More on Hero Joe.

[ImWithStupid]

He also could have said that the nine people were trying to gang rape him.

 

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.

[hugo]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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

[ImWithStupid]

It would be impossible to convince a Texas jury either of the scenarios. Maybe, some dumb s in California would let him off.

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.

[snafu]

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 think thats where the saying you need to drag him in the house came from.

[timesjoke]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[snafu]

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?

[Jhony5]

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;

Texas Criminal Code:

 

? 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is

justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or

tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or

recovered by any other means; or

(B) 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.

 

? 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person

is justified in using force or deadly force against another to

protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,

under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the

actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force

or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful

interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or

criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection

of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third

person's land or property; or

© the third person whose land or property he

uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,

or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

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 the back

Both men were hit by shotgun blasts after entering Joe Horn's front yard

 

 

By CINDY HORSWELL and ROBERT STANTON

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

 

 

 

 

Pasadena protests collide The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday.

 

In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.

 

The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.

 

The controversial shootings have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support for Horn.

 

"We now have a summary documenting what we think happened," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we do an extensive review for quality control."

 

The district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn, 61, a computer consultant, who has claimed self-defense.

 

The two men — Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48 — collapsed and died not far from Horn's home on Timberline in a Pasadena neighborhood.

 

Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said.

 

On Friday, Corbett described the shooting scenario that had been pieced together so far.

 

According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, at 2 p.m., he became concerned that his next- door neighbor's home was being burglarized after hearing some glass break.

 

The dispatcher repeatedly urges Horn to stay in his house but Horn states that he doesn't feel it's right to let the burglars get away.

 

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn tells the dispatcher. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

 

The dispatcher replies: "Don't go outside."

 

Then the tape records Horn warning someone: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then a third shot.

 

Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

 

Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.

 

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."

 

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

 

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

 

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

 

 

Autopsy report

The wounded man crossed the street, collapsed and died, authorities said. At the same time, the other man had turned and ran away from Horn.

Horn swung his shotgun around after shooting the first man and fired at the second one after he entered the neighbor's yard, investigators said.

 

He was hit in the back but continued running until collapsing a few hundred yards down the street, Corbett said.

 

According to a final ruling, Ortiz died of shotgun wounds to his neck and torso, said Ellie Wallace, an investigator at the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.

 

The report said that Torres died of shotgun wounds to his torso and upper left extremity.

 

Wallace could not confirm whether the men were shot in the back, saying the autopsy report only indicated they were shot in the torso.

 

Neither suspect was armed, but one had a "center punch," a 6-inch pointed metal tool, in his pocket that might be used as a weapon, authorities said.

 

Also, they were carrying a sack filled with more than $2,000 in cash and assorted jewelry believed taken in the burglary, police said.

 

 

Self-defense claim

Investigators believe a third person may have driven the men from Houston to the Pasadena neighborhood. Police could find no vehicle belonging to the pair parked in the area.

On the 911 tape, Horn mentioned a new state law that allows residents to protect their own home from intruders.

 

"This case is a little different," Corbett said. "We'll have to let the grand jury sort this one out."

 

Horn's attorney, Charles T. Lambright, said his client fired in self-defense because he feared for his life.

 

"One of them (suspects) moved and Joe thought he was coming towards him," Lambright said. "They were in such close proximity (to Horn) that they could be on top of him in half a second."

 

The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said.

 

"You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn," Lambright said. "If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder."

 

Civil rights activist Quanell X said he would step up the call for a murder indictment against Horn, and questioned whether the Pasadena police should investigate the case.

 

Quanell X said the shooting should be handled instead by the Texas Rangers and the FBI.

 

"I don't trust the Pasadena Police Department," he said. "Why are they just now releasing the fact that an undercover officer witnessed the whole thing? This case stinks."

 

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in back | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

 

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?

[timesjoke]

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?

[Jhony5]

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?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

 

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.

[timesjoke]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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.......

[Jhony5]

Thoughts like that are way too intelectual for most scumbags. They were more likely thinking- damn, I knew we should have waited for nightfall.

 

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.

 

We can say one thing for certain, these two hardoned criminals will never commit a crime against society again.

 

I bet breaking and entering took a nose dive on the stat sheet in that area.

[ImWithStupid]

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?

