NationStates Jolt Archive

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

I find it hard to justify shooting someone who is fleeing your property and making no attempt to harm you.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

Most burglars do.

You link does not work for me.

He was trying to rob houses in Texas. Texas!!! It's probably for the best that he's out of the genepool. :p

You link does not work for me.

It took me a few tries too.

I originally read this as the state of Texas just executing (electric chair kind) someone which had my jaw wide open

when I found out it was just a case of excessive force I remembered that this is America and we are in for another gun control thread because a burglar died for trying to steal lampshade or whatever this time

You link does not work for me.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA.20080430.1A.shooting.b2882ced.html

After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.

The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.

This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.

Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said.

For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home.

Many other states have adopted similar doctrines — sometimes called “Make My Day” laws — said Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University.

“The danger of empowering people to use deadly force is that they are not trained to recognize friend or foe in highly dangerous situations,” he said. “Oftentimes, a stranger in a house turns out to be a drunken neighbor or a relative.”

In San Antonio last year, a Northwest Side homeowner fatally shot an intoxicated college student who wandered into his home — in the same neighborhood where the student’s sister lived.

Raymond Lemes found 19-year-old Tracy Glass inside his house about 2:45 a.m. one Saturday last August. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest.

Lemes wasn’t charged in the case.

Texas’ castle doctrine garnered national attention last year when a 61-year-old Pasadena man shot and killed two men who had broken into a neighbor’s home. The incident was recorded in a 911 phone call that the shooter, Joe Horn, made to police.

Horn was inside his house when he reported seeing two men break into a neighbor’s home. According to a recording of the emergency call, Horn told the dispatcher he intended to go outside and kill the men. The dispatcher told him that it wasn’t worth it to kill someone over property.

Still, Horn went outside and fatally shot the men, Pasadena police said. He told police they lunged at him on his property. Harris County prosecutors are scheduled to present the case to a grand jury next month.

The key difference is that if it's your property, you can chase them outside and nail them - if it's your neighbor's property, you get to stand there and watch them get away while the police respond in time to write a report.

I know someone's going to give me hell for this, but I find it difficult to give a crap about some asshole burglar.

Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Also, what kind of retard robs the same house twice, in Texas no less?

Another "Gun Control is the suxx0rz" thread by Deep Kimchi. And the sky is blue and the Pope shits in the woods.

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?
Well, I'm not European, but I'll chime in anyway.

It's a good thing that we can protect ourselves. The fact that one doesn't need to wait for a threat to be made makes it all the better.

I think this is an incredibly brutal and violent reaction to finding someone on your property, but perhaps Texan men are more scared of strangers than normal people.

I think this is an incredibly brutal and violent reaction to finding someone on your property, but perhaps Texan men are more scared of strangers than normal people.

Yeah, when you consider that in Europe, you have to be more afraid of being imprisoned and raped in a dungeon by your own father.

It's a good thing that we can protect ourselves. The fact that one doesn't need to wait for a threat to be made makes it all the better.

Yes, I found it a little odd that USians are allowed to kill somebody for the mere suspicion of being attacked. Very pre-emptive.

The key difference is that if it's your property, you can chase them outside and nail them - if it's your neighbor's property, you get to stand there and watch them get away while the police respond in time to write a report.

a good thing

edit: I demand hotwife pics!

I know someone's going to give me hell for this, but I find it difficult to give a crap about some asshole burglar.

you' know the guy has like a mother and stuff don't you?

Another "Gun Control is the suxx0rz" thread by Deep Kimchi. And the sky is blue and the Pope shits in the woods.

I'm oddly reading it as Texas = place full of burglars and populated by (judging from the interviews) I shall say "diverse" people

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

There is nothing to "think" about it, I can just be viscerally disgusted. He shot a person posing no physical threat to him, in fact according to the video he chased him outside and shot him in the back as he was fleeing. There is no way to justify that. It is not self-defence, it is murder. And he's getting away with it because of a demented law that puts property above human life, which is actually unsurprising seeing the "values" of said country... but unsurprising doesn't mean it's any less repulsive.

Yeah, when you consider that in Europe, you have to be more afraid of being imprisoned and raped in a dungeon by your own father.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Classic Kimchi (read Bushevik) behavior. Scream about teh ebil moslemz, bitch about gun control, and sometimes take a potshot at Old Europe.

Yeah, when you consider that in Europe, you have to be more afraid of being imprisoned and raped in a dungeon by your own father.

pfft you get a TV and everything :p

also its Austria the Wales of Germany

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.


Firstly I'll have to say that rehabilitation can and does work and that access to public defenders and a fair trial are surely important basis for any civilized society.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

Excessive force. We had a similar case a few years back (the guy did get charged with manslaughter I believe in our case) and I'll say the same thing now as I said then. There is no reason to use lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away.

Firstly I'll have to say that rehabilitation can and does work and that access to public defenders and a fair trial are surely important basis for any civilized society.

Excessive force. We had a similar case a few years back (the guy did get charged with manslaughter I believe in our case) and I'll say the same thing now as I said then. There is no reason to use lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away.

It's been proven over and over again here that rehabilitation doesn't work. Only aging out the prison population works (incarceration until you're over 60).

Our recidivism rate hasn't changed during any attempts at rehabilitation.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm

It's just as high as it always has been - never a bump or nudge in the right direction.

http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/may04ttb/costs/index.html

Instead of costing the taxpayers over 23,000 dollars a year, the homeowner spent a few dollars in ammunition, and the criminal is permanently removed from society.

Oh, and here's how not to use your gun to stop crime...

http://cbs13.com/local/hayward.man.dartmouth.2.711684.html

OAKLAND (AP) ― A jury has convicted a Hayward man of voluntary manslaughter for fatally shooting a friend who had called him for help after a run-in with a group of college football players.

The Alameda County jury on Tuesday also found Christopher Hollis guilty of assault with a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm in the shooting death of Meleia Willis-Starbuck, a 19-year-old Dartmouth College student.

Witnesses say she had called Hollis for help during an argument with University of California, Berkeley, football players and told him to bring a gun.

Hollis' attorneys say their client meant to shoot over the football players' heads to scare them, but he accidentally shot Willis-Starbuck instead.

Hollis could face six to 21 years in prison when he is sentenced July 14.

This is a good lesson. Don't steal stuff or you might get shot.

This is a good lesson. Don't steal stuff or you might get shot.

also never go back to a strangers house for gay Texas sex as he may try to cover the evidence ;)

There is an expression That goes "A gun in the hand is better than a Cop on the phone." It also reminds me of a line in miss congeniality where Candice Bergen says "Of course he had a gun. This is Texas! Everybody has a gun. My florist has a gun!" Moral of the story don't break into homes in Texas!!

I think this is an incredibly brutal and violent reaction to finding someone on your property...

I think this is an entirely rational and proportionate response to finding a stranger ransacking your house in the middle of the night.

but perhaps Texan men are more scared of strangers than normal people.

It's got nothing to do with being scared. He had broken in in the middle of the night I suppose you would sat him down, given him a cup of tea, and asked him if he saw anything he liked?

He shot a person posing no physical threat to him....

A stranger breaking into a house in the middle of the night is not there to leave toys for all the good children. Breaking into a house in the middle of the night is the physical threat.

It is not self-defence, it is murder.

No, it's self-defense. It's defending you and yours against some skell with God-knows-what intentions augmented by an obvious disregard for the law.

It's got nothing to do with being scared. He had broken in in the middle of the night I suppose you would sat him down, given him a cup of tea, and asked him if he saw anything he liked?



while conviently slipping some sleeping pills in his tea, OFCOURSE!:D

I think this is an entirely rational and proportionate response to finding a stranger ransacking your house in the middle of the night.



Not to an unarmed man who is running away.. Its cold blooded murder!



It's got nothing to do with being scared. He had broken in in the middle of the night I suppose you would sat him down, given him a cup of tea, and asked him if he saw anything he liked?



I would have let him go and phoned the Police



A stranger breaking into a house in the middle of the night is not there to leave toys for all the good children. Breaking into a house in the middle of the night is the physical threat.




A stranger threatning you with violence is the physical threat. Running away and not threatning any violence is not!


No, it's self-defense. It's defending you and yours against some skell with God-knows-what intentions augmented by an obvious disregard for the law.

Its Murder. self defence would be shooting him if he posed a threat. Someone running away is not a threat.

Yoiur second ammendment needs re-writing or you Americans with trigger fingers (note: I know most of you are well behaved and would not shoot a person running awat regardless of wether they had just attempted to rob your house) need to learn some self control.

Want to kill someone, join the army!

Its Murder. self defence would be shooting him if he posed a threat. Someone running away is not a threat.

Yoiur second ammendment needs re-writing or you Americans with trigger fingers (note: I know most of you are well behaved and would not shoot a person running awat regardless of wether they had just attempted to rob your house) need to learn some self control.

Want to kill someone, join the army!
The guy was fleeing the scene of a crime, so shooting him to stop him is justifiable. Besides, you can't say he didn't deserve it.

Well, I bet the theif learned his lesson and wont be repeating his crimes, now will he?

I think this is an entirely rational and proportionate response to finding a stranger ransacking your house in the middle of the night.

To be honest, I think it was a rational response when Thames found Scarborough inside. Thames could not know whether or not Scarborough posed an imminent threat. At that point, shooting the unknown person is rational. And Thames did shoot at Scarborough inside. Which is why Scarborough ran away. At this point any rational person would stop regarding Scarborough as a threat. Shooting him in the back as he is fleeing is completely unnecessary.

It's got nothing to do with being scared. He had broken in in the middle of the night I suppose you would sat him down, given him a cup of tea, and asked him if he saw anything he liked?

Don't be stupid. That is not the only other possible option.

He was protecting his property. I think he went too far, but I don't see anything particularly exciting.

There is nothing to "think" about it, I can just be viscerally disgusted. He shot a person posing no physical threat to him, in fact according to the video he chased him outside and shot him in the back as he was fleeing. There is no way to justify that. It is not self-defence, it is murder. And he's getting away with it because of a demented law that puts property above human life, which is actually unsurprising seeing the "values" of said country... but unsurprising doesn't mean it's any less repulsive.

I value my property over the life of some dirtbag criminal. I like my TV set much more than all the criminals and drug addicts in the world.

Not to an unarmed man who is running away.. Its cold blooded murder! Its Murder. self defence would be shooting him if he posed a threat. Someone running away is not a threat.

First of all, according to the law, it's not murder, it's self-defense:
"For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home."

Secondly, according to the article, this was the second time that the same man had broken into the same house. He only started running away after he was discovered. He was obviously a threat to the property owner


Don't be stupid. That is not the only other possible option.

I'm not being stupid. You know what else I'm not doing? Being robbed.

I value my property over the life of some dirtbag criminal. I like my TV set much more than all the criminals and drug addicts in the world.

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

I like my TV set much more than all the criminals and drug addicts in the world.

Yes, all drug addicts are EEVIL and worth much less than a TV set. It's not as if they're physically unable to control it, they just like to light up once in a while and wreck their own lives on purpose.

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

I don't know about him, but I do.

He only started running away after he was discovered. He was obviously a threat to the property owner.

I don't follow your logic. He was discovered. He ran away. How does running away from someone possibly count as a threat against that person?

I'm not being stupid. You know what else I'm not doing? Being robbed.

And you're also not responding intelligently to my posts. You're quite good at not doing things, apparently.

To be honest, I think it was a rational response when Thames found Scarborough inside. Thames could not know whether or not Scarborough posed an imminent threat. At that point, shooting the unknown person is rational. And Thames did shoot at Scarborough inside. Which is why Scarborough ran away. At this point any rational person would stop regarding Scarborough as a threat. Shooting him in the back as he is fleeing is completely unnecessary.

I guess the moral of this story is to get more target practice. Unless Thames decided that he just didn't want to clean up the mess inside.

Yes, all drug addicts are EEVIL and worth much less than a TV set. It's not as if they're physically unable to control it, they just like to light up once in a while and wreck their own lives on purpose.

If you get addicted to drugs in our modern society, with all the information available, then yeah, it IS your own damn fault.

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

You mean humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves in order to profit by stealing their possessions? The ones whose lives exist for nothing more than committing crimes of opportunity? Especially the drug addicts who would senselessly murder people who get in the way of their addiction? Thieves are nothing more than low, criminal scum and deserve to be treated as nothing more.

Would I kill them? Absolutely not, because I'm a better person than they'll ever be in their entire worthless lives. They don't deserve such an easy release. People who kill them are being far too merciful.

I guess the moral of this story is to get more target practice. Unless Thames decided that he just didn't want to clean up the mess inside.

This is the second time someone in this thread has replied to one of my posts with some statement that doesn't address my point.

Here is my take on why he needed to be brought down.

the home owner did not know he was unarmed it was night and dark the retreat very well could have been a ploy so he could get around a corner and get his weapon out of his pocket or form his getaway car.

Furthermore the criminal having shown a tendency to rob this particular man's home repetitively, may have got away and used the knowledge, that the home owner is now armed, to come back armed himself. This man needed to be brought down in order to secure the long term security of the home owner.

I think I agree with gift-of-God on this, though the fact that this thief had robbed the exact same house recently makes me lean a little more towards the owner's side.

You mean humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves in order to profit by stealing their possessions? The ones whose lives exist for nothing more than committing crimes of opportunity? Especially the drug addicts who would senselessly murder people who get in the way of their addiction?

Would I kill them? No, because I'm a better person than they'll ever be in their entire worthless lives. If others wish to do so, I will not fault them.

While I believe that the type of person you describe is less moral than most, I still value that person's life more than my possessions. But I'm not very materialistic. I simply find it odd to think that people value material goods more than each other.

Now, looking at all your hyperbole, I would suggest that the deceased Mr. Scarborough does not fall into the category of humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves. If he was, Thames would not have had an opportunity to shoot him in the back, would he?

Now, looking at all your hyperbole, I would suggest that the deceased Mr. Scarborough does not fall into the category of humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves. If he was, Thames would not have had an opportunity to shoot him in the back, would he?

Sorry, doesn't fly. All that his choosing someone who DID fight back means is that Scarborough failed to judge the situation adequately.

While I believe that the type of person you describe is less moral than most, I still value that person's life more than my possessions. But I'm not very materialistic. I simply find it odd to think that people value material goods more than each other.

I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime, so I am personally opposed to killing these criminals because of two reasons. One, this crime does not deserve a permanent punishment and secondly, I don't want them to get the easy way out. I want them to serve a full punishment for their crime.

That being said, I don't "value" them at all. They have to clearly demonstrate that they are truly contrite for their actions for that to be regained.

