|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
posted May 28, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you get killed while committing a crime, too bad for you. That's my feeling, anyway.
Quote:
So the innocent man who is just working at his job should when the robbers came in waving their guns should have no right to self-defense? That makes no sense to me.
Just so I understand your and Corribuses position a bit better. Against what villanies could the person in question react with lethal firepower without facing legal consequences?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 06:03 PM |
|
|
A simpel question are, where is the bloody silent alarm?
Another thing that was hard to se on the video: Did the accused put the 5 bullets in the same session as the first one? In that case there is pretty much not a case here.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 07:00 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:20, 28 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Just so I understand your and Corribuses position a bit better. Against what villanies could the person in question react with lethal firepower without facing legal consequences?
If you invade someone's home/property with an intent to commit violent crime, then I feel you accept the risk that goes along with it. If you go to a store, wave a weapon in the clerk's face and demand they hand over the contents of the register, and the clerk pulls out a shotgun and uses it to separate every part of your skull from every other part of your skull, then I guess maybe you shouldn't have tried to rob the store. That's not to say there isn't a gray area, or that you should be allowed to kill anyone who comes on your property, but if it can be shown that you had clear intent to commit violent crime, then your rights go out the window as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just so I understand your and Corribuses position a bit better. Against what villanies could the person in question react with lethal firepower without facing legal consequences?
My position if someone breaks in my house/place of buisness or tries to mug me on the street I have a right to do use whatever force I want/feel the need to use.
Don't tell me i can only shoot one time. Am I supposed to have to chance that the person can't get back up and kill me or pull another gun out of his coat pocket while he is laying there?
Remember there were two robbers involved too. The second robber could have come back in the door at any time to help the first robber.
A person has no "right to commit crime in safety." I have a right to protect myself and my property.
Remember when a crime like this happens, it happens very very fast. Time how long the second robber started to run from the time you see the pharmacist on camera with the gun. That is how long he had to shoot the fisrt robber the five or six times or whatever.
Everything is happening fast, you are thinking you are about to die, and you are reacting to save your life. There is no premediated murder here. Your adrenaline has shot through the roof and there is the "fight" insinct.
It is immoral to charge a man with murder because he killed someone who was threatening him with a lethal weapon. It is not at all unusual for a robber to kill a store clerk during a robbery. The man had every reason to fear for his life.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
|
So if you have "all the rights to defend yourself" you can pull a shotgun and shoot him even if he comes empty handed?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 01:22 AM |
|
|
Again, I still fail to measure how much freedom would Elodin and Corribus allow for people to defend themselves with lethal force.
What is a violent crime? Those who involve possibly lethal weapons? Those who can end-up threatening peoples physical integrity? And those who only target material posessions? Are they qualified as violent as well?
1 - What if the guy came empty-handed but pretending to have a gun in his jacket? Is that a violent crime?
2 - What if a really strong guy comes empty-handed to rob your store?
3 - What if a sneaky thief grabs something of value and just runs out of the place?
4 - What about a muscly customer who got aggressive and seriously combative after a few drinks?
5 - Lastly, what about that weird looking individual that comes to your empty store in a rainy night using a raincoat, and suddently seems to grab something inside of it in a menacing way?
Which ones should justice allow to be shot, on the floor, multiple times, until they're dead? WHERE DO WE DRAW A LINE?
In my particular conception its not so much of an easy matter to decide as you guys seem to point out. IMHO the judge in this case was not completely out of tracks. This pharmacist is almost certainly getting influential simpathetic people to back him up in his case. But shooting someone to death on every situation involving possible physical danger should be handled with ultimate seriousness.
I, as a wierd looking person myself, certainly don't feel safe to live in a society that allows that kind of vigilantism to go unrestraint.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 01:30 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:43, 29 May 2009.
|
Quote:
So if you have "all the rights to defend yourself" you can pull a shotgun and shoot him even if he comes empty handed?
Yes, if he breaks in my house or place of business or jumps me in the street I don't know if he is armed or not. I do know he is intent on stealing or killing me and my family.
