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.

 

Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

page: 21
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


Agreed, I haven't seen the pictures, but what would/could their physical appearance have to do with their standing as individuals?




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by TexasSteel
 


Fine, same token, if you don't want to be stoned to death, don't cheat on your husband. And if you don't want to lose a hand, don't shoplift that Baby Ruth. Looks like Texans and Radical Islam have more in common than they think.


Rasobasi420:

I've not heard of man or woman being stoned to death in this county for an extramarital affair. And, I've not heard of someone's hand being cut off for stealing a candy bar. Keep the argument in the main stream of the laws of this country - not some goofball dictate of Islamic hardliners in another part of the world. Your typical liberal example does not apply.

I would love for the burglar shooter to be my neighbor. We would have a safe street and criminals would think twice before coming to our homes.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasSteel
 


No.

It applies. You're just dodging the question.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


You're polarizing the discussion with cheap tactics. I'd say he doesn't have to answer your question based on how stupidly it was proposed.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to know what the difference between shooting someone for thievery and stoning someone to death for adultery is. Is there a difference? Are we as "backwards" as these Middle Eastern countries we vilify?



I'll repost the original question.

What is the difference between an individual using capital punishment for theft or burglary and using capital punishment to execute an individual for committing adultery? Of for naming a teddy bear Muhammud?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Exactly what was stupid about it?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to know what the difference between shooting someone for thievery and stoning someone to death for adultery is. Is there a difference? Are we as "backwards" as these Middle Eastern countries we vilify?



I'll repost the original question.

What is the difference between an individual using capital punishment for theft or burglary and using capital punishment to execute an individual for committing adultery? Of for naming a teddy bear Muhammud?

Not much difference, ofcourse the last two are not really crimes, but I see your point.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


The question was stupid. It was set up to be answered with only the outcome you wanted. That's what polarized questions are meant to do. You see this a lot when people bring Hitler or Stalin into a discussion that has nothing to do with them what so ever. This has nothing to do with Islam, or crime and punishment in the court of law.

Because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean others do. Personally, I find this whole situation morally corrupt, but looking at the events that have taken place I can see how it happened and don't see any reason why I should "take" a side. You've made it a little personal crusade to prove why this is so wrong. Learn and grow, let people find it within themselves why this is wrong. I can tell you right now, your little lecturing and badgering isn't helping anything.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
Premeditation requires planning. Reacting to a crime is not premeditation.

Stating that you are going to kill someone, then doing it, is premeditation.

By saying "I'm going to kill them", he declared his plan. He wasn't simply reacting to an event. He was out of harms way, there was no reason for him to become involved, and he carried out his declared intention (plan).



PREMEDITATION - With planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation regarding an act depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to act, for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.

Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistance which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, but are not absolute proof of it, as these preparations may have been intended for other purposes, and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation.

Source

He prepared his arms ("Hear that?"), he was conscious of his intentions ("I'm going to kill them"), and had time to consider his actions (he was even strongly advised against them, but refused to listen).

In legal terms, this is rather cut and dried.

This would be a whole different ballgame if they had been breaking into his house and he fired in haste/panic or if there was an innocent life at risk. This was not the case.

The man is clearly guilty of murder.
It's now up to the Texas courts to decide if that murder is state sanctioned.


For the record, I don't think he should go down for murder one. Because of the legal grey area, I'd charge him with manslaughter and put him on the dangerous offenders list (which I believe even in Texas results in a restriction on your right to own firearms). Maybe tack on obstruction of justice for interfering with an active police operation.

My hope would be that serving a bit of time himself would allow him to understand that criminals are still human beings and that sometimes what seems like a good idea at the time really isn't.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I'd say the question is perfectly valid. It popped into my head right away too.
You can be sure that this news bit has made it to the Muslim world and that there are people over there (as here) that are banishing the word "hypocrites".

The main difference is that under Islamic law, breaking moral ethics is a serious offense. In the West, we don't care much about morality, but we are willing to blow someone's head off over a bag full of simple possessions.