Now, looking at all your hyperbole, I would suggest that the deceased Mr. Scarborough does not fall into the category of humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves. If he was, Thames would not have had an opportunity to shoot him in the back, would he?

Why do you think he came back twice? Because he was looking for a challenge? He thought it would be a good target and ended up paying the ultimate price for his indolence and greed.

Killing a burglar?

If the thief is black, he had it coming

If the thief is white, cut his left hand off like the Iraqis do to thieves

If the thief is asian, slap him a few times, then firmly tell him, that copying westerners is fine as long as they copy legal things:D

This is the second time someone in this thread has replied to one of my posts with some statement that doesn't address my point.
Okay. I understood your point to be that if the predator was shot at inside the house, it was fine. When he ran away, it was not okay to follow and kill him.

My conclusion was that it if you were going to kill a predator, you should do it inside, rather than outside -- hence the need for well-aimed shots.

Killing a burglar?

If the thief is black, he had it coming

If the thief is white, cut his left hand off like the Iraqis do to thieves

If the thief is asian, slap him a few times, then firmly tell him, that copying westerners is fine as long as they copy legal things:D

So much stupid...

So few words...

Sorry, doesn't fly. All that his choosing someone who DID fight back means is that Scarborough failed to judge the situation adequately.

Yeah, that bit about him sneaking into the house, trying to avoid people, and running away really showed what kind of a cold-blooded predator he was. To me, that suggests that he was essentially a coward who wished to avoid conflict.

Tell you what, why don't you give me some evidence, any at all, that Scarborough was one of those 'drug addicts who would senselessly murder people'?

Mind you, it goes without saying that Scarborough judged the situation inaccurately, even if he was a completely innocent human being, which I am not claiming.

Yeah, that bit about him sneaking into the house, trying to avoid people, and running away really showed what kind of a cold-blooded predator he was. To me, that suggests that he was essentially a coward who wished to avoid conflict.

Tell you what, why don't you give me some evidence, any at all, that Scarborough was one of those 'drug addicts who would senselessly murder people'?

Mind you, it goes without saying that Scarborough judged the situation inaccurately, even if he was a completely innocent human being, which I am not claiming.

I never claimed he was one such. That was Vetalia. I was just pointing out your error in logic.

I am opposed to killing these criminals because I want them to serve a full punishment for their crime.


*plays the USSR national anthem and hands Vetalia a set of keys to the gates of a Siberian gulag*

:D

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

Maybe its not fair to die because you were robbing someone, but its not fair to be robbed either. I would consider shooting someone who steals or vandalizes your property to be self-defense. They are in fact stealing your work, your income, your life.

Okay. I understood your point to be that if the predator was shot at inside the house, it was fine. When he ran away, it was not okay to follow and kill him.

My conclusion was that it if you were going to kill a predator, you should do it inside, rather than outside -- hence the need for well-aimed shots.

Closer. My point was that shooting him when Thames was unsure of Scarborough's status as a threat was rational. In other words, Thames couldn't know if Scarborough was there to kill him. So it would make sense for Thames to shoot him then, just in case. I don't agree with it, but I would dismiss it as self-defence.

By the time Scarborough was outside and running away, it would no longer be reasonable to consider Scarborough an imminent threat.

You are completely correct on the need for target practice though. If you're going to be shooting in your own home, make sure all of the bullets end up in the intruder's body. Especially if you have kids.

Maybe its not fair to die because you were robbing someone, but its not fair to be robbed either. I would consider shooting someone who steals or vandalizes your property to be self-defense. They are in fact stealing your work, your income, your life.

My Afrikaan friends have told me, that if someone robs you over there, youre allowed to shoot him as long as you dont kill him

kneecaps anyone? - it will stop him running away if he tries it again

Killing a burglar?

If the thief is black, he had it coming

If the thief is white, cut his left hand off like the Iraqis do to thieves

If the thief is asian, slap him a few times, then firmly tell him, that copying westerners is fine as long as they copy legal things:D

:eek:

Breaking into a house in the middle of the night is the physical threat.

Your possessions are not a physical extension of you. It is a sad state of affairs that you would think they are.

Closer. My point was that shooting him when Thames was unsure of Scarborough's status as a threat was rational. In other words, Thames couldn't know if Scarborough was there to kill him. So it would make sense for Thames to shoot him then, just in case. I don't agree with it, but I would dismiss it as self-defence.

By the time Scarborough was outside and running away, it would no longer be reasonable to consider Scarborough an imminent threat.


He very well could still be a threat. It is dark you don't know if the intruder is armed, he may have been running away just so he can get around the corner and draw his own weapon. Or he could have been going to his car to get a gun, and even still since the thief had a habit of robbing this guys home he might have come back next time with a gun and shot the home owner in his sleep.

If the thief didn't want to risk being killed after the first shot was fired he should have dropped to the floor put his hands over his head and screamed that he gives up so he could be detained until the police arrive.

Closer. My point was that shooting him when Thames was unsure of Scarborough's status as a threat was rational. In other words, Thames couldn't know if Scarborough was there to kill him. So it would make sense for Thames to shoot him then, just in case. I don't agree with it, but I would dismiss it as self-defence.

By the time Scarborough was outside and running away, it would no longer be reasonable to consider Scarborough an imminent threat.

You are completely correct on the need for target practice though. If you're going to be shooting in your own home, make sure all of the bullets end up in the intruder's body. Especially if you have kids.
A little preparation is needed too. When my kids were at home, they understood that if the alarm went off, they needed to stay in their rooms. I always figured just cocking a shotgun would scare off anyone that might be lurking... I'd rather not clean up the mess inside, either.

I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime, so I am personally opposed to killing these criminals because of two reasons. One, this crime does not deserve a permanent punishment and secondly, I don't want them to get the easy way out. I want them to serve a full punishment for their crime.

That being said, I don't "value" them at all. They have to clearly demonstrate that they are truly contrite for their actions for that to be regained.

Okay. That makes sense. Not my cup of tea, but I can see how someone can drink it.

Why do you think he came back twice? Because he was looking for a challenge? He thought it would be a good target and ended up paying the ultimate price for his indolence and greed.

You are assuming that Scarborough was the first thief. And then you are assuming his motivations. It seems like you are interpreting tha facts to suit your theory rather than modifying your theory to suit the facts.

I never claimed he was one such. That was Vetalia. I was just pointing out your error in logic.

Actually, you didn't point out an error in my logic. You simply suggested an ad-hoc hypothesis for Vetalia's unsupported claim.

Maybe its not fair to die because you were robbing someone, but its not fair to be robbed either. I would consider shooting someone who steals or vandalizes your property to be self-defense. They are in fact stealing your work, your income, your life.

My work is not my income or my life. They are three separate things. Why do you confuse them?

He very well could still be a threat. It is dark you don't know if the intruder is armed, he may have been running away just so he can get around the corner and draw his own weapon. Or he could have been going to his car to get a gun, and even still since the thief had a habit of robbing this guys home he might have come back next time with a gun and shot the home owner in his sleep.

And he could've been a pixie from lollipop land. :rolleyes: Ludicrous conjecture != imminent threat.

He very well could still be a threat....If the thief didn't want to risk being killed after the first shot was fired he should have dropped to the floor put his hands over his head and screamed that he gives up so he could be detained until the police arrive.

He could also have been running to get the rest of the gang, or to blow someone up in a terrorist attack, or he could have remebered that he was late for his nun-raping. You're right. We should shoot people in the back based on the suspicion that they may be a danger in the future. While we're at it, let's arrest all poor babies before they grow up to become criminals.

A little preparation is needed too. When my kids were at home, they understood that if the alarm went off, they needed to stay in their rooms. I always figured just cocking a shotgun would scare off anyone that might be lurking... I'd rather not clean up the mess inside, either.

This is what I would consider a rational use of personal firearms. Thames, on the other hand, gives a bad name to gun owners.

My work is not my income or my life. They are three separate things. Why do you confuse them?
Not so different. Work, income, and property all represent time spent in your life that you can never recover.

And he could've been a pixie from lollipop land. :rolleyes: Ludicrous conjecture != imminent threat.

I'd like to point out that when there's a strange man in your house in the middle of the night along with you, your wife and small children, ludicrous conjecture doesn't seem quite so ludicrous.

I'm not agreeing with the final outcome of this situation. I don't hold killing in particularly high regard. From what I read, nobody needed to die in this situation. But I also understand enough about human nature to know that people are not exactly in the most reasonable mood in the dead of night with a stranger in their house. In addition I understand that an unreasonable texan is a very dangerous thing. I further understand that a burglar in Texas is one dumb burglar. If I had to rob people, I'd rob people in Washington DC or Massachusetts where it's safe. :p

You mean there are laws in Texas that allow crazy gun nut rednecks to indulge in their murder fantasies?


No kidding.

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

Yes. Some lives are worth more but many are not.

Yes. Some lives are worth more but many are not.

Thats the good upstanding, enlightened view.

You mean there are laws in Texas that allow crazy gun nut rednecks to indulge in their murder fantasies?


No kidding.

No, silly...

It's hangin'!

I'd like to point out that when there's a strange man in your house in the middle of the night along with you, your wife and small children, ludicrous conjecture doesn't seem quite so ludicrous.

Actually, it is quite ludicrous and conjecture, regardless.

Actually, you didn't point out an error in my logic. You simply suggested an ad-hoc hypothesis for Vetalia's unsupported claim.

Nyet. Your statement:

Originally Posted by Gift-of-god
Now, looking at all your hyperbole, I would suggest that the deceased Mr. Scarborough does not fall into the category of humans who prey on people who are unable to defend themselves. If he was, Thames would not have had an opportunity to shoot him in the back, would he?

includes a logical inference, to wit: if he was in fact a {X}, then he would not have done {Y}. I have merely pointed out the existence of an alternative theorem, the existence of which renders your inference null.

Not so different. Work, income, and property all represent time spent in your life that you can never recover.

Every single action I have ever done in my life represents time spent in my life that I can't recover. By your logic, everything in my life would be equivalent to everything else.

Nyet. Your statement:

includes a logical inference, to wit: if he was in fact a {X}, then he would not have done {Y}. I have merely pointed out the existence of an alternative theorem, the existence of which renders your inference null.

It does not render anything null. It just means you made a different claim than I did. If you supported your statement, or tried to find some sort of hole in mine, it might render something of mine null. But you haven't done that. All you've done is said 'what if...'

See ya.

:rolleyes: Ludicrous conjecture != imminent threat.

It ceases to be Ludicrous when he has already broken into your home More over on several recent Occasions. I will shoot someone rather then take the chance the only reason he is withdrawing might be so he can get his own weapon and change a scenario where the law abiding citizen escapes 100% unharmed, to a scenario where it becomes a 50/50 gun battle that also gravely endangers my family. He has already shown criminal intent murderous intent is not far behind.

I would defend my home (and thusly my family) with deadly force if that is what I felt was necessary.

double post

And Thames did shoot at Scarborough inside. Which is why Scarborough ran away. At this point any rational person would stop regarding Scarborough as a threat. Shooting him in the back as he is fleeing is completely unnecessary.
I agree completely with this.

There is nothing to "think" about it, I can just be viscerally disgusted. He shot a person posing no physical threat to him, in fact according to the video he chased him outside and shot him in the back as he was fleeing. There is no way to justify that. It is not self-defence, it is murder. And he's getting away with it because of a demented law that puts property above human life, which is actually unsurprising seeing the "values" of said country... but unsurprising doesn't mean it's any less repulsive.
Isn't it fun when Texas lives up to the stereotype of a shoot-firs-shoot-later-shoot-some-more-THEN-ask-questions kinda state, where using excessive force and shooting a fleeing person in the back can be done with impunity? A state where calling the police isn't deemed a realistic answer and trust in law enforcement and the justice system is almost nonexistent, and the citizenry lives in perpetual fear?

Tastes like chicken :)

Tell me, do you actually believe it is moral to value your possesions more than the lives of other humans?

Most burglars obviously value your possessions more than their own life.

Most burglars obviously value your possessions more than their own life.

this. :)

Most burglars obviously value your possessions more than their own life.

Bullshit.

Closer. My point was that shooting him when Thames was unsure of Scarborough's status as a threat was rational. In other words, Thames couldn't know if Scarborough was there to kill him. So it would make sense for Thames to shoot him then, just in case. I don't agree with it, but I would dismiss it as self-defence.

By the time Scarborough was outside and running away, it would no longer be reasonable to consider Scarborough an imminent threat.


Your right, the punishment in this case does not fit the crime. But you know, as unfair as that is, being stolen from is also very unfair. I think the castle domain law in Texas works.

Oh and by the way, if you have a shotgun and are able to fire it, it is very easy to hit someone in the legs at 50 yrds or less.

Bullshit.

may be true for some hardcore drug addicts. Probably not for the most part though.

I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime, so I am personally opposed to killing these criminals because of two reasons. One, this crime does not deserve a permanent punishment and secondly, I don't want them to get the easy way out. I want them to serve a full punishment for their crime.


Out of curiosity, what would be a "full punishment"? Incarceration?

While I agree that killing someone for such crimes is far too extreme, so too is punishment of the populace upon which the criminal preys.

I probably would not have shot the guy on his way out. However, I don't really blame the guy. This was not the criminal's first time in this man's house, and it really isn't ludicrous to think the guy might consider coming back with a gun next time.

I also want to defend the claim that the guy was burglarizing more than just a couple of items.

My material goods are, relatively directly, my life. You want to steal my laptop? You are not just stealing the year's worth of information I have saved on it, information that in some cases is backed up and some cases isn't. You are not just stealing the $1800 (now slightly less) computer itself. You are not just stealing a key tool that I use daily. You are also stealing all of the time that I had to put into in order to raise the $1800 to buy it. At my part-time, teenager wages (which shouldn't be underestimated--they're more powerful due to my limited expenses), you're taking a bare minimum of 200 hours of work from me. And that time was time I would've willingly spent with friends or family, if the laptop wasn't a purchase I deemed worth saving for.

Congratulations, you've stolen my laptop, as much as, in my case, a year's worth of work saved on it, the ~$1500 value you could get for reselling it, a major tool of mine, more than 200 hours of my life, and all the memories I could've made if I had known the laptop would be gone within a year.

And you've probably walked out with something equally as valuable under the other arm. And a backpack full of more valuables.

Excuse me as I decide your life isn't worth as much as mine.

may be true for some hardcore drug addicts. Probably not for the most part though.

Even they wouldn't "value your possessions more than their own life". They couldn't care less about your possessions - they're just more desperate getting their hands on stuff they can sell. They would have been much happier if they could get cash instead. Or drugs.

And even the strung-out addicts tend to flee from armed people, cops, etc...

