Twinblades713 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 And if it kept happening, how many families would be safer with criminals knowing that they may very well be shot for trying to rob a place? Edit: Don't quote me on it, and even correct me, but was there not some policy in Israel about a zero tolerance policy of hostage situations and terrorism. If you -knew- that you WOULD be killed for invading a home, or holding someone up at gunpoint, how many would-be criminals would then do that? It's rather effective, I might say. Yes, harsh and I'm not even necessarily proposing it would be morally right, but effective nonetheless. http://www.espionageinfo.com/Int-Ke/Israel-Counter-Terrorism-Policy.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSeeU Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I just want to express how much I hate guns.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTT! Over in these parts people get killed all the time by guns, in Philadelphia people kill people. Can anyone say highest murder rate in the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Can anyone say highest murder rate in the USA? Highest murder rate in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 And if it kept happening' date=' how many families would be safer with criminals knowing that they may very well be shot for trying to rob a place?[/quote'] How many criminals would be wrongfully murdered? How many families would be killed on accident? After a "good guy" with a gun killed so many people he would eventually carry his self-righteous quest to other endeavors. How many innocents would he end up killing? Where would the line be drawn? Being a vigilante is illegal for a very serious reason. There is also a very legitimate reason police officers do not shoot first - ask questions later. Lets adopt the saying, "We ignore the law. Who needs trials? We just execute the criminals." Should we also chop off the hand of those who steal? They stole, right? EDIT: Twin. If you took a hostage knowing you would die, what are the chances you will let that hostage live? 0. So that little law is just ensuring that the hostages die. Great law to protect your own innocent people. Are we even considering the possibilities of mental illness? Should these people just be shot on sight? I get the feeling many of you are so "gung-ho" that you aren't really thinking through what your saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Can anyone say highest murder rate in the USA? Youngstown has more years with that title than Philly. Pssshaw. Noobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 How many criminals would be wrongfully murdered? How many families would be killed on accident? After a "good guy" with a gun killed so many people he would eventually carry his self-righteous quest to other endeavors. How many innocents would he end up killing? Where would the line be drawn? Being a vigilante is illegal for a very serious reason. There is also a very legitimate reason police officers do not shoot first - ask questions later. Lets adopt the saying, "We ignore the law. Who needs trials? We just execute the criminals." Should we also chop off the hand of those who steal? They stole, right? EDIT: Twin. If you took a hostage knowing you would die, what are the chances you will let that hostage live? 0. So that little law is just ensuring that the hostages die. Great law to protect your own innocent people. Are we even considering the possibilities of mental illness? Should these people just be shot on sight? I get the feeling many of you are so "gung-ho" that you aren't really thinking through what your saying. Point is, it all is put together. "I wanna take this hostage... but, dude I'm going to die so why the hell would I?" It's not like some secret we hold until they're IN the situation. That leaves the mentally deranged/disabled/suicidal whatever to be the ONLY cases. Even still I think it's your (one's) duty to defend yourself and your family, and hell even your neighbors if someone is threatening your life. I do not just spout, I have thought about these kinds of things for a long, long time and even though I may not be the best at articulating my ideas, I am quite sure of myself and why I think what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Point is' date=' it all is put together. "I wanna take this hostage... but, dude I'm going to die so why the hell would I?" It's not like some secret we hold until they're IN the situation. That leaves the mentally deranged/disabled/suicidal whatever to be the ONLY cases. Even still I think it's your (one's) duty to defend yourself and your family, and hell even your neighbors if someone is threatening your life. I do not just spout, I have thought about these kinds of things for a long, long time and even though I may not be the best at articulating my ideas, I am quite sure of myself and why I think what. [/quote'] Normal people don't take hostages. Plain and simple. Desperate people take hostages. Do you think when your desperate you will fully think something out? Maybe you think you are might die regardless? All this policy does is ensure that the hostages will die. It is not even a deterrent. Look at Israel. Did it help them at all? No. (My comment about not thinking something through was not directed at you, Twin. But the community of people that have been making rather ignorant statements about guns/killing/safety.