God Bless Texas

[Stronghold]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

Addicted to the government tit? Where are you getting this shit, Push, its great.

You really need me to explain this to you? Really? Think about it. We have surrendered so much of our freedom in exchange for security. I’m off the immediate subject again but I’m allowed to do this once in awhile.

Nobody moaned 120 years ago because there was no adequate authority to enforce THE LAW.

I could make the point that little has changed, couldn’t I?
[/quote]

Of all places, dont you think you could expect there to be a police force that would take care of it in Texas?

You are still arguing against the fact that this man taking the law into his own hands and killing the other two was wrong.

[Stronghold]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

I notice you keep referring to instances 100+ years ago.

I do this because shortly after 100 years ago we started asking Big Daddy and Big Mama to take great sums of money from us and care for us from cradle to grave.

It seems you have a pretty tough time dealing with this whole “modern civilization thing”. How’s this: 300 years ago, you would have been ostracized and possibly punished for having sex with someone besides your wife.

Very, very true. Both statements. In many respects I do feel I live in the wrong time period. Too many sheep in today’s world. Sorry if that offends you. Ask yourself, are you one of them?

It seems you want to kick ass and apply your morality to others (IE vigilante justice) but youll be damned if anyone else tells you what to do.

Don’t swim too far with my hook, Mr. King Salmon.

I would rather take direction from the voice of a representative government (regardless of how flawed or corrupt the current US government is) than from some fundamentalist wacko with a shotgun any day.

You’ve met the shooter and know him well?

[/quote]

Where did I say that I was referring to the shooter when I said that? I was speaking generally about my opinion of the type of person who would use lethal force to apply his own definition of justice, regardless of the existence of a legal system. I would consider that person a “fundamentalist wacko”.

It was wrong as in “against the law”.

Since we are all about deciding what is write and wrong, regardless of what the law says, what if the burglars had considered it perfectly fine to break into someones house and take their possessions?

You still havent answered me. Do you think that death is a fitting punishment for burglary?

Am I a sheep? No. I am neither a slave to a government nor to my own emotions. Humans are distinguished from the rest of creation by their ability to undertake rational thought processes. To forfeit rational thought for emotional response is just as idiotic as submitting to the whims of a government in which you have no stake.

What about you, Push? Would you have shot the burglars? Do you think that it was right for him to have shot them? Why?

[Bujo]

Personally I would be pleased as punch if someone took out the trash that was robbing my home while I was away.

Really the old man’s only mistake was calling the authorities first.

Stronghold wrote:
It wasnt his stuff being stolen, it wasnt his house, he called the police and told them he was going to kill the burglars, left his house, murdered them, and then returned to the house. That sounds an awful lot like premeditated murder. Please explain to me how that could be anything BUT premeditated murder.

So CYOA is the message of the day? (Cover Your Own Ass)
Don’t help those in need and just turn a blind eye to wrong doings. Whatever you do just don’t show any backbone and stand up for what you believe is right. Is that how you want to live?

Murder? Maybe. Maybe Not. When approached by a man with a shotgun three options are immediately available: Flee, Surrender, Attack.

If they fled and were shot in the back then I agree murder may fit the bill.

If they surrendered then the result was an execution.

If they attacked then the result was self-defense.

Contrl wrote:
What he did was murder, not self-defense. Even assuming the, infact, one of those robbers stepped onto his land, it doesn’t justify the murder of the other one.

1. Not true. It is still to be defined by jury.
2. Two theives approaching within 15ft of a single 61-yr-old man with a shot gun is a self-defense situation. Debatable is whether or not the situation should have occured.

Stronghold wrote:
Nobody moaned 120 years ago because there was no adequate authority to enforce THE LAW.

Its arguable that the act of theft alone is due to inadequate “authority” to enforce THE LAW. However, the article does prove that there is adequate “authority” to respond once informed the law has been broken. Of course I am assuming that by “authority” you mean an official law enforcement organization.