Even they wouldn't "value your possessions more than their own life". They couldn't care less about your possessions - they're just more desperate getting their hands on stuff they can sell. They would have been much happier if they could get cash instead. Or drugs.

And even the strung-out addicts tend to flee from armed people, cops, etc...

mmmmm, yeah, I guess

I probably would not have shot the guy on his way out. However, I don't really blame the guy. This was not the criminal's first time in this man's house, and it really isn't ludicrous to think the guy might consider coming back with a gun next time.

I also want to defend the claim that the guy was burglarizing more than just a couple of items.

My material goods are, relatively directly, my life. You want to steal my laptop? You are not just stealing the year's worth of information I have saved on it, information that in some cases is backed up and some cases isn't. You are not just stealing the $1800 (now slightly less) computer itself. You are not just stealing a key tool that I use daily. You are also stealing all of the time that I had to put into in order to raise the $1800 to buy it. At my part-time, teenager wages (which shouldn't be underestimated--they're more powerful due to my limited expenses), you're taking a bare minimum of 200 hours of work from me. And that time was time I would've willingly spent with friends or family, if the laptop wasn't a purchase I deemed worth saving for.

Congratulations, you've stolen my laptop, as much as, in my case, a year's worth of work saved on it, the ~$1500 value you could get for reselling it, a major tool of mine, more than 200 hours of my life, and all the memories I could've made if I had known the laptop would be gone within a year.

And you've probably walked out with something equally as valuable under the other arm. And a backpack full of more valuables.

Excuse me as I decide your life isn't worth as much as mine.

I wonder how many naysayers here have actually been robbed?

I probably would not have shot the guy on his way out. However, I don't really blame the guy. This was not the criminal's first time in this man's house, and it really isn't ludicrous to think the guy might consider coming back with a gun next time.

I also want to defend the claim that the guy was burglarizing more than just a couple of items.

My material goods are, relatively directly, my life. You want to steal my laptop? You are not just stealing the year's worth of information I have saved on it, information that in some cases is backed up and some cases isn't. You are not just stealing the $1800 (now slightly less) computer itself. You are not just stealing a key tool that I use daily. You are also stealing all of the time that I had to put into in order to raise the $1800 to buy it. At my part-time, teenager wages (which shouldn't be underestimated--they're more powerful due to my limited expenses), you're taking a bare minimum of 200 hours of work from me. And that time was time I would've willingly spent with friends or family, if the laptop wasn't a purchase I deemed worth saving for.

Congratulations, you've stolen my laptop, as much as, in my case, a year's worth of work saved on it, the ~$1500 value you could get for reselling it, a major tool of mine, more than 200 hours of my life, and all the memories I could've made if I had known the laptop would be gone within a year.

And you've probably walked out with something equally as valuable under the other arm. And a backpack full of more valuables.

Excuse me as I decide your life isn't worth as much as mine.

Posts like this worry me a little. Yeah, you worked for the laptop and yeah, that's a part of your life. But it's not all your life.

Posts like this worry me a little. Yeah, you worked for the laptop and yeah, that's a part of your life. But it's not all your life.

The laptop is simply an example. One that came quickly since I happen to be using my laptop to post. If you would, I'd like to hear something against the argument as a whole, if you've got it.

The laptop is simply an example. One that came quickly since I happen to be using my laptop to post. If you would, I'd like to hear something against the argument as a whole, if you've got it.

It's simply disproportionate. There are no items that are worth killing over.

A stranger breaking into a house in the middle of the night is not there to leave toys for all the good children. Breaking into a house in the middle of the night is the physical threat.


The threat only existed until the burglar fleed.

First of all, according to the law, it's not murder, it's self-defense:
"For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home."


Saying "but the law says so!" when discussing the validity of a law is rather circular, don't you think?

If he had plugged the dude in the kitchen, yeah, he would have been justified. But he shot him in the back whilst he was fleeing. That's the absolutely incorrect course of action, and is worthy of criminal charges. Firing a warning shot and demanding that he stop is a legitimate course of action.

On the other hand, this dude had already broken into the homeowners house once. Maybe, just maybe, a justification could be laid that the repeat violations are indicative of a continuing threat, and thus, he was justified in shooting him.

It's simply disproportionate. There are no items that are worth killing over.

I admit, I don't think I'd kill a person over anything, even any combination of things, they'd stolen from me. Shooting them is not out of the question by any means, however. In my case, I don't think it's likely to be more than one shot (so long as the first hits).

They guy is, however, showing a lack of disrespect for my life, so I wouldn't show him any respect. If I were to miss my incapacitation shot, or if it were to be complicated by taking a major artery or something, and the guy wound up dying, I wouldn't be all that upset over it.

In this specific case, where the guy is not just a repeat offender, but is targeting my house for a second time in as many nights, I can fathom shooting to kill. There's nothing to suggest he's not going to come back yet again. If you're sane, you wouldn't, but if you're sane, you wouldn't even rob the same neighborhood twice in two nights, let alone the same house.

Every single action I have ever done in my life represents time spent in my life that I can't recover. By your logic, everything in my life would be equivalent to everything else.

If you reduce money or property to it's most basic state, they are only material representations of time spent doing something that another valued. That would mean that some things are worth more in terms of time spent to obtain them that other things. So, no, everything isn't equivalent. I thought we were talking material goods, not EVERYTHING.

I would value the time spent to make a marriage and raise a family way above the time spent to obtain stuff. That's even a better reason for one to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.

They guy is, however, showing a lack of disrespect for my life, so I wouldn't show him any respect. If I were to miss my incapacitation shot, or if it were to be complicated by taking a major artery or something, and the guy wound up dying, I wouldn't be all that upset over it.

Say you have worked long hours all your life. Slaved away, spent very little. And all this was so you could one day buy a house that looked over the ocean.

And then, one day you finally do it. You finally get that house which has been the focus of your entire lifes work. Bliss.

Then a development firm decides that they want to build in the space between the house and the ocean. That's everything ruined - and you can't sell up and move on because that's ruined the value of the house. You go to the head of the development and explain that he's going to ruin your life but he smirks and says that you should have thought of that when you bought the house.

I assume you don't think it's okay to shoot him. Why not?

I probably would not have shot the guy on his way out. However, I don't really blame the guy. This was not the criminal's first time in this man's house, and it really isn't ludicrous to think the guy might consider coming back with a gun next time.

I also want to defend the claim that the guy was burglarizing more than just a couple of items.

My material goods are, relatively directly, my life. You want to steal my laptop? You are not just stealing the year's worth of information I have saved on it, information that in some cases is backed up and some cases isn't. You are not just stealing the $1800 (now slightly less) computer itself. You are not just stealing a key tool that I use daily. You are also stealing all of the time that I had to put into in order to raise the $1800 to buy it. At my part-time, teenager wages (which shouldn't be underestimated--they're more powerful due to my limited expenses), you're taking a bare minimum of 200 hours of work from me. And that time was time I would've willingly spent with friends or family, if the laptop wasn't a purchase I deemed worth saving for.

Congratulations, you've stolen my laptop, as much as, in my case, a year's worth of work saved on it, the ~$1500 value you could get for reselling it, a major tool of mine, more than 200 hours of my life, and all the memories I could've made if I had known the laptop would be gone within a year.
.
To sum up, just some property.

(On the other hand, you're taking away all the work this burglar's mother had raising him, probably years. Clearly, since you value your 200h higher than her years, she should shoot you.)

And those idiots in traffic cost me precious minutes, every day, which over the course of years really mounts up to a theft of a major part of my life...

Say you have worked long hours all your life. Slaved away, spent very little. And all this was so you could one day buy a house that looked over the ocean.

And then, one day you finally do it. You finally get that house which has been the focus of your entire lifes work. Bliss.

Then a development firm decides that they want to build in the space between the house and the ocean. That's everything ruined - and you can't sell up and move on because that's ruined the value of the house. You go to the head of the development and explain that he's going to ruin your life but he smirks and says that you should have thought of that when you bought the house.

I assume you don't think it's okay to shoot him. Why not?Because unlike the guy who broke into my house in the middle of the night, what the developer did was legal and he was operating within the confines of the law? Could that be it? Yeah, I think so.

Because unlike the guy who broke into my house in the middle of the night, what the developer did was legal and he was operating within the confines of the law? Could that be it? Yeah, I think so.

I was talking about morality.

[snip]I assume you don't think it's okay to shoot him. Why not?
Because, while he's making much of my investment a waste, he's not doing it by invading my property. That he had the opportunity is my bad, not his.

And those idiots in traffic cost me precious minutes, every day, which over the course of years really mounts up to a theft of a major part of my life...
Again, not on my property. Other key factor is that I can't pin it on just one. If there was one person who caused my daily traffic, yes, at some point, I'd do something about it. But that one person would've driven me insane anyway, so it'd be better off that I wound up in a psycho ward//prison afterwards.

To sum up, just some property.

(On the other hand, you're taking away all the work this burglar's mother had raising him, probably years. Clearly, since you value your 200h higher than her years, she should shoot you.)
To be completely honest, if her son is stealing my property, she didn't do a good job of raising him. And I didn't kill her son on her property, once again making the situation a bad comparison. Not to say she doesn't have different views and wouldn't try to come after me, but that's a risk I'm willing to take in order to defend myself.


As a side, why is it always the mother that gets the sympathy? Fathers can also raise children.

Because, while he's making much of my investment a waste, he's not doing it by invading my property. That he had the opportunity is my bad, not his.

So it isn't about respect for your life?

To be completely honest, if her son is stealing my property, she didn't do a good job of raising him. And I didn't kill her son on her property, once again making the situation a bad comparison.

If it cost you 200h of work to get a 1800 dollar item, your work wasn't a good job either.



As a side, why is it always the mother that gets the sympathy?

Default.

So it isn't about respect for your life?
One thing you'll eventually learn about me is that I respect capitalism. I bought the land on the ledge, but I didn't buy the land in front of it. It's entirely the other guy's right to buy that and do what he wants with it. Not someone's right to break into my house and steal what my life has earned me.

If it cost you 200h of work to get a 1800 dollar item, your work wasn't a good job either.
As mentioned, I'm using a teenager's wage. I am still a teenager after all. And, once again, just an example. Entirely possible for a single item to require much more time, as well as much less, regardless of wage.

One thing you'll eventually learn about me is that I respect capitalism. I bought the land on the ledge, but I didn't buy the land in front of it. It's entirely the other guy's right to buy that and do what he wants with it. Not someone's right to break into my house and steal what my life has earned me.

So basically you're agreeing that it isn't about respect?

As mentioned, I'm using a teenager's wage. I am still a teenager after all. And, once again, just an example. Entirely possible for a single item to require much more time, as well as much less, regardless of wage.

Maybe the mother (or father, if you wish) did a teenage job raising him too?

I'd just like to point out that the description of castle doctrine given by the news is incorrect. Castle doctrine does not state that one need not retreat to one's home; it states that one need not retreat from one's home. So one would be required to retreat to one's home, but not any further. Chasing a fleeing criminal and shooting them in your yard does not count as part of castle doctrine. It is legal (or at least not specifically prohibited) under Texas law, however.

I would have warned him to freeze first, failing that I would have shot him. I wouldn't have pursued him, however. To me, it's no longer self-defense when he's running away across your yard.

So basically you're agreeing that it isn't about respect?
If that's how you interpret what I wrote, I guess so. The cases, again, aren't nearly the same however. Comparing legal actions with illegal actions is not proving a point for you.

Maybe the mother (or father, if you wish) did a teenage job raising him too?
And that's changing the fact that the guy's broken into my house and is stealing my property... how, exactly?

Say you have worked long hours all your life. Slaved away, spent very little. And all this was so you could one day buy a house that looked over the ocean.

And then, one day you finally do it. You finally get that house which has been the focus of your entire lifes work. Bliss.

Then a development firm decides that they want to build in the space between the house and the ocean. That's everything ruined - and you can't sell up and move on because that's ruined the value of the house. You go to the head of the development and explain that he's going to ruin your life but he smirks and says that you should have thought of that when you bought the house.

I assume you don't think it's okay to shoot him. Why not?

IT is not a likely scenario but even so.
1 a structure so grand it can block a view would not likely qualify do to residential zoning laws.
that failing
2. The homeowners association can and will get stuff blocked that lowers or threatens to lower home prices.
that failing
most people who buy beach front property buy the beach too.

And that's changing the fact that the guy's broken into my house and is stealing my property... how, exactly?

Nobody said that. Go back and read.

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

Did you really just call a strawman on me calling a strawman on you? Wow, man.

The question was, how does the fact that the mother did a teenage job raising her child change the situation at all? If it doesn't, why did you bring it up?

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

several points.

1) the intruder was already in the kitchen and was ordered to freeze, the intruder didn't and the homeowner fired.

2) the intruder matched the description given of a burgler who broke into the home before.

3) Texas law gives leeway on protecting one's family AND property.

so for those of you who would've let the man go. what's stopping the punk from getting a gun of his own returning later and killing the homeowner (and his family?) especally when you add to the fact that 1) the intruder RETURNED to that home. 2) after the intruder now knows that homeowner is armed and 3) the homeowner was leaving... did he have family that would've been killed when this punk returns?

Remember, the intruder was let go before, and I

so yea, while I don't agree with the use of firearms, in this case, I support the homeowner.

Another point is that the Neighbors did not "agree with his methods" the news report said that while the neighbors feel that he used excessive force, they agree that they MIGHT REACT the same way, far different than the neighbors saying that they agree with Thame's methods.

and Finally, the Police are not charging him with a crime AT THIS TIME. so the police are also looking into the shooting.

whether or not it's a sign that 'gun ownership works' is only pertinate to one group of people. Those that live in Texas.

Aside from the obligatory Kimchi jab at gun control and nations that implement gun control, the original post is basically a shameless celebration of objectivism.

Did you really just call a strawman on me calling a strawman on you? Wow, man.

The question was, how does the fact that the mother did a teenage job raising her child change the situation at all? If it doesn't, why did you bring it up?

You: It's ok to kill somebody who takes property because it took time buying it
Me: Then it's ok to kill a burglar-killar because it took time raising him
You: Then the mother did a bad job
Me: For 200h/1800USD you did a bad job too
You: I'm, like, a teenager, so it's ok
Me: Maybe the mother was just a teenager too [and that's why she wasn't very succesful raising the burglar as a nice member of society]?

Nobody said anything about changing the situation. I just clarified that you, too, might be shot by extension of your logic (and just to preempt your next argument - no, the *mother* didn't do anything wrong).

