death sentence...no. amputation..yes. my point is that when ANYONE comes into your home (not sure how this became a race issue) unlawfully, their action should be seen as violent and threatening, period.
This guy didn't need no stinkin taser.
- Thread starter Wumpus
- Start date
why are people like you allowed to be cops?
you would fit in well in the middle east...
You just let random people stroll around your abode like it's no big thing?
You, sir, are more trusting than I.
I sure as hell don't advocate shooting them and amputating those that do steal.
You are mixing arguments. Here you state that if an intruder comes into your home it is fair to consider them a threat. No argument from me there. However, that is not the situation discussed in this thread, nor is it the argument you put forth in your previous post.
You stated deadly force was acceptable to protect another's land:
This is NOT protecting your family or even another person from a threat. This is protecting property. As Samirol put it, you are making the moral judgement that another's property is of greater value than the lives of two men. There is no way around that. Your words.
I hate to play the religion card, but as both a policeman and a devout Christian, you should be ashamed.
Thank you for putting it back on topic Ohio.
As a police officer are you not trained to asses situations and the severity of them? Do you really think out what you typed right there? Is a Jehovah's witness that puts his foot in the door while you shut it deserving of....well maybe not the best example :biggrin: But do you really think anyone who unlawfully enters a residence is violent?
How can you say this;
manimal said:
...and then justify that anyone who were to break into your home deserves to be shot, amputated, etc???
When my bikes were jacked from my garage, I was out of town. I had asked my neighbor to keep an eye on my place while I was gone. If Mr. Horn had been my neighbor, I'd still have my bikes.
although said bikes would have bullet holes in them...When my bikes were jacked from my garage, I was out of town. I had asked my neighbor to keep an eye on my place while I was gone. If Mr. Horn had been my neighbor, I'd still have my bikes.
I never said it was a perfect plan...
oster_oops:Besides...they'd be labelled "Speed Holes" in the DH forum...
Last edited:
realize that i am not typing this as a rationally trained police officer...this is my internal dialogue coming out; ie: the callousness that comes from watching so many worthless people who have no respect for the lives and well being of others get away with everything virtually unpunished.
of course i think the guy lucked out on that charge, especially since he shot them in the back, but i won't lie and say that i sometimes wish it were morally ok to do so. i mean heck, one of the guys who was shot has brought in countless amounts of drugs to this country in turn ruining the lives of untold individuals and families. i suppose i see it as what most of you call Karma.
on the legal side...my professional opinion is that the guy got away with murder but i won't apologize for rejoicing in this texas supreme court hiccup because sometimes...you reap what you sow.
Again, no one was randomly strolling about this guys abode. Let's not confuse the situation.
Had they entered the shooters house, he would have been justified.
Had they entered a house with residents home, he could have arguably been justified.
Had they entered the house and the shooter *thought* residents were home, it's a stretch but there is a thread of justification if he believed they had been home and assaulted.
The thieves were leaving an empty house. A house the shooter knew to be empty, therefore knew that no violent crime was committed.
What you seem to be promoting is that the next time I see young men shoplifting, and they run from me rather than staying put while i call the cops, I am allowed to gun them down (assuming I have a concealed carry permit). If you believe that to be a bad analogy, please explain the differences.
now that i have more time, i'll expound a little more.....
now, back to the original topic. yes, i'm happy that the old man won't be spending time in the clink although i disagree with his judgement. take away the burglar's skin tone and you still have a criminal who played the game and lost; race is not the issue.
the very nature of breaking and entering carries with it the possibility that the burglar will come in contact with someone and that someone may be startled or, maybe...just maybe, the homeowner might be pretty friggin pissed and threatened that someone has just bypassed all of those things that homeowners do to give the illusion of SAFETY like deadbolts and alarm systems. people don't give money to brinks just to have a pretty sign in their yard, they pay for the piece of mind that hopefully a burglar will be deterred from entering their residence thus keeping the residents SAFE from harm. i don't think you can reasonably argue that anyone would assume a burglar would have non-violent intentions if they were at home during a burglary.
i think i can justify that. what i do at WORK is purely business and, because i enjoy being employed, i follow the rules and ethics of my profession. as soon as some lowlife enters my personal domain which causes me and my family to feel threatened then yes, i will do my best to ensure that that criminal never threatens anyone again. the constitution embodies the idea that a man's home is his most sacred place and should be protected at all costs from unreasonable searches and seizures; i consider someone breaking into my house as the most heinous form of seizure.
now, back to the original topic. yes, i'm happy that the old man won't be spending time in the clink although i disagree with his judgement. take away the burglar's skin tone and you still have a criminal who played the game and lost; race is not the issue.
