Correct Decision By Judge?

[Kal'Stang]

In about 3.....2.....1..... there should be a stream of people, I could name a few, that will protest and say the man had a right even though he is a felon to do what he did.
Wow, he gave out coats. Well woopdie friggen do, John Gotti used to give out turkeys at thanksgiving.

Even felons have a right to defend themselves and their property.

 

[Dragonfly]

Even felons have a right to defend themselves and their property.

He has a right to set up video surveillance, call 911, stand guard with a baseball bat, get a few rottweilers, hire a security guard, and make sure his insurance is paid up.

As long as he personally isn't in fear for his life, he can't kill people with a gun.

And especially as a convicted felon.

The law is beyond abundantly clear on that.

Sounds like as soon as the teenage thieves were discovered, they fled, or tried to flee.

So Shooting them down in that situation, felon or not, isn't self defense or defending one's property.

 

[molten_dragon]

Is this the right way to proceed here?
Was it self defense?
Defending one's property?
Or is the fact that the shooter had a criminal past with restrictions against owning a gun all that matters?
Shot in back? Maybe not even inside store?

Thoughts?

Considering the fact that the guy was a convicted felon prohibited from owning a gun, there was confusion about whether the two kids were even in the store when he shot them, one of them was shot in the back, and the other one was only 11 years old, I'd say the judge exercised a good deal of restraint, and he's getting off pretty lucky.

 

[Kal'Stang]

He has a right to set up video surveillance, call 911, stand guard with a baseball bat, get a few rottweilers, hire a security guard, and make sure his insurance is paid up.

As long as he personally isn't in fear for his life, he can't kill people with a gun.

And especially as a convicted felon.

The law is beyond abundantly clear on that.

Sounds like as soon as the teenage thieves were discovered, they fled, or tried to flee.

So Shooting them down in that situation, felon or not, isn't self defense or defending one's property.

Read that post again, I said "felons" I wasn't talking about that guy specifically. I was talking about felons in general. And yes, that includes the right to defend oneself with a gun. Cops are never there until after the fact and not everyone can afford those other things you mentioned besides a baseball bat. But a baseball bat won't do crap against an armed intruder.

Not to mention its pretty idiotic that a felony conviction from when you were 14 years old can deny you the Right to a gun even after a couple of decades of having been a net benefit to society. I have no problem keeping guns from felons until they prove that they can be trusted with a gun again. But it shouldn't take a persons whole life of never even given the chance. 10 years max.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Even felons have a right to defend themselves and their property.

Not by way of buying and keeping a firearm.

 

[HonestJoe]

Seems so simple. Just say he took the gun away from one of them in a scuffle and turned it on them when they attacked him.

Lying is the worst thing you could do in that kind of situation. It'd be perfectly possible for the police to establish in significant detail around how something like a shooting occurred and establish him rather than the burglars as the owner of the gun. Get caught in a lie, or even suspected of one, would only serve to dig even deeper.

 

[Dragonfly]

Read that post again, I said "felons" I wasn't talking about that guy specifically. I was talking about felons in general. And yes, that includes the right to defend oneself with a gun. Cops are never there until after the fact and not everyone can afford those other things you mentioned besides a baseball bat. But a baseball bat won't do crap against an armed intruder.

Not to mention its pretty idiotic that a felony conviction from when you were 14 years old can deny you the Right to a gun even after a couple of decades of having been a net benefit to society. I have no problem keeping guns from felons until they prove that they can be trusted with a gun again. But it shouldn't take a persons whole life of never even given the chance. 10 years max.

Boo hoo...... if you want a gun, don't commit felony crimes.

My heart does NOT bleed for felons who want, but can't have guns.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Not by way of buying and keeping a firearm.

By any means necessary, just like everyone else.

Boo hoo...... if you want a gun, don't commit felony crimes.

My heart does NOT bleed for felons who want, but can't have guns.

Don't care if your heart bleeds or not. Its not about emotionalism. It is about what is right and what is wrong. The ONLY reason that ex-cons were banned guns was because of a political move to garner more votes by scared sheeple. There is no valid non-emotional reason to deny a productive member of society that has proven themselves after their felony conviction thier full rights.

 

[CRUE CAB]

By any means necessary, just like everyone else.



Don't care if your heart bleeds or not. Its not about emotionalism. It is about what is right and what is wrong. The ONLY reason that ex-cons were banned guns was because of a political move to garner more votes by scared sheeple. There is no valid non-emotional reason to deny a productive member of society that has proven themselves after their felony conviction thier full rights.

And ex cons cant be trusted.

 

[P. Kersey]

Lying is the worst thing you could do in that kind of situation. It'd be perfectly possible for the police to establish in significant detail around how something like a shooting occurred and establish him rather than the burglars as the owner of the gun. Get caught in a lie, or even suspected of one, would only serve to dig even deeper.