 

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.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

 

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.

 

How about Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Iran,Iraq and most other camel states ? In Saudi Arabia a woman was recently sentenced to 200 lashes and jail time for being alone in a car with a male friend.

 

What on earth will women do next ! Knitting alone in the park, I shouldn't wonder !

[timesjoke]

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.

 

But one has nothing to do with another, that is your problem, you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

There is a difference between crims persued after the fact and those happening in your face.

 

If a cop had said "don't move" to a violent criminal and the criminal did move against the order given to him, there is a good chance they would still be dead, Cops kill criminals all the time without a trial.

 

 

The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then?

 

 

Do criminals commit crimes just to humbly and quietly take their punnishment if cought, or do they tend to try and "get away"?

 

 

 

The possition you are holding is a criminal, an illegal immigrant violent criminal's life is more important than safety, security, and possessions of non-illegals and non-criminals.

 

I do not agree.

 

 

The only people with a choice are the criminals, they choose to put themselves into harms way and to disrupt, destroy, and ruin lives through their actions. Even if a person has insurance, it only covers actual depreciated value, not replacement value and many don't even have insurance so they are screwed.

 

Why do you want society to just stand back and be helpless victims to the bullies of the world?

[ImWithStupid]

The possition you are holding is a criminal, an illegal immigrant violent criminal's life is more important than safety, security, and possessions of non-illegals and non-criminals.

 

 

No, that's not my position. You have been misinterpreting me throughout this entire subject, accusing me of being a liberal and siding with criminals over innocent people, pretty much doing the things Wez says you do. Believe me I am far from being liberal. I am however a civilized person.

 

My position now and has been from the start is that being able to kill someone for destruction of property, theft, burglary, etc... , is basically legally allowed in Texas as a form of punishment for the crime, even though it isn't in court (another issue I have), is too excessive.

 

My position is that I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. We might as well go back to cutting of hands of shoplifters. If you want to live in an archaic, dark age, society, there are plenty of Muslim countries that live under Sharia Law.

 

I have no problem with self defense laws, because if the actor was able to fulfill their intended crime someone else could be killed or severely injured. If someone is being attacked they should have every right to defend themselves or another person that is being attacked to whatever degree the law would allow that person to defend themselves. I do have a problem with lethal force in defense of property.

[timesjoke]

No, that's not my position. You have been misinterpreting me throughout this entire subject, accusing me of being a liberal and siding with criminals over innocent people, pretty much doing the things Wez says you do. Believe me I am far from being liberal. I am however a civilized person.

 

So now you claim I am uncivilized if I don't agree with you?

 

More personal attacks?

 

 

You are just like Waz, you cannot support your claims and when people call you on them, you resort to personal attacks.

 

You are siding with criminals, you believe their right to steal overrides a non-criminals right to protect his possessions.

 

 

 

 

My position now and has been from the start is that being able to kill someone for destruction of property, theft, burglary, etc... , is basically legally allowed in Texas as a form of punishment for the crime, even though it isn't in court (another issue I have), is too excessive.

 

And you completely ignore how police kill criminals every day, thousands of times a day when the same criminals resist arrest.

 

They are dying for their refusal to stop when ordered, when police or individuals try to stop their criminal acts.

 

Again, only the criminals have a choice to not allow this situation to ever come up, how about holding them responsible for being criminals.

 

 

My position is that I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. We might as well go back to cutting of hands of shoplifters. If you want to live in an archaic, dark age, society, there are plenty of Muslim countries that live under Sharia Law.

 

Interesting that these dark ages places have almost no crime while every "modern" society that coddles criminals the way you want to have out of control crime.

 

Every study on programs designed to help the poor criminals have proven that coddling criminals does not work. Only strict punnishment is a deterrent to crime.

 

I love the way you talk of violating a criminals rights, did it occur to you that these criminals were not American citizens? The people they were robbing "were" American citizens and deserved to have someone protect their rights over the criminal desires of illegal criminals?

 

Who protects the victims in your world?

 

Or should innocent people just roll over and take it up the shorts?

 

 

 

I have no problem with self defense laws, because if the actor was able to fulfill their intended crime someone else could be killed or severely injured. If someone is being attacked they should have every right to defend themselves or another person that is being attacked to whatever degree the law would allow that person to defend themselves. I do have a problem with lethal force in defense of property.

 

But you call anyone who does not agree with you names, and that is what proves your possition to be wrong.

 

 

If you truly believed the robbers deserved to get our possessions without a fight, you would give away all your stuff but instead you want to give away "other" peoples possessions without resistance, I'm sorry but that is simply wrong.

 

 

Most people cannot replace what is stolen, most robberies are never solved, most people even with insurance only get around 50% of the value of what was stolen from them, and many don' have insurance like renters.

 

 

Your belief that we should all just go passive and let robbers have our stuff without a fight is damning everyone into poverty just because criminals refuse to be honest, it is their choice and I refuse to make their life easier at my families expense just to fulfill your liberal "protect the poor criminals" stand.

[ImWithStupid]

So now you claim I am uncivilized if I don't agree with you?

 

More personal attacks?

 

 

You are just like Waz, you cannot support your claims and when people call you on them, you resort to personal attacks.

 

You are siding with criminals, you believe their right to steal overrides a non-criminals right to protect his possessions.

 

There you go proving Wez right again. I didn't make any personal attacks nor did I didn't call you anything. I was describing what I am.

 

No the criminals don't have the right to steal things, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

 

 

And you completely ignore how police kill criminals every day, thousands of times a day when the same criminals resist arrest.

 

They are dying for their refusal to stop when ordered, when police or individuals try to stop their criminal acts.

 

You are either very misinformed or very old. Cops haven't been able to shoot at a fleeing felon since the early 70's. The only way a cop can use lethal force is in defense of self or others. Again I have no problem with defense of life.

 

 

Interesting that these dark ages places have almost no crime while every "modern" society that coddles criminals the way you want to have out of control crime.

 

Sure they don't. They report that they don't have any homosexuals also.

 

I love the way you talk of violating a criminals rights, did it occur to you that these criminals were not American citizens? The people they were robbing "were" American citizens and deserved to have someone protect their rights over the criminal desires of illegal criminals?

 

I never said anything about violating anyone's rights. (proving Wez right again) I said that the law was unconstitutional.

 

 

But you call anyone who does not agree with you names, and that is what proves your position to be wrong.

 

Nope. I didn't do that. You said I did.

 

 

If you truly believed the robbers deserved to get our possessions without a fight, you would give away all your stuff but instead you want to give away "other" peoples possessions without resistance, I'm sorry but that is simply wrong.

 

No I don't. You said I do, not me.

 

Your belief that we should all just go passive and let robbers have our stuff without a fight is damning everyone into poverty just because criminals refuse to be honest, it is their choice and I refuse to make their life easier at my families expense just to fulfill your liberal "protect the poor criminals" stand.

 

If you could get past yourself, and actually read what I post. You would find out that I never said this and this is a belief that you keep telling me is mine.

[timesjoke]

There you go proving Wez right again. I didn't make any personal attacks nor did I didn't call you anything. I was describing what I am.

 

And by saying your side is civilized, that implies that any other possition is not civilizied, you know what you were saying, don't play word games now.

 

No the criminals don't have the right to steal things, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

 

In your opinion, and I respect your opinion, but you are speaking high and mighty trying to force your opinion on others and talking down your nose at anyone who does not agree with you.

 

Clearly the people and society determine penalties for crimes, you do not have the right to be the worlds commander on legal matters.

 

 

You are either very misinformed or very old. Cops haven't been able to shoot at a fleeing felon since the early 70's. The only way a cop can use lethal force is in defense of self or others. Again I have no problem with defense of life.

 

I am (well was for ten years) a LEO, if a burgler is climbing out a window and I tell him to freeze, he better freeze or I will shoot him, he will have somethign in his hands (he is robbing the place) he had a weapon in my opinion and moved in a threatening way, bang.

 

 

 

Sure they don't. They report that they don't have any homosexuals also.

 

They dont, they kill them all. The official ones anyway.

 

 

I never said anything about violating anyone's rights. (proving Wez right again) I said that the law was unconstitutional.

 

Yes you did talk about the criminals rights:

I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

You know what, I am all broke up about the rights of illegal immegrants that ignore every law of the land to make innocent people victims......not.