Just because I may not see a gun does not mean he is not armed. If he has no gun should I have to fight hand to hand? What if he is martial artist? What if is just a better fighter than me? What if he has a gun and can draw it quickly?
Even if he were unarmed he could possibly use a quick movement to overcome me. If I just told him not to move I would somehow have to order him around until I got to a phone in my house for instance to call the police. A house is close quarters. Going through doorways to reach the phone would be very very dangerous. If I got to close to him he may be able to disarm me with a quick move. If I am too far away I lose sight as he goes through the door and turns the corner. Then he may be able to jump me when I go through the doorway following him.
Now, if I think it is safe for me to just say "Stop, don't move" first, then perhaps I will. But that should be MY call on whether I should take that risk or not. The law should not tell me I have to put myself or my family to risk when someone has invaded my home.
And in the video I linked to you can clearly see the guns of the two robbers.
Edit:
Quote:
1 - What if the guy came empty-handed but pretending to have a gun in his jacket? Is that a violent crime?
Am I supposed to be psychic? He is trying to rob me and pretending to have a weapon. I am justified in shooting him.
Quote:
2 - What if a really strong guy comes empty-handed to rob your store?
If he is robbing me I will shoot.
Quote:
3 - What if a sneaky thief grabs something of value and just runs out of the place?
I think I should be able to shoot. No one has a right to steal my hard earned property in safety. If they are stealing they are risking getting shot.
Quote:
4 - What about a muscly customer who got aggressive and seriously combative after a few drinks?
That should be up to the judgement of the person being threatened. If he is threatening me do I have to wait until he actualy hits me or pulls a gun? Depending on the immediat threat I am facing I will call the police or draw my gun.
Quote:
5 - Lastly, what about that weird looking individual that comes to your empty store in a rainy night using a raincoat, and suddently seems to grab something inside of it in a menacing way?
If he grabs something in a threating way I have a right to defend myself.
Quote:
I, as a wierd looking person myself, certainly don't feel safe to live in a society that allows that kind of vigilantism to go unrestraint.
Nobody should shoot you just becasue you look strange. But if you threaten them they should be able to respond with the degree of force they deem necessary. You don't have a right to hit them before they shoot you.
I am a big fellow. Give me a free hit on most people and they are out of the fight.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
Yes I know the video you linked, I was talking about a different case.
I disagree about shooting them -- shooting them is not the same as threatening them with a gun. If they are NOT armed, or at least you do not see any guns in their hands, why would you SHOOT them?
I don't say you can't have a shotgun and point it at their faces, but SHOOT if they stay still until the cops come? It's just too much.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 01:46 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you are doing nothing but parroting rhetoric. What you say does not apply and you would know that if you actually looked into things and thought for yourself.
With all avaiable information, the robber was NOT a threat. He was on the floor and unconscience. The pharmicist went back and shot him 5 more times AFTER the robber was completely incapacitated.
Even the head of the Oklahoma NRA said the pharmacist crossed the line.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 01:57 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:59, 29 May 2009.
|
I am not parroting anything. It is stupid to say that I am. I have read nothing about the case except for the brief excerpt that was next to the video so please don't lie about me just becasue you disagree with me.
If he came back in after chasing the robber that ran and shot the robber that is fine with me. Can you say he knew the robber was not pretending to be uncounscious and had a gun underneath him? No.
He just faced being killed and his adrenaline was pumped up. I feel sorry for him, not for the robbber. The robber is not the victim, he is.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 02:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have read nothing about the case except for the brief excerpt that was next to the video
Do I have this correctly? You admit to not doing the most basic research into the topic yet still insist that you're right?
Quote:
Can you say he knew the robber was not pretending to be unconscious and had a gun underneath him? No.
Since you admit to not knowing anything about the case except for the video in your link, then you didn't know he was unconscious on the floor did you? So now you say he might be faking it!!?? Sounds a lot like an irrational True Scotsman argument to me. Sure, I suppose he MIGHT be faking a gunshot wound and pretending to be unconscious. But do you think that maybe keeping a close eye on him or keeping him at gunpoint might be justified?
