Quantcast

DirtMcGirk

<b>WAY</b> Dumber than N8 (to the power of ten alm
Feb 21, 2008
6,417
1
Oz
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.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,640
4,490
Sleazattle
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.

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.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
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.
.
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.
 

bohorec

Monkey
Jun 26, 2007
327
0
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):

The Texas Supreme Court, showing continued deference to religious practice, on Friday tossed out a $188,000 judgment against members of a Pentecostal church who restrained a teenager they feared had come under demonic influence.

Laura Schubert claimed that rough handling during the hours-long 1996 incident — involving the "laying on of hands" and intensive prayer — left her disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder.

Jurors agreed, finding that Schubert, then 17, was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by a pastor, youth minister and members of Pleasant Glade Assembly of God church in suburban Fort Worth.

However, the state Supreme Court dismissed Schubert's case in a 6-3 ruling, saying her lawsuit violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections on religious expression — the latest in a string of decisions limiting judicial oversight of religious institutions and practice.

Wrote Jefferson: "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."

Schubert's case began after she collapsed during a Sunday worship service. Several church members, alert for signs of nefarious activity after a youth reported seeing a demon on church grounds, escorted her into a classroom to pray for her safety.

Schubert testified that she was pinned to the floor for three hours while she screamed, flailed and begged to be freed.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.html
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,153
0
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
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):



http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.html
Article said:
Even so, three days later she returned to the Colleyville church, where the experience was repeated.
Yup...that's exactly where I'd wanna be again...

Article said:
She received carpet burns, bruises and injuries to her wrists and back.
Me thinks the two incidents might not be completely related... :busted:

/sarcasm


I love the title of the article...

"Court sides with church in demon case"

So much, done with so little...
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,814
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
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.
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...
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
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
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,640
4,490
Sleazattle
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...
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.

Life>stuff
 
Last edited:

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
14
Blindly running into cactus
And we all know that if he had listened to that dispatcher from central casting and stayed in his house, those two hood rats would be doing long stretches in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. ...
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.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
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.
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!!!