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 First, those people who got shot robbing the place... well, maybe they shouldn't have robbed it in the first place? Since when has it become ok to let criminals off the hook and persecuit the people doing the protecting? That guy was defending his neighbor because the police weren't there, it was somewhere between 15-30 minutes, don't quote me on how long exactly it took before he got fed up with it. He called the police FIRST but they didn't do anything, and he knew there was no one else inside. If you're willing to break into anyone's house to rob it, you are therefore willing to get shot, at least in America, and especially in Texas. And honestly? I think if this happened more you'd see a decline in home robberies. People should not try and steal, rape, kill ect, but they do, and when someone stops them I wouldn't dare tell them not to. Enough of these suckers get shot and they'll get the message. That being said, I do believe that it would have been a better scenario if the Police did make it in time, but that wasn't the case. Texas has laws for protection, and it is not going to persecuit people who are protecting. There is no reason you should be in someone else's house with a giant bag of their stuff at 3 in the morning, so there is no dispute here. These people were not innocent kids tresspassing. When they decided to rob the place they knew the risks they were taking. Now, back to what you were saying. What if those people had been home? Well then guess what? They would have been trapped in their house with criminals and the police didn't show up until long after the guy blew the robbers away. So in my mind in that scenario, if they were home... more power to the guy with the shotgun. It's a very simple concept to not hurt other people. To not break the laws. Should people get executed by the courts for robbery? OF COURSE NOT. However, that is assuming they are caught and their threat has been assessed and contained. This wasn't. These people were commiting a crime in the dead of night, and there are too many questions... Are they armed? Will they fight? Will they come here? Will they this that or another. I don't think people should be able to run rampart through the streets with guns chasing after the criminals, but you better believe if I woke up and someone is in my house with my loved ones asleep, you had better believe I'm going to put a stop to that right then and there. I do not like violence, I don't advocate it, but sometimes you have got to stand up to the criminals who think its ok to violate everyone else's rights. Chances are if those people were robbing houses, they'd done it before, and probably committed other crimes too. And as I said, it would have been 100% better if the police had come and arrested them, but they didn't, so that man took an action to defend his buddy, and there is no way that I could, with good conscience, send him to jail. Another thing to think about... the justice system is broken in my oppinion. They put the wrong people in jail, they let the wrong people out of jail, and jail just isn't jail anymore. Criminals shouldn't get cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, air/heat, or anything else. That is a punishment, not a vacation. (but that's just my views). To wrap up... violence should NEVER be used unless necessary. Now... did that guy have to do it? No, but he acted on what he believed to be right, not because he wanted to shoot someone for the hell of it. I can't say anything for his conscience, but legaly... that man shouldn't go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I didn't read anything there, that I disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Criminals shouldn't get cable TV' date=' 3 hot meals a day, [b']air/heat, or anything else. That is a punishment, not a vacation. (but that's just my views). Criminals shouldn't get AIR? Now that's hardcore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I didn't read anything there' date=' that I disagree with.[/quote'] I did. I won't even make a full reply. There are far too many things wrong with what was written that I just don't have the heart or will to pick it all apart. All I can say is that you are dead wrong. That the majority of the civilized world will disagree with you and I hope you learn better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Jail should be about reform instead of retention. Therefore, I propose all jails provide everyone the Ludovico treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 First' date=' those people who got shot robbing the place... well, maybe they shouldn't have robbed it in the first place? Since when has it become ok to let criminals off the hook and persecuit the people doing the protecting?