Texas! Yep, I like it here ...

[Flying Crane]

Exactly - as with any undesirable trait, there is only one way to filter it out of the gene pool. How you achieve that depends on your view of moral and merciful behaviour.

and how you define an "undesireable trait". I'm sure we all have some of them.

 

[Flying Crane]

Except your making your conclusion of more gun control by reading a small 3 paragraph blurb and then jumping to conclusions and filling in the details. You have not seen the official statements or the investigation

or course this is based on limited information. and I'm not making any conclusions for myself, I'm stating what I think some people would say, based on 1) that story as relayed in the OP, and 2) two statements that you made, intended to be CYA statements. When people make a CYA statement, that tends to indicated they've got something to hide. Otherwise they don't need to make a CYA statement.

 

[Sukerkin]

There is no moral ambivalence here, Mike. Right from wrong is pretty clear - stealing a loaf of bread because your baby is starving is one thing, stealing a car because you fancy some easy cash is another.

Just to note, there is a reason why I say that I should never be given any power . I am Liberal and understanding of mistakes and errors of judgement right up to the point where someone proves they refuse to play by the rules. That's why, if you jump the queue at the car park, I will be the fellow knocking on your window asking you what you think you are doing :lol:.

As I've said before (and it used to be a joke before BillC decided that Nazi's were not Right Wing Extremists), I'm a Liberal Fascist - society is open and free for you to do as you wish, until what you do (by intent) harms someone else, then you have forfeited your place in that society.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is no moral ambivalence here, Mike.

there is a lot of moral ambiguity here. If nobody's life was ever in danger, shooting someone is wrong. That is why we have laws and a criminal justice system: because we as a society believe that A) a person deserves a fair trial and B) if there is punishment to be handed out, it is for the State to carry that out. The only time that is trumped is when there is a real and immediate danger to someones life. Based on the description of the story (and I know we don't know all the details) that doesnt' sound like the case here.

Otherwise, it becomes really really easy for me to make up all kinds of things about people, to justify my killing any of them.

oh, and did they ever find a gun on the guy who was shot in the SUV, the one the homeowner claimed he thought he saw had a gun?

 

[Steve]

Can't say I agree, Tez. Kill more of them, less of them to breed.

I couldn't disagree more. There are people who are irredeemable , but I've known several productive adults who were caught as kids nicking cars. Getting caught by the police, in every case, was the best thing that happened to them. They deserved to get into trouble, but I don't know of any place where stealing a car is a capital offense.

I am absolutely in favor of a person being legally able to protect themselves and their property. But this doesn't sound like that.

 

[Steve]

As I've said before (and it used to be a joke before BillC decided that Nazi's were not Right Wing Extremists), I'm a Liberal Fascist - society is open and free for you to do as you wish, until what you do (by intent) harms someone else, then you have forfeited your place in that society.

The punishment must also be in proportion to the crime. I'm for accountability, but death for stealing a car is out of whack.

 

[ballen0351]

or course this is based on limited information. and I'm not making any conclusions for myself, I'm stating what I think some people would say, based on 1) that story as relayed in the OP, and 2) two statements that you made, intended to be CYA statements. When people make a CYA statement, that tends to indicated they've got something to hide. Otherwise they don't need to make a CYA statement.

But in this country you better CYA no matter what. You need to always loom out for number 1 when it comes to the criminal justice system. When I shot someone I knew I was justified and had nothing to hide but I still refused to make any statements ans requested a lawyer immediately. I was instructed to simply say " I was in fear for my life so I fired". Truth is it happened so fast I didn't have time to be scared of anything I saw a gun he pointed it at me I reacted and shot. I didn't think at all. So its people that jump to conclusions with out the entire story that force the CYA statements

 

[Flying Crane]

But in this country you better CYA no matter what. You need to always loom out for number 1 when it comes to the criminal justice system. When I shot someone I knew I was justified and had nothing to hide but I still refused to make any statements ans requested a lawyer immediately. I was instructed to simply say " I was in fear for my life so I fired". Truth is it happened so fast I didn't have time to be scared of anything I saw a gun he pointed it at me I reacted and shot. I didn't think at all. So its people that jump to conclusions with out the entire story that force the CYA statements

sure, I understand all that. But the way you said, "it's a CYA statement" honestly, that looked to me like it came with a wink wink nudge nudge. Might help if the full story was posted or linked to.