Life isn't a game you "win" or "lose" at, the robbers posed NO THREAT to him, yet he shot them anyway because he valued and you value the neighbor's property over their lives.
How would longer sentences help? They don't help deter violent crime according to statistics, with 1 out of every 100 adults in the U.S behind bars, how would harsher punishments help? Places with lower crime help those in need so they aren't desperate enough to rob a house in order to put food on the table. We have been looking at this with a stick, instead of looking at the core problem, which is poverty. Our prisons are already overloaded and saying that courts don't dish out harsh enough penalties is crazy.
Right now, we are treating this like a 5 year old would treat it. A person did something bad, lets hit them for it, instead of looking at it like adults and finding actual solutions besides making the bad man go away.
Last edited:
Uh, I rather have Manimal as my neighbor than you.
guys this is what rock salt/bean bags/rubber shot was made for 
Actually, I am one of the most argumentative RMer's, and my one advantage is that I do know most of viewpoints of the people here because I have argued with most of them.
You could criticize the youtube video, but I didn't look at it. I knew the case beforehand.
wow...what fantasy world do you live in? #1 serious crime currently in my area is armed robbery (average age of suspect is 15-17), 2nd is breaking/entering. both are done primarily by local gangs and in primarily low income neighborhoods. breaking and entering/burglary is NOT a crime of survival/necessity. it is either drug or criminal enterprise related and usually both. crimes of survival (putting food on the table) are things like shoplifting an apple/pack of meat from the grocery store, not forcing your way into someone's house. sorry....not buying it. one day, all of the people like me who keep the scary people away from people like you should go on strike so the sheltered members of society can have a taste of real evil and lawlessness.
so we should gun people down as they run off with a few hundred (or less) dollars worth of stuff then?
edit: and it is probably insured too so extra lolz...
edit: and it is probably insured too so extra lolz...
Last edited:
Those scumbags aren't worth the 100 bucks of stuff they were carrying
Thinking like this is why we will still have widespread poverty, huge population in jail, and won't be able to progress as far.
I never said we shouldn't deal with poverty.
For example, Manimal works in the anti-gang unit, which helps to make the other people who live in the inner-city lives a little safer.
I know plenty about poverty, and I don't think there are any easy solutions. I think helpings individuals, from mentoring to a few hand outs, is the best most of us can do.
In the meanwhile, I am going to have the same standards, which one of them is not to pull a Kitty Genovese and allow my neighbors' crap to get ripped off.
For example, Manimal works in the anti-gang unit, which helps to make the other people who live in the inner-city lives a little safer.
I know plenty about poverty, and I don't think there are any easy solutions. I think helpings individuals, from mentoring to a few hand outs, is the best most of us can do.
In the meanwhile, I am going to have the same standards, which one of them is not to pull a Kitty Genovese and allow my neighbors' crap to get ripped off.
have you ever dealt with or been a victim of the people i'm referring to? i am not talking about those in poverty who live peaceful and legal lifestyles, i am referring to those who prey on the peaceful inhabitants of these areas. your unrealistic rhetoric is straight from the open discussions on college campuses around the country; full of professors and kids who are sheltered from the realities of poverty and crime and believe that playing nice, handouts, and wishful thinking will solve the problem of "poverty" when poverty isn't even the problemThose scumbags aren't worth the 100 bucks of stuff they were carrying
Thinking like this is why we will still have widespread poverty, huge population in jail, and won't be able to progress as far.
