Last night they were going over this on tv and one person was going over what you should do in a case like this. She said if your close to the shooter you should drop and find cover like a wall or something. If your farther away, try to make a run for it. I'm thinking no pull out your gun and shoot the a**hole.
Yes, and insane people can choose to kill in self defense because they thought the other mall shoppers were evil mutant ninja turtles out to kill him. Please, get real. They do have anti-psychotic drugs nowadays.Let us outlaw shooting tin cans because some moron may mistake small children for tin cans.
Bringing this debate back to reality: The primary purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberty and property of its' citizens from internal and external aggressors. Any law that restricts an individual from protecting his own, or his neighbor's, property is acting counter to the primary purpose of government. It is not a coincidence the rise of socialism and the rise of laws deterring citizens from using force to defend property against thieves coincides. Disrespect of property rights links the two.
I never said the gunman was stealing anything. I said if this happened in Texas, the gunman could have said that the people he shot were stealing, and he had to kill them to protect the store's property, so that prices wouldn't go up. I completely agree. Gun free zones are feel good legislation. They don't protect anyone except the psycho shooter.
I suppose, but it would be way more difficult to convince the court that he was in fear of being raped by the store employees and a few customers who were complete strangers that decided to gang rape him when all he had to do under the Texas defense of property law is convince the court that he believed that if he didn't kill them, they would have gotten away with stealing from the store.
It would be impossible to convince a Texas jury either of the scenarios. Maybe, some dumb****s in California would let him off.
That's true. It was a California jury that bought into the famous "Twinkie Defense". Twinkie defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point being that in Texas, it only takes someone to CLAIM that they believe someone is stealing property, not that property is actually being stolen.
I.W.S. Please stop taking this arguement of yours against the Texas law to the extremes just to make a point. Remember, the law would require the person show support for his claim the people were stealing. This goes to my point in the oppression thread. People like you blow everything into such massively out of proportion comparisons. Great point. Being as I.W.S. claims even an thief is more important than my 60inch plasma television, clearly our government has failed to protect it's citizens property.
I think great. More power to the law. Don't steal if you don't wanna get shot. But I think its morally wrong to kill someone over stuff. You can't take none of it with you when you die. Why should it matter that much now?
I think the spirit of the law says more about staying off of peoples land if you wish to commit crime, than it does about killing people for theft. The code verbatim; http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000009.00.htm The considerations are numerous and they tie together. UPDATE: Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in back | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
To use your favorite quote, " you keep dodging the question." "Why should any Joe Shmo, be able to kill someone for theft when, if convicted of the same crime in court, it wouldn't be a capital offense (eligible for the death penalty) if the state after a fair trial before a jury of their peers, can't do the same?
What the hell are you talking about? It is a law, like any other law, why is it leagal to kill someone to defend your life when if the situation were different you could get the electric chair? You keep running in circles trying to make the most silly comparisons you can think of to try and make this law sound bad. I think it is a great law and we need all States to pass it because I have had enough of the liberal babby sitters trying to make criminals sound like victims. These were bad guys who could have avoiding getting killed by not being criminals. It was their choice to be violent criminals, even the 911 operator told Hero Hoe that if he wnt out there he would get shot, so obviously even the 911 operator assumed these criminals to be violent criminals. Why can't people like you put any blame on criminals?
Agreed. Being that they were both illegal immigrants, I doubt they were aware of an Americans citizens right to arrest felonious criminals in the act. This was done at gunpoint, and according to Texas law, they were given proper street level justice. Perhaps if these career criminals took a minute to review the potential consequence of their actions in the state in which they illegally reside, than they would have opted for a better career choice. Laying on the ground, bleeding severely and starring at the blue Texas sky, I wonder if a job as a landscaper seemed somewhat more appealing to them?
Thoughts like that are way too intelectual for most scumbags. They were more likely thinking- damn, I knew we should have waited for nightfall.
Being illegal in the first place means they were just adding to their long list of crimes against our society. By choosing robbery as their way to make a living, they were involved in a very potentially violent profession, a profession that caused a lot of fear and damage to every American. The potential to have a confrontation as a burgler is very high, even the 9/11 operator assumed they were armed and likely to kill hero Joe. We can say one thing for certain, these two hardoned criminals will never commit a crime against society again. No, they most likely died blamming society for "forcing" them into that kind of life in the first place. Most criminals see themselves as heros against "the man". Government is bad, freedom to do what you want is good.......
I suppose my poetic sarcasm has eluded you two entirely. Too true, guys. They likely would have taken the same attitude as Brother Quanell X and his flock of mindless minorities have. Blame Whitey. I bet breaking and entering took a nose dive on the stat sheet in that area.
Thank you for making my very point. In your situation, if the criminal completed their act or killing someone, the intended victim could kill the perpetrator. The criminal was about to kill someone and in many states that is a capitol offense punishable with the death penalty. If you can show me any state that allows the death penalty for destruction of property, theft of property, or burglary, I'll agree with the Texas law allowing the killing of someone by anyone without, judge, jury, trial or any sense of modern justice.