I still say, this story does not help the gun rights advocates' cause.

 

[DennisBreene]

I knew there was going to be blowback. (slinking away quietly while whistling softly)

 

[Sukerkin]

The punishment must also be in proportion to the crime. I'm for accountability, but death for stealing a car is out of whack.

I assume that I was clear that the punishment does not work if it is not 'out of whack'? My heart agrees with you and Mike - experience on the broad scale suggests otherwise (and I'd love to see some hard numbers on rehabilitation that were not exceptions).

 

[Flying Crane]

I assume that I was clear that the punishment does not work if it is not 'out of whack'? My heart agrees with you and Mike - experience on the broad scale suggests otherwise (and I'd love to see some hard numbers on rehabilitation that were not exceptions).

Yes, but when you yourself become Judge Jury and Executioner, there is nothing preventing someone else from being the same to you, even on a perceived infraction. As I said, our society, at least here in the US, believes in the right to a fair trial, and punishment dished out by the State. Not by the individual. Those are the rules that you are refusing to play by, when you choose to execute someone who refuses to "play by the rules". And that then puts you at risk of the same results that you are choosing to dish out. As justified as you may feel about it, it doesn't work on a societal level.

and I do not believe there is any data supporting a reduction in capital crimes, even with capital punishment in place.

 

[ballen0351]

sure, I understand all that. But the way you said, "it's a CYA statement" honestly, that looked to me like it came with a wink wink nudge nudge. Might help if the full story was posted or linked to.

I still say, this story does not help the gun rights advocates' cause.

No wink wink statement just a fact you better look out for yourself no matter how nice the police detective is and no matter how much you think he's on your side.

And it has nothing to do with gun rights. If the guy walked out and just started shooting people then its already a crime and he should be charged with manslaughter or 2nd deg murder. That's not a gun rights issue. The gun rights issue would be if he wasn't allowed to have guns and these guys broke in and killed him. That's a gun rights issue. Otherwise murder is already illegal

 

[Flying Crane]

No wink wink statement just a fact you better look out for yourself no matter how nice the police detective is and no matter how much you think he's on your side.

And it has nothing to do with gun rights. If the guy walked out and just started shooting people then its already a crime and he should be charged with manslaughter or 2nd deg murder. That's not a gun rights issue. The gun rights issue would be if he wasn't allowed to have guns and these guys broke in and killed him. That's a gun rights issue. Otherwise murder is already illegal

well it has a lot to do with the gun control issue given how hot that issue is right now, because it's how the event is perceived by others.

And I'll reiterate that we don't have all the facts here, yet the discussion continues anyway. Maybe the full story should have been posted, but here we are.

The Homeowner claimed that he thought one perp had a gun, but I've not seen it established that there ever was a gun. The homeowner might have simply been mistaken, or he might have deliberately invented a CYA statement in an attempt to justify an (potentially) unjustifiable shooting.

We've got a second perp who was driving away when he was shot. The second perp was killed. While retreating.

We've got a statement that so far at least, the Homeowner is not being charged with anything.

And we've got a discussion here on MT with some people expressing the notion that this played out exactly as it should.

It comes across as a bunch of people gloating over two dead people, who may not have been a real threat to anybody.

Any gun control advocate who looks at this situation is going to say, well those Texas gun nuts are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging savages, they clearly are not reasonable-minded people and should not have any guns. Let's take away their guns.

I'm just pointing out what this looks like, from an outsider's point of view. Whether or not you feel the homeowner was justified, this situation adds fuel to the fire and I'm just pointing that out.

Do with it what you will.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the questions that is presenting itself in the debate regarding self defense and property defense is whether the Individual or the State is more capable of protecting either. We all know that the police aren't going to arrive on time, assuming you even have time to call the police, if your life is in danger. The State can't protect your life and the State probably isn't going to provide your family with justice either. The national average for unsolved murder cases is 65%. In some cities, it rises as high as 90%. With those kinds of odds and when you add in response time for police, it seems pretty clear that self-defense of one's life is completely the responsibility of the individual, no matter what the State says.

Now, much do you think this principle applies to property? I've had several things stolen from me in my life and not once have the police solved the crime. The average clearance rate for crimes in Honolulu is 91%. 95% of these crimes are property offenses. Chances are you are never getting your **** back and no one will EVER catch the criminal. The statistics are overwhelming. The State cannot protect your property. It's up to the individual. The State will also not be able to provide justice to the majority of those who break it's laws.

Taking that into account, you've got two men, possibly armed, and they are stealing your $30,000 truck. If they try to harm you, there is no one to call. If they steal your truck, that might cost you a years income and most likely you will never see the truck again and most likely the two are going to get away with it. If this individual doesn't stand up to these guys, no one will. More controversially, if the individual doesn't deal out justice himself, there most like will be no justice at all. It's just something to think about. We want the State to protect us and provide justice, but it clearly cannot.

That said, I don't think I would shoot someone for stealing my car, but who knows what the situation was. If I surprised two men in the process of stealing my car and I was armed and felt in danger, waiting might let them get the drop on me. Then I'd be dead and my family is probably never going get any justice.

Don't know if I would shoot a fleeing person though...but who knows again. Maybe he's armed and maybe he's going to run you down. There is an overwhelming chance that he's going to get away with your truck and not be caught though.

And he may be pissed at you for blowing away his buddy. Mercy in this case is going to come at the cost of some anxiety for sure.

The bottom line for me is that the STATE cannot provide you with protection or justice. YOU are responsible for protection...and justice...well to say it's rare is an understatement.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hmm ... I follow your internal logic and, as I've said before, my heart agrees. However, you either accept that innocents are going to suffer for a 'higher purpose' or you eliminate those that would so harm. It's a horrible choice, no-one pretends otherwise - and if you want to come and tell me I am 'gloating' to my face I'll give you what for (if it's not clear, I am insulted that you dare say such a thing).

EDIT: Realised that "what for" might not mean much to a non-English person . It means, in this context, a 'telling off' or 'recounting of grievances in blunt fashion' .

 

[ballen0351]

well it has a lot to do with the gun control issue given how hot that issue is right now, because it's how it is perceived by others.

That's the problem with most of this discussion people perceive what they want to fit their beliefs.

And I'll reiterate that we don't have all the facts here, yet the discussion continues anyway. Maybe the full story should have been posted, but here we are.

And even a full news report won't have all the details needed kinda like the funny edit job on the 911 tape from the Florida where Zimmerman says he's suspicious he's black on the "news" story when in real life its not even close to what he said.

The Homeowner claimed that he thought one perp had a gun, but I've not seen it established that there ever was a gun. The homeowner might have simply been mistaken, or he might have deliberately invented a CYA statement in an attempt to justify an (potentially) unjustifiable shooting.

I know officers that have shot thinking they saw a gun only to be wrong it does not make the shooting less justified. The blame still falls on the guy breaking into the car. You don't break into a car you don't risk being confronted by the armed owner of that car.

We've got a second perp who was driving away when he was shot. The second perp was killed. While retreating.

To me a windshield is the front of the car. For me to shoot you thru the windshild you must be driving towards me. So there for in my mind trying to run me down.

We've got a statement that so far at least, the Homeowner is not being charged with anything.

Right and after its investigated that may change.

And we've got a discussion here on MT with some people expressing the notion that this played out exactly as it should.

From the little I read it seems OK to me but I don't know enough to conclude anything. If the story is as its written guy hear people breaking into his car. He walks out and sees two guys one he fears is going to shoot him so he shoots him and then somehow ends up in front of a moving car and shoots again then I'm OK with it. If it turns out he made it up walked and and just shot them for no reason then I'm not OK with it.

It comes across as a bunch of people gloating over two dead people, who may not have been a real threat to anybody.

He claims he was in fear how can you doubt him and take the side of the criminal with out any other knowledge then what was provided. Unless you think anyone that owns a gun for protection is just a gun nut looking for his chance to cap off rounds

Any gun control advocate who looks at this situation is going to say, well those Texas gun nuts are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging savages, they clearly are not reasonable-minded people and should not have any guns. Let's take away their guns.

Has nothing ti do with guns. This has more to do with property rights are you allowed tobdefend your car with force. If he used an ax not a gun would it then be about ax rights? No its about property. In my state yoyr not allowed to defend your property. We have no self defense laws here. Its up to the prosecutor to decide if they want to seek charges or not. We dont have a castle doctrine like other states.

I'm just pointing out what this looks like, from an outsider's point of view. Whether or not you feel the homeowner was justified, this situation adds fuel to the fire and I'm just pointing that out.

So now we need to worry about what gun control people will think before we defend ourselves just so we dont add fule to the fire. If this adds fuel then the woman in the attic that shot the intruder in GA should have put the fire out last week.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hmm ... I follow your internal logic and, as I've said before, my heart agrees. However, you either accept that innocents are going to suffer for a 'higher purpose' or you eliminate those that would so harm. It's a horrible choice, no-one pretends otherwise - and if you want to come and tell me I am 'gloating' to my face I'll give you what for (if it's not clear, I am insulted that you dare say such a thing).

I'm not saying you are gloating because I know you. But I can see a lot of people getting that impression from the overall discussion.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's the problem with most of this discussion people perceive what they want to fit their beliefs.

and in the end, that's all that matters.

 

[ballen0351]

One of the questions that is presenting itself in the debate regarding self defense and property defense is whether the Individual or the State is more capable of protecting either. We all know that the police aren't going to arrive on time, assuming you even have time to call the police, if your life is in danger. The State can't protect your life and the State probably isn't going to provide your family with justice either. The national average for unsolved murder cases is 65%. In some cities, it rises as high as 90%. With those kinds of odds and when you add in response time for police, it seems pretty clear that self-defense of one's life is completely the responsibility of the individual, no matter what the State says.

Now, much do you think this principle applies to property? I've had several things stolen from me in my life and not once have the police solved the crime. The average clearance rate for crimes in Honolulu is 91%. 95% of these crimes are property offenses. Chances are you are never getting your **** back and no one will EVER catch the criminal. The statistics are overwhelming. The State cannot protect your property. It's up to the individual. The State will also not be able to provide justice to the majority of those who break it's laws.

Taking that into account, you've got two men, possibly armed, and they are stealing your $30,000 truck. If they try to harm you, there is no one to call. If they steal your truck, that might cost you a years income and most likely you will never see the truck again and most likely the two are going to get away with it. If this individual doesn't stand up to these guys, no one will. More controversially, if the individual doesn't deal out justice himself, there most like will be no justice at all. It's just something to think about. We want the State to protect us and provide justice, but it clearly cannot.

That said, I don't think I would shoot someone for stealing my car, but who knows what the situation was. If I surprised two men in the process of stealing my car and I was armed and felt in danger, waiting might let them get the drop on me. Then I'd be dead and my family is probably never going get any justice.

Don't know if I would shoot a fleeing person though...but who knows again. Maybe he's armed and maybe he's going to run you down. There is an overwhelming chance that he's going to get away with your truck and not be caught though.

And he may be pissed at you for blowing away his buddy. Mercy in this case is going to come at the cost of some anxiety for sure.

The bottom line for me is that the STATE cannot provide you with protection or justice. YOU are responsible for protection...and justice...well to say it's rare is an understatement.

States been saying that for years were not obligated to protect anyone. We would like to be we know we can't.

 

[Makalakumu]

States been saying that for years were not obligated to protect anyone. We would like to be we know we can't.

I know LEOs want nothing more than to get the real bad guys who hurt people and commit property crimes, but the statistics are really staggering. The amount of unsolved crimes is shocking. I know with more resources these numbers get better, but not a heck of a lot. What this tells me is that the individual needs to be far more prepared to protect their life and property. The police can possibly help in some situations, but the stats show that most criminals simply get away with it.

This isn't a dig at LEOs either. When you think about it, if we put all of the responsibility for protection of life and property on their shoulders, they're going to get overwhelmed. It only makes logical sense since there are so many more of us compared to the numbers of police. If the individual isn't prepared, you're going to be a victim. If the criminal gets away, you're not going to see your property again and the criminal is most likely going to get away.