[/quote'] Since anti-vigilante laws were put on the books. EDIT: We also let criminals off the hook if the warrant was faulty. We do this not because it is the ideal thing to do in the specific circumstance, but because it forces police to keep proper records and helps prevent unlawful arrests. Freedom > security, if you ask me. It's a very simple concept to not hurt other people. To not break the laws. Should people get executed by the courts for robbery? OF COURSE NOT. So, the courts shouldn't, but individuals should be trusted to make that call? However, that is assuming they are caught and their threat has been assessed and contained. This wasn't. These people were commiting a crime in the dead of night, and there are too many questions... Are they armed? Will they fight? Will they come here? Will they this that or another. Which is exactly why the guy you're mentioning should not have involved himself the way he did. He is lucky that apparently they either weren't armed or were incompetent in the use of those arms, else he'd have added himself to the body count (which, prior to his involvement, would've been ZERO). Note what I'm saying here: until this guy got involved, all that was happening was crimes against property. This was a non-violent robbery. Your hero's involvement changed the situation into a violent one where lives were at stake. Someone's crap is replaceable. Someone's life is not. I don't think people should be able to run rampart through the streets with guns chasing after the criminals, but you better believe if I woke up and someone is in my house with my loved ones asleep, you had better believe I'm going to put a stop to that right then and there. Your house, yes. Someone else's house, NO. That's the law. Don't like it, vote for it to be changed. Another thing to think about... the justice system is broken in my oppinion. They put the wrong people in jail, they let the wrong people out of jail, and jail just isn't jail anymore. Criminals shouldn't get cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, air/heat, or anything else. That is a punishment, not a vacation. (but that's just my views). So, criminals should be treated like animals? Tossed in a cage, malnourished, left to rot physically and mentally? We shouldn't do anything to attempt to rehabilitate them, to let them learn from their mistakes? Now, I'm not disagreeing that the justice system is flawed, that the wrong verdicts get given to the wrong people sometimes (though the error rate is a lot lower than a lot of people think it is). But I'm still glad that the system is in place, because it is FAR preferable to the alternatives. To wrap up... violence should NEVER be used unless necessary. Now... did that guy have to do it? No, but he acted on what he believed to be right, not because he wanted to shoot someone for the hell of it. I can't say anything for his conscience, but legaly... that man shouldn't go to jail. Yes, legally, he should. His actions you may not consider immoral, but according to the legal system in place he deserves punishment for his actions (unless Texas laws are different from what I am familiar with, which they may be). Individuals acting on what they believe to be right is NOT a valid way to run a justice system, because different people believe different things to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 They have what are essentially Castle Laws in Texas, which makes what he did legal, but I won't debate it any further. All I can say about the laws are, that as long as those two border patrol guys are in jail for shooting that drug dealer in the rear, I will consider the justice system broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 They have what are essentially Castle Laws in Texas' date=' which makes what he did legal, but I won't debate it any further. All I can say about the laws are, that as long as those two border patrol guys are in jail for shooting that drug dealer in the rear, I will consider the justice system broken.[/quote'] As I do not know what case you are referring to, I can't argue any specifics... but I will say that if the drug dealer was not violently resisting arrest (and therefore justifying the use of excessive force), shooting him is going WAY too far and they should be punished for it. I don't care if he was running from them... neither selling drugs nor running away from a cop who's trying to arrest you is an offense worthy of that level of force as punishment, and even if it were, it is not up to the individual officer to make that call unless he has to do so to defend himself. It is up to the courts (specifically a jury). There are reasons why the executive and judicial branches (note: cops and courts) are separated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Why don't you all just go breed or something? All the cool kids are doing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I want to say the dealer drew on them, but I can't remember specificly, and don't have time to look it up at the moment. I remember something happened that would have warranted them firing, but the guy was only nominaly injured. Here these guys are doing their job, and a cartelie comes in, with drugs, does something and then runs, and a cop fires on them? I don't think they should be arrested. I dunno about where you all live, but the Heroin market in Dallas is almost exclusivly controled by the Mexican cartel, and you know what? I don't really like that. These people are coming into our country illegaly to sell kids black tar heroin (I know a girl who was a junkie at age 14). They know its against the law, so honestly, there should be consequences in that. For the record I am pro making it easier for people to become Americans, so long as they follow the laws and speak English. All I know is this guy was a confirmed