Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Animal
If you want a response to that particular post (out of all the ones you have made), then just ask for it.
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.
"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.
Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?
This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.
this is the one, correct? OK..here goes.
1. It is not "killing over burglary". it is killing men who encroached upon HIS yard after he told them to stop, and then after he warned him to
not move. He was willing to allow the men to lie down and wait for the police, but they chose to run. It isn't the fact that they ran that got them
shot. it was the fact that they made sudden movement. Put yourself in that position, two men standing in your yard and they make a sudden movement.
And now you are doing what you accuse me of. The robbers were in his neighbors yard. He was told not to approach them. He made a DECISION to CREATE
the confrontation (PREMEDITATION). some how I do not think it very likely that he could not see the men well enough to know they were trying to get
away from the man with the gun.
2. a "slippery slope" argument is an informal fallacy and cannot be debated. It relies on a series of "what ifs". the fact is that it is the
law in Texas, and that is what the people of Texas have decided, per the process of the state and US constitution. As well, the protection of
property was exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they instituted the bill of rights. That is WHY we get to keep guns, and WHY soldiers
cannot take up forced residence in your home.
This is exactly why I called such a law a "slippery slope". Because making the assumption that allowing people to shoot people for entering their
property is going to have beneficial consequences ASSUMES a certain chain of events that MAY or MAY NOT come to pass...An assumption that also
dismisses an entire world of other possibilities...
3. There was no mention of what the property was. No one mentioned a hibachi grill, that i saw. It is unrelated to the case. What was stated is
that they had a "bag of property".
Me making a point and using a device known as humor.
4. State sovereignty is a constitutional matter. That is the way our nation was created. Further, Texas has "special" rights of sovereignty
beyond the other states.
Ah but this is still ONE NATION, lets not forget the federal governments ability to regulate at the state level.
Now, since i went to the trouble to reply to the one specific post that you seem to have wanted me to reply to, will you address your
misrepresentation of how/why they were shot in the back? Your insinuation is presumptive, as you are not including all facts in the assertion.
I have already responded to this accusation and I know my response was legitimate and understandable. They were shot in the back, as I stated by a man
who CHOSE to create the confrontation and CHOSE, premeditatively, that he was going to use LETHAL FORCE. All the facts are already common knowledge in
this thread and saying that I somehow am hiding information from people is silly. Everyone here knows how to read I do not need to repete all the
information over and over in every post...
I have no problem with you not agreeing with the decision. But at least be honest in your discussion about it.
I have been nothing but honest and once again I will ask that you stick to the topic and refrain from making this 'personal'.
[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]
[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]
