[quote]lixy wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
There is nothing preemptive about it. They stole money, they got caught and were shot.
Your own words were “there is no telling what they had planned next”. That’s you trying to justify a preemptive blow.
Shooting people over nickels and dimes while million-dollars thieves do a few years in jail is plain wrong. I don’t care about what Texan books say, it’s just awful to shoot people over money.[/quote]
This coming from someone that has never owned anything in her life…except maybe a prom dress.
[quote]lixy wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
There is nothing preemptive about it. They stole money, they got caught and were shot.
Your own words were “there is no telling what they had planned next”. That’s you trying to justify a preemptive blow.
Shooting people over nickels and dimes while million-dollars thieves do a few years in jail is plain wrong. I don’t care about what Texan books say, it’s just awful to shoot people over money.[/quote]
Don’t twist this story to make it seem as if someone was just shot over money. Are you that simplistic in thought?? Don’t answer that??lol. Anyways,he was defending what was HIS PROPERTY…which Texas law allows plain and simple…but this does not protect him civilly which is the only thing to support a MORAL argument.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Getting shot is an occupational hazard when your chosen profession is being a criminal.
Falling is an occupational hazard for window washers. Getting killed by a reckless driver is a hazard for any one who gets in a vehicle. All actions have consequences – so what?
The real question is what warrants deadly force? This wasn’t one of those situations in my opinion.[/quote]
Are you really that naive? You posting on the internet uses bandwith so what? It’s a meaningless statement.
Breaking and entering and robbery are crimes. Washing windows is a job. Getting hit by a car is an accident.
If the perp doesn’t think getting shot might be one of the possible outcomes he needs to think about it more.
I personally don’t think deadly force was warranted but it was justified to use it. It’s up to the person on the scene to decide and he will be judged.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He’s 70-fucking years-old. Karma had better pedal a little faster if it’s going to catch up with him.
Hopefully there won’t be any karmic blowback to befall his kin.
[/quote]
No such thing. The guy was operating under the law. The only karmic reaction should be that of the IRS screwing up on his taxes and send him an extra $10K.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Don’t twist this story to make it seem as if someone was just shot over money. Are you that simplistic in thought?? [/quote]
Actually, you’re the one twisting my post Boss. I wasn’t referring to the OP but rather to TexasGuy agreeing with RJ’s “killing people over property is fine”.
I didn’t pass judgement over what the old-man did. I wasn’t there and have no idea what the stiffs might have said or done to make him fear for his life.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"Texas law allows…
Oh, well, if the law allows it then it must be right and proper because there are no such thing as immoral laws…
Which is more immoral - defending your property, or allowing two punk assed thugs to walk off with it?
In this case - the fact that there even needs to be a law on the books that allows protection of property with deadly force is immoral.
I figured you could understand this - what with you being the resident militant libertarian/anarchist.
How do you reconcile all this glaring need to hide behind the government with your anarchy?
[/quote]
Morality steers human behavior. Anarchists rely on morality as the ultimate decider since man made institutions are unreliable.
To kill is immoral. To steal is immoral. To kill in defense of one’s property is immoral. Killing in the name of self defense is acceptable though still not preferable. I understand the idea of the preservation of self but I do not condone deadly force – never would.
The thieves were acting immorally and the old man also acted immorally. There was no one on the side of right in this situation. This man probably has no problem sleeping at night…that is sad to me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No such thing. The guy was operating under the law. The only karmic reaction should be that of the IRS screwing up on his taxes and send him an extra $10K. [/quote]
The law does not guide my actions – morality does.
The thieves were acting immorally and the old man also acted immorally. There was no one on the side of right in this situation. This man probably has no problem sleeping at night…that is sad to me.[/quote]
Using deadly force in defense of one’s property is immoral? Not where I live. Your anarchy wouldn’t last very long.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No such thing. The guy was operating under the law. The only karmic reaction should be that of the IRS screwing up on his taxes and send him an extra $10K.
The law does not guide my actions – morality does.[/quote]
Good for you. Seeing that this is a legal issue, why are you posting about morality?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Don’t twist this story to make it seem as if someone was just shot over money. Are you that simplistic in thought??
Actually, you’re the one twisting my post Boss. I wasn’t referring to the OP but rather to TexasGuy agreeing with RJ’s “killing people over property is fine”.
I didn’t pass judgement over what the old-man did. I wasn’t there and have no idea what the stiffs might have said or done to make him fear for his life. [/quote]
You misunderstand, or intentionally twisted the words. Killing over property is not fine. Killing over the defense of property most certainly is.
