Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by eaterofdog, Jul 2, 2008.
You can basically hunt thieves in Texas now.
Please register to disable this ad.
Never heard of it.
John Wayne wouldn't shoot someone in the back.
Except in The Searchers.
fvck due process, eat my bullets b*tch!
That was different. He was a Commanche. Doesn't really count as a person...
We're the problem?
No, he shot Futterman in the back too when he was sneaking up on Martin.
Two dead scumbag thieves.
Why are we having a cry in our thongs session over these two wastes of air?
Makes me wish I lived in Texas.
Holy hell that's f-ed up....
The problem as someone stated earlier is the lack of due process. In the act of vigilante justice the shooter not only exacts a punishment significantly more extreme than law already calls for but removes the chance that they are actually innocent.
On several occasions I have had friends break into my house to let my dog out or grab my passport after my wallet was stolen. I'm sure glad my neighbors didn't shoot them.
Exactly. The article even said that the guy bestowed the death penalty for burglary. The Supreme court just said that that was too severe for raping a child.
Texas reminds me of some kind of Saudi province or something with weird medieval laws.
For example, in Texas your church can lock you up and exorcize demons from your body. That was posted in the recent "anti-pro every a$$hole can has a gun thread", but for some reason it was overlooked there. (I guess author didn't follow N8 copy paste procedure):
If the girl was packing heat could she of shot the people trying to lock her up?
Yup...that's exactly where I'd wanna be again...
Me thinks the two incidents might not be completely related...
I love the title of the article...
"Court sides with church in demon case"
So much, done with so little...
So, can you shoot someone to prevent them from stealing YOUR stuff? The Supreme Court has now limited the death penalty to murderers. Anyone else (rapists, burglars, robbers, etc) is not eligible for the death penalty. By your definition, you'd have to say that the only time when you can use a gun would be when you're in imminent, MORTAL danger. You wouldn't be able to kill someone to prevent a burglary, robbery, rape, assault, etc.
Not advocating one way or another on this case, but just asking for clarity on your position...
This is how I see it:
Someone is or is about to be raping a family member, you can shoot him.
Someone is in YOUR house, wielding a weapon, you can shoot him
There may be one or two other situations, but that's about it
not sure how to define robbery but I'll just say it is someone taking something from your person. In the case of rape and assault you should be able to defend yourself as you are at risk of bodily harm, there is no way to predetermine if that harm is deadly or not so you should be able to defend yourself. In the case of robbery the thief pretty much has to threaten you or overpower you to steal so yes again you should be able to defend yourself.
In the case of say a fleeing pickpocket shooting them in the back doesn't seem right. Same thing if you caught someone robbing your home. When caught if they fled I would have a problem using deadly force. If they stood their ground and threatened you, shoot'em.
The bigger problem is that these examples are fairly cut and dry. In the heat of the moment how does an untrained citizen thinking they are doing what is legal determine whether they are getting their house broken into or if some old lady is trying to get her cat that ran away. You set up situations where people thinking they are obeying the law end up killing the innocent. Jury of your peers not an adrenaline crazed pissed off gun owner.
The articles don't go into detail but it sounds like a mall security guard could shoot fleeing shoplifters. If that is the case I'm betting a lot of people on this board could have been shot in the back at some point in their lives.
Well she could be hot....you never shoot a hottie....
Tell me you have never dreamed about some double D's with a sucking chest wound?
I'm more of an "ass man".......
*grabs a tissue... thinks again... puts tissue down. pulls off sock.*
I thought so...D
At this point this thread is just screaming for some tags
no they wouldn't. they would have gotten away only to do it again. you play the game of burglary, you take a hot chance of getting dead if you break into the wrong house. not that i'm agreeing with the texas law, but....it's not like these guys were beneficial members of society.
not any more they're not anyway...unless they're fertilizer. I can't imagine Rampaging Roy wouldn't have shot even them if they'd donated a kidney each.
Funny thing about this....I'm sure Cowboy Jim would be all up in arms about the second ammendment "Because it's in the constitution, y'al!!"... However he COMPLETELY ignored other stuff that is in the very same constitution he holds so dear.......and come to think of it, it was stuff that is so important to the fabric of american society that it was included in the initial release and NOT in an ammendment!!!