Judging by the results of this article one could argue that the old man was the adequate authority to enforce the law.

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I reread the article and couldn’t find the place where the two thieves were repenting on the guy’s lawn. I’ll read it one more time just to be sure.[/quote]

Doesn’t look like they had much chance to do anything before getting shot.

Anyway, you’re still arguing the wrong point. It’s not about whether the 2 guys deserved punishment, it’s about whether the shooter had the right to decide the punishment and carry it out himself.

Some people would shoot you for playing your music too loud, for driving too fast or too slow, for walking on their grass, etc. Vigilante justice is unavoidable in some cases, but when it’s clearly wrong, as it is here, the vigilante has to be arrested and charged to the full extent of the law.

Funny how things change with time. 120 years ago when the Dalton boys tried to ride out of town after robbing the bank and were gunned down by townspeople, nobody seemed to be crying about the evils of vigilantism. Nobody lamented. Nobody moaned (except the wounded Daltons).

It’s called progress. Most people (ie, not Texans) content that it’s better to have means of resolving conflicts and differences other than shooting each other.

I guess now we’re too sophisticated. Too altruistic. Too benevolent. Too high fallutin’. Too devoted to spotless and high brow adherence to the law.

What is it with this stupid love affair with barbaric practices? Why do so many men equate stupidity and brutality with being truly a man?

People are always bemoaning the fact that the masses are stupid, ignorant and uninvolved in anything. Yet, anytime that someone seeks to engage a problem from a more intellectual level, he’s ridiculed as “too high-fallutin’”

Oh and almost forgot, too addicted to the government tit.

Another ridiculous assertion. It’s the new cool thing around here to claim that any action that remotely involves a municipal, state or federal entity makes someone a weakling dependent on government tit. Sitting your ass at home, waiting for your monthly check from the govt is being addicted to government tit. Letting the cops do their job is not.

[AdamC]

I think I get what Push is saying but he’s taking everything out of context.

Yeah you (and we over here) have given up a lot of our securities but this doesn’t have much to do with this particular case IMO.

[RSGZ]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sitting your ass at home, waiting for your monthly check from the govt is being addicted to government tit. Letting the cops do their job is not.
[/quote]

Agree.

We have police around the world (albeit not always the most helpful), and they are there to protect and enforce the laws of a country - if everyone went off shooting people when they “assumed” to know the exact situation, it would be a fucking mess.

It’s a tough call because if the cops don’t get there in time - they escape, if he injures them - he stands the chance of being sued, and if he kills(ed) them - he’s in the wrong (or right).

I suppose it depends on the situation.

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s called progress. [/quote]

Off-topic: If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

[BigRagoo]

[quote]dennis3k wrote:
Ahhh well, two less thieves in the world…can anyone say that they really care?? [/quote]

I sure as hell don’t.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
It’s called progress.

Off-topic: If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?[/quote]

The 1950’s called. They want their joke back.

[Contrl]

Owned. Pookie took the words right out of my mouth.

[Bujo]

Police have not found the families of the dead men. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had documentation indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, Corbett said.

The number of bleeding hearts around here is higher than I expected. So we have two possibly illegal aliens in a country they shouldn’t be in committing a crime, and you’re whining on-and-on about the actions of an old man. Boo - Fucking - Hoo. One man chose to do what he believed was right and he is villified for it. Meanwhile the dead criminals are glorified as martyrs.

The now deceased criminals could have made any one of a thousand decisions and prevented this situation from occuring. I would wager they had far more control over the outcome than did the man with the gun. So not only are you rooting for the criminals, you are rooting for stupid criminals. Congratulations for making the world seem that much brighter.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with a 12-gauge shotgun.

Common sense seems to be lacking lately so I’ll make this easy.
The best way to not get shot is to:

1. Not commit a crime.
2. If you must commit a crime have a proper exit strategy
3. Run AWAY from the guy with the gun.
4. Position objects between you and the man with the gun.
5. Not committing a crime greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
6. Not being a criminal greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
7. Not committing crimes in Texas greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
8. Committing crimes in England or Canada greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.

