263 replies to this topic

[sUper GeNius]

I've known of 2 shootings in my life. Both justified IMO.

The first many years ago when I was in 6Th grade. After school I stopped by a neighborhood convenience store. There were 3 businesses side by side. A convenience store, a small mom and pop liquor store, and a gas station. 3 black men walked passed the crowded convenience store toward the liquor store. The owner of the convenience store thought they looked suspicious and called the gas station alerting the owner of a possible robbery. A few minutes later shots rang out from the liquor store. As the three men ran out, the gas station owner was waiting on the sidewalk a few feet away. He shot the last man out the door through the head putting a crease through the door frame at the same time. I happened by in time to see the ambulance drivers placing the liquor store owner in the ambulance on a gurney, and then they picked up the dead robber by the belt loops and threw him on the floor of the same ambulance. After they drove off I saw brains on the sidewalk. Reminded me of scrambled eggs. The liquor store owner later died from his injuries.

In another incident a female friend asked to borrow a gun from my best friend. She was planning to travel out of town to visit a relative. While visiting she came out of a grocery store. As she was walking toward her car she said she heard fast foot steps running up behind her. A man knocked her to the ground stealing her purse, and started running away. She grabbed the gun out of the glove box of her car and shot the robber killing him. After the police discovered the robber had out of state warrants, and had a lengthy criminal record they decided not to charge her with any crime, but they kept her gun. He never got the gun back.

What I learned from this is it's probably not a good idea to loan your guns to a woman lol.

She committed a crime, it seems. What did she do, shoot him in the back?

I believe so. Back in those days it would have been a crime. Now days because of recent changes to gun laws in Texas it wouldn't be a crime anymore because he assaulted her by knocking her down, and stole her property. They did find her slightly at fault. Her penalty was they told her not to do it again, and kept her gun, but no actual charges were filed.

I think PA that would be consider unjustified homicide. She was no longer afraid for her life if the guy turned and ran.

[sUper GeNius]

Obama asks about applicant's gun ownership.

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/15835

Also, the article states that there are about 65,000,000 gun owners in the US!

[Matt]

A man knocked her to the ground stealing her purse, and started running away. She grabbed the gun out of the glove box of her car and shot the robber killing him.

That has to be a crime. If her life was in danger after the robbery then I could understand trying to protect herself, but shooting someone while they're running away she should have been sent to jail for something like that. Just not right!

Edited by Matt, 21 November 2008 - 10:31 PM.

[Shepard]

The guy wanted her stuff. He left with everything but her gun. She just let him take the part that could catch up to him.

[Zenob]

A man knocked her to the ground stealing her purse, and started running away. She grabbed the gun out of the glove box of her car and shot the robber killing him.

That has to be a crime. If her life was in danger after the robbery then I could understand trying to protect herself, but shooting someone while they're running away she should have been sent to jail for something like that. Just not right!

Good riddance to bad rubbish. There was a similar case to this one back in the 80s in either New York or DC I don't remember which. Crime was rampant and this guy who had already been mugged several times decided to start defending himself. He bought a pistol and started taking it with him on the subway. Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them. The catch was that he got the last two on the run. And yes, I believe he was charged over it. You can't tell me the worlds not a better place for it though.

Edited by Zenob, 22 November 2008 - 01:01 AM.

[lightowl]

Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them.

Is it your opinion that mugging should be punishable by death? If so, does it matter if its the state or the victim that does the killing?

[Moonbeam]

I'm interested: are there any pro-gun (for the sake of home protection), yet anti-capital punishment posters here?

I am, for the following reasons:

1) Our legal system is incredibly biased and corrupt, it's applied unevenly, etc.
2) It costs many more times to execute somebody than to lock them up forever, in addition to being irreversible.
3) We are in the company of Iran and China instead of the rest of the civilized Western world, which means something for our reputation, and costs us influence when we protest human rights abuses under other circumstances.

A modern society should not execute people. It is easy enough to separate them from the rest of people. And would be much easier yet if our prisons weren't full of people who have committed victimless crimes.

To have a gun in your house is to ask for trouble.

Except when they save your life, right? I've never had any trouble, I've only been saved. I've known many people over many years who haven't had any trouble; probably everybody has. Funny how having your life saved with a gun means absolutely nothing to anybody here who is against them, it's like you don't even hear that. They do have a purpose. Just like cars and many other things that can be dangerous if misused. How many people argue against cars because people get hurt and kids get killed and criminals use them and people do stupid things with them, etc? It's the same thing.

Remove or limit guns, and I would say that you would have less criminals with guns,

Because criminals obey gun laws?

All you people against guns are saying that people don't have a right to defend themselves. You want to put people at the complete mercy of whatever psychopath happens to cross their path. Guns make people equal.

[sUper GeNius]

Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them.

Is it your opinion that mugging should be punishable by death? If so, does it matter if its the state or the victim that does the killing?

I for one don't think so. But...

If a mugger is armed, then you can't be sure these days that he won't kill you after he robs you. In that situation a person is justified in using deadly force IMO.

[sUper GeNius]

We are in the company of Iran and China instead of the rest of the civilized Western world, which means something for our reputation, and costs us influence when we protest human rights abuses under other circumstances.

Only the countries in blue have completely abolished the death penalty. Still pretty popular it seems. Never could understand those opposed to capital punishment. I would think that being confined to a cell for the rest of ones life, pooping in public, and eating prison food is about the same as being dead. What would one look forward to in prsion? The social life?

[lightowl]

Only the countries in blue have completely abolished the death penalty.

There was a time when that map was entirely red. It seems the world is gradually concluding that death penalty is a bad idea.

[sUper GeNius]

Only the countries in blue have completely abolished the death penalty.

There was a time when that map was entirely red. It seems the world is gradually concluding that death penalty is a bad idea.

Sometimes things go in circles/cycles. Maybe red will fade...

[Moonbeam]

Only the countries in blue have completely abolished the death penalty. Still pretty popular it seems. Never could understand those opposed to capital punishment. I would think that being confined to a cell for the rest of ones life, pooping in public, and eating prison food is about the same as being dead. What would one look forward to in prsion? The social life?

"Only" the countries in blue? Take a look at the ones that aren't blue--those are the ones you want the U.S. to be more like?

So--you're saying you feel sorry for people who would have to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they are the worst kind of murderers, so give them a break and kill them?

[sUper GeNius]

Only the countries in blue have completely abolished the death penalty. Still pretty popular it seems. Never could understand those opposed to capital punishment. I would think that being confined to a cell for the rest of ones life, pooping in public, and eating prison food is about the same as being dead. What would one look forward to in prsion? The social life?

"Only" the countries in blue? Take a look at the ones that aren't blue--those are the ones you want the U.S. to be more like?

So--you're saying you feel sorry for people who would have to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they are the worst kind of murderers, so give them a break and kill them?

No. I say that that there's not much difference between forever losing your freedom and dying. Many feel that death is justice for having killed. Others prefer to see a slower death, as that relieves the pangs of the conscience.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 22 November 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[Zenob]

Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them.

Is it your opinion that mugging should be punishable by death? If so, does it matter if its the state or the victim that does the killing?

You can be seriously injured or killed in a mugging. As far as I'm concerned the criminals are the ones instigating the situation in the first place so the outcome of the situation is on there heads not the victims. And yes, I think execution by the state is justified in some cases.

[luv2increase]

Believe it or not, but many inmates regardless of how long their sentences are, become quite accustomed to prison life. After they have adjusted, their life in prison can often times be better than that out on the streets. This is especially true for those who gain notoriety in jail. I believe that the sentence of life in prison is such a slap on the wrist when dealing with a crime committed that is subject to capital punishment. The real justice for criminals such as these are to put them to death. This not only saves taxpayers money, but it brings relief to the victims and their families. It is a win-win situation for all those except for the criminal(s) in question.

[Moonbeam]

No. I say that that there's not much difference between forever losing your freedom and dying. Many feel that death is justice for having killed. Others prefer to see a slower death, as that relieves the pangs of the conscience.

I agree that for me and probably a lot of people it would be preferable to be dead than in prison for life. So it seemed that you were choosing the most humane thing for them, which seems surprising for somebody who is for the death penalty, and therefore oblivious to the not so small as to be dismissable odds of the wrong people getting convicted due to corruption and/or incompetence. I'm not sure what you are referring to with "others prefer to see a slower death"; maybe you want to be more like some of the non-blue countries in our capital punishment methods?

[Moonbeam]

This not only saves taxpayers money,

If you think that, you don't know a thing about how it really works. It costs a lot more to execute somebody than put them in prison for life.

but it brings relief to the victims and their families. It is a win-win situation for all those except for the criminal(s) in question.

What if the family is against the death penalty? Do they get to choose then what to do? Do we want people in their most emotional state to make decisions like that?

The whole point of the "justice" system shouldn't be revenge; that is meaningless. It should be to get dangerous people away from the rest of society; ultimately, that's what really matters. If it's cheaper and easier to put them away for life (which it is), why not do it? And then in the cases where a mistake was made, it can be corrected, and some sort of restitution be made. Not ideal, but better than just saying, "whoops, too late now." There are a lot of pro-death penalty politicians, hard-core, philosophically inclined, who have seen the logic and practicality of this, because they actually gave it some thought. Unusual, I know.

Really, myself, if there was a way to completely prove somebody did it (which I know a lot of times they can, but there's a lot of times they can't, too), and it didn't cost several orders of magnitude more to kill them, or maybe even if it did, I'd be fall for executing them. I have no problem with the ultimate moral issue, or non-issue, it's just the complexities along the way. Which again people are so blind to, it's just dumb-founding.

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty? It is just the knee-jerk, sheeple-like instincts of the faithful, or what? It would seem that if you believe in omniscient and omnipotent god(s) who deal out these punishments ultimately on an eternal scale, wouldn't you be scared of making a mistake or something? Or would god(s) understand in that case, and forgive you for it? I don't know if I'd take the chance if I were you, kind of scary, eh? And what does it really matter if you kill the person--on the scale of eternity, is a couple years earlier to hell really that important?

I'm sure you won't answer, and just tell me to shut up like you always do, lol.

[luv2increase]

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?

Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

[lightowl]

Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them.

Is it your opinion that mugging should be punishable by death? If so, does it matter if its the state or the victim that does the killing?

You can be seriously injured or killed in a mugging. As far as I'm concerned the criminals are the ones instigating the situation in the first place so the outcome of the situation is on there heads not the victims. And yes, I think execution by the state is justified in some cases.

You are dodging the question. Not surprisingly, because your position is largely unjustifiable. If society allowed anyone to kill anyone they think should be killed, then most people here would already have been judged and executed by some religious fanatic. The mere risk of injury or death is not enough to grant that right. If that was the case, I could justifiably kill most of the people driving in the street at this moment. You have to be in imminent danger. In most cases people don't know how to evaluate such a situation. This is one reason why we have trials and juries in civilised countries. If you act outside the boundaries of self defence, then you should be punished. That is justice according to the law in most countries. Of cause that boundary varies greatly depending societal norms.

As far as I'm concerned the criminals are the ones instigating the situation in the first place so the outcome of the situation is on there heads not the victims.

This assumes they have a choice ( or free will ) to refrain from the crime. In many cases this is not the case. Also, there are indirect victims to take into consideration. Is it fair to the families of the mugger that they loose a, perhaps loved, family member? A jury and a judge will consider these things and many more before sentencing. Its a complex issue.

Relying on gut feelings of justice can be very dangerous. Not only to the victims and the criminals, but to any witnesses and bystanders too.

Edited by lightowl, 23 November 2008 - 02:09 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Three punks tried mugging him. He killed all three of them.

Is it your opinion that mugging should be punishable by death? If so, does it matter if its the state or the victim that does the killing?

You can be seriously injured or killed in a mugging. As far as I'm concerned the criminals are the ones instigating the situation in the first place so the outcome of the situation is on there heads not the victims. And yes, I think execution by the state is justified in some cases.

You are dodging the question. Not surprisingly, because your position is largely unjustifiable. If society allowed anyone to kill anyone they think should be killed, then most people here would already have been judged and executed by some religious fanatic. The mere risk of injury or death is not enough to grant that right. If that was the case, I could justifiably kill most of the people driving in the street at this moment. You have to be in imminent danger. In most cases people don't know how to evaluate such a situation. This is one reason why we have trials and juries in civilised countries. If you act outside the boundaries of self defence, then you should be punished. That is justice according to the law in most countries. Of cause that boundary varies greatly depending societal norms.

Not quite sure where you stand here. If someone sticks a gun in your ribs and asks for your money, what do you do? If I could get a shot off, I'd probably take it. Too many in that circumstance are killed after being robbed. No witnesses to pick the guy out of a lineup. I would have no qualms.

[lightowl]

Not quite sure where you stand here. If someone sticks a gun in your ribs and asks for your money, what do you do?

I don't know, but I would hope that I just give them the money. I wont be able to shoot them, because I don't carry a weapon.

If I could get a shot off, I'd probably take it.

Have you considered the consequences?

Too many in that circumstance are killed after being robbed.

How many is that? Do you have some statistics to back up that claim?

No witnesses to pick the guy out of a lineup.

What if there where witnesses? Would you still just shoot the mugger?

I would have no qualms.

You really should think about the consequences of killing another person. You think its just doing it, but it would probably follow you the rest of your life.

Edited by lightowl, 23 November 2008 - 02:15 AM.

[Zenob]

You are dodging the question. Not surprisingly, because your position is largely unjustifiable. If society allowed anyone to kill anyone they think should be killed, then most people here would already have been judged and executed by some religious fanatic. The mere risk of injury or death is not enough to grant that right. If that was the case, I could justifiably kill most of the people driving in the street at this moment. You have to be in imminent danger. In most cases people don't know how to evaluate such a situation. This is one reason why we have trials and juries in civilised countries. If you act outside the boundaries of self defence, then you should be punished. That is justice according to the law in most countries. Of cause that boundary varies greatly depending societal norms.

How am I dodging the question? Also how do you get from shooting a mugger to "justifiably killing most of the people driving down the street"? You seem to have missed a step.

This assumes they have a choice ( or free will ) to refrain from the crime. In many cases this is not the case. Also, there are indirect victims to take into consideration. Is it fair to the families of the mugger that they loose a, perhaps loved, family member? A jury and a judge will consider these things and many more before sentencing. Its a complex issue.

Uh, yeah. They did have a choice . Nobody makes them go out and point guns at people. As for their families, if the dumbass goes and get's himself killed, that's nobody's fault but his own.

Relying on gut feelings of justice can be very dangerous. Not only to the victims and the criminals, but to any witnesses and bystanders too.

There's no gut feeling involved here. It's common sense. If you are a victim of a crime and you or those around you are in danger and you get a chance to drop the dirtbag, you drop his ass. Just because he's walking away doesn't mean everything is magically better. He could just as easily decide he doesn't want a witness and turn around and shoot you in the face. His turning his back on you is an OPENING. If you are in a position to take it, take it. How is it any different then a woman pretending to go along with a rapist and then when his guard is down stabbing him or shooting him with his own gun?

[sUper GeNius]

Not quite sure where you stand here. If someone sticks a gun in your ribs and asks for your money, what do you do?

I don't know, but I would hope that I just give them the money. I wont be able to shoot them, because I don't carry a weapon.

If I could get a shot off, I'd probably take it.

Have you considered the consequences?

Too many in that circumstance are killed after being robbed.

How many is that? Do you have some statistics to back up that claim?

No witnesses to pick the guy out of a lineup.

What if there where witnesses? Would you still just shoot the mugger?

I would have no qualms.

You really should think about the consequences of killing another person. You think its just doing it, but it would probably follow you the rest of your life.

Of course I have thought about the consequences. I am too valuable to my family to play the odds that an armed mugger will or will not kill me. I'm licensed to carry, I've received training, and I know the law, under what circumstances I am justified in using deadly force. I refuse to be a crime statistic.

[lightowl]

His turning his back on you is an OPENING.

Never mind. I don't need to argue with you. You have already lost it.

Of course I have thought about the consequences.

The remark that you would have no qualms could indicate otherwise. People who have no qualms about killing another person should not own a gun, IMO.

I wont waste any more time on this thread.

Edited by lightowl, 23 November 2008 - 04:40 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

QUOTE
Of course I have thought about the consequences.

The remark that you would have no qualms could indicate otherwise.

I wont waste any more time on this thread.

http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/qualms

3 : a feeling of uneasiness about a point especially of conscience or propriety

Do you misunderstand the use of the word? Edit. Ahh, I see you added a sentence in your edit. I didn't say I had no qualms about killing another person. I said that I have no qualms about killing another person who robs me at gunpoint. What don't you understand? I think the fact that YOU would choose to act differently clouds your understanding of my statement. I would have no qualms. I have thought out the action and its consequences, and I have no doubts of its propriety. You should commend me for having thought out my actions thoroughly, as using deadly force is not something you do without having given a whole lot of thought to the ethical and moral implications. Maybe you should you give the matter more thought before condemning another.

By the way, you seemed to quote two different posters in your reply. My statement, and another poster's statement.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 23 November 2008 - 05:27 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

QUOTE
No witnesses to pick the guy out of a lineup.

What if there where witnesses? Would you still just shoot the mugger?

You misunderstood me. I meant that muggers in this country will sometimes kill their victims so that the victim can not later identify him in a lineup. This is one reason why muggers kill their victims. It's a very rational thing on their part. We also have (had, still in force?) the "Three strikes and you're out" rule. These criminals know if they get caught they're won't be getting probation this time. They're going away. That's why they eliminate witnesses.

I don't know how it is in your country, but there is a certain viciousness to robbers in this country. Use to be a robber was simply after your money. Today, they often don't think twice about putting a bullet in your head, and in anyone that is with you. They act more like animals. Vicious animals.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 23 November 2008 - 05:29 AM.

[Matt]

I can't believe someone can justify killing someone. The worst thing I've read on this forum is that you would shoot someone while they were running away. This is just horrible. I can't understand why anyone would want to own a gun. I am totally against the death penalty, as are practically everyone I know here where I live, and I think a country that allows its citizens to quite easily own guns is just asking for trouble.

Edited by Matt, 23 November 2008 - 02:34 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

I can't believe someone can justify killing someone. The worst thing I've read on this forum is that you would shoot someone while they were running away.

Could you justify it in self-defense? Shooting someone in the back as they run away is immoral IMO and illegal. As far as the gun ownership thing, as mentioned before, The Swiss have no problem with it. They require gun ownership. Mandatory. I posted a link somewhere in an earlier post.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 23 November 2008 - 03:52 PM.

[Moonbeam]

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?

Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Yea, yea and capital punishment is also recomomended for:

• Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
• Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
• Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
• Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
• Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
• Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
• Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
• Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
• Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
• False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
• Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
• False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
• Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

You want to kill people for all of those things too?

And if you make a mistake and kill the wrong person? God's OK with that, or what?

[biknut]

Could you justify it in self-defense? Shooting someone in the back as they run away is immoral IMO and illegal.

Not always. For instance, there was a case here in Dallas back in the 80s, long before concealed carry. A man walked up to a lady at a shopping mall and killed her on the sidewalk in front or witnesses. He then walked to his car and proceeded to drive away. A bystander sitting in his car nearby who witnessed the murder, happened to have a Thompson Contender single shot target pistol (illegally) in the front seat of his car. He fired a round through the perpetrator's car door killing him. The grand jury ended up no billing him and he was considered a hero. The police said he was justified because at the time as far as anybody knew the perpetrator could be planning to drive to another location and kill someone else. Part of the reasoning to no bill him was that his gun was a single shot target piston, and he claimed to be either going to, or coming from (I can't remember now) a shooting range.