The homeowner didn't ask the criminal to be there. The homeowner didn't WANT the criminal to be there. When the dust settles and the lawyers and criminals' family cries for their "turning his life around" baby boy, the homeowner will WISH they'd never even SEEN the criminal. Yet, it is much, much better for the victim (the homeowner) to be alive and well, than the criminal, who chose the time, place, and person to victimize.
Are you willing to announce your physical address to our internet community and stand by your beliefs?
No? Good answer. I don't expect you to nor want you to. That would certainly open your personal life and space up to potential crazies, wouldn't it? The funny thing is, the people YOU think are crazy, those "Rambo-wannabes," those "gun nuts, those "armchair commandos," those are among the last people who WOULD break into your place. They are busy protecting their own. The people who would give you the opportunity to test your belief, and bet your life on by the way, are those you'd try to protect; the drug addicts, the young gangbanger-to-be, dare I mention the aspiring rapper?
When people freak out over criminals killed in their line of work, given their outrage, you'd think some homeowner protecting themselves and their property were kicking in the Pope's door at 2 AM to assassinate him in cold blood. The homeowner didn't ask the criminal to be there. The homeowner didn't WANT the criminal to be there. When the dust settles and the lawyers and criminals' family cries for their "turning his life around" baby boy, the homeowner will WISH they'd never even SEEN the criminal. Yet, it is much, much better for the victim (the homeowner) to be alive and well, than the criminal, who chose the time, place, and person to victimize.
OK Rambo, whatever you want to to do. And if someone steals your horse, you can string him up too.
I have suggested that in other threads. If you depend on a mode of transportation for your livelihood and it is stolen then the punishment should be swift and harsh.
Because I am tired of mouth breathing, red-necks who by their Rambo-like actions feed the fire of anti-gun legislation.
And I'm tired of bleeding heart liberal pus$ies who think criminals commit crime because society doesn't treat them fairly or give them enough opportunities so they don't have to turn to crime.
I'm sick of libs who don't believe in personal responsibility and consequences for one's actions.
I'm sick of libs who think everyone deserves a trophy, that there shouldn't be winners and losers and we should all drive a Prius with a 'Coexist' bumper sticker.
Because I am tired of mouth breathing, red-necks who by their Rambo-like actions feed the fire of anti-gun legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Propulser
Pathetic attempt at a Strawman - epic fail. NOBODY is talking about being prepared to protect, we are talking about Redneck Mouth-Breathers taking the law into their own hands and dispatching suspected criminals at will under circumstances where deadly force isn't warranted. Mere B & E doesn't meet the standard in most jurisdictions.
Don't try any more strawmen or red herrings on me, for I will call you out on every one of them.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful. But if such circumstances arise, and you do as you boast you will (and I doubt if you have the requisite courage to pull on an intruder), ... well you figure out what table in the courtroom I would like to be sitting at.
again, you try to dance around the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE AT WHAT POINT THE INTRUDER IS A THREAT?
Do you ask them?
Do you wait for them to take threatening action?
But, having read you're previous comments, you're hiding in the bathroom, cowering in the corner, hoping the intruder is just there to steal a loaf of bread and not take your life.
That's fine if you want to take that gamble. Not me, I'm not going to wait to find out if something bad is going to happen. In my house, in my castle and uninvited intruder at 3 AM: I'm judge, jury and executioner and I won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful. But if such circumstances arise, and you do as you boast you will (and I doubt if you have the requisite courage to pull on an intruder), ... well you figure out what table in the courtroom I would like to be sitting at.
That's kind of like telling a woman that a strange man thrusting his hand up her skirt is not, per se, a threat.
Removing that presence might not require killing the man in either case, but presuming "there is no threat to his being there" in either case is not reasonable.
After which they have the right to remain silent...permanently.
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.