Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:56:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
691 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:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
snip
| |
I am still baffeled at the ‘logic’ of punishing someone for defending
thier own property/lives.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
And I am baffeled at the ‘logic’ of taking a life over a television set.
Dave K
|
Ok seriously, how can you determine that is the only reason someone would
have broken into your home? I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt, if
you want to in your home that is fine. In an idealistic world if I could
somehow magically know they only wanted to steal then I would agree with
you 100 percent, let the police handle it. However here in the real world
where dialing 911 is more likely to cause an intruder to shoot you than
have the police save you, I am not willing to take that chance. Their life
will be in my hands not the other way around. And for the record, if there
is an opportunity to incapacitate them without killing them I would do
that, but I will not unnecessarily risk my life and those living in my
house to do so.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
ANd right back at you--how can you determine that the guy breaking into your
house is out to kill you, instead of just taking your television? Again,
look at the stats--thousands on thousands of cases of petty theft and
burglary, and a scant few of murderous rampages.
|
|
Point One: Most burglaries occur during the day when nobody is home. This
entire issue is a moot point, there is no confrontation. Most burglars hate
confrontation. (Partly because it can lead to thier death.)
Point Two: Yes, murderous rampages are few and far between, reserved mainly for
serial killers. A rampage is different from an isolated incident.
Point Three: If we look at the rate of robberies committed with a weapon and
deaths occuring from that, we see a much higher occurance than with straight
burglary coupled with petty/grand theft and deaths. The two crimes are
different.
Point Four: While someone breaking in to just kill is not all that common,
someone breaking in to rape is much more common. In the U.S., IIRC it is one in
four women in large cities will either be victim of a committed or attempted
rape. Some of these do occur in conjunction with a robbery/and or burglary
where the perp finds someone (generally a woman alone) in the dwelling. Now,
I’m not saying rape is as bad as murder, but if I have to shoot you to stop you
from raping a woman, I wouldn’t think twice, if it is the only alternative, of
course.
| |
Why would I give someone that broke into my home the benefit of the doubt?
|
If someone breaks into my home, it may be for a number of reasons. One of them
may be to steal my TV, one of them may be to kill or rape my family or me. If I
let them walk around freely and they take my TV, fine. If, however, I am one of
the few that does get murdered, I paid with my life. If I assume the worst and
just shoot them, I’m safe. So don’t break into my house. If you have a weapon
that I can see, I’m going to drop you, if I can’t see a weapon, I’ll say “Don’t
move.” And if you do, then I’m going to drop you. It’s plain and simple. I
don’t know your intentions, so I need to assume the worst to guarantee my
families safety. Now, that’s only if I catch you in my home. If, however, I
catch you running out, I’ll say “Stop.” If you do, great, if you don’t, I may
chase, I may not. But then I won’t shoot, because the problem is gone. If you
took something, it’ll be in the police report and they can deal with it. If you
killed or raped my family, just get out of the country, fast. The point I’m
trying to make is this; In my home, my families safety comes first, it’s my
home. If you break in, you violate that safety. The only way I can assure it
is to assume you intend to do the worst and act accordingly. If in this
process, I am able to detain you or send you running, my families safety has
been restored and I no longer to threaten you with death. However, until I am
sure of my families safety, that threat exists if you break into my home. If I
am second guessed by the police later, so be it, my family is still safe. A
saying I heard while in the Sheriff Academy goes well here; It is better to be
tried by twelve than carried by six. If I overestimate you, I will be safe. If
I underestimate you, I might be safe, but I might be dead. Bottom line, my
family wakes up in the morning.
| |
| |
Willing to take the chance? Ending someone’s life on the slim to nil chance
that they’re there for more than your stereo? You’re as bad as the
criminal.
|
|
Saying your as bad as the criminal, now that’s a bit harsh, don’t you think...
| |
| |
At least your final line is something a little more rational--I would agree
with the incapacitation of said felon.
|
I would only incapacitate them if I could do so without risk to my life or
loved ones. (such as a swift kick to the back of the head followed by several
more to make darn sure he is unconscious)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
If I can detain them without death, great. That is the more desirable solution.
However, we do find at times that some people would rather go down in a blaze
than spend another stint at San Quentin.
-Kyle Henneberque
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
