God Bless Texas

[Bujo]

[quote]biggieben wrote:
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

one had identification saying he was from Puerto Rico the other might also have been from there, I’m that makes them legal US citizens

Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth with U.S. citizenship.

I agree they were criminals but the one at least is definitely a US citizen [/quote]

“Indicating”, as in possibly. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. I doubt the police are going to take the ID at face value. Why should I? Or anyone else for that matter? What’s your thoughts on the guy with three IDs?

“Might” being from Puerto Rico does not make one a US citizen as being from Puerto Rico does.

[Bujo]

[quote]Contrl wrote:
If the local Texan court rules in favor of that old man, relatives of those men can appeal to a higher court, where they’ll determine if there may have been a technicality in the trial. If not, then they can proceed to appeal to a federal court, in order to determine whether a federal law (and only under this circumstance) or right was violated.

I’m fairly certain that Texas state law goes against the Constitution on this, and if the relatives appeal high enough, the old man WILL be found guilty of either 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree manslaughter.[/quote]

Like wise family members may not come forward. Higher courts may dismiss the appeal if precedent is already established. Higher courts may rule in favor of the lower court and establish precedent. Mountains may be made of mole hills or perhaps all this will be quietly swept under the rug.

[Stronghold]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy. [/quote]

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

[texasguy2]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.[/quote]
No, you said the scenario is akin to picking a fight, getting your ass kicked and then calling self defense, which is not the situation at all.

I did read the article. And the jury will decide the legality of the issue. I understand that self protection, protection of property and even protection of your neighbor and his property are difficult ideas for you and many others to fathom, but it is the unofficial law of the land here. Well, parts of it are the official law.

The point you are trying to debate has already been argued through out the thread. Go back and read it before you talk about who understands what.

[Stronghold]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.
No, you said the scenario is akin to picking a fight, getting your ass kicked and then calling self defense, which is not the situation at all.

I did read the article. And the jury will decide the legality of the issue. I understand that self protection, protection of property and even protection of your neighbor and his property are difficult ideas for you and many others to fathom, but it is the unofficial law of the land here. Well, parts of it are the official law.

The point you are trying to debate has already been argued through out the thread. Go back and read it before you talk about who understands what.
[/quote]

Maybe YOU should go back and read it, because if you did, you would notice that I was one of the people arguing it.

[Headhunter]

If only the old man had lived by this little girl:

" Before dying, 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers was beaten with belts, picked up by her hair, thrown across the room and held under water, according to an affidavit from the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office.

Police believe 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers is “Baby Grace.”

The affidavit says the girl’s mother, Kimberly Dawn Trenor, described to police how her daughter died and was put in a plastic storage box that Trenor and her husband, Royce Zeigler, later dumped into a Galveston waterway."

Police: Mother describes beating of 2-year-old, hiding her body - CNN.com

That poor little girl. She will look down from Heaven while her biological parents stew in Hell. God I’d love to turn a flamethrower on those ‘parents’!!!

I’d buy a lottery ticket to get to pull the switch on the electric chair or to pump in the drugs.

[InTheZone]

       Now there are a couple of fuck ups that I wouldn't mind seeing get shot. 

But the rest of you “Billy Bad Asses” that are defending the old boy are really out there. Give me a fucking break. None of you know a damn thing besides what you’ve read in the paper or seen on tv. These guys were assholes true, but the fact is we don’t know if they would have hurt someone or not. If he was in HIS house and they came in, I would say that’s a different story, but for him to kill these two guys who didn’t want any part of his old ass is fucking ignorant. He could have easily just observed them and given their description/license etc to a cop, and let them go to jail. Fact is he was just ITCHING to pull the trigger on that ol gun. I’ll show them…

     Bottom line is you guys are just loving the fact that the guys got killed and trying to act like you would have loved to pull the trigger yourself. That doesn't make people respect you, quite the opposite. And that quack who brought up the bible??? What the fuck are you smoking?

