24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Surprising how many people we have on this site falling all over themselves to lend moral support to a back shooter. God damn, even in the bloodthirstiest of times in this nation we never held up this kind of behavior as something which should be emulated or even tolerated. In most cases it was deemed an act of cowardice or viciousness regardless of what brought the situation to a head.

Some times I have to believe that people really like to put on an act or just act out because it is the net and it is anonymous.

Will


Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
BP-B2

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
Originally Posted by Penguin
Surprising how many people we have on this site falling all over themselves to lend moral support to a back shooter. God damn, even in the bloodthirstiest of times in this nation we never held up this kind of behavior as something which should be emulated or even tolerated. In most cases it was deemed an act of cowardice or viciousness regardless of what brought the situation to a head.

Some times I have to believe that people really like to put on an act or just act out because it is the net and it is anonymous.

Will
I think Texas has it right. There should be no right that trumps that of property, I can't think of another right that would be worth a damn without the right of property. If a jury can be persuaded that, under the circumstances, nothing short of lethal force would have prevented someone from stealing (and the felonious larceny was still in its hot phase, e.g., the mugger just pulled the knife away from your throat and darted off with your wallet and wedding band), I say drawing your weapon and shooting is OK with me. Especially if the stealing was done with the credible threat of imminent lethal force to start with. What's OK with the law, however, is an entirely different discussion, and varies from state to state. It's the law that I abide by, not my opinion on what the law should be.

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
And with no witness you don't know if he committed murder and pretended theft.


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
Originally Posted by JBGQUICK
And with no witness you don't know if he committed murder and pretended theft.

That would be for a jury to decide, as always.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
T
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Originally Posted by Penguin
Surprising how many people we have on this site falling all over themselves to lend moral support to a back shooter. God damn, even in the bloodthirstiest of times in this nation we never held up this kind of behavior as something which should be emulated or even tolerated. In most cases it was deemed an act of cowardice or viciousness regardless of what brought the situation to a head.

Some times I have to believe that people really like to put on an act or just act out because it is the net and it is anonymous.

Will


And on exactly what code of principals does your atheist a$$ arrive at such "moralizing"? Roy Rogers movies?

IC B2

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
No, it is the reason such restrictions exist. And a court will decide in the case listed here, so I am uncertain what your distinction is.



Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by Penguin
Surprising how many people we have on this site falling all over themselves to lend moral support to a back shooter.


I admit I'm only somewhat surprised. Makes me feel like the 15 minutes I spent typing my post earlier today outlining the legal definitions of what constitutes justifiable homicide was a total waste of time.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Number 1: I am not an atheist. Never was and never will be.

Number 2: Although I do not claim the title of christian now (because intellectual honesty requires me to disavow some of the beliefs crucial to the faith) I was raised in a strong Southern Baptist church. Years and years of bible study, literalist bible preaching, and the like. And there is no way this side of hell itself that this shooting could be justified under the brand of Christianity that I grew up with.

Not a prayer. Not one.

As a MOF I have attended and studied 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc and I have yet to find one single one where this kind of thing would be held up as Godly or Christian. Hell, I studied Buddhism and, out of curiosity, Judaism and Islam and even they would not support this kind of murder.

What church, exactly, are you so sure would back this thing? Church, hell I'd like to know a single religion that does. Even Islam only condones the removal of an arm for theft!

I'm sorry but shooting a mentally disturbed individual in the back of the head as he was fleeing a just completed robbery is just about as un-Christlike as I can imagine. The jesus I studied as a kid would have ran him down and gave him his coat to go with the billfold!

I'm not preaching, as I stated I don't claim the title of Christian. But I would like you to give me the name of the denomination that teaches this as Godly behavior.

I dare you.

Will


Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Will, it's got nothing to do with Christianity or faith or any other suchlike. The law is pretty damn clear on this stuff, and any FOOL who won't take the time to learn the law of use of deadly force and transgresses said law deserves what his ignorant ass gets.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Originally Posted by Penguin
Surprising how many people we have on this site falling all over themselves to lend moral support to a back shooter.


I admit I'm only somewhat surprised. Makes me feel like the 15 minutes I spent typing my post earlier today outlining the legal definitions of what constitutes justifiable homicide was a total waste of time.
Oh, I understand perfectly what you wrote. I've written it out precisely that way before myself in answer to that question. I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing what I believe the law should be. From what others have said, that is in fact what the law is currently in Texas, under certain circumstances. I believe that I correctly place a high value on the right of property.