You: It's ok to kill somebody who takes property because it took time buying it
Me: Then it's ok to kill a burglar-killar because it took time raising him
You: Then the mother did a bad job
Me: For 200h/1800USD you did a bad job too
You: I'm, like, a teenager, so it's ok
Me: Maybe the mother was just a teenager too [and that's why she wasn't very succesful raising the burglar as a nice member of society]?

Nobody said anything about changing the situation. I just clarified that you, too, might be shot by extension of your logic (and just to preempt your next argument - no, the *mother* didn't do anything wrong).
(Bold added for clarity)
Nice misquote. I said I used a teenagers wages. I will also state, for the THIRD time in this thread, that the laptop was just an example. And for the second time, there are a number of items a thief can take from any house which cost much more (in terms of time AND money) than a laptop.
And I wasn't going to make an argument about the mother at all here, so nice miss there, as well.

You'd have to be stupid to rob the same place twice on the same day. The owner would be tempted to kill you and well, sometimes it happens ...

(Bold added for clarity)
Nice misquote. I said I used a teenagers wages. I will also state, for the THIRD time in this thread, that the laptop was just an example.

You fail to comprehend that neither your wage, the actual item stolen, nor the mother's ability to raise a kid well matter at all.

Edit: Upong reading your edit...

- you already made the argument that it was somehow ok to kill a burglar because he did a wrong
- insults are no argument, however, if you argue that the mother did a bad job (...which makes it somehow less bad to take her son away...) then you should be prepared to take this comment

You fail to comprehend that neither your wage, the actual item stolen, nor the mother's ability to raise a kid well matter at all.

Then you fail to understand that we have a difference of opinions here. As soon as the person is stealing my property, it matters. I've already mentioned that I wouldn't aim to kill the guy on the first go, but on the second, like in this story, I understand relatively well.

And that's what this is, opinions. You state it like it's a fact that 'wage, the actual item stolen...' don't mean anything, but that is your personal opinion.

In all my time in Texas, I only knew fifteen families (besides my own) in which nobody in the house was in possession of a gun.

The Brady Bill is shorter here. Seriously.

And that's what this is, opinions. You state it like it's a fact that 'wage, the actual item stolen...' don't mean anything, but that is your personal opinion.

So the wage is important, but not how big it is, and the item is important, except it's (three times) not important that it's a laptop and it could just be something else?

So the wage is important, but not how big it is, and the item is important, except it's (three times) not important that it's a laptop and it could just be something else?

The laptop is an example here. I wouldn't kill for my laptop. I highly doubt I'd shoot at all if a burglar only had my laptop. But the laptop is an example for how property can be worth parts of my life.

What is important is what sentimental value the object has, coupled with how much of my time I put into getting it.

What is important is what sentimental value the object has, coupled with how much of my time I put into getting it.

Right! And this, if not more, can be attributed to the burglar as well.

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?
Hi Deep Kimchi. It's been awhile.

Anyway, my opinion: When the burglar was inside the home, shooting at him was logical and rational, because the owner of the house had no way of determining if the burglar was a physical threat or not.

But once the burglar fled the house and was running away, shooting was NOT acceptable. Not at all. At that point it becomes, in my opinion, outright murder.

It wasn't acceptable for the burglar to rob. He should have been prosecuted and given the chance to be rehabilitated(you know, find out why he did it and give him new skills to live in society effectively so that reason--or any other potential ones--is invalidated.) Ending his life was unnecessary.

I think those that would urge the removal of the life of a burglar like this forget that a burglar, despite his or her crime, is still human, much like you and me. Their humanity is not somehow removed by committing a crime.

Right! And this, if not more, can be attributed to the burglar as well.

The burglar isn't taking the sentimental value of my property into account. There's no reason for me to take the sentimental value of the burglar into account.

As someone mentioned before, when the gun comes out, the burglar should be on the floor, not running away.

The burglar isn't taking the sentimental value of my property into account. There's no reason for me to take the sentimental value of the burglar into account.

It's very telling you take the value of stuff as equal to or above the value of human life.

I think this is an incredibly brutal and violent reaction to finding someone on your property, but perhaps Texan men are more scared of strangers than normal people.

Yea, because if I found some stranger on my property at night, I would totally give him the chance at gaining an upper hand on me. :rolleyes:

The burglar isn't taking the sentimental value of my property into account. There's no reason for me to take the sentimental value of the burglar into account.

Analogy mismatch... The comparison was NOT about taking the burglar's life away from him, but from his mother.

Analogies that would actually match what we've been talking about for the last hours:

- The burglar isn't taking the sentimental value of my property into account. There's no reason for me to take the sentimental value of the burglar's property into account [I'm therefore allowed to steal his property].

- I do not take the sentimental value of the burglar into account. There's no reason for his mother to take my sentimental value into account [Therefore, she can kill me if she wants].

It's very telling you take the value of stuff as equal to or above the value of human life.

*Shrug* I'm a cold person, I guess. I find it telling that you find it okay to break into someone's house and steal 'stuff.' There's a middle ground here, and I think we're both on the opposite sides of said middle ground. I don't think you really think it's okay to break and enter, then steal. I know I don't really think it's okay to kill someone who's breaking and entering. But I'd probably shoot a burglar to incapacitate before you would.

Analogy mismatch... The comparison was NOT about taking the burglar's life away from him, but from his mother.

Analogies that would actually match what we've been talking about for the last hours:

- The burglar isn't taking the sentimental value of my property into account. There's no reason for me to take the sentimental value of the burglar's property into account [I'm therefore allowed to steal his property].

- I do not take the sentimental value of the burglar into account. There's no reason for his mother to take my sentimental value into account [Therefore, she can kill me if she wants].

Not an analogy mismatch at all. I have spent the previous time explaining how my property and my life are one and the same. If you don't agree, that's another matter, but that's how I view this. He doesn't respect my life, I don't respect his.

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

Well I'm American, and don't see the fucking problem.

Not an analogy mismatch at all. I have spent the previous time explaining how my property and my life are one and the same. If you don't agree, that's another matter, but that's how I view this. He doesn't respect my life, I don't respect his.

You can call it the same if you want - then it's not a mismatch, yet the original argument still stands that you could then be killed by his mother, since a) you claim that sentimental value/invested time is what makes your property equal to your life and b) any relative or friend has most likely invested more in this guy's life than you have in any property that you might possess.

I find it telling that you find it okay to break into someone's house and steal 'stuff.

If that's how you interpret my words then I fear you're ill equipped to be here, or any other place where you're expected to demonstrate the barest minimum of rational and intellectual discourse.

If that's how you interpret my words then I fear you're ill equipped to be here, or any other place where you're expected to demonstrate the barest minimum of rational and intellectual discourse.

And he can do that for hours...

You can call it the same if you want - then it's not a mismatch, yet the original argument still stands that you could then be killed by his mother, since a) you claim that sentimental value/invested time is what makes your property equal to your life and b) any relative or friend has most likely invested more in this guy's life than you have in any property that you might possess.
You're almost right. You're forgetting the fact that this burglar is the aggressor. I don't go on the street, picking random people to shoot because they may be a burglar. But he did come down my street and pick a random house to rob because they may have invested a lot of their life into something. It's a subtle, but important, difference.

If that's how you interpret my words then I fear you're ill equipped to be here, or any other place where you're expected to demonstrate the barest minimum of rational and intellectual discourse.
If you didn't read any of the other words I posted in that one post alone, then I fear you've already proven you're ill-equipped to be here. I already admitted that you are probably a very rational person, but you chose to ignore the rest of my post. Perhaps I was wrong.

If you didn't read any of the other words I posted

this:

you find it okay to break into someone's house and steal 'stuff

Makes whatever follows irrelevant and not worth commenting on. If you honestly take my comment that I value human life more than posessions as a statement that I somehow "find it ok to break into someone's house and steal stuff" then you're very intellectually dull

If you didn't actually believe that to be the case, and instead thought it worthwhile to throw out this ludicrus strawman in some attempt to defeat a point I didn't make in an attempt to bolster an argument that you find insufficient to stand on its own, then you're very intellectually dishonest.

So either you lack the capacity to hold a conversation I find worthwhile, or you lack the integrity to do so.

Either way, it's not something worth entertaining seriously, as efforts ot that would obviously be wasted for one, or both, of the reasons I mentioned.

this:

Makes whatever follows irrelevant and not worth commenting on. If you honestly take my comment that I value human life more than posessions as a statement that I somehow "find it ok to break into someone's house and steal stuff" then you're very intellectually dull

If you didn't actually believe that to be the case, and instead thought it worthwhile to throw out this ludicrus strawman in some attempt to defeat a point I didn't make in an attempt to bolster an argument that you find insufficient to stand on its own, then you're very intellectually dishonest.

So either you lack the capacity to hold a conversation I find worthwhile, or you lack the integrity to do so.

Either way, it's not something worth entertaining seriously, as efforts ot that would obviously be wasted for one, or both, of the reasons I mentioned.
Well, to be fair, you made a similar strawman on me. In fact, I dare say I copied your strawman but simply reversed the roles implied. So... that makes you at fault here.

Well, to be fair, you made a similar strawman on me.

Did I say that you were justified in not caring about the life of a human being and that you find shooting someone running away as defensible?

No, you did.

Did I say that you were justified in not caring about the life of a human being and that you find shooting someone running away as defensible?

No, you did.
An insult to my character? I don't mind, but this isn't really winning any arguments. My opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is yours. There's no right or wrong when it comes to opinions, all we're trying to do is persuade each other. And in this situation, I don't see either side winning.

I do, however, see you breaking the rules of a traditional discussion, choosing strawman tactics and personal attacks.

An insult to my character? I don't mind, but this isn't really winning any arguments. My opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is yours.

My opinion isn't used to justify killing a defenseless person.

Yours is.

I do, however, see you breaking the rules of a traditional discussion, choosing strawman tactics and personal attacks.

I did not misrepresent your words. I did not claim you said something that you did not. I did not try to make it appear you were a supporter of criminal activity.

You did.

You're almost right. You're forgetting the fact that this burglar is the aggressor.


...but not the mother.

[snip]I did not misrepresent your words. I did not claim you said something that you did not. I did not try to make it appear you were a supporter of criminal activity.

You did.
Mm, in the case we're discussing, it is certainly not criminal activity. Perhaps questionable, and I, too, have questioned it, but not criminal. I happen to take a side you disagree with.

Claiming that I am a supporter of criminal activity, even claiming that I said I was a supporter of criminal activity, is still a lie. I simply said I supported the man's right to defend his home and possessions, what I defined as his life, from burglary. Considering the law in his jurisdiction (and many others) also supports that right, I am not supporting any crime.

...but not the mother.
And I'm not shooting the mother, am I? He attacked my life, I attacked his. The mother is not in the equation.

If some one Breaks into My House ( Or yours )
It is your absolute right to Kill anyone who breaks in and attempts to
take what ever you own.

The value of a human life against the value of "just stuff"?
Firstly We all give up a piece of our lives buying that which which we fill
our houses with.
The Criminal does not give up his life and time to Earn anything, he is a low
life.

Our lives should be measured "value" by what we do, those who do nothing to earn the things they have, but take from the hard work of others...
Their life is worthless,

Secondly I equate Invasion; be it my home or my nation as the same act...
If you Attacked Germany, Either by invading it and attempting to steal all
the goods in their stores. The German people would run into the streets and destroy all those who fell upon their nation.

This is the same way you should treat anyone who attempts to take those
things which we have worked for with our sweat, blood and time.

What's mine is mine,
Try to take it from me and all you'll get for your efforts is five rounds from
an Old Russian....

If you can't understand this concept;
Well then I hope that your nation ( the one you live in ) is over run by
people who rob you all blind.
And that France and some other UN member Nation Keep the world too
tied up in pointless talks about whether or not to get involved or not...

I don't mean to make fun of the French this time, but they were the first
nation which came to mind.

...but not the mother.


Why is the burglar's mother even being taken into account? She has nothing to do with the decision of the burglar to break into the house into the first place. I'm not even sure why the debate about how their mother feels is even part of this thread in the first place. Stick to the facts of what happened instead of bringing irrelevant options into it.

And I'm not shooting the mother, am I? He attacked my life, I attacked his. The mother is not in the equation.

Yes, she is by your definition. Look, I'm getting tired of you not remembering half what has been posted before, so a last repetition:

You: time investment of you + sentimental value for you = part of your life
--> mother invested years in burglar + has sentimental value attributed to burglar = burglar is part of mother's life --> You attacked the mother's life.

I don't understand this property VS. Life stuff what does it have to do with it?

Let me ask you this someone breaks into your house and you chase him off.
Do you go right back to sleep ? Or do you wait up a few hours and see if he comes back?
Anyone with common sense waits up a few hours at least until the police get there and Id wait an hour or two past when they leave.

The reason you wait up is he may very well come back maybe armed or maybe with friends.

Of course you can prevent this by simply shooting the criminal, it is not a immediate threat, But it is still a likely threat.
not to mention in the state of Texas police have the right to shoot fleeing criminals and home owners have the right to act as police on their own property.

Why is the burglar's mother even being taken into account? She has nothing to do with the decision of the burglar to break into the house into the first place. I'm not even sure why the debate about how their mother feels is even part of this thread in the first place.

Another one who likes only reading some posts, but not the whole discussion, aren't you? Her feelings are not part of this thread, have never been.


Stick to the facts of what happened instead of bringing irrelevant options into it.

He argues that investing time in stuff gives the right to kill people who attack it. I'm just saying that any close relative or friend of the burglar might very well use the same argument to kill him. After all, said relative/mother has not done any wrong.
Or you can say that the mother's investment is irrelevant and she should not be brought into the discussion, since she is not shot. Then obviously neither should the owner be part of the story, he has no right to kill the burglar.

Simple point, really... it's just Ben keeps forgetting stuff and contradicting himself, which makes *a lot* of explanation necessary. And repetition.

'Burglarizing'.

*Chuckles*

Such a stupid word...

Another one who likes only reading some posts, but not the whole discussion, aren't you? Her feelings are not part of this thread, have never been.
I read this entire thread, and to say that her feelings are not part of the thread is completely false. By simply stating anything having to do with this person's mother, you're including them in the argument. If you were correct, there would be no mention of the 'mother', whatsoever.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't result to personal attacks towards me. My response to you wasn't a direct response for you to answer, it was a statement based on your response.
He argues that investing time in stuff gives the right to kill people who attack it. I'm just saying that any close relative or friend of the burglar might very well use the same argument to kill him. After all, said relative/mother has not done any wrong.
Or you can say that the mother's investment is irrelevant and she should not be brought into the discussion, since she is not shot. Then obviously neither should the owner be part of the story, he has no right to kill the burglar.

Simple point, really... it's just Ben keeps forgetting stuff and contradicting himself, which makes *a lot* of explanation necessary. And repetition.