       I'm not surprised though, a lot of the male species relishes the thought of doing someone in for all kinds of "valid" reasons. That's why in the end we ourselves will lead to our own demise in this world of fucked up idiots. We just can't stand the idea of "thinking things out". Fuck it let's fuck him up...right? Same mentallity of a gangbanger. But you all are better than them too right?

             You guys are fuckin childish.
                     TBN

[Contrl]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Contrl wrote:
If the local Texan court rules in favor of that old man, relatives of those men can appeal to a higher court, where they’ll determine if there may have been a technicality in the trial. If not, then they can proceed to appeal to a federal court, in order to determine whether a federal law (and only under this circumstance) or right was violated.

I’m fairly certain that Texas state law goes against the Constitution on this, and if the relatives appeal high enough, the old man WILL be found guilty of either 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree manslaughter.

Maybe I misunderstand what you’re talking about but I’m not so sure you have this thing figured out. If the man is charged with a crime and the court rules in favor of him then he is “not guilty” and cannot be charged with the crime again. There can be no appeal.

Now maybe you’re speaking of a grand jury that refuses to indict the man?

A prosecutor that refuses to prosecute him?

What do you mean?[/quote]

Ahh, I see what you mean. But the double jeopardy clause wouldn’t apply if the first trial was pushed through unconstitutionally.

[Contrl]

[quote]Bujo wrote:
Contrl wrote:
If the local Texan court rules in favor of that old man, relatives of those men can appeal to a higher court, where they’ll determine if there may have been a technicality in the trial. If not, then they can proceed to appeal to a federal court, in order to determine whether a federal law (and only under this circumstance) or right was violated.

I’m fairly certain that Texas state law goes against the Constitution on this, and if the relatives appeal high enough, the old man WILL be found guilty of either 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree manslaughter.

Like wise family members may not come forward. Higher courts may dismiss the appeal if precedent is already established. Higher courts may rule in favor of the lower court and establish precedent. Mountains may be made of mole hills or perhaps all this will be quietly swept under the rug.[/quote]

Welcome to the judicial system.

[Chewie]

[quote]InTheZone wrote:

       Now there are a couple of fuck ups that I wouldn't mind seeing get shot. 

But the rest of you “Billy Bad Asses” that are defending the old boy are really out there. Give me a fucking break. None of you know a damn thing besides what you’ve read in the paper or seen on tv. These guys were assholes true, but the fact is we don’t know if they would have hurt someone or not. If he was in HIS house and they came in, I would say that’s a different story, but for him to kill these two guys who didn’t want any part of his old ass is fucking ignorant. He could have easily just observed them and given their description/license etc to a cop, and let them go to jail. Fact is he was just ITCHING to pull the trigger on that ol gun. I’ll show them…

     Bottom line is you guys are just loving the fact that the guys got killed and trying to act like you would have loved to pull the trigger yourself. That doesn't make people respect you, quite the opposite. And that quack who brought up the bible??? What the fuck are you smoking?

       I'm not surprised though, a lot of the male species relishes the thought of doing someone in for all kinds of "valid" reasons. That's why in the end we ourselves will lead to our own demise in this world of fucked up idiots. We just can't stand the idea of "thinking things out". Fuck it let's fuck him up...right? Same mentallity of a gangbanger. But you all are better than them too right?

             You guys are fuckin childish.
                     TBN[/quote]

Do you think you could’ve possibly used the word ‘fuck’ anymore? Does vulgarity help your point? Does it make you any more correct?

Have you ever even been to that area? Are you aware of the neighborhood crimewatch programs implemented in those areas? Do you think they are there for a reason?

Growing up there, we had a serious gang problem and kids, yes kids, were victims of gang crimes. I may be digressing, but as a child I was not allowed to wear any baseball shirt with a MLB logo on it because it could be translated as “Mexicans Look Bad”.

I don’t condone the killing of another human being, however, the man was fighting back in an area that was inherently ‘rough’. So, you can take that righteous bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Your bottom line is flawed. The bottom line is that he lives in an area where people band together and fight back against crime. That’s right, there are community sponsored programs where everyone has agreed to protect each other.