Just so you know my feelings in general about the use of guns, I'll just say I've been a member of the NRA for 20 years. And I can say with almost certainty that the NRA will NOT stand behind this guy by calling it defense.
Yes, there is the issue that the guy was really pumped up. And there are other related issues that people would know if they made some basic effort to research things. But none of those things will give him a valid defense argument. There may be an extenuating circumstance argument and I would probably agree with that. But there is no way to rationally make a defense or personal threat argument.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 04:14 AM |
|
|
@Death and Vampire Doctor (Geez I'm arguing against the armies of the dead here). 
I recognize there's a line to be drawn. I'm not advocating that a person should be allowed to shoot anybody who steps on his property. I'm saying that if I was a juror, I would find it hard to criminalize someone who kills someone else who came onto his property with clear (beyond reasonable doubt - important legal phrase) intent to do violent crime. EVERY crime involves drawing a line somewhere. For the same reason I find it hard to criminalize police officers who shoot first and ask questions later. All things being equal, I think you give the cops the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean there are circumstances when cops shouldn't be held responsible for using too much force. Each instance is considered on its own ground and you can't unilaterally generalize - which is what "drawing a line" asks you to do. For me the line lays on the side of the cops, just as ON AVERAGE, the line lies on the side of the guy defending himself. Make sense? (Sorry, writing quickly, away from home.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 05:52 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:09, 29 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have read nothing about the case except for the brief excerpt that was next to the video
Do I have this correctly? You admit to not doing the most basic research into the topic yet still insist that you're right?
No. The only information posted on the web at the time I made the post was the vidoe in question with the brief summary of what happened. I watched the video and commented on it.
So you might want to stop throwing accusations around ignorantly.
Quote:
Quote:
Can you say he knew the robber was not pretending to be unconscious and had a gun underneath him? No.
Since you admit to not knowing anything about the case except for the video in your link, then you didn't know he was unconscious on the floor did you? So now you say he might be faking it!!?? Sounds a lot like an irrational True Scotsman argument to me.
It seems to me you are quite irrational and have poor reading skills.
I asked a question. I did not make a statement. I ASKED YOU, "Can you say he knew the robber was not pretending to be unconscious and had a gun underneath him?" You do know the difference between a question and a statement, don't you? The "?" indicates a question in case you don't.
The poor pharmacist who had just had two robbers threaten his life had no way of knowing if the robber on the floor was fakin or not and you have no way of knowing either.
The poor innocent pharmacist was frightened and his adrenaline wass pumped up as he had just been faced with death. This whole incidenet happend within the space of a couple of minutes. Very fast, very frightening.
It is immoral to condemn a man for killing the man who was threatening to kill him. You cry for the poor mistreated robber and I'll cry for the actual victim, ok?
Edit:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/05/28/dnt.wa.clerk.fights.robber.komo
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS BREAKING NEWS. I HAVE NOT YET GOTTEN THE VIEWPOINT OF THE ALLEGED ROBBER.
A robber tried to rob a convience store with a homemade weapon (board and nails.) Should the clerk be prosecuted for being a vigilentee who took the weapon away and whacked the robber with it, chasing him outside the store door?
Was he too agressive towards the robber? When he have asked the robber not to hit him? When he took the weapon away from the robber should he have said, "Pleas, kind sir, await the arival of the police?" Was it really necessary for him to chase the "alleged" robber out of the door? Should the clerk be prosecuted for assault and battery?
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 06:19 AM |
|
|
Don't be frightened, Corribus... the undead are not half as heaten as infernalists, and certainly not passionate enough to cause fuss and riot. 
Now we seem to be aiming towards the same direction. We both know laws cannot comprise every possible incident, reason why law representants are necessary in first place. The reason for it is exactly how and where to "draw the line", in cases where its simply too obscure.
My point of view on the matter, far away from the discussion wether the pharmacist is right or wrong, is that in such intrisicate cases, somewhere a line must be drawn (assuming you are not believing everyone should have the right to shoot people within their property). Since we cannot seriously expect a law to be created specially for such particular cases, we must count on jurist action.
IMHO this cases help the very understanding of limitations. This is not a slippery slope kind of argument. Its not me saying that a concession with the pharmacist will prompt more obscure deeds. My argument is: those deeds will eventually occur anyway, and since it is on the jurists to determine right from wrong, its necessary that the rules are clear. So, I am happy that this charges were pressed, and I think its pivotal that this man faces trial even if declared innocent.
This kind of freedom of decision granted to law enforcers is the only thing that prevents law-abuses. If we take it to the crude letter of the law, all the 5 examples I gave represented situations where you would be protected by law to shoot the "offender". But everyone knows its power abuse... more adequately put its law abuse. Thats where, thank goodness, law enforcers come into play. And will give the "victim" the benefit of a doubt.
Jurists ARE there to ask: "were the extra five shots really necessary for the clerks safety?" And I expect from them nothing less.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 08:44 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Yes, if he breaks in my house or place of business or jumps me in the street I don't know if he is armed or not. I do know he is intent on stealing or killing me and my family.
Quote:
Jesus did not start a political kingdom or authorize his church to kill anyone.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:23, 29 May 2009.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
Yes, if he breaks in my house or place of business or jumps me in the street I don't know if he is armed or not. I do know he is intent on stealing or killing me and my family.
Quote:
Jesus did not start a political kingdom or authorize his church to kill anyone.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
No. I did not mean that a Christian can't kill in self defense or in war.
What I meant was that the church cannot impose a punishment for sin or conquer a nation "in the name of Christ" to make a kingdom for Christ.
Sin was also a violation of the civil law of Israel under the Old Covenant. The church is not a nation and has not civl law and no punalty for sinning.
Christians can defend themselves and their families. When the disciples went into hostile territory Jesus told them to buy a sword.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Edit: Now, if a Christian is being persecuted solely because of the gospel he is to offer no resistance. He must die for the gospel of Christ if need be.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 09:28 AM |
|
|
Kill in self defense is ok, but kill a thief is not.
It is always a question of "commensurability"
And life is for sure worth more than a few chewinggums...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
Edited by veco at 09:48, 29 May 2009.
|
Killing a man is always killing a man, no matter what reasoning is behind it. I also don't like how you stretch the term self-defense to your property.
If I were being robbed and threatened with a gun, I'd rather raise a silent alarm and call in the police who are capable of dealing with the threat better than I am, while trying to calm down the robber and not put everyone in danger of a firefight. Trying to reach for a gun/drawing it is very risky if the criminal expects you to do so and will result in a stalemate at best.
Answering with violence to violence is never a good way to solve things and if you didn't search the Bible for quotes strictly supporting your point of view but focus on understanding the whole message it's supposed to send out to the world then you'd understand.
It is far beyond my comprehension how being robbed justifies killing anyone. If you do not agitate the criminal you will get away safely and he will eventually get caught.
I tried to make a point about the risk of possesing a gun but it seems that the chance of getting robbed grossly outweights the risk of an accident, yes? I'm sorry but if every moron can keep a gun then I don't consider it a safety messaure.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
|
I can't believe people are actually defending robbers. If you get hurt in the process of aggressing against someone, it's no one's fault but your own.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 29, 2009 03:39 PM |
|
|
I dont need to read any comments.
Everyone has a perspective of their own freedom.
Some may be confusing to others.
Some may think differently of some freedom.
I might think living a free care life & doing what I want to do is my own personal freedom.
Another person may think being confined under their parents wishes is their freedom.
Sure I may not understand how that can be someones freedom but that is their freedom & they have the right to it.
Some people dont understand their limitation on freedom.
Point is that every individual have their own freedom that suits them but may not suit others.
Usually it evolves on the way you are raised & how you use it in the future.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