My general point feeling as that a lot of people are overthinking this scenario. Of course, my feeling is that if one chooses to enter someone else's property, by trespassing illegally, they forfeit some of their rights as a citizen, simply because of the fact that they're threatening the owner of the house by entering his/her territory. The owner has every right to defend himself. I don't believe that's in question. The only question is why he chose a gun and not something else. In my opinion, you're free to do whatever you need to do, to remove a trespasser from your property.

I simply don't understand trying to defend the burglar, based on the fact that he was somewhere where he should not have been in the first place.

I read this entire thread, and to say that her feelings are not part of the thread is completely false. By simply stating anything having to do with this person's mother, you're including them in the argument. If you were correct, there would be no mention of the 'mother', whatsoever.

By mentioning the mother, I'm automatically including their feeling? But.. but... Beyn mentioned a laptop? What have the laptop's feeling got to do with anything?


I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't result to personal attacks towards me.

My assumption that you did not read all post was probably false, then you're either forgetful (which is ok in a long thread, but probably not wise if you're going to respond to it), or you're reading something into it which I didn't say. That's called pulling a strawman. If that's a personal attack for you, sorry...


My response to you wasn't a direct response for you to answer, it was a statement based on your response.


It was a statement pronouncing wishes what to do and what not to do. What makes you think I wouldn't respond to that?


I simply don't understand trying to defend the burglar, based on the fact that he was somewhere where he should not have been in the first place.

I wouldn't, either, if the burglar was not fleeing. The defense is rather based on the fact he was trying to get out of where he should not have been in the first place (and, my personal discussion with Beyn is even about something entirely else; my refutal of his believing that his stuff is more worth than a criminal's life).

By mentioning the mother, I'm automatically including their feeling? But.. but... Beyn mentioned a laptop? What have the laptop's feeling got to do with anything?
Slippery slope, my friend. Either way, I probably should've removed the word 'feeling' from my post in the first place, before I posted. I had meant to stick to just the mention of the mother. That's my bad.


My assumption that you did not read all post was probably false, then you're either forgetful (which is ok in a long thread, but probably not wise if you're going to respond to it), or you're reading something into it which I didn't say. That's called pulling a strawman. If that's a personal attack for you, sorry...
By assuming that one hadn't read the thread, and insulting them for assuming without the knowledge of... yea, that's a personal attack.



It was a statement pronouncing wishes what to do and what not to do. What makes you think I wouldn't respond to that?
Never said I didn't expect ya to respond. ;)



I wouldn't, either, if the burglar was not fleeing. The defense is rather based on the fact he was trying to get out of where he should not have been in the first place (and, my personal discussion with Beyn is even about something entirely else; my refutal of his believing that his stuff is more worth than a criminal's life).
Left with a decision to either take out the owner of the house or fleeing, I can guarantee that at least half of the people in that situation would have chosen to flee. Firstly, you've been caught. Secondly, you're in their territory. You don't know what defense they may have against burglary (the owner having a gun).

Personally, I'm curious as to if he fled because he saw a gun, or whether he fled before the gun was even shown. I would assume the latter.

If you reduce money or property to it's most basic state, they are only material representations of time spent doing something that another valued. That would mean that some things are worth more in terms of time spent to obtain them that other things. So, no, everything isn't equivalent. I thought we were talking material goods, not EVERYTHING.

I would value the time spent to make a marriage and raise a family way above the time spent to obtain stuff. That's even a better reason for one to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.
So, things have worth based on the amount of time spent to acquire them, since one can never get that time back. Of course, there are more ways to deprive someone of time than stealing their possessions. Should I be allowed to kill people who waste my time, since I can never get that time back?
'Burglarizing'.

*Chuckles*

Such a stupid word...

But it's fun to say!

Yeah, when you consider that in Europe, you have to be more afraid of being imprisoned and raped in a dungeon by your own father.

Now in fairness, Europe hardly has a monopoly on wacky sex crime.

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burgle a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

Death by snu-snu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Women_in_the_Mood)?

American's love of killing criminals (and generally any people) amazes me.

So, things have worth based on the amount of time spent to acquire them, since one can never get that time back. Of course, there are more ways to deprive someone of time than stealing their possessions. Should I be allowed to kill people who waste my time, since I can never get that time back?

I suppose it depends on how willing you are to allow someone to waste your time... If you're being forced, at gunpoint, to sit through a screening of "Napoleon Dynamite", then yes, killing the fellow would be justified. But if you buy an airline ticket and 'willingly' subject yourself to that in flight movie, then you probably don't have a good enough reason to kill anyone associated with the airline. The parents of the screaming child in the row behind you, however are a different matter.

I love this left-wing PC attitude. "What's yours is actually the possession of the burglar who you're not allowed to stop and the cops don't care about".

Why even BOTHER buying nice things and having a nice house if some guy's allowed to waltz in and just take it without consequence?

Yeah, when you consider that in Europe, you have to be more afraid of being imprisoned and raped in a dungeon by your own father.

and how many times has that happend.One perv rapes his daughter and a hole continent gets the blame.

how many in-bread families are there in the US

I love this left-wing PC attitude. "What's yours is actually the possession of the burglar who you're not allowed to stop and the cops don't care about".

Why even BOTHER buying nice things and having a nice house if some guy's allowed to waltz in and just take it without consequence?

No one has actually made the argument you've presented.

It's simply that your life is worth more than your possessions. Therefore, killing someone because they're stealing from you is wrong. Stealing is still wrong.

the home owner did not know he was unarmed it was night and dark the retreat very well could have been a ploy so he could get around a corner and get his weapon out of his pocket or form his getaway car.

Because that's what you do when you're being chased out of a house with a gun, you get your own gun and go back :rolleyes:

If the thief didn't want to risk being killed after the first shot was fired he should have dropped to the floor put his hands over his head and screamed that he gives up so he could be detained until the police arrive.

He was being shot at!! The guy chased him out of the house and killed him, dropping to the ground and leaving yourself at his mercy probably isn't a great idea.

The value of a human life against the value of "just stuff"?
Firstly We all give up a piece of our lives buying that which which we fill
our houses with.
The Criminal does not give up his life and time to Earn anything, he is a low
life.

This one did give up his life and time trying to earn things, just not legally.

Why even BOTHER buying nice things and having a nice house if some guy's allowed to waltz in and just take it without consequence?

Imprisonment and being shot non-fatally are consequences too you know.

Imprisonment and being shot non-fatally are consequences too you know.

Oh yeah, like he's gonna get caught.

I'm with FO! After all, if I can't kill someone over my possessions, what's the point of having them?

Yea, because if I found some stranger on my property at night, I would totally give him the chance at gaining an upper hand on me. :rolleyes:

Well he was already in the kitchen, could of offered up coffee and explained the economic folly of theft over honest work.

No one has actually made the argument you've presented.

It's simply that your life is worth more than your possessions. Therefore, killing someone because they're stealing from you is wrong. Stealing is still wrong.
Up until the point that the burglar made it clear that he was running away, the homeowner had no idea what his intentions were. Protecting yourself by incapacitating the aggressor, or even by killing the aggressor is okay. Once upon a time, and apparently still in Sweden, burglars only burgle.

Now it's hard to tell what their intentions are. Clearly, people have right and responsibility to protect themselves from harm and it's a good legislature that makes it a protected act.

I suppose it depends on how willing you are to allow someone to waste your time... If you're being forced, at gunpoint, to sit through a screening of "Napoleon Dynamite", then yes, killing the fellow would be justified.


Amen.


I love this left-wing PC attitude. "What's yours is actually the possession of the burglar who you're not allowed to stop and the cops don't care about".

Why even BOTHER buying nice things and having a nice house if some guy's allowed to waltz in and just take it without consequence?

Cute. Too bad no one has said that. Ever.

Death by snu-snu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Women_in_the_Mood)?

American's love of killing criminals (and generally any people) amazes me.
Texas especially love killing criminals. And anyone they think some one might/has committed a possible crime. I'm waiting for Texas to turn into that one world from Sliders where people still walked around with six-shooters and had duels to take over companies or when some one has slighted them.

I didn't read the link but I doo remember a case ont he news. A law in TExas lets you shoot someone for threatning you with harm or something like that.

A guy saw someone robbing his niehgbors house and called 911. He asked the 911 operator if he should go outside with his gun becuase he had a right to defend himself. The 911 operator said no wiat for the police but he didn't. Shot the guy with his shotgun and now it's a big case.

I think you should wait until threatened, and trry to let tthe police handle it.

Cute. Too bad no one has said that. Ever.

Yes you did. You said that we shouldn't use force to stop somebody from taking our things.

Yes you did. You said that we shouldn't use force to stop somebody from taking our things.

We said that you shouldnt kill somebody for talking a material possession. That is totally different from what you think we said.


Reading comprehension. Its your friend.

Up until the point that the burglar made it clear that he was running away, the homeowner had no idea what his intentions were.

...

Now it's hard to tell what their intentions are. Clearly, people have right and responsibility to protect themselves from harm and it's a good legislature that makes it a protected act.

Too bad the legislaure has gone that one step too far, and have made it legal to shoot the burglar in the back after you become aware of the intentions to flee. That should not be a protected act.

Too bad the legislaure has gone that one step too far, and have made it legal to shoot the burglar in the back after you become aware of the intentions to flee. That should not be a protected act.
As I said...

The shooter should have just let the predator go. Then he should have gone to the pistol range and practiced until he could hit someone. Problem solved.

This is an unfortunate consequence of a good law. If someone threatens you on your front yard, you shouldn't have to retreat to your house before you are allowed to use deadly force. It's just that almost every law we see passed has unintended consequences. This law is no exception.

I don't follow your logic. He was discovered. He ran away. How does running away from someone possibly count as a threat against that person?

The point is that he did not run away until he was discovered. It wasn't like he broke into the guy's house, suffered a sudden attack of conscience, and was in the process of leaving when he got shot. He was ransacking the guy's house,(for the second time, a point that cannot be underscored enough) got found out, at which point he started to run off in order to avoid having to pay for his crimes.

Your possessions are not a physical extension of you. It is a sad state of affairs that you would think they are...Ludicrous conjecture != imminent threat..

Granted, it's not a physical threat the same way a gun held to your head is a physical threat. But, like I said, the man who(for the second time)has broken into your house is not there to leave treats for good children. He has already demonstrated his contempt for the law and I would be unwilling to trust to his good graces.

Saying "but the law says so!" when discussing the validity of a law is rather circular, don't you think?

If the validity of the law had been under discussion then yes, it would have been. As it was, though, the post I was responding to was not questioning the validity of the law, but was rather a bunch of disjointed whinings about how the poor burgular had been murdered. I was merely pointing out that referring to the incident as 'murder' instead of 'sef-defense' was both legally and factually incorrect.

the original post is basically a shameless celebration of objectivism.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

As I said...

The shooter should have just let the predator go. Then he should have gone to the pistol range and practiced until he could hit someone. Problem solved.

This is an unfortunate consequence of a good law. If someone threatens you on your front yard, you shouldn't have to retreat to your house before you are allowed to use deadly force. It's just that almost every law we see passed has unintended consequences. This law is no exception.

Not really unintended as long as they've deliberately not included a qualifier - no calls for a proportional response, no requirement for a continuous threat, no real limits to the response. The legislature has failed, and thus the law is a bad one. But it won't be changed. Of course not, that would be seen as being soft on crime, wouldn't it...

Yeah, that bit about him sneaking into the house, trying to avoid people, and running away really showed what kind of a cold-blooded predator he was. To me, that suggests that he was essentially a coward who wished to avoid conflict.

Erm... at the wish of stating the obvious, if you want to avoid conflict then a good way to start is by not breaking into other people's houses at the dead of night...

Yeah, that bit about him sneaking into the house, trying to avoid people, and running away really showed what kind of a cold-blooded predator he was. To me, that suggests that he was essentially a coward who wished to avoid conflict.

Tell you what, why don't you give me some evidence, any at all, that Scarborough was one of those 'drug addicts who would senselessly murder people'?

Mind you, it goes without saying that Scarborough judged the situation inaccurately, even if he was a completely innocent human being, which I am not claiming.

If he wished to avoid conflict, it might have been a better plan stay off of someone else's property, not to mention violating existing law. Violating law inherently places one in conflict where the relevant law presides. I would think a sensible person would expect conflict in such a situation, and if expecting it, it is not unreasonable to believe they were possibly seeking it. What rationale is there to presume that one which will violate the law will only do so a little bit? (not that violation of boundary is a little bit of law breaking, but, hey, we're not talking about wars which erupt over it) Ultimately, he made a challenge upon sanctuary, law, and the morality of the owner, and found himself relatively outclassed.

Curiously, many people of rational mind consider defense of self, family, property, friend, neighbor, ideology, statesman, countryman, fellow human to be elements of the natural hierarchy of morality (not necessarily in that order), yet many of those same individuals find it distasteful or wish to exact punishment when those of lower moral evolution execute defense within their parameters of understanding.

Why is it immoral to defend property, and everything which goes along with it, with lethal force?

Next time some hostile force, nation, group, gang, person comes to enter forcefully and illegally (law truly has no meaning at such a point, but that's another issue) at your border/boundary...just remember, it's only property...and everything else that goes along with it.

While I don't have any real problems with shooting criminals who break into your house per se, I do worry that this law is open to abuse and could lead to a lot of innocent deaths.

Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=86813

Looks like his neighbors agree with the method, too.

Small lesson - if you want to burglarize a house in Texas, make sure no one is home first.

What do all of you Europeans on this forum think of this method?

Burglary? dang my dyslexay! I thought this was going be a more interesting thread.

Not really unintended as long as they've deliberately not included a qualifier - no calls for a proportional response, no requirement for a continuous threat, no real limits to the response. The legislature has failed, and thus the law is a bad one. But it won't be changed. Of course not, that would be seen as being soft on crime, wouldn't it...
The only change I would look for would be for something to restrict one from shooting a retreating person that is no longer posing a threat, but only when they are outside your house. The law has to be simple and easy to implement and enforce. It can't be written so that lawyers will enjoy litigating it.

While I don't have any real problems with shooting criminals who break into your house per se, I do worry that this law is open to abuse and could lead to a lot of innocent deaths.

It's been the law for quite a while. Texas isn't the only place with it or a similar law. I understand Indiana's is fairly liberal about usage of lethal force to protect oneself and one's significant property.

Up until the point that the burglar made it clear that he was running away, the homeowner had no idea what his intentions were. Protecting yourself by incapacitating the aggressor, or even by killing the aggressor is okay. Once upon a time, and apparently still in Sweden, burglars only burgle.

