This Guy Should Get a Medal (Mexicans, extremist, economy, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like failing to hold one man who kicks another in the face responsible under the law?
No, more like failing to effectively deter those who would harm us by not dealing with them in such a way as to discourage future actions. I doubt that perp will try to break into that particular house again knowing what will likely happen as a result if the police are not there to protect him from an outraged homeowner who's family was threatened.
I'm amazed an the number of people here who cannot understand the concept of justifiable violence agaist those who first seek to harm others without any prior provocation or good cause. Whatever happened to the concept of 'an eye for an eye'? And I'm talking about justice, not law.
No, more like failing to effectively deter those who would harm us by not dealing with them in such a way as to discourage future actions. I doubt that perp will try to break into that particular house again knowing what will likely happen as a result if the police are not there to protect him from an outraged homeowner who's family was threatened.
I'm amazed an the number of people here who cannot understand the concept of justifiable violence agaist those who first seek to harm others without any prior provocation or good cause. Whatever happened to the concept of 'an eye for an eye'? And I'm talking about justice, not law.
Justifiable violence? Hmm...
It's quite clear that you are not talking about law. No need to be redundant.
I, for one, hope that both individuals involved in this incident are punished fully under the law for their illegal actions.
That you believe that one should be given an award for his lawless actions while one should be kicked in the face is interesting to say the least.
also, obligatory quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Quote:
Whatever happened to the concept of 'an eye for an eye'?
Which concept is that?
The biblical one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bible
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Or the one from Hammurabi's code which includes such gems as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammurabi
If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death.
Judging from what I've read in this thread I'll assume that you mean the second. Killing a man's daughter in retaliation for his violence would seem to be a pretty good deterrent. Unless he didn't have a daughter. Or had a daughter that he just got into a big fight with. But we shouldn't be too picky when doling out vengeful justice I guess...
To me if you are bold enough to break in a home, steal someone's car, mug someone, rape someone, or any similar thing you should be bold enough to die.
Since we do not have a culture that is focused on preventing crime, the focus has to be on extremely harsh punishment to curb it.
There is nothing strange about thinking that there's due course, and that things should be dealt with appropriately.
I think it's far stranger to willingly stoop to the intruders level like that.
The man who locked the robber in the garage should have called the police instantly after doing so, let judicial system deal with it, and keep his $100k. Because that's how things work in a civilized society, we raise above our bad apples, and claim a moral and ethical standard above what they operate on.
True,
A civilized society of potential victims.
Cowards and weaklings.
No, more like failing to effectively deter those who would harm us by not dealing with them in such a way as to discourage future actions. I doubt that perp will try to break into that particular house again knowing what will likely happen as a result if the police are not there to protect him from an outraged homeowner who's family was threatened.
I'm amazed an the number of people here who cannot understand the concept of justifiable violence agaist those who first seek to harm others without any prior provocation or good cause. Whatever happened to the concept of 'an eye for an eye'? And I'm talking about justice, not law.
We evolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nichirenx
True,
A civilized society of potential victims.
Cowards and weaklings.
Yes, because believing that we can be better than criminals is cowardice.
Yes, because believing that we can be better than criminals is cowardice.
Actually it is.
Because 'believing one is better than a criminal' in no way reduces or alleviates crime.
It just gives the criminals more possible victims.
If that is what you choose, then you have my utmost respect.
Just stated what I would do and what I think would help me not have to worry about crime.
Because while the criminals are targeting you for being a 'mark' they are going to be wary of me because I shot and beheaded the person who was bold enough to be an intruder in my home.
I will gladly go to jail for killing someone who tries to make me a victim of a crime.
Especially since I have been on jury duty where there was no evidence of guilt, and the victim and defendants said someone else did the crime and the defendants were still convicted.
Actually it is.
Because 'believing one is better than a criminal' in no way reduces or alleviates crime.
It just gives the criminals more possible victims.
If that is what you choose, then you have my utmost respect.
Just stated what I would do and what I think would help me not have to worry about crime.
Because while the criminals are targeting you for being a 'mark' they are going to be wary of me because I shot and beheaded the person who was bold enough to be an intruder in my home.
I will gladly go to jail for killing someone who tries to make me a victim of a crime.
Especially since I have been on jury duty where there was no evidence of guilt, and the victim and defendants said someone else did the crime and the defendants were still convicted.
What I think you got wrong is that I'm no victim, and I don't feel unsafe, not at home, and not walking through "bad neighborhoods". I'm not dumb, I know when to back off and I know where not to walk, but in my experience, you can generally talk your way out of trouble.
I don't need a gun to feel safe, and I don't need to shoot any burglars.
Now, if I'm at immediate risk of being hurt, or someone I love is, I'll do what I need to do, but almost all intruders are simple thiefs, and confronting them with a gun can easily turn thing for the worse.
If I'm actually attacked, like I said, I'll do what I need, but that's a far cry from shooting someone for taking your tv, and it's most certainly a very far cry from kicking a guy in the face when he's on the ground with handcuffs on.
I don't believe anything other than imminent danger warrants use of force, and only if your life is in danger should you use lethal force. I can get into a lengthy explanation about why I think a life should be held higher than possessions and some false sense of security, but I doubt there'd be much point.
We have laws for a reason, and they're by no means infallible, but a perp walking every now and then is a good indication that the system works.
To me if you are bold enough to break in a home, steal someone's car, mug someone, rape someone, or any similar thing you should be bold enough to die.
Since we do not have a culture that is focused on preventing crime, the focus has to be on extremely harsh punishment to curb it.
You equate breaking into a home with rape? And throw the two perps into a single personality class?
What I think you got wrong is that I'm no victim, and I don't feel unsafe, not at home, and not walking through "bad neighborhoods". I'm not dumb, I know when to back off and I know where not to walk, but in my experience, you can generally talk your way out of trouble.
I don't need a gun to feel safe, and I don't need to shoot any burglars.
Now, if I'm at immediate risk of being hurt, or someone I love is, I'll do what I need to do, but almost all intruders are simple thiefs, and confronting them with a gun can easily turn thing for the worse.
If I'm actually attacked, like I said, I'll do what I need, but that's a far cry from shooting someone for taking your tv, and it's most certainly a very far cry from kicking a guy in the face when he's on the ground with handcuffs on.
I don't believe anything other than imminent danger warrants use of force, and only if your life is in danger should you use lethal force. I can get into a lengthy explanation about why I think a life should be held higher than possessions and some false sense of security, but I doubt there'd be much point.
We have laws for a reason, and they're by no means infallible, but a perp walking every now and then is a good indication that the system works.
I'll just kill them.
Saves time , energy, and gives a direct message.
The legal system is just like the rest of the system, mismanaged and inefficient. Cannot trust them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