None of us know a damn thing? Yeah, that was very close to the neighborhood where I grew up. I could’ve walked there.

Preach your arm-chair quarterback propaganda somewhere else.

[InTheZone]

[quote]Chewie wrote:
InTheZone wrote:

       Now there are a couple of fuck ups that I wouldn't mind seeing get shot. 

But the rest of you “Billy Bad Asses” that are defending the old boy are really out there. Give me a fucking break. None of you know a damn thing besides what you’ve read in the paper or seen on tv. These guys were assholes true, but the fact is we don’t know if they would have hurt someone or not. If he was in HIS house and they came in, I would say that’s a different story, but for him to kill these two guys who didn’t want any part of his old ass is fucking ignorant. He could have easily just observed them and given their description/license etc to a cop, and let them go to jail. Fact is he was just ITCHING to pull the trigger on that ol gun. I’ll show them…

     Bottom line is you guys are just loving the fact that the guys got killed and trying to act like you would have loved to pull the trigger yourself. That doesn't make people respect you, quite the opposite. And that quack who brought up the bible??? What the fuck are you smoking?

       I'm not surprised though, a lot of the male species relishes the thought of doing someone in for all kinds of "valid" reasons. That's why in the end we ourselves will lead to our own demise in this world of fucked up idiots. We just can't stand the idea of "thinking things out". Fuck it let's fuck him up...right? Same mentallity of a gangbanger. But you all are better than them too right?

             You guys are fuckin childish.
                     TBN

Do you think you could’ve possibly used the word ‘fuck’ anymore? Does vulgarity help your point? Does it make you any more correct?

Have you ever even been to that area? Are you aware of the neighborhood crimewatch programs implemented in those areas? Do you think they are there for a reason?

Growing up there, we had a serious gang problem and kids, yes kids, were victims of gang crimes. I may be digressing, but as a child I was not allowed to wear any baseball shirt with a MLB logo on it because it could be translated as “Mexicans Look Bad”.

I don’t condone the killing of another human being, however, the man was fighting back in an area that was inherently ‘rough’. So, you can take that righteous bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Your bottom line is flawed. The bottom line is that he lives in an area where people band together and fight back against crime. That’s right, there are community sponsored programs where everyone has agreed to protect each other.

None of us know a damn thing? Yeah, that was very close to the neighborhood where I grew up. I could’ve walked there.

Preach your arm-chair quarterback propaganda somewhere else. [/quote]

        Oh holy cow, ok chewie, sorry about the f bomb.

You say I’m preaching arm chair quarterbackin propaganda?
Who the hell isn’t on this thread?

You and your "rough" hood huh? Wow man, that teary story of how tough that place you grew up in made me cry. Try Oakland buddy boy, you aren't the only one who has a perspective on tough neighborhoods. I've seen guys get stabbed right in the hood before. Had guns drawn on me numerous times. 

That doesn't change anything. We weren't there. The only reason I'm against what he did, was the way he called the cops and the things he was saying, like, "I'm gonna go out there and shoot them". And the old man was "fighting back"? No one brought the fight to him, he went out and took his percieved "justice" out on them.
   

Look if these dickwads had approached/assaulted him, then I could see him shooting them. But for him to go out of his way and his home to go and shoot them for no other reason besides deeming it "necessary" justice, just doesn't fly.

I’m not saying the guys were in any way not deserving of harsh justice, but killing them outright is just not acceptable pal. That’s not being “righteous” what I said, it’s just being rational. Whatever man, you think you have the perfect crystal clear perspective on the whole thing from your reaction. Well bullshit, you’re just as uninformed as the rest of the people here on this thread, whether you lived there or not. You weren’t there when it went down, so shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

          By the way, aside from this little disagreement, I'm impressed with what you've been through medically, and have no ill feelings towards you on a personal level. Just thought I'd tell you that.

                   ToneBone   

[texasguy2]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.
No, you said the scenario is akin to picking a fight, getting your ass kicked and then calling self defense, which is not the situation at all.