I fall somewhere in the middle of the two of you... there is no question that to me that once gangs are involved, they need to be dealt with fairly ruthlessly. However, that IS still just treating the symptons. To solve the problem, you need a wide ranging assault that includes everything from gang interventions to prevent cycles of violence, to better social services, schools, and kids programs to keep kids out of gangs, and then going beyond that I'm convinced we need a cultural shift in urban communities that push fathers to be more active parents though I don't know how to affect that.wishful thinking will solve the problem of "poverty" when poverty isn't even the problem
Samirol's problem is that he's unwilling to treat the symptons, and your problem is that you'll always have to deal with these scum unless you are willing to ALSO treat the disease.
Side note: the interesting thing about gangs is that the cycle of crime is driven by social pressures, which as you point out means that Samirol's approach won't work by simply offering an economic solution, but it also means that rehabilitation is surprisingly possible by removing an individual from that social circle and those pressures. It doesn't work for everyone, but not all these folks are doomed at 17.
Interesting article on gang intervention: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/magazine/04health-t.html?pagewanted=all
If we don't start curing the disease, it's only going to get worse...
Last edited:
It's not that, I just don't think locking them up for longer is the solution. Other countries have lower imprisonment times but they focus on rehabilitation in the prison instead of sticking them with thousands of other criminals and expecting them to come out model citizens.
So in order to get a new job or perspective on life (rehabilitation), go to prison and instead of being PUNISHED for what you did, get rehabbed because of it?
Prison is about punishement. Dont do bad ****, dont go to prison. Easy in theory...
Not to divert, but I do support rehab in prison, but after the convict has earned it. Say after 25% of his sentence has been served without any major disciplinary infractions. Show an interest in being a productive citizen.
No...the subject was getting convoluted and was no longer talking about the case in point. That's why my post was worded the way it was. No relation to the OP. But we're back on topic now....
Rehab sounds great in theory, and it works for the criminal population on the margin...but the majority of criminals are people who will simply take advantage of any system or situation in which they find themselves.
It's like the plot of Mars Attacks, but with criminals instead of aliens.
What makes you think proponents of rehabilitation are asking for anything different than that?
I don't get why as soon as someone mentions rehab, folks flip their **** and assume we're spoon-feeding these guys ice cream while they relax in lazy-boys. It's largely a mind-shift about the goal while in prison. They're still IN PRISON. It's not a ****ing cakewalk. But you use tools (such as their behavior records, psych evals, possibly even applications or other pro-active efforts by the inmates) to cull the ones that have rehab potential (you do not assume that everyone is capable of rehab), and then provide the programs (mentorship, appropriate work/labor, possibly education) to those that show potential for rehabilitation.
At the end of the day, do you want someone that
a) served their full-time and emerges from prison 5 years later with no debt to society but is a violent criminal with a vendetta against the world for the 5 years of solitary mixed with gang-rape, or
b) someone that emerges from prison 5 years later with no debt to society, little or no resentment against society, and an understanding of their path to being a productive citizen
?
A theory that seems to work in other countries, and when 1 in 100 US citizens are in prison, many on minor drug or non-violent offenses, I would venture that many of them are on the margin. Gang-related violent crime is more complex but we desperately NEED to break people out of those cycles.
Only a fool would claim that all criminals can be rehabilitated, but why wouldn't we want to rehabilitate the percentage that we can?
Actually, in Norway right now there is a prison for maximum security prisoners which functions just like a small town. They have taken people that have the potential to be good citizens, and have put them in a productive environment to cultivate that. Many prisoners can just run off if they want, but they don't because they would be thrown back in a regular maximum security prison.
I was exaggerating a bit, because there are people that are past the point of no return, but some can switch mindsets.
If we compare sentence times to other countries, our longer sentences aren't giving us lower crime rates.
Another thing in prisons, gang issues. Within an hour or 2 inside prison, most people are already part of a prison gang for protection based on race. How is this conducive to making them productive members of society when they are released? I believe that the goal of imprisonment shouldn't entirely be punishment, but hopefully to keep them away from a life of crime when they return.
Last edited:
Interesting you mention this...I just heard about this yesterday:
Paging Red Rabbit...Red Rabbit to the white courtesy phone...
Things that make you go 'hmmmm...'Article said:
eh?