[Stronghold]

[quote]Bujo wrote:
Police have not found the families of the dead men. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had documentation indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, Corbett said.

The number of bleeding hearts around here is higher than I expected. So we have two possibly illegal aliens in a country they shouldn’t be in committing a crime, and you’re whining on-and-on about the actions of an old man. Boo - Fucking - Hoo. One man chose to do what he believed was right and he is villified for it. Meanwhile the dead criminals are glorified as martyrs.

The now deceased criminals could have made any one of a thousand decisions and prevented this situation from occuring. I would wager they had far more control over the outcome than did the man with the gun. So not only are you rooting for the criminals, you are rooting for stupid criminals. Congratulations for making the world seem that much brighter.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with a 12-gauge shotgun.

Common sense seems to be lacking lately so I’ll make this easy.
The best way to not get shot is to:

1. Not commit a crime.
2. If you must commit a crime have a proper exit strategy
3. Run AWAY from the guy with the gun.
4. Position objects between you and the man with the gun.
5. Not committing a crime greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
6. Not being a criminal greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
7. Not committing crimes in Texas greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.
8. Committing crimes in England or Canada greatly reduces the chances of getting shot.

[/quote]

Are you saying that, since they arent Americans, that they arent human beings and can be killed at whim? Or is it that since they were possibly illegal aliens means its ok to kill them? Did you ever stop to think that if they had paperwork, the might just have been here legally? Bleeding-hearts? No, maybe “thinking minds” is a better term.

So wait, its wrong to vilify someone for doing what they think is right? Hitler thought what he was doing was right, lets just let him off of the hook.

Are you implying that they should have been shot since they werent good at being criminals?

Were not rooting for any criminals here, if we were, wed be backing up the crazy old bastard who saw some people breaking into his neighbors house, called the polce, and then went over and shot both men at close range with a shotgun. Where did anyone say that the men breaking into the house wasnt wrong? Last time I checked my list of sins though, Murder(x2)>stealing. Oh wait, they werent Americans though, their lives dont matter, right?

Youre right on one thing, the lack of common sense on this board is astounding.

[texasguy2]

[quote]pookie wrote:
What if…

The 2 guys had been defrauded by the neighbor and, having been given the run around by the cops, decided to track him down and get their cash back?

-or-

The 2 guys actually know the neighbor, who’s a cheap bastard, and decided to pull a prank on him.

-or-

The neighbor has been dodging his alimony payments, and his ex-wife’s brother and friend decided to come by and collect her due.

---

Of course, those scenarios are bloody unlikely - the guys were most probably robbing the neighbor - but they’re not impossible. I could understand the guy shooting people coming into his own house, but going out and shooting people at his neighbor’s house is nuts.
[/quote]
What if every body in jail is actually innocent? Maybe we should abolish laws and let people do as they do.

[pookie]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
What if every body in jail is actually innocent? Maybe we should abolish laws and let people do as they do. [/quote]

Do you manage to breathe unassisted?

People in jail got their due process and are there because they were found guilty by either a judge or a jury.

They had a chance to explain themselves and/or claim their innocence.

They also get to walk out when their sentence is over.

No one is saying that criminals should go free or shouldn’t be detained/punished. The people arguing against the old guy are saying that he was wrong to decide by himself that the two other guys deserved to be killed for their actions.

Repeatedly exaggerating our position to “all criminal should run free” and then arguing against that just makes you look stupid.

[Hagar]

[quote]mr_slick wrote:
Hagar wrote:
Fuck burglars. I could care less about someone who preys upon the innocent.

Did hell just froze over? Did soembody from California actaully agree with the Texas law?[/quote]

Yes. I’ve always admired Texas for having the most executions in the country. I don’t understand why we keep so many of these horrible people alive. Texas is way ahead of the game.

Granted my views are in the minority around here.