I know these things. I do understand how the system works.

I doubt he bought the gun legally..since he isn't allowed to buy a gun and it couldn't have been in his name anyway but that's beside the point.

I originally commented off hand that it would have been better to say anything other than "Hi officer, yeah I killed these guys. Here's my gun. I'm a felon and am not allowed to have a weapon so obviously I'm guilty"

It was just hypothetical, NOT SERIOUS and at this point I wish I had just kept my ******* mouth shut...but thanks for the polite reply.

 

[Dragonfly]

By any means necessary, just like everyone else.



Don't care if your heart bleeds or not. Its not about emotionalism. It is about what is right and what is wrong. The ONLY reason that ex-cons were banned guns was because of a political move to garner more votes by scared sheeple. There is no valid non-emotional reason to deny a productive member of society that has proven themselves after their felony conviction thier full rights.

How many years would it take, after a convicted pedophile has been released from prison, for you to trust said felon with baby-sitting your young children or grandchildren?

 

[Kal'Stang]

How many years would it take, after a convicted pedophile has been released from prison, for you to trust said felon with baby-sitting your young children or grandchildren?

Oh look, emotionalism 101. :roll: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

1: Last I checked, a pedophile does not rely on guns to get thier fix. 2: All pedophiles should be executed.

Try again?

 

[Dragonfly]

Oh look, emotionalism 101. :roll: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

1: Last I checked, a pedophile does not rely on guns to get thier fix. 2: All pedophiles should be executed.

Try again?

Oh look....nevermind.... I think I proved my point.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Oh look, emotionalism 101. :roll: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

1: Last I checked, a pedophile does not rely on guns to get thier fix. 2: All pedophiles should be executed.

Try again?

But they are not. Thats emotionalism on your part.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh look....nevermind.... I think I proved my point.

Nope, you haven't. You tried to take the worst element of our society which prey's on little children and used emotionalism. All while ignoring felony convictions like having 1lb of pot on you. Or joy riding when you're 14. You proved my point. You have nothing but emotionalism for your arguements.

 

[Dragonfly]

Age: 28


First arrest: Age 14


Number of arrests: At least 12

Shocking....he's not an angel who's getting a bad rap.

Released from federal prison in 2008

Not like he's been a "productive member of society" for decades. He's been out of jail for a whopping 5 years and has a damn gun.

Faced the same charge in state court in 2000, but dismissed when Turner pleaded guilty to possession of a deadly weapon during felony and aggravated menacing.

More than once, and not when he was 14, had plea deals regarding guns and felony charges.


But feel free to keep making idiotic and pathetic excuses for why this specific felon should have been allowed to have a gun to "defend" himself.

It's just pathetic, but keep on going if you must.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130217/NEWS01/302170065/1095/RSS0403

 

[Kal'Stang]

But they are not. Thats emotionalism on your part.

You're right, they're not executed. They should be. The reason that they should be has nothing to do with emotionalism. Pedophilia is the ONE crime which is completely unforgiveable. You can kill someone accidentally or in self defense or in a fit of rage. Stealing can be excused as material objects are just that...material and can be done for more reasons that just money. Like to feed oneself. Out of all the crimes out there pedophilia has no excuse.

Another reason to execute them is that every expert out there agrees that they are incurable. If something is broken and can't be fixed what do you do with it? Get rid of it.

But since they are not executed I've already given the answer. A pedophile will always comit the same crime again. Which means they would be ineligible to have a gun back as they will no doubt commit the same crime again with in the 10 year mark I already layed out.

 

[Kal'Stang]

But feel free to keep making idiotic and pathetic excuses for why this specific felon should have been allowed to have a gun to "defend" himself.

It's just pathetic, but keep on going if you must.

Who here is doing this?

 

[CRUE CAB]

You're right, they're not executed. They should be. The reason that they should be has nothing to do with emotionalism. Pedophilia is the ONE crime which is completely unforgiveable. You can kill someone accidentally or in self defense or in a fit of rage. Stealing can be excused as material objects are just that...material and can be done for more reasons that just money. Like to feed oneself. Out of all the crimes out there pedophilia has no excuse.

Another reason to execute them is that every expert out there agrees that they are incurable. If something is broken and can't be fixed what do you do with it? Get rid of it.

But since they are not executed I've already given the answer. A pedophile will always comit the same crime again. Which means they would be ineligible to have a gun back as they will no doubt commit the same crime again with in the 10 year mark I already layed out.

Deja Vu.
We have been down this road before, a couple times.
If a felon wants his gun rights back, he can petition the courts.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Deja Vu.
We have been down this road before, a couple times.
If a felon wants his gun rights back, he can petition the courts.

No one should have to petition anyone to exercise a Right.

 

[CRUE CAB]

No one should have to petition anyone to exercise a Right.

Agree to disagree.