Now it's hard to tell what their intentions are. Clearly, people have right and responsibility to protect themselves from harm and it's a good legislature that makes it a protected act.

I certainly have no issue with the threat being performed in the house. It shouldn't be necessary (shouldn't being a keyword here), but still...

...what wasn't necessary was chasing the bugger down and shooting him in the back.

Don't care. The morality of shooting a fleeing burglar may be suspect, but the net implications are not; most criminals reoffend, more so for burglars for whom the motivation is poverty. Hence, society benefits.

The only change I would look for would be for something to restrict one from shooting a retreating person that is no longer posing a threat, but only when they are outside your house. The law has to be simple and easy to implement and enforce.
That would be an important change. I can't for the life of me understand why that wasn't the law from the start. It's both rational and common sense.

It can't be written so that lawyers will enjoy litigating it.

*Is sad that such an absurd concern actually has an impact on the legislation*

I certainly have no issue with the threat being performed in the house. It shouldn't be necessary (shouldn't being a keyword here), but still...

...what wasn't necessary was chasing the bugger down and shooting him in the back.

Why wasn't it? The fucker had the gall to break into and violate someone's home. One less piece of shit in society now...I don't see a problem.

Why wasn't it? The fucker had the gall to break into and violate someone's home. One less piece of shit in society now...I don't see a problem.

Exactly what I wrote, but more to the point.:D

Why wasn't it? The fucker had the gall to break into and violate someone's home. One less piece of shit in society now...I don't see a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

It might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

It might help.

Yeah, well the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. I wouldn't count on it though.

*Is sad that such an absurd concern actually has an impact on the legislation*
When I said that it shouldn't be written for lawyers, I meant it. That wasn't the trite statement that you want to make it. Any law that allows someone to kill another needs to be simple to understand and remember in the middle of the night after being woken from a sound sleep by an unwelcome intruder. The law cannot contain nuances that would take a judge and jury weeks to figure out. It has to be explicit.

Now you can shed a tear over the loss of nuance in a law that can have far-reaching effects, but I don't care.

Why wasn't it? The fucker had the gall to break into and violate someone's home. One less piece of shit in society now...I don't see a problem.
So you would really shoot this loser in the back as he was running away? I think just scaring the shit out of him would be enough. The word that you just chased him with a gun would get around and you probably wouldn't even need to lock your doors anymore.

I support the death penalty, but this is ridiculous.

So you would really shoot this loser in the back as he was running away? I think just scaring the shit out of him would be enough. The word that you just chased him with a gun would get around and you probably wouldn't even need to lock your doors anymore.

Personally I wouldn't have shot the guy as he was running away unless he had hurt a family member or a pet.

But, I don't think the guy who shot the burglar did anything really wrong.

When I said that it shouldn't be written for lawyers, I meant it. That wasn't the trite statement that you want to make it. Any law that allows someone to kill another needs to be simple to understand and remember in the middle of the night after being woken from a sound sleep by an unwelcome intruder. The law cannot contain nuances that would take a judge and jury weeks to figure out. It has to be explicit.

Now you can shed a tear over the loss of nuance in a law that can have far-reaching effects, but I don't care.

I wasn't being facetious. I thought you were talking about civil suits.

But I disagree. The law can have nuances, and in many cases (like this one) probably should have. I think proportionality should be a factor here, for example. If it takes a judge and jury to figure out the complicated cases then so be it - that's what they're there for.

Yea, because if I found some stranger on my property at night, I would totally give him the chance at gaining an upper hand on me. :rolleyes:

If you had read the whole thread, you would have read that my position is very different from what you claim it to be. Please do not reply to my posts unless you wish to address what I am actually arguing.

I read this entire thread....

That's funny....

My general point feeling as that a lot of people are overthinking this scenario. Of course, my feeling is that if one chooses to enter someone else's property, by trespassing illegally, they forfeit some of their rights as a citizen, simply because of the fact that they're threatening the owner of the house by entering his/her territory. The owner has every right to defend himself. I don't believe that's in question. The only question is why he chose a gun and not something else. In my opinion, you're free to do whatever you need to do, to remove a trespasser from your property.

Okay, so you read the thread but not the article, where it states quite clearly that Thames (the homeowner) had successfully removed Scarborough (the trespasser) from his property. After that, he shot him. Let's be clear: Scarborough was fleeing the property of Thames as fast as he could. Thames had successfully protected his property. Then he shot Scarborough in the back while Scarborough was running away.

So, I agree that we should have the right to remove trespassers from our property. I just think we should not have the right to kill people after we have already successfully exercised the previous right.

The point is that he did not run away until he was discovered. It wasn't like he broke into the guy's house, suffered a sudden attack of conscience, and was in the process of leaving when he got shot. He was ransacking the guy's house,(for the second time, a point that cannot be underscored enough) got found out, at which point he started to run off in order to avoid having to pay for his crimes.

I am clear on the order of events. The point I was trying to make, and that you apparently missed, is that Scarborough was no longer a threat after he had been discovered.

Erm... at the wish of stating the obvious, if you want to avoid conflict then a good way to start is by not breaking into other people's houses at the dead of night...

The point here is that Scarborough was not the type of criminal to seek violence; in other words, he was not the type of human predator that Vetalia was describing. If he was, he would have been mugging someone at knife-point, or holding up a liquor store, or some other crime that involves confrontation.

If he wished to avoid conflict, it might have been a better plan stay off of someone else's property, not to mention violating existing law. Violating law inherently places one in conflict where the relevant law presides. I would think a sensible person would expect conflict in such a situation, and if expecting it, it is not unreasonable to believe they were possibly seeking it. What rationale is there to presume that one which will violate the law will only do so a little bit? (not that violation of boundary is a little bit of law breaking, but, hey, we're not talking about wars which erupt over it) Ultimately, he made a challenge upon sanctuary, law, and the morality of the owner, and found himself relatively outclassed.

See above. There are many examples of people who break the law but do it in a sneaky way to avoid conflict. Poisoners are a good example, as well as con artists.

Why is it immoral to defend property, and everything which goes along with it, with lethal force?

It's not. I think it's immoral to shoot someone in the back while they're running away from you, just because you believe they might be a threat to your possessions.

Next time some hostile force, nation, group, gang, person comes to enter forcefully and illegally (law truly has no meaning at such a point, but that's another issue) at your border/boundary...just remember, it's only property...and everything else that goes along with it.

Ooooooooooh! I'm so scared! :eek:

:rolleyes:

I don't need some sort of law that says I'm allowed to shoot defenseless people in the back in order to feel comfortable about protecting what is important to me.

If the homeowner wanted to stop/shoot the robber, why didn't he just shoot him in the leg? He wouldn't have been able to run away, the homeowner wouldn't have murdered anyone, and he would have his revenge in the form of excruciating pain instead of death.

If you had read the whole thread, you would have read that my position is very different from what you claim it to be. Please do not reply to my posts unless you wish to address what I am actually arguing.
My response to yours was addressing a statement of yours, which had to do with your argument. I just chose to use sarcasm to get my point across. If you don't want me to respond to a post of yours, perhaps you shouldn't have made that post in the first place.

Funny that you make a general statement about Texan men, but can't stand up to someone cracking at your own statement.




Okay, so you read the thread but not the article, where it states quite clearly that Thames (the homeowner) had successfully removed Scarborough (the trespasser) from his property. After that, he shot him. Let's be clear: Scarborough was fleeing the property of Thames as fast as he could. Thames had successfully protected his property. Then he shot Scarborough in the back while Scarborough was running away.

No, I read it, and I still agree with his actions. These days, you just can't trust people, especially someone who was willing to steal things from your own property, and screw with your life when you don't even know them.

How can you honestly say that he protected his own property by letting a criminal like that get away? There's nothing that would've stopped him from coming back, killing the guy, and taking whatever he can. When you get into a situation like that, you can't read what's on the burglar's mind. He came in with ill intent, and the owner felt it necessary that it not happen again.

I understand the counter points being made, but that's just my opinion. :)

If the homeowner wanted to stop/shoot the robber, why didn't he just shoot him in the leg? He wouldn't have been able to run away, the homeowner wouldn't have murdered anyone, and he would have his revenge in the form of excruciating pain instead of death.

Shooting to wound is shooting to miss. It's also the shooter BEGGING to get sued. The reason is, if you're shooting to wound, you were not in enough danger to shoot the person. Shooting someone should only be done in a life or death situation.

My response to yours was addressing a statement of yours, which had to do with your argument. I just chose to use sarcasm to get my point across. If you don't want me to respond to a post of yours, perhaps you shouldn't have made that post in the first place.

Funny that you make a general statement about Texan men, but can't stand up to someone cracking at your own statement.

I'm confused. Are you saying that my joke about Texan men was somehow part of my argument in this thread?

No, I read it, and I still agree with his actions. These days, you just can't trust people, especially someone who was willing to steal things from your own property, and screw with your life when you don't even know them.

Somehow, I think we can find a middle ground between trusting people who break into your home and shooting them in the back. I've got an idea. How about we only shoot people when we have reason to believe that they pose an imminent threat?

How can you honestly say that he protected his own property by letting a criminal like that get away? There's nothing that would've stopped him from coming back, killing the guy, and taking whatever he can. When you get into a situation like that, you can't read what's on the burglar's mind. He came in with ill intent, and the owner felt it necessary that it not happen again.

I can honestly say that because Thames had successfully removed Scarborough from his property before he killed him. And the knowledge that Thames had a gun and was not afraid to use it may also have kept Scarborough from coming back.

Shooting him in the back as he is fleeing only makes sense if we assume that Scarborough was about to return with a weapon to kill Thames. We have no way of actually knowing, as "you can't read what's on the burglar's mind", so we have to ask ourselves if this a rational assumption. As I discussed upthread, it would appear that Scarborough was not the type of criminal to seek violent confrontation. Considering that, I would say that the assumption that Scarborough was about to return is not a rational one. If I was in Thames' situation, I would have not fired, safe in my idea that Scarborough would not return. After all, he definitely acted like a coward. Why should I assume that he would change his behaviour after I chased him off my property with a firearm?

If my hypothesis is correct, we should see no trace of violent crime in Scarborough's criminal record. In other words, we should see things like shoplifting or fraud rather than assault or armed robbery. If yours is correct, we should see the opposite.

If my hypothesis is correct, we should see no trace of violent crime in Scarborough's criminal record. In other words, we should see things like shoplifting or fraud rather than assault or armed robbery. If yours is correct, we should see the opposite.

I live in Texas so maybe i get more news of this then you but Scarborough had a knifing incident he was involved in 18 months back. something about knifing a homeless person over drugs. I cant find anything on it via Google but it was on Tv local news last night.

I am more of the hey someone breaks into my house I don't have time to check their criminal record I will simply assume all actions are hostile/violent in nature, unless they immediately surrender, and will act accordingly.

Shooting to wound is shooting to miss. It's also the shooter BEGGING to get sued.

...as if that was a legitimate concern :rolleyes:

Okay, so you read the thread but not the article, where it states quite clearly that Thames (the homeowner) had successfully removed Scarborough (the trespasser) from his property. After that, he shot him. Let's be clear: Scarborough was fleeing the property of Thames as fast as he could. Thames had successfully protected his property.

Except that this was the 2nd time this had happened. There is no way to determine if an intruder is after property or worse - nor what extreme they will take to get it - only that they have already taken one dangerous, threatening and inappropriate step.. There is no presumption that scaring him off a second time will discourage a third time nor that it will not escalate to even more dangerous and threatening behavior..

The simple fact is that an intruder has no business in another persons residence. Period. It is not up to the resident to determine an intruders intentions. It is far more likely that it is the intruder who values property over life, and may be predisposed to return armed or with company...

Any perceived threat to me or my family will be met with deadly force. I'll let God pass judgement on the intruders intentions. If this sort of response were the rule rather than the exception then break-ins would be a much less common crime (both for a deterrent and a relatively fast extinction of burglars, rapists and robbers)

Except that this was the 2nd time this had happened.
Not that they know that Scarborough took part in the previous burglaries...


There is no way to determine if an intruder is after property or worse - nor what extreme they will take to get it - only that they have already taken one dangerous, threatening and inappropriate step.. There is no presumption that scaring him off a second time will discourage a third time nor that it will not escalate to even more dangerous and threatening behavior..
There's no presumtion that he'd come back after having been scared off either.

The simple fact is that an intruder has no business in another persons residence. Period. It is not up to the resident to determine an intruders intentions.
Actually, it is. Or it should be.

Any perceived threat to me or my family will be met with deadly force. I'll let God pass judgement on the intruders intentions. If this sort of response were the rule rather than the exception then break-ins would be a much less common crime (both for a deterrent and a relatively fast extinction of burglars, rapists and robbers)
I don't buy that. I would expect intruders to make sure they were armed and for these kinds of things to become fatal more often (perhaps by having the burglar strike first) if things escalated like that.

I don't buy that. I would expect intruders to make sure they were armed and for these kinds of things to become fatal more often (perhaps by having the burglar strike first) if things escalated like that.

Now, I don't buy that. Robbers tend to avoid homes that have security systems or big locks on the doors. And its a proven fact that most robbers will only break in if they think no one is home. Why would a robber bring a gun and try to get into a gunfight with a home-owner if they are already trying to avoid as much risk as possible. Now, robberies at gun point do happen already, but they are not the norm, and I'm sure those sort of things would be less common if more home-owners were packing heat. If anything, robberies would be less common because robbers are getting killed. Sort of a natural selection process.

Is hugs and sunshine?

Now, I don't buy that. Robbers tend to avoid homes that have security systems or big locks on the doors. And its a proven fact that most robbers will only break in if they think no one is home. Why would a robber bring a gun and try to get into a gunfight with a home-owner if they are already trying to avoid as much risk as possible.
Because, as you said, if that sort of response was the rule, the burglar would plan ahead and try to defend himself. He would know that if he were to be discovered he would be shot at. If I was in that situation I'd like to be able to fight back - after all, I might be wrong, there might be people in the hose, and seeing as how fleeing is no longer a realistic option...

Now, robberies at gun point do happen already, but they are not the norm, and I'm sure those sort of things would be less common if more home-owners were packing heat.
I don't believe that either. I don't think guns around the house will have an impact on the statistics at all.

Mind you, you may whip up some comparative statistics if you have them.

If anything, robberies would be less common because robbers are getting killed. Sort of a natural selection process.
Might have been true - if Robbers where some kind of different race or breed. Which they aren't. So no.

As someone who's largely an observer in this thread, I think it'd reduce confusion if everyone spelled out their position a little more clearly.

1. Do you think the homeowner should be prosecuted for what they did?

2. Do you think the homeowner acted ethically?

The two issues are getting a little conflated at the moment.