drug dealer, and if they just let him go all it means is a steady supply of dope to my area, and I am not ok with this. People talk about his rights, well what about all the rights of the Americans that are getting screwed by this? Black market drugs, especialy narcotics, **** up more people's lives than anything due to violence, and drug/domestic abuse. Let the guys who just wanna work come, but keep those other bad people out, and send a loud and clear message that we don't want that stuff in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 You misunderstand me. A gun takes less skill to be deadly - it is a more efficient killing tool; this is why it supercedes the sword much like the sword superceded the sharp stick. A six year old boy pointing a gun at you versus a six year old boy pointing a sword at you. The sword leaves you more room to maneuver to save your life. Guns, like any fired weapons, takes marksman training. This is not to understate the skill needed to effectively use one. However, the gun is a highly more efficient killing tool over other ranged weapons, say, bows and arrows - which require loading time. Efficiency versus Efficacy. The Musketeers, 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 J.Twendrist: I hope you never own a gun. You are the sort of person that cannot handle that responsibility. By your own admission, you are saying that people who break any laws should be shot, from behind if they are trying to run away, simply because "they broke the law, they should expect this." This is why I am anti-gun. Not because I think "guns kill people" I just don't trust any of these damn people that own guns to not use guns to shoot people. I mean hell, abuse . What would stop a citizen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I want to say the dealer drew on them' date=' but I can't remember specificly, and don't have time to look it up at the moment. I remember something happened that would have warranted them firing, but the guy was only nominaly injured. Here these guys are doing their job, and a cartelie comes in, with drugs, does something and then runs, and a cop fires on them? I don't think they should be arrested.[/quote'] Unless the lives of the officers were at risk, they were not justified in using potentially deadly force. If he drew on them, fine, they were perfectly justified in shooting him. If he DIDN'T, though, if he was simply running away and they shot him to slow him down and catch him, then hell yes they deserve punishment. That's what is called excessive force. You seem to not recognize that it is NOT the cop's job to punish criminals. When a criminal is known, it is the cop's job to ARREST the criminal using as little force as possible, and deliver them to the courts for objective judgement and punishment. Deadly force is only to be used in situations where it is absolutely necessary (shooting someone is deadly force, doesn't matter if you aimed at the leg or the head). You know why these limitations are in place? To protect the people. To prevent cops from being overzealous in their enforcement of the law. To prevent people from being punished out of proportion to their crime. You seem to be okay with the latter happening, so long as it's happening to "criminals". I'm not. I would rather live in a state where the power of the police is limited and some criminals get away with what they do than a state where the power of the police is limitless and there is no crime because cops will shoot you for committing a nonviolent one. Freedom has the price of lesser security. That's a price I'm willing to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 This is why I am anti-gun. Not because I think "guns kill people" I just don't trust any of these damn people that own guns to not use guns to shoot people. sounds like you need to get a gun to protect yourself from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serinkane Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Criminals shouldn't get AIR? Now that's hardcore! you pay for it with your tax money, drug deals dont get taxed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I don't think police should just shoot on all criminals at all times, but if they draw on them they should. Anyhow, I'm done, and don't worry, I don't own a gun yet. Give it a couple years before I go vigilante and take my .50 cal desert eagle and go play whack a thug/murder/drug dealer/innocent bystander, all while in a street crowded with grandma's and their grandchildren. Who knows, maybe I can take out their dog too, I'm sure in my vicious state I'd consider it a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 7 rounds, heavy recoil (I got a nice little wrist ache from the .45DE), and America's mentality of "Kill the terrorist with sheer unarmed numbers" (think the shoe bomber guy...nearly beaten to death by a planeful of passengers) says you will not be very successful. I'd advise an MP5...more rounds and its heavy...so if it doesn't work you can hit him with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I don't think police should just shoot on all criminals at all times' date=' but if they draw on them they should.[/quote'] I agree completely. My entire argument has been based on a hypothetical including only non-violent resistance to arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.