Do criminals have rights while in the commission of a crime? (fast food, suspected)
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.
This may be a surprise to you, but the constitution guarantees that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Pretty sure your living room isn't a court of law, and you aren't a judge.
Someone isn't a "criminal" until a judge/jury determines they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they retain most of their rights until that point. You have a right to self defense. You do not have the right to shoot someone in cold blood and assume the authorities should "take your word for it" that the guy you shot in the back was trying to murder you and not some other explanation- as is apparently the case with the trigger happy jerk in the OP.
Even police have restrictions on what they can and can't do re: excessive force when making an arrest- someone gives up and surrenders? they're required to take him peacefully, and they are law enforcement with powers that exceed yours. Does your "castle" give you more authority than the police department? I don't think it does.
Ones rights should be forfeited the second the act in a criminal matter. The judicial system should be in place for those that are perhaps accused of a crime that is unknown if they committed it or not. For those that blatantly committed a crime well they don't deserve to plead not guilty when they clearly did it. Lawyers that defend the guilty should be considered criminals themselves.
I don't give a crap about free speech. Someone breaks into another person's home there CASTLE, where there family lives. The criminal then must suffer the damn consequences. Or find a new way to make a living.
Some criminals make me laugh, they can break into your home, rob you of your belongings, destroy your property, threaten your life. But the home owner, has no right to threaten the criminal. Then they better find a new way to make a living, home owners I know, won't put up with that crap.
There are so many cases where home owners have been murdered, from home invasion robbery, I would say the homeowner seems to have no rights anymore.
Your response had nothing to do with the question I asked.
Ones rights should be forfeited the second the act in a criminal matter. The judicial system should be in place for those that are perhaps accused of a crime that is unknown if they committed it or not. For those that blatantly committed a crime well they don't deserve to plead not guilty when they clearly did it. Lawyers that defend the guilty should be considered criminals themselves.
The problem is that many people have been convicted of crimes where it seemed the situation was blatant...yet were later found to be innocent. It's not necessarily as clear as you portray.
Ones rights should be forfeited the second the act in a criminal matter. The judicial system should be in place for those that are perhaps accused of a crime that is unknown if they committed it or not. For those that blatantly committed a crime well they don't deserve to plead not guilty when they clearly did it. Lawyers that defend the guilty should be considered criminals themselves.
Your attitudes are a direct threat to our rights as a people. By your standards, if someone is stealing a loaf of bread, you can slaughter them. That is the world we are trying to defend ourselves from, not the world we want to become.
What you propose is insanity, but you already knew that.
Your attitudes are a direct threat to our rights as a people. By your standards, if someone is stealing a loaf of bread, you can slaughter them. That is the world we are trying to defend ourselves from, not the world we want to become.
What you propose is insanity, but you already knew that.
So if you shoot someone in clear daylight in front of 100 people you should be able to plead "not guilty"? No way... If you cant handle the punishment you shouldnt commit the crime. These criminals that blatantly commit crimes are cowards and use the judicial system to protect themselves.
Because I am tired of mouth breathing, red-necks who by their Rambo-like actions feed the fire of anti-gun legislation.
How is being prepared to protect one's self and family a Rambo like action? I'm not setting claymore mines with trip wires in the front yard. If no one breaches the exterior of my house then no one gets hurt. It's not a difficult concept. But if I find an uninvited person in my house then I will neutralize the threat. Yes, it is a threat to me and my family. Based on the law I get to assume the worst first and not wait until there is an action on their part.
So if you shoot someone in clear daylight in front of 100 people you should be able to plead "not guilty"? No way... If you cant handle the punishment you shouldnt commit the crime. These criminals that blatantly commit crimes are cowards and use the judicial system to protect themselves.
Your attitudes are a direct threat to our rights as a people. By your standards, if someone is stealing a loaf of bread, you can slaughter them. That is the world we are trying to defend ourselves from, not the world we want to become.
What you propose is insanity, but you already knew that.
That is not what we are saying. If they are in the act of stealing that loaf of bread in my house while I am also present they have done more than commit a simple misdemeanor.
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.