This difference is worth considering when you are trying to lay claim to the moral highground, is it not?

There's people posting in calibration of this event who also like to back slap themselves for living in a civilized society and condemn the Muslim world for being Barbaric. Those folks could use a little wakeup call, me thinks.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by BitRaiser]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


DFB, think of it as a Lawyer asking a question. Of course I know what the answer is going to be before I ask it. That's why I asked it. It's meant for one to see my point of view, and show other how it's comparable to capital punishment for minor crimes. It's not stupid if it makes people think about the answer.

Then again, I guess we're back to "kill the lawyers"

As of yet, I haven't seen anyone present anything that shows that this man had to kill these men. Only that he had a gun and was itchin' to use it.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Well you're not a lawyer and a lawyer isn't asking a question. The same question would probably be inadmissable and irrelevant in the court of law. Try again.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


It's completely irrelevant. I hate to break it to you but it popped up because it is very simple reasoning. Talk about comparing apples to oranges, bitraiser.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Well you're not a lawyer and a lawyer isn't asking a question. The same question would probably be inadmissable and irrelevant in the court of law. Try again.


It's not about law. It's about making a point. I know I'm not a lawyer, but like I said, this has nothing to do with the law. Anyone can use logic, and this is a perfectly logical question. And you seem to be dodging it.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by discomfit

This is the false choice fallacy, claiming there are only two possible choices in a situation when more exist.

The Texas law on this subject has been posted in this thread several times including on the front page - please review it.


Well let’s see my smug friend,

Your quote of 9.43 basically states to refer to: 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY and 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY, so I'm not sure what your point is with 9.43. other than to say a person can protect a 3rd party's property, but the big question is does that also mean to kill as this man did.

9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY basically states one can use force in protecting property, ok that is simple.

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY gets into what this whole topic is all about that you totally failed at to address with only your 9.43.
Now 9.42. states when a person is justified under 9.41. they can use deadly force:

When and to the degree he REASONABLY believes the deadly force is immediately necessaryAND the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means OR the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The thing is yes this will go to court and the prosecutor will only need to play the tape of his phone call to get a guilty verdict.

1. Was deadly force immediately necessary? NO

2. Could property not be protected or recovered by any other means? NO

3. Was he at substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury? NO

The use of deadly force here was not justified for he even told the emergency operator he was going to kill them, so deadly force was not immediately necessary. The operator told him cops were on the way and stay away from them, so the property could be protected or recovered by other means, but he failed to allow those other means to happen since he was dead set on killing them. And lastly he was not at substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury holding a shot gun on those guys.

So I once again refer to my statement:

He enacted the death penalty with zero regard for our system of law.

And with that he will be guilty of the crime he commited.



[edit on 2-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


It's completely irrelevant. I hate to break it to you but it popped up because it is very simple reasoning. Talk about comparing apples to oranges, bitraiser.


And how is it any more complex than that? This guy, using his own personal moral values, judged that two other people no longer deserved to live because of their actions. He then shot them dead. Seems pretty simple to me. Care to add some complexity?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

I sure the crow bar that the perp's had in their possession will be brought up. Still not a guarantee that deadly force was allowed.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 

I'm not following your line of reasoning.

Why, exactly, is it irrelevant to point out the hypocrisies in condemning a society for cutting the hands off of thieves while celebrating shooting them down in the street?

No, it's not relevant in a court of law, but for the purposes of this discussion (which is largely centered on social values), it strikes me as being rather key.

I suspect you just don't like the comparison and would rather it not be brought up because it undermines the social smugness that is such an integrated part of Western society. It's simply not a comfortable thought, so you'd rather not deal with it.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


You're looking at a random situation involving runaway variables and common practice as in regions where Islamic fundamentalism is practiced and enforced.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I'm looking at a situation that is supposedly supported by Texas law, and supported by the majority of posters in this thread, compared to something that is supported by Islamic law, and is supported by many Muslims in said region.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join