I have no problem with using deadly force to protect my property.
The problem is, he was not protecting his property. It was his neighbor’s house that was broken into.
According to the man who wrote the law that supposedly allows this gent’s actions, unless his neighbor specifically requested him to look after the house in his absense, the law probably doesn’t justify his using deadly force to defend it.
The other problem he may have is, the two perps were fleeing the scene.
Now, I would shoot a fleeing rapist or child molester with no qualms at all. A fleeing murderer, absolutely. Even a mugger or a tax collector, I’d probably consider.
But a fleeing burglar? Who did not even burglarize my house? Hmmm.
It’s admirable that the old man saved his neighbor’s cash, but I’m afraid the law might not be completely on his side in this case. The only two things that may save him are the fact that he did give a warning before shooting, and that his shots hit the two punks in the chest and side, not in the back.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Don’t twist this story to make it seem as if someone was just shot over money. Are you that simplistic in thought??
Actually, you’re the one twisting my post Boss. I wasn’t referring to the OP but rather to TexasGuy agreeing with RJ’s “killing people over property is fine”.
I didn’t pass judgement over what the old-man did. I wasn’t there and have no idea what the stiffs might have said or done to make him fear for his life. [/quote]
I think you’re wrong(AGAIN)…you twisted Texasguys and Rainjacks posts as if they blatantly said that its ok to shoot people over money,remember that?
The fact that they had money is irrevelant…the fact is they had this guys property…after breaking into his property…which is a crime. You don’t have to be there to know that they broke in his house…thats a FACT. He did what was allowed by TEXAS law.
If you truly was not passing judgment,how in the hell did you fall into a debate with Texasguy and Rainjack to begin with?? You’re so full of it.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
The fact that they had money is irrevelant…the fact is they had this guys property…after breaking into his property…which is a crime. You don’t have to be there to know that they broke in his house…thats a FACT. He did what was allowed by TEXAS law.[/quote]
Might want to read my post above, Boss. Or at least, re-read the article.
I would not doubt for a second that the neighbor gave the old man instructions ot look after his place.
That’s just an exchange of common courtesy around here: you tell your neighbors you are leaving, the neighbor offers to keep an eye on the place, the one leaving accepts his offer.
I hardly think that is going to be an issue in this case - especially given the age of the shooter.
The other thing that saves the old man is, like you said, the fact that he gave them warning to stop, and the thieves ignored him.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why the difference between a mugger and a thief?
[/quote]
Muggers, carjackers, and rapists all have one thing in common: they disproportionately prey on women, and will kill their victim if they don’t get what they want… sometimes they’ll kill their vicim even after they’ve gotten what they want.
If a man breaks into my house and steals my silverware, he’s an asshole and deserves to go to prison.
If a man assaults a woman half his size and attempts to rob, rape and/or kill her, he is a goblin and deserves to die.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
The fact that they had money is irrevelant…the fact is they had this guys property…after breaking into his property…which is a crime. You don’t have to be there to know that they broke in his house…thats a FACT. He did what was allowed by TEXAS law.
Might want to read my post above, Boss. Or at least, re-read the article.[/quote]
Well…as a student of Texas criminal law and from what I know of the laws…I have to say that the article is right…its gonna stretch the defense law. It still falls under the laws,but its gonna depend upon the neighbor that was being robbed. He can still be held civilly liable. I still stand by what I said…as applied to Lixy’s comments at least. We will see.
The only difference is what that CRIMINAL decides to do that particular time,day,and place…rape,mug,carjack,rob,etc. He could do all that in the same day. You can’t classify criminals like that.
it doesn’t take much for a criminal to break into a house,get caught,get scared,and do something stupid…kill,rape,kidnap,whatever…Its not always planned preemptively…and they don’t always just run away.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why the difference between a mugger and a thief?
Muggers, carjackers, and rapists all have one thing in common: they disproportionately prey on women, and will kill their victim if they don’t get what they want… sometimes they’ll kill their vicim even after they’ve gotten what they want.
If a man breaks into my house and steals my silverware, he’s an asshole and deserves to go to prison.
If a man assaults a woman half his size and attempts to rob, rape and/or kill her, he is a goblin and deserves to die. [/quote]
I value defense of property equally with self-preservation. Both are unacceptable violations, but I might give deference to a thief that stops when ordered to, and not kill him. I don’t think I would ask a carjacker to stop until after my magazine was empty.