I did read the article. And the jury will decide the legality of the issue. I understand that self protection, protection of property and even protection of your neighbor and his property are difficult ideas for you and many others to fathom, but it is the unofficial law of the land here. Well, parts of it are the official law.

The point you are trying to debate has already been argued through out the thread. Go back and read it before you talk about who understands what.

Maybe YOU should go back and read it, because if you did, you would notice that I was one of the people arguing it.[/quote]

Then I don’t see the problem. Either you are having trouble with comprehension or you aren’t sure what a progressive debate is.

[texasguy2]

[quote]InTheZone wrote:

       Now there are a couple of fuck ups that I wouldn't mind seeing get shot. 

But the rest of you “Billy Bad Asses” that are defending the old boy are really out there. Give me a fucking break. None of you know a damn thing besides what you’ve read in the paper or seen on tv. These guys were assholes true, but the fact is we don’t know if they would have hurt someone or not. If he was in HIS house and they came in, I would say that’s a different story, but for him to kill these two guys who didn’t want any part of his old ass is fucking ignorant. He could have easily just observed them and given their description/license etc to a cop, and let them go to jail. Fact is he was just ITCHING to pull the trigger on that ol gun. I’ll show them…

     Bottom line is you guys are just loving the fact that the guys got killed and trying to act like you would have loved to pull the trigger yourself. That doesn't make people respect you, quite the opposite. And that quack who brought up the bible??? What the fuck are you smoking?

       I'm not surprised though, a lot of the male species relishes the thought of doing someone in for all kinds of "valid" reasons. That's why in the end we ourselves will lead to our own demise in this world of fucked up idiots. We just can't stand the idea of "thinking things out". Fuck it let's fuck him up...right? Same mentallity of a gangbanger. But you all are better than them too right?

             You guys are fuckin childish.
                     TBN[/quote]

That is one perspective. But an incorrect one. How are you going to tell people what they think? Understanding California and Texas are nearly polar opposites, it would make sense that you can’t understand the sentiment of support for the man, although your disbelief sounds equally weird to many others.

Most people say kudos for him because he stood up for the right thing, not because they are vicariously being bad asses.

[Stronghold]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.
No, you said the scenario is akin to picking a fight, getting your ass kicked and then calling self defense, which is not the situation at all.

I did read the article. And the jury will decide the legality of the issue. I understand that self protection, protection of property and even protection of your neighbor and his property are difficult ideas for you and many others to fathom, but it is the unofficial law of the land here. Well, parts of it are the official law.

The point you are trying to debate has already been argued through out the thread. Go back and read it before you talk about who understands what.

Maybe YOU should go back and read it, because if you did, you would notice that I was one of the people arguing it.

Then I don’t see the problem. Either you are having trouble with comprehension or you aren’t sure what a progressive debate is.
[/quote]

I am arguing with you because you keep introducing poorly constructed and irrelevant points to this argument. The only person who is having trouble with comprehension here is you. If you had no problem with comprehension, you wouldnt have come into this thread making up facts about the incident.

[lixy]

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
Some guys mentioned the death penalty… interesting fact: Since 1973, 124 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. [/quote]

A good deal of innocent people were executed too. There’s ample evidence to support that.

[texasguy2]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?

Night isn’t specifically identified.

Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?

I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.

Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.

No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.

Did you even read the article? They werent breaking into his house, they were leaving his neighbor’s (who he didnt know very well) house after robbing it. He called the police, told them he was going to kill the burglars, and then went and did it. Thats not self defense, thats premeditated killing. You missed the ENTIRE point of my analogy, and I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fact that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.
No, you said the scenario is akin to picking a fight, getting your ass kicked and then calling self defense, which is not the situation at all.

I did read the article. And the jury will decide the legality of the issue. I understand that self protection, protection of property and even protection of your neighbor and his property are difficult ideas for you and many others to fathom, but it is the unofficial law of the land here. Well, parts of it are the official law.

The point you are trying to debate has already been argued through out the thread. Go back and read it before you talk about who understands what.