 

 

Again, stopping a criminal from committing a less then capital crime can still lead tword the criminal getting killed, kids on a joy ride die all the time running from cops and never see a courtroom.

 

I will ask the question again:

 

The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then?

 

Try answering it this time.

 

 

 

 

Nope. I didn't do that. You said I did.

 

Sideways by saying your civilized so by comparison, were not.

 

 

 

No I don't. You said I do, not me.

 

It is called putting your money (in this case your property) where your mouth is, if you believe people have no rights to keep personal possessions safe from criminals, then back that up by putting your possessions at risk first, don't put everyone elses stuff on the line for theft without recourse if you refuse to do it first.

 

 

If you could get past yourself, and actually read what I post. You would find out that I never said this and this is a belief that you keep telling me is mine.

 

Your the one saying that an illegal immegrant robber should not face harsh resistance because he would not see that level of harshness in a courtroom, that is exactly what you said.

 

If were are not allowed to defend what we worked our butts off to earn, what can we defend, oh, that right, you say we can only defend life, everything else should be given away to criminals without resistance.

[ImWithStupid]

I will ask the question again:

 

The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then?

 

Try answering it this time.

 

I have said this before, in another thread on this subject. I live in Nebraska. Although there is nothing specifically saying a citizen can't stop a criminal while committing a crime, the only law that specifically gives the right to detain someone in commission of a property crime is for the crime of shoplifting.

 

And by saying your side is civilized, that implies that any other possition is not civilizied, you know what you were saying, don't play word games now.

 

I'm glad you told me that's what I meant. I didn't even realize it. Thank you oh omnipotent one.

 

Seriously though. That's not what I meant. It's amazing you seem to know what I mean better than I do. Is it that you know better then I here or are you just a bit over defensive.

 

In your opinion, and I respect your opinion, but you are speaking high and mighty trying to force your opinion on others and talking down your nose at anyone who does not agree with you.

 

If you respect my opinion, why do you keep telling me what my opinion is.

 

Clearly the people and society determine penalties for crimes, you do not have the right to be the worlds commander on legal matters.

 

Never said I was.

 

I am (well was for ten years) a LEO, if a burgler is climbing out a window and I tell him to freeze, he better freeze or I will shoot him, he will have somethign in his hands (he is robbing the place) he had a weapon in my opinion and moved in a threatening way, bang.

 

Again thanks for making my point. You are in fear of your life, not your ipod.

 

They dont, they kill them all. The official ones anyway.

 

I'm sure, based on your definition, that the homosexuals aren't being oppressed either. You know, since we haven't found them in the showers or ovens yet.

 

Yes you did talk about the criminals rights:

 

Where?

 

You know what, I am all broke up about the rights of illegal immegrants that ignore every law of the land to make innocent people victims......not.

 

No green card? Bang! No papers? Bang! Thanks for correcting me. That does sound civilized.

 

Again, stopping a criminal from committing a less then capital crime can still lead tword the criminal getting killed, kids on a joy ride die all the time running from cops and never see a courtroom.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Sideways by saying your civilized so by comparison, were not.

 

Again. Not what I meant, but sorry your insecurities about your viewpoint made you feel that way.

 

It is called putting your money (in this case your property) where your mouth is, if you believe people have no rights to keep personal possessions safe from criminals, then back that up by putting your possessions at risk first, don't put everyone elses stuff on the line for theft without recourse if you refuse to do it first.

 

Again, makes no sense. I have said many times that I wouldn't kill someone for my stuff. I have no problem with killing someone if I personally or another person's life is in EMINENT danger.

 

Your the one saying that an illegal immegrant robber should not face harsh resistance because he would not see that level of harshness in a courtroom, that is exactly what you said.

 

No, I said that nobody should be put to death on the street, for a crime that a Judge and jury couldn't sentence someone to death if they had a fair trial in front of an impartial jury of their peers, which is also a right in the Constitution.

 

As for the illegal immigrant crap you keep bringing up, it's a moot point. Neither Joe or anyone else who does this will have any idea what the legal status of the offender is when they execute them.

 

If were are not allowed to defend what we worked our butts off to earn, what can we defend, oh, that right, you say we can only defend life, everything else should be given away to criminals without resistance.

 

No. I never said to give anything away. Those are your words. As for lethal force, yes I believe that it should only be used in defense of life.

 

To go on.

 

You accuse me of speaking high and mighty and forcing my opinion on anyone. I have said all along that this is my opinion and as for forcing an opinion, you're the one who keeps taking what I say, interpreting it in some strange way, and telling me how I feel and what I believe. That sounds more like forcing an opinion than anything I even came close to doing. You're the one seems to that think you are so superior to me that you can tell me how I feel or what I believe.

 

It appears that I can no longer debate this with you, because you are obviously far to obtuse. You are unwilling or unable to interpret what you read in any other way then what you want it to be, and not what it is.

 

We ran into this in several other threads where I continually answered your posts and you continued to claim I was "dodging" your questions. I have observed you make the same claim in threads with others, that I wasn't even involved in, and as an impartial person, I could see that they too had clearly addressed your post, but you can't see it unless it's the answer you want.

[ImWithStupid]

How about Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Iran,Iraq and most other camel states ? In Saudi Arabia a woman was recently sentenced to 200 lashes and jail time for being alone in a car with a male friend.

 

What on earth will women do next ! Knitting alone in the park, I shouldn't wonder !

 

My bad. I was referring to a state in the United States.

[timesjoke]

I have said this before, in another thread on this subject. I live in Nebraska. Although there is nothing specifically saying a citizen can't stop a criminal while committing a crime, the only law that specifically gives the right to detain someone in commission of a property crime is for the crime of shoplifting.

 

In this case, a citizen attempted to stop a crime, the police could not respond fast enough to stop the crime so if the crime was to be stopped, the citizen had to do it. The point you are completely missing is based on this law, there is no requirement to call the police, the guy could have just shot the criminals and be done with it but instead, the citizen did everything he could to let the police step in and stop these criminals.

 

I'm glad you told me that's what I meant. I didn't even realize it. Thank you oh omnipotent one.

 

Seriously though. That's not what I meant. It's amazing you seem to know what I mean better than I do. Is it that you know better then I here or are you just a bit over defensive.

 

Or maybe you are just dodging responsibility for what you said. You are the one communicating your points, if your not communicating correctly for me to understand what your trying to say, maybe you should be a little more clear.

 

You don't seem to be having any problems understanding my points because I am sure to say what I mean and leave nothing to ambiguity.

 

Again thanks for making my point. You are in fear of your life, not your ipod.

 

Sometimes I wonder why so many people need everything spelled out for them.

 

Ok, you have burgler, most states have between 6 to 15 years for the penalty of robbing a persons house. Most robbers when busted get connected to dozzens of cases, so he is looking at between 20 and 60 years in prison if you successfully catch him in the act.

 

Do you think he will come quietly or resist if the chance appears?

 

Every arrest of this nature is a possible fear of life from the criminal.

 

Hell, more troopers in south Florida die from routine traffic stops than any other stop.

 

 

I'm sure, based on your definition, that the homosexuals aren't being oppressed either. You know, since we haven't found them in the showers or ovens yet.

 

No, that is real oppression, but you don't see them rioting in the streets either. I say the ability to riot in the streets and "not" be killed by the government is a clear sign of not being oppressed, but hey, that is just me.

 

 

Where?

 

Okay, I'll post it again being as your playing stupid:

 

"I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. "

 

Your definately not talking about the helpless victims of robbers with that comment.

 

 

No green card? Bang! No papers? Bang! Thanks for correcting me. That does sound civilized.

 

Does being forced to sit outside and watch illegals walk off with your stuff sound more civilized?

 

Were talking about the real world here, not some liberal daycare center where everyone magically does the right thing without laws or fear of penalties.

 

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Okay, here we go with spelling everythign out again.

 

Your complaint was a criminal being killed when he does a crime and the crime would not count as a capital crime in a court room.

 

 

My reply to that is no matter what is written on paper, criminals die every day trying to get away from crimes that also do not cout as capital crimes. The criminals in this case were ordered to stop, they kept moving and got shot. They were killed for their refusal to stop, not for stealing. Sure, the thing that drew this good neighbor to them was the theft, but as with all the other criminals who die trying to escape responsibility for their actions, they were the only ones who could have decided to not do the crime and none of this discussion would ever happen.

 

 

Again. Not what I meant, but sorry your insecurities about your viewpoint made you feel that way.

