To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21685
21684  |  21686
Subject: 
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:59:23 GMT
Viewed: 
420 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
  
   Life is choices, and learning from past mistakes, and hopefully, as I probably don’t have to mention to you, redemption.

If yer dead, how can you work at that.

I’m not an opponent to the death penalty, I am an opponent to ‘vigilanty-ism’. As soon as we take the laws into our own hands, we become the criminals. What’s the point of having a legal system if no one gets there to use it?

A persons guilt is not in question when they are caught in the act. The legal system pertains to persons who are charged after the fact.

   There can be no ‘civil’ society if we all take the law into our own hands.

If imprisoning someone who kills a person that broke into their home is your idea of a ‘civil’ society then you can keep it.
  
My friend was suitably ‘convinced’ that B&E was the wrong thing to do. Either thru his brief court experience or the whumping he got from his dad at home, he was suitably punished for his deed. And here’s a concept--the punishment should suit the crime. Losing a life over a television set isn’t it.

Yes sometimes the legal system sucks. But there are ways of fixing that within the system. And if it takes a while, then that’s the inherent safety net that y’all love to talk about where your Constitution is concerned.

So either believe in the system or don’t believe in the system. Just don’t stand on your hypocritical soap box saying “Look at us with our awesome setup we got going on here” and in the next breath, break your own rules ‘cause y’all don’t like ‘em due to their inconvenience. Shooting someone who hasn’t specifically threatened you because he *may* threaten you is breaking your own rules.

Not when they have broken into my house. The very act of breaking into my house is a threat to my life as far as I am concerned.

Why? Do all smokers eventually do ‘hard drugs’? Do all people who view erotica end up being Charles Manson? Justify please.

No but none of those are criminal acts or occuring in my home potentially threating my life either. Frankly, I can’t belive you think it is okay for someone to break into you home as long as they are only stealing?
  
  
   Self defense doesn’t apply unless you are being personally attacked. Someone pilfering off with your television is not an attack on you.

Do not rape, do not murder, do not steal, these are rules by which persons of any religion can follow. All acts of evil stem from breaking these three rules. If one does not follow them, then they should expect that their death is a potential consequence of their actions.

And this is civilized? Jaywalking warrants the death penalty?

Jaywalking is not a variant of rape, murder, or stealing, its just stupid.
  
  
If someone breaks into my house I am not going to risk my life to determine whether they are there to rape, murder, or steal. I am simply going to make sure they are not a threat to myself or anyone else ever again. Any sane person would do the same thing.

-Mike Petrucelli

And if someone steals my cloak, I’ll offer him my shirt. Oh wait, that’s just the teachings of no one terribly important.

You are making a life-threating assumption that the person breaking into your house is only there to steal.
  
Shooting someone who hasn’t specifically threatened you is manslaughter, or worse, murder. Again, stealing a television is not a direct threat to you. Justice must be served, but Justice must be proportional to the crime committed. Anything else is insane, and your idea ‘shoot first’ is insane.

No, assuming the worst and acting accordingly (whether that is ‘shoot first’, stab first, piano wire, gouching the persons eyes out, or anything else) is not insane it is intelligent. Why would I wait until it is too late to determine the intent of someone who breaks into my home?

   At least you can then cop that plea and get off on a lighter sentence.

Why would I be arrested for defending my property from invasion? Is this so called ‘civil’ society you live in that stupid that they seek to lock up those that are willing to defend themselves rather than calling 911 and praying like helpless little children?

-Mike Petrucelli



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
(...) And I can't believe that you can't read. It's not okay for somone to steal. That said, it's not okay for you to kill someone for stealing. Do the words 'punishment fir the crime' ring any vague bell? Read and come back with something relavent (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
(...) Why? Do all smokers eventually do 'hard drugs'? Do all people who view erotica end up being Charles Manson? Justify please. (...) And this is civilized? Jaywalking warrants the death penalty? (...) And if someone steals my cloak, I'll offer (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

73 Messages in This Thread:

















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR