Le Marteau
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 113
- Location
- London, England and Dijon, France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Some might ask what a local story is doing in the breaking news section. Well, it's here, and the reason is a valid one. The story here is that more people in the Houston area are beginning to apply a well-tested law enforcement technique that not only kills those who would rob them, but permanently removes the bastards from the streets, so they do not rob, or possibly kill, again. I am talking about, of course, the Second Amendment. Guns good. Scum dead. Taxpayer money not wasted. Scum had their trial, and their execution, at the hands of the man they were robbing. Poetic ****ing justice, and makes for a judicial system that is streamlined just the way I like it. :mrgreen:
Article is here.
I fail to see how a gun-crazed nutjob killing three people and probably himself is in any way an endorsement of your 2nd Amendment, nor a righteous application of the rule of law.
All this serves to show is that four people are dead because both sides of this equation were greedy, and appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.
Idiots, all four of them.
All right, I'll play your game. What would you have done in his shoes?
Some might ask what a local story is doing in the breaking news section. Well, it's here, and the reason is a valid one. The story here is that more people in the Houston area are beginning to apply a well-tested law enforcement technique that not only kills those who would rob them, but permanently removes the bastards from the streets, so they do not rob, or possibly kill, again. I am talking about, of course, the Second Amendment. Guns good. Scum dead. Taxpayer money not wasted. Scum had their trial, and their execution, at the hands of the man they were robbing. Poetic ****ing justice, and makes for a judicial system that is streamlined just the way I like it. :mrgreen:
Article is here.
Shot them.
I'm not all I want to be.
He did what I would have done, and he did what most of us think was the acceptable solution to the situation.
That doesn't make it right, nor legally justified.
Now, that raises another question -- to what extent should your life be governed by your laws and society's morals? I could say more, and answer it myself, but hopefully, if I don't do so, we'll have more of a discussion.
The old addage says, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
In my eyes, defending me or my family in a life threatening situation will always put me in the right. Legally, I may go to prison, but at least I stood between me and my loved ones when danger came a-knocking.
. They got killed over jewelery. Pieces of metal. I think, if anything, this story goes to show the madness of property ownership in our society... that THINGS are more important than LIVES. It's the very reason why people become criminals on the bottom rung of the ladder in the first place, because the system values things over the well being of people.
No one person should ever have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. If he survives his injuries, the store owner should be charged with triple homicide.
LIVES should always be more important than THINGS. You let the robbers take everything. Your life is more important than stuff, and so is theirs.
It’s not about the jewelry. They got killed because they walked in to his store carrying guns. The man was defending his own life, plain and simple. Someone walks towards me brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner; I’m not waiting to see if they shoot first.
The life of the victim is always more important than the life of a BG.
It’s not about the jewelry. They got killed because they walked in to his store carrying guns. The man was defending his own life, plain and simple. Someone walks towards me brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner; I’m not waiting to see if they shoot first.
The life of the victim is always more important than the life of a BG.
The guns were to ensure obedience. Petty thieves never want to actually kill someone. That is criminology 101. It's the psychos and serial killers that do the killing in our society. Robbers just want stuff, because they don't have stuff; and now, they are dead because of STUFF.
Then we have two different philosophies, which is why crime will never be stopped. :shrug:
They had no problem shooting back at the store owner.
I'd agree with you if the store owner drew and they booked out, but it sounds instead like they tried to kill him.
Anyone trained in self-defense knows you don't shoot someone who is already running the opposite direction and contrary to the media belief, gun carriers are NOT looking for excuses to kill someone. We prepare for the day we have to use our weapons and we pray it never comes...
On the contrary, armed citizens are an excellent deterrent to crime.
The article doesn't say who fired the first shot because the footage is still being reviewed, but my guess is that it was the store owner. That is usually how it works. The suspects just want the loot, they don't want to kill anybody - that is how it happens with robberies.
Also, you don't seem to notice your own hypocrisy when you say the store owner was just defending himself, yet the suspects had it coming when the store owner shot at them? Hypocrisy at its finest.
The article does not confirm who fired the first shot so you can't really assume that.
I have no beef with the second amendment and I support the right to carry arms. My issue here is a matter of law and order, and people having the "right" to kill others, especially over property. Property is not equal in value to lives, and any store owner should have insurance. If the store owner killed them over property, then he deserves to rot in jail forever; if he was truly defending himself, then I can sort of sympathize with that, but the surveillance tapes have to confirm that he did not fire the first shot. If he did, then it's not self-defense, and he should rot.
Again, my issue here is not guns, but the application of them. You should always have a right to bear arms, but you have no right to USE them as you please.
Now, that, no-one can argue with -- or atleast, I certainly wont.
My issue comes with the fact that the men had not come to assassinate him, or harm him -- just to steal from him.
So this man has perhaps given his life to protect... His money. Which is the sad part.
I would stand by any attempt to protect the lives of innocents, or of the self, etc. It seems foolhardy to me, however, that a man with probably no military training, and a gung-ho attitude, took up a gun and perhaps got himself killed because people were stealing from his shop.
You don't know much about Houston, Texas. Robbers here frequently kill those they rob, so as not to leave any witnesses. Your best protection in Texas is not the police, but a gun, and the willingness to shoot those who might harm you graveyard dead.
Shot them.
I'm not all I want to be.
He did what I would have done, and he did what most of us think was the acceptable solution to the situation.
That doesn't make it right, nor legally justified.
Now, that raises another question -- to what extent should your life be governed by your laws and society's morals? I could say more, and answer it myself, but hopefully, if I don't do so, we'll have more of a discussion.
Actually, in America, it is legal to shoot armed robbers in almost every state, under almost all circumstances.
The guns were to ensure obedience. Petty thieves never want to actually kill someone. That is criminology 101. :
Hmm. I'll hold off on talking too much about what that says about the States, and instead say, I still think the most moral outcome is a situation in which causes the least harm to humans -- in this case, a simple robbery. So, while it is perhaps unfortunately legal to kill criminals in the States, I think that in most cases, it is still immoral.
All armed robbers should be shot dead. I don't give a flying **** if this was their first time or their tenth. I don't care if they're 18 and had a bad home life. They don't care about innocent life, so I don't care about them.
I happen to disagree. I think that risking your own life to kill armed robbers is a higher morality than allowing them to succeed in their crime and go on to victimize others.
The life of the victim, I agree, is to be supported and aided more than the life of the criminal, but both lives are worth more than any of the possessions either was carrying, as Orion said.
He hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that people are actively thinking "Yeah, whoo! That guy killed three people trying to rob him, way to go!" And they don't see the problem there, because a materialistic selfishness is quite prominent in a lot of peoples' minds today.
Mind that in some situations, I do agree, and that from what I've heard of the particular area in which the crime was committed, this may be approaching one of those situations where that action was justified, or atleast permissible.
However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.
Vigilante justice is sometimes justified, and often times not.
Mind that in some situations, I do agree, and that from what I've heard of the particular area in which the crime was committed, this may be approaching one of those situations where that action was justified, or atleast permissible.
However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.
Vigilante justice is sometimes justified, and often times not.
Hmm. I'll hold off on talking too much about what that says about the States,
and instead say, I still think the most moral outcome is a situation in which causes the least harm to humans -- in this case, a simple robbery.
There is absolutely nothing immoral about killing a scumbag who is threatening you,your family, someone else or your property or lively hood.So, while it is perhaps unfortunately legal to kill criminals in the States, I think that in most cases, it is still immoral.
However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?