As someone who's largely an observer in this thread, I think it'd reduce confusion if everyone spelled out their position a little more clearly.

1. Do you think the homeowner should be prosecuted for what they did?

2. Do you think the homeowner acted ethically?

The two issues are getting a little conflated at the moment.

1. No
2. No

If the homeowner had shot the burgler in the house, I would have absolutely no problem with his actions at all.

I don't buy that. I would expect intruders to make sure they were armed and for these kinds of things to become fatal more often (perhaps by having the burglar strike first) if things escalated like that.

And if everyone shot anyone they thought was a threat we'd have a lot of dead innocents.

As someone who's largely an observer in this thread, I think it'd reduce confusion if everyone spelled out their position a little more clearly.

1. Do you think the homeowner should be prosecuted for what they did?

2. Do you think the homeowner acted ethically?

The two issues are getting a little conflated at the moment.
Should ask for some kind of explination...

1. No. Because Texas Law allows defense of home, family and property.
Edit: prosecuted by Law Enforcement officers no. Protected from Civil Suit? no.

2. Yes. Because he did give the intruder a chance to surrender, His home was burglerized before (not that long ago) thus he could safely assume that the intruder would return and return possibly armed, and he did shoot the intruder while the intruder was still on his property.

Edit: better wording.

2. Yes. Because in Texas, the law allows such defense and he did give the burgler a chance to surrender.

Speaking from experience, assuming that which is legal is by definition that which is ethical is an unwise road to travel. If we were to go down that path, a whole lot of atrocities become "ethical"

Speaking from experience, assuming that which is legal is by definition that which is ethical is an unwise road to travel. If we were to go down that path, a whole lot of atrocities become "ethical"

True, perhaps I worded it wrong. will edit.

...as if that was a legitimate concern :rolleyes:

It is a legitimate concern, if people attempt to shoot to wound. Which is what was suggested by the poster I was responding to. I know that if I were in a situation where I felt I needed to shoot someone, I'd aim for center mass, as I'd feel like my life (or the life of a family member/friend) was in mortal danger. If I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot him in the leg, etc, then I'd be more likely to miss, and if I did somehow manage to hit him with a wounding shot, would open myself up to a civil lawsuit that could cost me everything.

It is a legitimate concern, if people attempt to shoot to wound. Which is what was suggested by the poster I was responding to. I know that if I were in a situation where I felt I needed to shoot someone, I'd aim for center mass, as I'd feel like my life (or the life of a family member/friend) was in mortal danger. If I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot him in the leg, etc, then I'd be more likely to miss, and if I did somehow manage to hit him with a wounding shot, would open myself up to a civil lawsuit that could cost me everything.

When considering whether or not to kill the man, the worry that you might be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit is indeed an illegitimate concern - especially since, as you yourself pointed out, it's the nature of the threat that's of importance here.

Not only is it an illegitimate concern, it is also in my mind unethical to the extreme to even think about drawing that consideration into the equation.

It is a legitimate concern, if people attempt to shoot to wound. Which is what was suggested by the poster I was responding to. I know that if I were in a situation where I felt I needed to shoot someone, I'd aim for center mass, as I'd feel like my life (or the life of a family member/friend) was in mortal danger. If I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand, or shoot him in the leg, etc, then I'd be more likely to miss, and if I did somehow manage to hit him with a wounding shot, would open myself up to a civil lawsuit that could cost me everything.

Good post.
People who have been trained in the use of firearms have been taught two very important things.
1. If the gun comes out of the holster, you intend to use it.
2. Always aim for center mass.
People who advocate firing a warning shot or shoot to wound don't know what the hell they are doing and could very well end up being the one who gets shot.

And if everyone shot anyone they thought was a threat we'd have a lot of dead innocents.

If someone is burglarizing your home in the middle of the night they are a threat and they are not innocent. :rolleyes:

When considering whether or not to kill the man, the worry that you might be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit is indeed an illegitimate concern - especially since, as you yourself pointed out, it's the nature of the threat that's of importance here.

Not only is it an illegitimate concern, it is also in my mind unethical to the extreme to even think about drawing that consideration into the equation.

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that if I'm going to shoot at someone, I'm going to shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is saying that I don't have enough reason to shoot at someone. Therefore, if I do shoot to wound, then I've shot someone that's not presenting enough of a threat to me, and I'm opening myself up to missing the person or, if I do hit the person, a lawsuit.

The lawsuit is only part of the reason. Missing is the bigger concern.

If someone is burglarizing your home in the middle of the night they are a threat and they are not innocent. :rolleyes:
No they are not, because they do not attempt to harm you. If they dó, now that's something different.

I think that killing him was a tad excessive... personally I'd have gone for the kneecaps. As you do.

But, our main genetic imperatives dictate that we reproduce, and fight, to both pass on our genes and ensure their survival, so that they can also do likewise. Before that society-affected, 'civilised' part of your brain kicks in, your primal nature has already pulled the trigger, like our ancestors with arrows. Besides... Thames' mental health was never ensured at any point in the article/video. He could well be a complete and utter psychotic basketcase inside.

Now judging from past reactions and lack of compromise to any opinion whatsoever... I'll just be locking myself in this conveniently placed imaginary flame-proof building. Fire away.

When considering whether or not to kill the man, the worry that you might be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit is indeed an illegitimate concern - especially since, as you yourself pointed out, it's the nature of the threat that's of importance here.

Not only is it an illegitimate concern, it is also in my mind unethical to the extreme to even think about drawing that consideration into the equation.
Obviously, G-M has thought through the ramifications of shooting someone. Having thought it through beforehand is a wise thing.

No they are not, because they do not attempt to harm you. If they dó, now that's something different.

Stealing my stuff is harmful to my financial and personal well-being.

Also, breaking into my home isn't exactly pleasant.

At any rate, someone breaking into my house is going to attempt to harm me once I start breaking bones. So anyone breaking into my house is a potential threat. :p

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that if I'm going to shoot at someone, I'm going to shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is saying that I don't have enough reason to shoot at someone. Therefore, if I do shoot to wound, then I've shot someone that's not presenting enough of a threat to me, and I'm opening myself up to missing the person or, if I do hit the person, a lawsuit.

The lawsuit is only part of the reason. Missing is the bigger concern.

I do get what you're saying. By all means, shoot to kill if you're threatened or attacked. (unlike what happened in this story, where he was fleeing.)

I'm just saying that if you even contemplate factoring in a possible lawsuit in your decision to either wound or kill, then you've breached the line of ethics - and are so far gone that you can't even see it anymore. I stand by that it's an illegitimate concern, and worthy of the strongest condemnation.

Stealing my stuff is harmful to my financial and personal well-being.

Also, breaking into my home isn't exactly pleasant.

At any rate, someone breaking into my house is going to attempt to harm me once I start breaking bones. So anyone breaking into my house is a potential threat. :p
They want your TV, they don't want your life. They don't want to harm your personal well-being, they just want to leech of you. Now you won't say me hearing you can't do anything, ofcourse there should be the right to protect your stuff, but shooting is simply excessive. But ofcourse, what cán you do then. What would be the most effective but least risky form of protection.

I do get what you're saying. By all means, shoot to kill if you're threatened or attacked. (unlike what happened in this story, where he was fleeing.)

I'm just saying that if you even contemplate factoring in a possible lawsuit in your decision to either wound or kill, then you've breached the line of ethics - and are so far gone that you can't even see it anymore. I stand by that it's an illegitimate concern, and worthy of the strongest condemnation.

There would be no decision on my part whether to shoot to kill vs shoot to wound. If I'm shooting at someone, I'm shooting to kill (as that would undoubtedly be a situation where the life of a family member, friend, or myself would be in mortal danger). But the thought of a possible lawsuit would still creep into my mind. And as I said earlier, missing would be a greater problem when someone (that's not me) shoots to wound.

They want your TV, they don't want your life. They don't want to harm your personal well-being, they just want to leech of you. Now you won't say me hearing you can't do anything, ofcourse there should be the right to protect your stuff, but shooting is simply excessive. But ofcourse, what cán you do then. What would be the most effective but least risky form of protection.

And of course, with your psychic powers, you'll guarantee the intruder's intentions are only for the possessions, correct? Because there's no mentally unstable criminals in the world, right? :rolleyes:

And of course, with your psychic powers, you'll guarantee the intruder's intentions are only for the possessions, correct? Because there's no mentally unstable criminals in the world, right? :rolleyes:
Please don't make yourself ridiculous, it's a worthless assumption that someone who wants to take your TV immidiatly wants to take your life as well. The worst is, once you've pulled the trigger, there is nó way back, it's irreversable. And please do yourself a favor, and read again. Like I sad: I never sad you couldn't protect your property, but what would be a low-risk but very effective defence.

What would be the most effective but least risky form of protection.That would be to shoot the bastard. but if you don't want to shoot them... I guess you can hire a police officer to stay at your home 24/7... but that in turn gets expensive.

But the thought of a possible lawsuit would still creep into my mind.
Why?

Not to mention that I find it odd that the thought of a possible civil lawsuit creeps into your mind, while fear of criminal charges does not. I would think that the question "Am I entirely sure this is legal" would present itself first.

And as I said earlier, missing would be a greater problem when someone (that's not me) shoots to wound.
Seems like it wasn't a problem to this guy, who apparently missed several of his shots.

That would be to shoot the bastard. but if you don't want to shoot them... I guess you can hire a police officer to stay at your home 24/7... but that in turn gets expensive.
Read the "least risky" part again please. Really, why on earth is your TV worth the life of a person? I never sad you couldn't defend yourself, but shooting...
And as I said earlier, missing would be a greater problem when someone (that's not me) shoots to wound.
"Shooting to wound" is something very wierd, remember that you are still using an object designed to kill someone. Also, shooting to wound is véry friggin' hard, shooting someone in the leg can kill as well.

Please don't make yourself ridiculous, it's a worthless assumption that someone who wants to take your TV immidiatly wants to take your life as well. The worst is, once you've pulled the trigger, there is nó way back, it's irreversable. And please do yourself a favor, and read again. Like I sad: I never sad you couldn't protect your property, but what would be a low-risk but very effective defence.

The problem is that there are intruders that want more than stuff. They want to rape. They want cash when you may have none. They want drugs when you may have none. These situations can be violent when the cash or drugs don't appear. Many of these break-ins are conducted by 'crews' and multiple intruders can't ever be a benign event.

Please don't make yourself ridiculous, it's a worthless assumption that someone who wants to take your TV immidiatly wants to take your life as well. The worst is, once you've pulled the trigger, there is nó way back, it's irreversable. And please do yourself a favor, and read again. Like I sad: I never sad you couldn't protect your property, but what would be a low-risk but very effective defence.

I made no such assumption. You made the assumption that the intruder would only want the material possessions, and would not harm the resident. I merely suggested that there are times when an intruder isn't there to steal things (or, that they're not there JUST to steal things). And as I said in earlier posts, the only time I'd shoot is if I felt that a family member, friend, or myself was in mortal danger. Maybe YOU should read again.

Read the "least risky" part again please. Really, why on earth is your TV worth the life of a person? I never sad you couldn't defend yourself, but shooting...

by shooting them dead, there is no risk to you (especially if the law allows for defense of house and home.)

or are you arguing that going after them with a baseball bat is LESS RISKY to yourself than shooting them?

or is your 'read the least risky' part about the hired cop in your home.

or is your point about 'Least Risky' being on the risk of the burgler/intruder and not the homeowner...

as for if a TV is worth a life of a person? That person choose to equate my tv to be worth his/her life since (s)he is risking their life by breaking into my home in a state that does allow me to shoot intruders.

Why?

Not to mention that I find it odd that the thought of a possible civil lawsuit creeps into your mind, while fear of criminal charges does not. I would think that the question "Am I entirely sure this is legal" would present itself first.

I'm a worrier. It's what I do. And while people have been cleared of criminal charges in the shooting of an intruder, they sometimes get sued by the intruder regardless.


Seems like it wasn't a problem to this guy, who apparently missed several of his shots.

The shots have to go somewhere. Just because he was lucky and didn't hit anyone/anything behind the intruder, doesn't mean that missing isn't still a problem.

The burglar is a human too so the risk part was also ment against the burglar, what right do you think you have to kill him? Why would you even shoot a person who wants to steal your tv? Are we thát far down the drain?

The problem is that there are intruders that want more than stuff. They want to rape. They want cash when you may have none. They want drugs when you may have none. These situations can be violent when the cash or drugs don't appear. Many of these break-ins are conducted by 'crews' and multiple intruders can't ever be a benign event.

You mean like this story?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/family.killed/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/

I made no such assumption. You made the assumption that the intruder would only want the material possessions, and would not harm the resident. I merely suggested that there are times when an intruder isn't there to steal things (or, that they're not there JUST to steal things). And as I said in earlier posts, the only time I'd shoot is if I felt that a family member, friend, or myself was in mortal danger. Maybe YOU should read again.
If he picks your TV, you come down the stairs, and he tries to run away with your TV, that's what I mean. Ofcourse, apperantly you haven't read properly as well ;) Because afterall, in a life and death situation like that you should be allowed to defend yourself by all means wich is what I ment as well. Afterall, it's either you or him, plain logic.
Anyway, the thing I'm really worried about, is the border between self defence and own judgement. That's the risk and danger I mean. Also, have gun laws like that really helped fighting crime (same with death penalty).

The burglar is a human too, what right do you think you have to kill him? Why would you even shoot a person who wants to steal your tv? Are we thát far down the drain?

you haven't answered my questions.

isn't it less risky for the owner to shoot the intruder dead?
is beating him with a baseball bat less risky than shooting him?
is breaking his bones more humane than killing him?
is hiring a police officer to guard your house 24/7 better than protecting it yourself within the constraints of the law?

you haven't answered my questions.

isn't it less risky for the owner to shoot the intruder dead?
is beating him with a baseball bat less risky than shooting him?
is breaking his bones more humane than killing him?
is hiring a police officer to guard your house 24/7 better than protecting it yourself within the constraints of the law?
Like I sad before, I also mean risk for the burglar, he's a human too. Now if he indeed threatens your life, and you're in danger, you should protect yourself. But yea, if you break a burglar's arm or leg to prevent him from fleeing or taking anything, yea I think I would be ok with that. But also with that, there is that border between personal judgment and self defence: where can the line be drawn, what would be the best solution wich also works.

You mean like this story?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/family.killed/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/
After I read "In Cold Blood", I swore nothing like that would ever happen to me.

