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.
Seems yet another arguement in favor of gun control.
You depend on the police if you want to, I'll keep my guns. These punks would have been long gone by the time the cops get there, and they probably never would have got caught.
In most states you can only claim self defense if you are in immediate danger. Oklahoma City pharmacist James Ersland is charged with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber. The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. http://newsok.com/pharmacyshootings
Show me where I have called anyone a name? If you can't keep from getting personal because you disagree with my posts that is your problem not mine. It is also true that the man became a criminal when he decided to take the law into his own hands. I also made no claims of "moral" equivalence. Cops can't shoot a fleeing suspect and yet you think a victim of a home invasion is above the law? Fascinating!
I guess your use of "hateful" does not pass muster as name calling. And calling me a Christian was real cute. What if I were Jewish or something else?
You are utilizing moral equivalence for the second time when you say, "the man became a criminal." You are putting him on the same ground as the thugs. That's moral equivalence. You are using it. Stand by your tactics.
Did the man take the law into his own hands? It seems that he did not go out looking for trouble. He did not go out with any intent to find criminals and punish them. He did not lure anybody into robbing him. He did not inject himself into a crime or a criminal situation. Yes, those would make him a vigilante and your argument would have merit. But that is not what happened.
Indeed the situation was brought to him and he reacted as a scared man. To compare him to a cop is absurd! A cop is a trained individual with the full force of the department behind him. This is a man whose home was invaded and his woman threatened. He world was transformed into one of intense fear and stress and he reacted.
How do you know the thugs would not return? Their machismo challenged by an old man is an open invitation to a second strike. Nobody, let alone I, is advocating stark vigilanteism beyond our personal emotions. But this does not quite meet the standards.
One more time- THEY created the situation. THEY chose to act. Its on THEM.
If the home owner did not own a gun and had not decided to chase the kids down he would not be in the position he is in now. Seems yet another arguement in favor of gun control.
Sorry to tell you, this guy was not a vigilante. That word implies an act outside the law, this homeowner did no such thing. I'd call it a citizens arrest of perpetrators in the commision of, and fleeing the scene of, a felony crime. Don't want to get shot? Don't be a criminal. This sends a message, loud and clear, that decent people are fed up with predatory varmints, and refuse to be food for same. The DA should use this in that regard. I'll bet dollars to Navy beans crime in his jurisdiction plummets.
[/quote] If you want to look at it that way, OK. Just don't tell everyone else they should feel the same way. Seems fair nuf'. This is an argument for 'gun control' alright. The guy hit what he was aiming at. Windage and elevation sir, windage and elevation.
I asked you to show me where I called anyone a name. Still waiting. I said that quote you quoted from that movie was hateful. You seem a willing victim of threads. I did not call you a Christian I asked if you were. That was also not in this thread that was in the abortion thread. I also made a LEGAL comparison not a "moral" comparison. I would suggest you work on your reading comprehension and stop being a victim of these threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
I guess your use of "hateful" does not pass muster as name calling. And calling me a Christian was real cute. What if I were Jewish or something else?
You are utilizing moral equivalence for the second time when you say, "the man became a criminal." You are putting him on the same ground as the thugs. That's moral equivalence. You are using it. Stand by your tactics.
Did the man take the law into his own hands? It seems that he did not go out looking for trouble. He did not go out with any intent to find criminals and punish them. He did not lure anybody into robbing him. He did not inject himself into a crime or a criminal situation. Yes, those would make him a vigilante and your argument would have merit. But that is not what happened.
Indeed the situation was brought to him and he reacted as a scared man. To compare him to a cop is absurd! A cop is a trained individual with the full force of the department behind him. This is a man whose home was invaded and his woman threatened. He world was transformed into one of intense fear and stress and he reacted.
How do you know the thugs would not return? Their machismo challenged by an old man is an open invitation to a second strike. Nobody, let alone I, is advocating stark vigilanteism beyond our personal emotions. But this does not quite meet the standards.
One more time- THEY created the situation. THEY chose to act. Its on THEM.
I asked you to show me where I called anyone a name. Still waiting. I said that quote you quoted from that movie was hateful. You seem a willing victim of threads. I did not call you a Christian I asked if you were. That was also not in this thread that was in the abortion thread. I also made a LEGAL comparison not a "moral" comparison. I would suggest you work on your reading comprehension and stop being a victim of these threads.
And I would suggest you learn the fundamental difference between the notions of offense and defense, action and reaction.
And I will chalk up "willing victim" as another example of name calling.
Chasing someone down is a defense? LOLOL puuuleezze If he were so frightened for his life he would not have done such a thing. The man sought to exact revenge upon the robbers, fueled by his anger and the gun at his easy access. When he decided to break the law he became a criminal too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
And I would suggest you learn the fundamental difference between the notions of offense and defense, action and reaction.
And I will chalk up "willing victim" as another example of name calling.
Chasing someone down is a defense? LOLOL puuuleezze If he were so frightened for his life he would not have done such a thing. The man sought to exact revenge upon the robbers, fueled by his anger and the gun at his easy access. When he decided to break the law he became a criminal too.
For all we know he went to get a tag# or description when they turned on him again, so he had to defend himself.
That you would try to find every way possible to excuse the thugs and comdemn the elderly man is really something else.
Chasing someone down is a defense? LOLOL puuuleezze If he were so frightened for his life he would not have done such a thing. The man sought to exact revenge upon the robbers, fueled by his anger and the gun at his easy access. When he decided to break the law he became a criminal too.
Yes I am quite sure the jury will see it that way.
Yes I am quite sure the jury will see it that way.
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.
