Monument Riots Come To SCREECHING HALT In Texas After

originally posted by: testingtesting
So a graffiti artist could get killed legally?.
Backward place that to me making property more important then a life...

I have known many people who believed their property was more important that someones life.. Take someone's horse or property and get hung or shot on the spot.. At one time it certainly cut down on the horse/cattle thieving... There is actually a tree in Jack county Texas called the hangman's tree... It was used at least once that I know of (father's story) about a guy who thought he could take another man's cattle... I guess it was all legal for the Sheriff was part of the posse ..

Like I said in the opening post I would not want to be the one to test

Chapter 9.41 states: PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property (Criminal Mischief is unlawful interference with property).

Chapter 9.42 states: DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime (Night time is 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise).

a reply to: testingtesting

What you call grafity artist is called destruction of property everywhere else in the world and generally every grown up is able to understand this. If it´s a paid job, completly other thing and not the case in this discussion.

Is your desire to deface others property more important than their desire to be left alone with such nonsense?

originally posted by: DAVID64
Hang on a minute folks....You all know I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd and pro concealed carry. I'm as tired of this rabid Liberal BS as the next person, but....
Do you really...seriously...think you'd kill someone over a statue?
If they turned on you with a hammer or whatever, fine, defend yourself if you have to, but Jesus Christ people...we're talking about killing another human being over a chunk of rock.

This has gone WAY too goddamn far.

Is it though, where is this line in the sand.

This seems to me more of "come and touch our statues and we will fill you full of lead" Texan style.

Seems like a dare, taking a stand and saying " righteo you little pricks, bring it"

I'm curious to see if anyone has the balls to take up the dare, I hope not because it very well may end up with someone getting hurt .

originally posted by: testingtesting
So a graffiti artist could get killed legally?.
Backward place that to me making property more important then a life...

That's what I was getting at... but on this increasingly partisan board, any logical point will be glossed over if it doesn't serve either side of the divide. Logic has officially died. I find it pretty irresponsible for an officer to remind people to kill in the name of vigilante "justice" when no lives are at risk.

And again... I'm against statues/monuments being removed, but this... this is just beyond.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: testingtesting

What you call grafity artist is called destruction of property everywhere else in the world and generally every grown up is able to understand this. If it´s a paid job, completly other thing and not the case in this discussion.

Is your desire to deface others property more important than their desire to be left alone with such nonsense?

Is vandalism bad enough to warrant execution? Without a jury or trial? For what, a couple hundred dollars at most in some cases?

a reply to: DAVID64
You are right and I hope most see it this way.

But you miss one important point. This thought was first entertained by extremist left. It escallated already when those screamed for Trumps head / extermination in public.

Self entitled, self-justice seeking people is the last thing everyone needs and with that I mean the ones starting the mess by defacing smth. to make a juvenile point.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: DAVID64
You are right and I hope most see it this way.

But you miss one important point. This thought was first entertained by extremist left. It escallated already when those screamed for Trumps head / extermination in public.

Self entitled, self-justice seeking people is the last thing everyone needs and with that I mean the ones starting the mess by defacing smth. to make a juvenile point.

"Who started it" is a stupid justification to just drop all reason. Two wrongs don't make a right... especially in this case.

ETA:
Ever wondered why Lady Justice was blindfolded?

a reply to: sine.nomine

My point was not, who started this, I was merely pointing out, that there is no innocent side. No holier than thou. It´s not about tit for tat.

It just reminds me of places like Saudi Arabia where you can get your hands chopped off for theft.....
Civilized my arse.

a reply to: sine.nomine
No it isn´t of course and I wonder how you think I enterntain this thought.

You asked a question and I asked a rethorical counter-question to show you the fallacy in your own question. Basically, what you wrote is another perfect example how the left plays.

Being the perpetrator but when caught or faced with the same logic, they are the victims.

I´m not putting you in any political drawer, meaning I took your question as an example, not your political standpoint.

a reply to: testingtesting
Yeah. Just like defacing public or private property right?

Not promoting the "shoot em up", merely showing you the double standards. Well that word fits it perfectly.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm losing faith in humanity. Justifying shooting and killing someone for vandalizing or destroying a statue. Lets just arm everyone and bring back the wild west. Humanity is losing their sense of reason, and respect.

a reply to: verschickter

Say someone is guilty of jaywalking. They are then subjected to torture for the crime. You can't just shrug and say "well there is no innocent side." Just saying it's an extreme punishment for property damage. If execution was okay by citizens for any random crime, I'd be dead the second I inadvertently cut somebody off in traffic. C'mon, you gotta see the point there.

a reply to: verschickter

Hey if they are destroying stuff arrest and prosecute but no one deserves to be shot over a defaced statue.

"Punching nazis is bad."

"Touch my statue and I'll shoot you"


The hypocrites are loose again.

a reply to: 727Sky

Wow, it was only a few weeks ago that I predicted this, and was laughed at for my "Hyperbole".
I don't think taking a life over a statue is the correct avenue for this, a life is too precious, even if the brain in that life is tiny and not working.

Perhaps it's time for all those who want the statues removed to look deep inside themselves and ask what it is that the statues did to them, or how they were personally damaged by them. It's been my experience that nobody making arguments for removing statues can answer those questions. They are all protecting some hidden class of people who have yet to be identified. In other words, SJW's in action.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: sine.nomine
No it isn´t of course and I wonder how you think I enterntain this thought.

You asked a question and I asked a rethorical counter-question to show you the fallacy in your own question. Basically, what you wrote is another perfect example how the left plays.

Being the perpetrator but when caught or faced with the same logic, they are the victims.

I´m not putting you in any political drawer, meaning I took your question as an example, not your political standpoint.

I'm not sure what your counter-question was, or how it shows any fallacy in my own question... maybe its the whiskey talkin' lol. But to insinuate I'm on the left is kinda funny to me... I'm far from left. My whole point is that to justify killing someone over vandalism is stooping to the ideology of the left to begin with. For example: saying it's okay to punch nazis.

I guess in the end, we're all doomed. :p

Not only has Facebook removed his post, but the police department dismissed him from his unpaid volunteer position. Looks like Texas has fallen to PC after all.

www.dallasnews.com...

originally posted by: 4003fireglo
Not only has Facebook removed his post, but the police department dismissed him from his unpaid volunteer position. Looks like Texas has fallen to PC after all.

www.dallasnews.com...

That's the most sane news I've heard in this thread. And for the third time, I absolutely detest people destroying statues/monuments. Unpaid volunteer part did give me a chuckle though, as that was an absurdly irresponsible thing to advocate.

a reply to: verschickter

We, as gun owners and people who carry, have said that "We are the sane ones". "We don't use it unless we absolutely have to" and now some are talking about actually shooting another person over a statue.

I really hoped we were better than that.

hopenotfear talked about "line in the sand"... I draw mine at killing over a rock.

ETA : Don't get me wrong...as long as they don't come after me or mine or endanger another, I will not shoot someone over such petty things as defacing a statue. But...if they do, the story will change very quickly.