If he picks your TV, you come down the stairs, and he tries to run away with your TV, that's what I mean. Ofcourse, apperantly you haven't read properly as well ;) Because afterall, in a life and death situation like that you should be allowed to defend yourself by all means. Afterall, it's either you or him, plain logic.
Anyway, the thing I'm really worried about, is the border between self defence and own judgement. That's the risk and danger I mean. Also, have gun laws like that really helped fighting crime (same with death penalty).

Down the stairs is my neighbors apartments. If he's taking one of their TVs, I'm just going to call the cops. If he enters my apartment, he's asking for trouble though, as my room is only 20-30 feet from the door he'd have to kick down. Personally speaking, that's way too close for an intruder to get, so I'd get my rifle out (although I wouldn't shoot unless he advanced on me).

Down the stairs is my neighbors apartments. If he's taking one of their TVs, I'm just going to call the cops. If he enters my apartment, he's asking for trouble though, as my room is only 20-30 feet from the door he'd have to kick down. Personally speaking, that's way too close for an intruder to get, so I'd get my rifle out (although I wouldn't shoot unless he advanced on me).
The problem is again, a rifle is a thing designed to murder, wouldn't a taser be better then?
Anyway, again, for me it's about the border between personal judgement and self defence. Wich could also mean something like: is the general public ready to defend themselfs with guns? What do the numbers say? Etc.

Like I sad before, I also mean risk for the burglar, he's a human too. less risk for the burgler would be to find a legal line of work. that would be the Least Risky thing for the BURGLER to do. Otherwise, to be a burgler in a state where it's legal to shoot someone entering your property without permission is to accept the risk.

Now if he indeed threatens your life, and you're in danger, you should protect yourself. But yea, if you break a burglar's arm or leg to prevent him from fleeing or taking anything, yea I think I would be ok with that. so inflicting pain and possibly crippling the person is less risky to you, the defender?
what if he was a black belt in several forms of martal arts, Will you then say it's ok for him to take the bat away from you and proceed to beat you and break your arms and legs and possibly back then take your stuff while you are laying there in pain? would you say that the course of trying to beat him with a baseball bat is still less risky to you than shooting him?

and I like how you are questioning the homeowner's judgment in shooting the intruder and not the intruder's judgement in breaking into the home in the first place.
But also with that, there is that border between personal judgment and self defence: where can the line be drawn, what would be the best solution wich also works.
The best solution? Simple, Don't break into a house in TEXAS or any other state that allows it's citizens to shoot anyone intruding on their property. actually, the best solution is not to commit a crime against another person reguardless of where you are/live.

Seems the issue at hand here is that a lot of people believe that their property is sacrosanct, and that anyone who disrespects that belief by breaking into your house doesn't deserve the respect that would prevent you from pulling a trigger on them. I utterly agree with the idea that property should be unequivocably yours - nothing gives someone the right to steal something for their own profit - but I can't quite understand why some people believe that *they* are allowed to decide who lives and dies. Unfortunately, however I've had this argument a few times with other friends, and I believe that it's the kind of thing where most people take a side, and neither Heaven nor Hell can move them to change their mind.

Incase anyone might have thought that it's quite possible to "act all calm and tolerant" while you're perfectly safe but that being in the situation would change your mind, I'd just like to add that not four months ago, my house was broken into and I physically watched one burglar taking my housemate's bike, then called the police and got them arrested. I can honestly say that at no point during the whole scene did I wish any harm on either of them, even though I was pretty certain at the time that they would have attacked me had I tried to confront them. (I am, however, pretty angry that they've both been virtually let off by the Judge in court, however...)

The problem is again, a rifle is a thing designed to murder, wouldn't a taser be better then?
Anyway, again, for me it's about the border between personal judgement and self defence. Wich could also mean something like: is the general public ready to defend themselfs with guns? What do the numbers say? Etc.
Here's something that I ask anyone that is so incontrovertibly opposed to self-defense with firearms...

Would you put a sign in your yard, window, door, etc, that stated your house was a gun-free zone? Would you do that in a bad neighborhood, as well as in a good one?

less risk for the burgler would be to find a legal line of work. that would be the Least Risky thing for the BURGLER to do. Otherwise, to be a burgler in a state where it's legal to shoot someone entering your property without permission is to accept the risk.

so inflicting pain and possibly crippling the person is less risky to you, the defender?
what if he was a black belt in several forms of martal arts, Will you then say it's ok for him to take the bat away from you and proceed to beat you and break your arms and legs and possibly back then take your stuff while you are laying there in pain? would you say that the course of trying to beat him with a baseball bat is still less risky to you than shooting him?

and I like how you are questioning the homeowner's judgment in shooting the intruder and not the intruder's judgement in breaking into the home in the first place.

The best solution? Simple, Don't break into a house in TEXAS or any other state that allows it's citizens to shoot anyone intruding on their property. actually, the best solution is not to commit a crime against another person reguardless of where you are/live.
If it is all that simple, why do all that crime still happen? Again, I have som objections:
1: What about the line between self-defence and personal judgement, e.a is the general public to defend themselfs with guns? (and then ofcourse, what shows that they would be, etc)
2: Does it actually help? E.a: what's the root of the problem.

The problem is again, a rifle is a thing designed to murder, wouldn't a taser be better then?
Anyway, again, for me it's about the border between personal judgement and self defence. Wich could also mean something like: is the general public ready to defend themselfs with guns? What do the numbers say? Etc.

A rifle is an inanimate object designed to launch bullets. It is useful for hunting, pest control, target shooting, and combat. As to tasers, are you aware of the probes spread at 20-30 feet? Check here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/pdf/tasergun.pdf

At 21 feet, the probe spread is approximately 35 inches. That's enough to miss with 1 or both of the probes.

If it is all that simple, why do all that crime still happen? Again, I have som objections:
1: What about the line between self-defence and personal judgement, e.a is the general public to defend themselfs with guns? (and then ofcourse, what shows that they would be, etc)
2: Does it actually help? E.a: what's the root of the problem.

I never said it was simple to do.

why is there still crime in Texas? because you have people who equate a T.V. to be worth their life. you have people who think they can still beat the odds. and you have people who will try to sue should they be shot and live.

1: Self defence is to defend one's self. however, in this case, the law permits shooting a person who is intruding on their property. so it can be argued that in this case it's not self-defence, but the owner's action is still legal.

2: your question was what is less risky. in a state where the owner can shoot you for intruding on their property, the less risky choice FOR THE INTRUDER is NOT to intrude in the first place. for the Owner, the less risk is to shoot the intruder (dunno if the law requires a chance for the intruder to surrender first, but I would offer the intruder a chance to surrender first.)

You ask what is the root of the problem? the root of the problem is the crime. The intruder wouldn't have been shot if he wasn't in there in the first place. The intruder wouldn't have been shot if he froze as he was told to by the owner.

can you justify the need to secure the intruder's safety when it's the intruder who is breaking the law?

A rifle is an inanimate object designed to launch bullets. It is useful for hunting, pest control, target shooting, and combat. As to tasers, are you aware of the probes spread at 20-30 feet? Check here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/pdf/tasergun.pdf

At 21 feet, the probe spread is approximately 35 inches. That's enough to miss with 1 or both of the probes.
It was an example of a non-lethal (note: by design) defence mechanism. Now ofcourse, you're right about the rifle, I should've sad bullets (it's the ammunition wich is the real danger, beanbags or rubber pellets would be a better option). Like I asked before: what would be the best self-defence mechanism? And again: is the general public ready for it?
1: Self defence is to defend one's self. however, in this case, the law permits shooting a person who is intruding on their property. so it can be argued that in this case it's not self-defence, but the owner's action is still legal.
The problem with guns then is, even though that can be argued, it's too late. The person is dead. Is the general public ready for that law?
You ask what is the root of the problem? the root of the problem is the crime
O ofcourse you know what I ment: the root of the crime, who do people commit such acts even though those things could happen to them? Is it an effective deterent, and if it's not, why not replace the deterent by a more effective one? Or even better, make sure a deterent isn't needed anymore.

It was an example of a non-lethal (note: by design) defence mechanism. Now ofcourse, you're right about the rifle, I should've sad bullets (it's the ammunition wich is the real danger, beanbags or rubber pellets would be a better option). Like I asked before: what would be the best self-defence mechanism? And again: is the general public ready for it?

The best self defense mechanism is whatever works. It will be different for everyone. For defending your property, a dog may work for some, while others need a security system, while others may have a firearm (or, all 3). Is the general public ready for it? Sure, as that's what's already being used.

Here's something that I ask anyone that is so incontrovertibly opposed to self-defense with firearms...

Would you put a sign in your yard, window, door, etc, that stated your house was a gun-free zone? Would you do that in a bad neighborhood, as well as in a good one?

I wouldn't have much of a problem with doing it in a good neighbourhood, but that's not the point here - I don't think anyone would argue that being armed gives you a psychological advantage, the question is whether it is the right advantage. How about this for a counter-question:

If you live in a rough neighbourhood where it is virtually a given that everyone carries a gun, would you believe that by buying a gun yourself and not hiding it, that that would save you from any risk of being burgled? Or would it simply encourage those who would burgle you to carry even more firepower than you? You can't claim that in neighbourhoods where everyone carries guns, there is no crime because of fear of being attacked by your victim, surely?

I think it says something that in the UK, where virtually noone carries a weapon, gun or knife, to protect themselves in their own home, and despite the fact that most burglars probably carry some sort of knife for defence, our burglary rate is quite obviously not soaring. In the view of pro-gun Americans and others, we should be virtually defenceless, and burglary should be easy to pull off considering the small chance that you'll be attacked or killed by your intended victims, and yet I believe our burglary crime figures compare favourably with those in the USA and other pro-gun countries.

The best self defense mechanism is whatever works. It will be different for everyone. For defending your property, a dog may work for some, while others need a security system, while others may have a firearm (or, all 3). Is the general public ready for it? Sure, as that's what's already being used.
Indeed, but apperantly everybody can (in some places) defend themselfs with guns, even though it's questionable if it's needed, if it works as a deterent and if the general public is ready to use those means. It's not just self-defence anymore, it's deciding who lives and dies.

The best self defense mechanism is whatever works. It will be different for everyone.

Naturally. But by granting people the right to shoot to kill to defend their own property, isn't it just encouraging a vigilante society? And doesn't encouraging a vigilante society essentially promote the idea that, particularly on contested issues, that each person has the right to decide what they believe is right and wrong, and enforce it on other people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that burglary being wrong is contested - of course it is, and of course you should be punished for it - but isn't the problem that allowing people to exact their own justice for crimes committed on their territory gives them a (perhaps) dangerous feeling of their own righteousness, and doesn't it not at least risk that mistakes will be made which were caused solely because someone believed that they had the right to determine life or death?

The problem with guns then is, even though that can be argued, it's too late. The person is dead. Is the general public ready for that law? the General Public? it's the law in Texas and whether or not it stays a law is UP to the General Public of Texas. why would I, in Hawaii, care what kind of laws Texas has?

O ofcourse you know what I ment: the root of the crime, who do people commit such acts even though those things could happen to them? Is it an effective deterent, and if it's not, why not replace the deterent by a more effective one? Or even better, make sure a deterent isn't needed anymore.
the root of the crime is as different as individuals.
Poverty,
the trill or adrenaline rush,
the lure of the 'quick and easy buck',
drug use,
for shits and giggles,
etc...

is crime in states that don't have the DP or such gun laws lower? higher? the same?

each state is using their own methods and wether or not it works depends on the General Public living in those states.

Look at London. they don't allow the general public to carry guns. are there still crimes going on there? is the lack of guns working in deterring all forms of crime?

Naturally. But by granting people the right to shoot to kill to defend their own property, isn't it just encouraging a vigilante society? is Texas a vigilante state? are there gangs roaming the streets shooting lawbreakers?
And doesn't encouraging a vigilante society essentially promote the idea that, particularly on contested issues, that each person has the right to decide what they believe is right and wrong, and enforce it on other people. show that please. where a vigilante society is being encouraged by the law?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that burglary being wrong is contested - of course it is, and of course you should be punished for it - but isn't the problem that allowing people to exact their own justice for crimes committed on their territory gives them a (perhaps) dangerous feeling of their own righteousness, and doesn't it not at least risk that mistakes will be made which were caused solely because someone believed that they had the right to determine life or death?except where is the Vigilatism in this case?

sure it's happened before and in areas where guns are not allowed (like that father who knifed a boy who alledgely witnessed his daughter's sexual assault) so a gun is NOT needed to risk a vigilante society.

you ask if the homeowner has the right to determine life or death. nowhere did the homeowner have that right. if you read the article, the police DID investigate that shooting and did say he MIGHT NOT be charged with a crime because the law allows defense of house and home.

Fairly hard to justify killing someone who is fleeing. If he threw stones through your window and then tried to run, would you shoot him then? Or if it was a child?

Injury perhaps but not killing.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with doing it in a good neighbourhood, but that's not the point here - I don't think anyone would argue that being armed gives you a psychological advantage, the question is whether it is the right advantage. How about this for a counter-question:

If you live in a rough neighbourhood where it is virtually a given that everyone carries a gun, would you believe that by buying a gun yourself and not hiding it, that that would save you from any risk of being burgled? Or would it simply encourage those who would burgle you to carry even more firepower than you? You can't claim that in neighbourhoods where everyone carries guns, there is no crime because of fear of being attacked by your victim, surely?

I think it says something that in the UK, where virtually noone carries a weapon, gun or knife, to protect themselves in their own home, and despite the fact that most burglars probably carry some sort of knife for defence, our burglary rate is quite obviously not soaring. In the view of pro-gun Americans and others, we should be virtually defenceless, and burglary should be easy to pull off considering the small chance that you'll be attacked or killed by your intended victims, and yet I believe our burglary crime figures compare favourably with those in the USA and other pro-gun countries.
My favorite city in all of Georgia is Kennesaw. They require all households to own a firearm. Violent crime is pretty low. Google it if you want, I've done it enough times to make me tired of it.

Move a few miles into Atlanta and violent crime soars. It's harder to own a gun there.

The point is that even the potential of a gun in a household keeps the neighbors safer.

Last, there's a good argument to be made that violent crime in the UK is rising, too.

My favorite city in all of Georgia is Kennesaw. They require all households to own a firearm. Violent crime is pretty low. Google it if you want, I've done it enough times to make me tired of it.

Move a few miles into Atlanta and violent crime soars. It's harder to own a gun there.
Because there's no difference between a big city and a small town, so they're completely comparable. Yes indeedy.

The point is that even the potential of a gun in a household keeps the neighbors safer.
Unproven and disputed statement, of course...

Last, there's a good argument to be made that violent crime in the UK is rising, too.
...as can be illustrated by this chart, where you see the exponensial rise in violent crime since the gun ban of 1997.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_06.gif


Oh wait! (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp)