It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
This mentality has been seen on ATS quite a few times.

Specifically, when an officer shoots a person that presented the threat of deadly force to him/her.

What is the sentence we hear all the time, "cops aren't judge, jury, and executioner."

While the statement is true, you forfeit your right to due process when you are in the process of attempting to commit, or committing violence against an innocent person.




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: lSkrewloosel

You have a lot to learn.




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
They are getting a fair trial.
Its a trial by combat.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
So Obama and Hillary belong in Jail. Obama with his never ending drone strikes and Hillary for shipping weapons to the middle east to overthrow... well everyone..



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
This is why I'm anti-social. No drama.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
a reply to: xuenchen

No it's not at all. The Huffington Post is reporting that someone believes that.


I imagine that's what the semi-colon means.




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I have the right to be secure in my person and property. You violate my rights, I'm entitled to violate yours.

You waived your right to self-defense and trial the moment you chose to violate my property.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It was illegal in this case:
Montana man who trapped, killed German student gets 70-year sentence


Kaarma's Missoula home had been burglarized twice in the weeks leading up to the deadly clash. He and his partner, Janelle Pflager, had set up surveillance equipment in their garage and hung a purse near an open door, hoping to lure potential thieves.


I can see where the scholar in the OP is coming from, who are you to decide who is a threat and who isn't? Isn't this what the whole case with Oscar Pistorius was about? George Zimmerman? Min Sik Kim in Washington state last week?

Sure, there are legitimate uses of self-defense, there's also people claiming self-defense when there was no such intention. That's part of why we should have trials to get to the bottom of such cases. Let's not get carried away with the constant victimization of conservatives though;

...our right to not be murdered by a maniac killer.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: xuenchen




a reply to: TinfoilTP
The 1950s is calling, McCarthy.


Must be Bernie calling collect.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Says the guy from behind the fence of his gated community.
(Most likely guarded by people with guns)
People like this need a reality check.

edit on 29-4-2016 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's some wisdom from a scholar that could qualify for the squirrel statement of the year blue ribbon award.

The claim is that somebody using a gun for self defense against an "alleged" criminal is bad and illegal because it could deny the criminal the right to a fair trial if the criminal was to be killed.


Unfortunately this guy is wrong. Case and point - the Patriot Act allows indefinite detention WITHOUT charge or fair trial (and being a criminal isnt even a prerequisite!)

And this guy claims to be a scholar, pffffft!



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The title alone made me shake my head, before I even read your post.

What utter madness. Seems there is more rights for a criminal these days, then there is for your 'law abiding citizen'. (good film btw)


It seems there is more and more younger generations trying to impress daddy with his or her new wonderful idea to change the world, in this sense. For the worst.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
hold on a scholar said this? i hope he never gets into a hairy situation where he has to defend himself or die trying. we are devolving as a species if this is what scholars think.
edit on 30-4-2016 by JourneymanWelder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Back in 2011 I (5'1" 130# female) was tackled and choked by a (6'2" 350#) male. I basically just did anything I could to get away from him and in the melee he ended up with a scratch on the cheek. Since choking doesn't leave a mark and the police refused to even listen to the only witness (who, yes, was my friend, but not lying on my behalf) I was charged with assault.

I had to spend a day in jail. Pay several hundred dollars through the bail bonds place and report to them weekly for the next 2 years until.....surprise, the charge was dropped because it was total BS. I guess the prosecutors finally figured out how stupid they would look if it went to trial. Did I get an apology? Did I get a refund? Did I magically get that day back that I spent sitting in jail? Did they then finally charge HIM, the guy who assaulted me? Hell no.

If anyone thinks the court system is going to be there to help them out/set things straight/be fair/be just....well, they're in for a rude awakening if it ever comes to that.

My advice: get yours while the gettin' is good because the system will NEVER be there to do their job.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

There must be more to the story for that guy to get such a heavy handed sentence.

You trespass on my property, you get a warning shot.

You trespass on my property and are clearly stealing and/or threatening me and my family...you get a warning shot to the head.

As paradoxius just pointed out: the 'alleged' criminal waives all rights when they violate mine.

And if you'll refer to my previous post, I don't trust the system one bit to actually uphold any kind of justice. I can list on both hands the number of times I've been the victim of a crime and every time I've reported it like I'm supposed to. And EVERY time the system has done absolutely NOTHING. And I'm talking crimes from minor all the way up to extremely serious. Most of the time they don't even investigate it properly, never mind attempting prosecution.

This is me not impressed with the 'justice' system.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to: xuenchenAND WHAT ARE THIS GUYS CREDENTIALS THAT MAKE HIM An expert. i am sorry you break into my house and threaten me or my family i will put you down whether its a gun a knife a ballbat or my hands i am not going to let you hurt my loved ones and if some little whiny a$$ know it all makes it against the law so be it.




posted on May, 1 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This is a whole new level of Bull#. So according to that imbecile, you should just let the criminal/attacker attack you without even defending yourself...
If you are attacked you should have the power to be able to defend yourself, and if the criminal gets killed in self defense, so be it. Nothing of value was lost.
edit on 1-5-2016 by KaibaTheJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
It was illegal in this case:
Montana man who trapped, killed German student gets 70-year sentence


Kaarma's Missoula home had been burglarized twice in the weeks leading up to the deadly clash. He and his partner, Janelle Pflager, had set up surveillance equipment in their garage and hung a purse near an open door, hoping to lure potential thieves.


I can see where the scholar in the OP is coming from, who are you to decide who is a threat and who isn't? Isn't this what the whole case with Oscar Pistorius was about? George Zimmerman? Min Sik Kim in Washington state last week?

Sure, there are legitimate uses of self-defense, there's also people claiming self-defense when there was no such intention. That's part of why we should have trials to get to the bottom of such cases. Let's not get carried away with the constant victimization of conservatives though;

...our right to not be murdered by a maniac killer.




Your example has one very important point that converts this form a self defense or defense of property case to one of murder.
The man left out a valuable as bait. He planned what was going to happen. Now one could make the same argument that police use bait cars and wallets or phones to lure those wishing to steal all the time. Had the home owner baited the thief and then detained him until he could turn him over for prosecution there would be no problem. He should have never told them he left a purse out to bait the guy in.
Shoot
Shovel
Shut up



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Lol the source article is an opinion piece about a huffpo opinion article. Thus this thread is an opinion about an opinion about an opinion on the second amendment.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Lol the source article is an opinion piece about a huffpo opinion article. Thus this thread is an opinion about an opinion about an opinion on the second amendment.


But the scholar did say what he said right?

And he meant it with force and vigor.




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join