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.
Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
All of you saying his life wasn't threatened so he shouldn't have shot them, what would you recommend?
It's real simple: When you violate someone else' rights, you forfeit your own. Period. no, that's not law, or biblical doctrine, it's effing common sense.
And, the crime begat back on you, should be worse than the one you purpetrated in the first place. (After all, the original crime on the victim, was worse than if he'd have just been left alone).
They're criminals - fvck their rights! That's one of the problems with this country!
Originally posted by ahmonrarh
them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.
Originally posted by ahmonrarh
ill have to stand by what i said.
no reason to reverse it.
they stole from a man
he tried to stop them
the "tried to run him over"
he killed one.
[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]
Originally posted by ahmonrarh
Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?
REALLY?!
That's odd, the guy who robbed me at gunpoint who's now on trial thanks to me, spent time in prison for drug trafficking just prior, hmm....me thinks "prison rehab" fails. oh well, he gets to try again this time.
and to answer the question: reincarnation perhaps.
edit: their status' made them law breakers from the door. them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.
the surviving thief needs to be charged with murder instead, evident that he was the driver of the vehicle in commission of a crime at the time his partner was killed, since he dropped off his friend at the hopsital.
i'm sure the dead one didnt drive himself to the hospital.
[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]
Standing in front of a moving vehicle even if its yours and was stolen, is false imprisonment. You are preventing someone from leaving. He took it upon himself to put himself in harms way, with a weapon as an excuse to fire upon someone.
Originally posted by 11118
reply to post by Conclusion
Take someones life for materialistic possession I do not see the common sense, humanity is so backwards.
Your enemy is your greatest teacher in compassion.
Unconditional love, something that most are lost to even practice.
Wake-up.
Originally posted by butcherguy
Wow!
I know this much. If an LEO pulls you over, and is standing beside your vehicle, and you decide to pull away, turning the wheel just enough to brush the side of his leg with your fender,
HE CAN SHOOT YOU!
AND A LOT OF THEM WILL!
ON A BUSY STREET!
AND YOUR CHILDREN IN YOUR CAR!
For those who chose not to read the story, the man was on his own property.
The THIEVES were stealing his flatbed trailer with their truck.
They tried to run him over! He was armed and tried to protect himself.
It must have worked, he didn't get hit.
It is very easy for someone typing on their computer to say that they would have done this, or they would have done that.
Here is the test. You have a gun, a guy in a truck tries to run you over on your own property. What do you do? You can figure that out after the smoke clears.
About thirty years ago, a neighbor of mine had 8000 dollars stolen from his home by a pair of con-men. The State Police officer said why did you have that much money in your house?
You know what his answer was?
Because I am allowed to.
Just like this old man SHOULD be allowed to walk on his own property without fear of being run down by trespassing thieves!!!!
Originally posted by My_Reality
False Imprisonment!?!? That is nonsense. Two thieves cannot be imprisoned in a vehicle they decided to steal. That makes no sense whatsoever. By your rationale, every law enforcement officer that detains a person in a vehicle is guilty of false imprisonment.
A citizen has every right to detain a criminal that commits a felony as does a LEO. In some states a LEO can open fire on fleeing felons. It seems only reasonable that a citizen can as well. All the more so due to the fact that many LEO's do not get charged with crimes for using force in situations similar to the victim's.
Originally posted by Conclusion
According to what you just said, well hell, I guess our forefathers should have just threw down their arms and let England have all of this MATERIALISTIC NATION. Choose a side wisely and if you have to fight, at least let it be for justice.
Originally posted by butcherguy
]In the arrest affidavit, who is sworn? It should be the officer making the report, not the arrested individual. The old man may have said many things, but he wasn't under oath at that point. Were the statements he made before or after he was read his rights?