 

Read above, already dealt with.

 

 

Again, makes no sense. I have said many times that I wouldn't kill someone for my stuff. I have no problem with killing someone if I personally or another person's life is in EMINENT danger.

 

But you won't give it away either is my point. You like your possessions and if someone walked into your home and started picking up your stuff and walking out the door, you would try to stop them, not just make popcorn and watch them.

 

 

No, I said that nobody should be put to death on the street, for a crime that a Judge and jury couldn't sentence someone to death if they had a fair trial in front of an impartial jury of their peers, which is also a right in the Constitution.

 

That jury and safe courtroom is not on the street facing death for a seconds hesitation.

 

Criminals just don't give up easily.

 

Sure, once you have the guy secured and he cannot possibly be a threat to anyone, I agree that the court is the best place to handle them, but they cannot protect us, they cannot stop a bullet from killing us if we refuse to be proactive about protecting ourselves.

 

What your talking about is hindsight being 20/20.

 

 

As for the illegal immigrant crap you keep bringing up, it's a moot point. Neither Joe or anyone else who does this will have any idea what the legal status of the offender is when they execute them.

 

It is part of it because without the illegal being in the Country in the first place, no crime.

 

Our tax dollars pay for this system. An illegal should not get protections from a legal system he has no right to and never has helped to support. He is outside the system, by living his life outside of the law on purpose, and committing horrible crimes against society, he is basically saying he does not want to be a part of our system. Why should he now be protected by a system he has scorned?

 

 

You accuse me of speaking high and mighty and forcing my opinion on anyone. I have said all along that this is my opinion and as for forcing an opinion, you're the one who keeps taking what I say, interpreting it in some strange way, and telling me how I feel and what I believe. That sounds more like forcing an opinion than anything I even came close to doing. You're the one seems to that think you are so superior to me that you can tell me how I feel or what I believe.

 

Read above concerning being clear on your points.

 

It appears that I can no longer debate this with you,because you are obviously far to obtuse. You are unwilling or unable to interpret what you read in any other way then what you want it to be, and not what it is.[/b]

 

More personal attacks, keep showing how intolerant you are for any point of view that does not agree with you.

 

Resorting to personal attacks is the users admission to defeat, thanks for admitting that sir.

 

 

We ran into this in several other threads where I continually answered your posts and you continued to claim I was "dodging" your questions. I have observed you make the same claim in threads with others, that I wasn't even involved in, and as an impartial person, I could see that they too had clearly addressed your post, but you can't see it unless it's the answer you want.

 

That is because you never directly answer a direct question.

 

I know your smart, and you know if you answer the question honestly, you will contradict yourself so you duck, dodge, make personal attacks, try to change the subject, all sorts of game playing but you never answer the question.

 

 

 

When I ased you about citizens arrest, you knew damn well what my purpose behind it was, you refused to answer it the first time ans gave a pathetic dodging answer about one narrow law in one state when you know most states allow citizens arrest for almost any criminal act. If you admitted that this covered the Texas incident and that by trying to stop dangerious felons in the commission of a felony, he is putting himself into life threatening danger.

 

That level of danger would make his being ready to use deadly force makes his action a lot easier to understand.

 

 

Would you believe stopping two robbers in the act a non-dangerious activity?

 

What level of possible harm may one expect from attempting to stop robbers in the act in your world?

 

If you agree that stopping robbers is dangerious, possibly deadly, then can you agree that it is reasonable for Hero Joe to know it is dangerious?

 

 

 

Now comes the sticky part.

 

 

Joe, as a good citizen, wants to stop a crime he is witnessing, he knows it is dangerious, it could cost him his life to try and stop these criminals, even the 911 operator tells him they will shoot him.

 

At this point, stopping the criminal act is his motivation for taking action, but his reaction to shoot them is not to protect property, but to protect himself from the repercussions from these criminals for stopping them.

[hugo]

 

My position is that I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. We might as well go back to cutting of hands of shoplifters. If you want to live in an archaic, dark age, society, there are plenty of Muslim countries that live under Sharia Law.

 

 

You really need to understand the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the individual. The Second Amendment would be much more likely to apply here. What good is the right to bear arms if you cannot defend life and property? If you wish to live in commieville move to Cuba.