Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:23:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
447 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
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?
|
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 to add to the conversation instead of wiggling and purposely
misconstruing or I might start calling you John.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
It’s also against the law. And your rationale is to shoot people who are
breaking the law because if they break one, i.e. breaking into your house, they
will end up threatening you at some point, therefore they must be shot. How’s
that for misconstruing?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And you are taking his life on the equal assumption that he is bbreaking into
your house to kill you. So where’s your point? Again, statistics show that
break-ins number in the thousands on thousands, whereas killings during breakins
number in the 10’s. So I think my odds are beter that the guy B&E’ing into my
house has more likelyhood to steal my shoes than to steal my life.
| |
| |
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?
|
No, it’s ‘gun toting yahooism’ and if you don’t like being saddled with the
description, don’t be one.
| |
| |
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?
|
Why shouldn’t you be arrested for killing someone who hadn’t threatened your
life? He was 16 years old and was running away (supposedly) when he was shot in
the back. Doesn’t sound like much of a threat to me.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