Maybe YOU should go back and read it, because if you did, you would notice that I was one of the people arguing it.

Then I don’t see the problem. Either you are having trouble with comprehension or you aren’t sure what a progressive debate is.

I am arguing with you because you keep introducing poorly constructed and irrelevant points to this argument. The only person who is having trouble with comprehension here is you. If you had no problem with comprehension, you wouldnt have come into this thread making up facts about the incident.[/quote]

So progressive debate is the problem. Work on that.

[rainjack]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.[/quote]

It was a fucking 911 operator, dipshit. That is their standard reply to everything.

You have no clue about this case, how things are done in Texas, or had a neighbor that has entrusted you to protect his property while is is gone. I highly doubt you have ever owned any property worth defending.

The guy is in his 70’s. You honestly think he went out looking for a fight? Are you delusional? Let me repeat this for you - the guy you think is out looking for a fight is 70-fucking years old.

There is a law on the books in Texas, signed by Rick Perry, that states you have the right to defend you property with deadly force. That extends to a neighbor’s property if said neighbor has asked you to watch his property and you agree.

Tell me what right the supposed Puerto Ricans had being on private property with a bag full of stolen property?

They were told to stop - they ignored the order. They are dead now. The old man is a fucking hero.

If you don’t like it, don’t move to Texas.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
SteinJorgen wrote:
Some guys mentioned the death penalty… interesting fact: Since 1973, 124 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

A good deal of innocent people were executed too. There’s ample evidence to support that.[/quote]

Evidently the Great State of Texas could care less. If a killer can be positively ID’s by 2 or more eyewitnesses during the commission of a crime and the murder - you get bumped to the front of the line. In other words - we put in a fucking express lane (Ron White’s words).

I find it quite ironic that lixy has the balls to post about capital punishment when he sees nothing wrong with ass raping 13 year old girls then having them arrested for being sluts.

[Chewie]

[quote]InTheZone wrote:
Who the hell isn’t on this thread?
[/quote]

What?

You and your “rough” hood huh? Wow man, that teary story of how tough that place you grew up in made me cry. Try Oakland buddy boy, you aren’t the only one who has a perspective on tough

Oakland is probably rougher in places as are parts of Houston. This isn’t the point. The point is that the area is/was rough and he was acting as he was conditioned to in said area.

I see this as justifiable based upon the aforementioned agreement within the community.

That doesn't change anything. We weren't there. The only reason I'm against what he did, was the way he called the cops and the things he was saying, like, "I'm gonna go out there and shoot them". 

I agree with you for this point and only this point.

If they saw him, they might have wanted to get rid of the witness. That would make me feel threatened.

I see it as that you cannot predict what someone is going to do, especially a criminal. Prepare for the worse. No one is there to protect you.

And the old man was “fighting back”? No one brought the fight to him, he went out and took his percieved “justice” out on them.

They did. It was a crime committed within feet of his residence.

Look if these dickwads had approached/assaulted him, then I could see him shooting them. But for him to go out of his way and his home to go and shoot them for no other reason besides deeming it "necessary" justice, just doesn't fly.

I’m not saying the guys were in any way not deserving of harsh justice, but killing them outright is just not acceptable pal. That’s not being “righteous” what I said, it’s just being rational. Whatever man, you think you have the perfect crystal clear perspective on the whole thing from your reaction. Well bullshit, you’re just as uninformed as the rest of the people here on this thread, whether you lived there or not. You weren’t there when it went down, so shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yeah, I get drug tested about every month. I may consider your invitation if that wasn’t the case.

I don’t see it as being rational. I see it is giving the criminals too much credit. We (as a society) are in no way obligated to rationalize what criminals are doing.

[quote]
By the way, aside from this little disagreement, I’m impressed with what you’ve been through medically, and have no ill feelings towards you on a personal level. Just thought I’d tell you that.

                   ToneBone   [/quote]

Yeah, thanks. It was a pain. You inspired me to post on the "Lowest Point in Your Life " Thread.

We cool.