IC B3

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Sorry Doc you got caught in the crossfire there. :p

I was responding to Take a Knee who for some reason, known only to himself, was inferring that I was an atheist for failing to support the shooter in this case. Far as I am concerned the shooter has to be either a hothead, or a coward, or panicky, or just not wired right. Something is not right there.

Sad event all the way around. He may or may not get convicted of murder, that is for the courts to decide. But whether he is or not this is not the kind of behavior that one should hold us as a model for responsible gun ownership. Sorry, whether this guy is convicted or not this is the kind of thing that turns the average stomach.

Will


Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,945
Originally Posted by Penguin
Number 1: I am not an atheist. Never was and never will be.

Number 2: Although I do not claim the title of christian now (because intellectual honesty requires me to disavow some of the beliefs crucial to the faith) I was raised in a strong Southern Baptist church. Years and years of bible study, literalist bible preaching, and the like. And there is no way this side of hell itself that this shooting could be justified under the brand of Christianity that I grew up with.

Not a prayer. Not one.

As a MOF I have attended and studied 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc and I have yet to find one single one where this kind of thing would be held up as Godly or Christian. Hell, I studied Buddhism and, out of curiosity, Judaism and Islam and even they would not support this kind of murder.

What church, exactly, are you so sure would back this thing? Church, hell I'd like to know a single religion that does. Even Islam only condones the removal of an arm for theft!

I'm sorry but shooting a mentally disturbed individual in the back of the head as he was fleeing a just completed robbery is just about as un-Christlike as I can imagine. The jesus I studied as a kid would have ran him down and gave him his coat to go with the billfold!

I'm not preaching, as I stated I don't claim the title of Christian. But I would like you to give me the name of the denomination that teaches this as Godly behavior.

I dare you.

Will
Keep in mind that there's a difference between stopping a crime in progress and meeting out punishment. No one is privileged to meet out punishment for a crime until a conviction by a jury. Stopping a crime is a distinct matter. Where nothing short of lethal force will stop a felonious larceny in progress, I think the law should allow it.

I doubt Jesus would have problem one with dispatching a thief in the act if that appeared to be the only way to stop him and remain safe at the same time. Stopping a crime by whatever means necessary has nothing whatever to do with a willingness to forgive a repenting criminal.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,286
M
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
M
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,286
Protection of self AND PROPERTY should rule in the courts. Until such time - crime pays!!
Mark


I've always been a curmudgeon - now I'm an old curmudgeon.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Shuttin' up here. Will not get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Last edited by DocRocket; 08/31/11. Reason: pearls before swine

"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
the Bible is pretty clear on that subject.

Thou shalt not kill.

There are verses listing exemptions, like shooting a thief in your home and other self defense issues, but I haven't seem anything that seems to fit this situation.


Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Hawk I hate to say it but I cannot see how you can hold those beliefs and call yourself a Christian. Seriously. It took me about 1 minute flat to go over to my library, pull out a concordance and bible, and find unequivocal statements by Jesus himself on this subject:

Gospel of Luke

6:29 - "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also, and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

6:30 - "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours do not demand it back."

Do not demand it back. Do not demand it back. Let alone pull a pistol and discharge it into the back of his head as he tries to flee the scene.

As I stated I no longer claim the title of Christian. And the brand of Christianity I grew up in was hard boiled, conservative as hell, and literalist to a fault. And even then I never knew a single preacher who would have held this up as Jesus like behavior.

Sorry but from my vantage point this in entirely inconsistent with any brand of Christianity I have yet to encounter.

Will


Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by Penguin
Sorry Doc you got caught in the crossfire there. :p

Will


Naw, I didn't get caught in much. I was just hunkerin' down behind the horse-trough pointin' out to the town drunk beside me that your opponent in this fracas seems to have been the kind of fool who brings a knife to a gunfight...


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by TexasRick


The final point that amazes me is that the same people here who say that the would "have" to vote guilty....even though they also say they think the man was justified.....are mostly the same folks who loudly proclaim that they'd never give up their guns if a law were passed saying they must.

Does this mean that you also believe that a person has the right to ignor any law they choose because they don't agree with it....but MUST follow other laws? You NEVER "have" to convict when on a jury....grow a set of balls and stand up for what's right or blindly follow whatever instructions THE LAW decides you should.....you can't have it both ways.

Maybe I'm a bit different, but I was taught a truth by my father and grandfather....and have taught my children the same thing,

"Never let the LAW stand in the way of what's right and wrong!"


Maybe in Texas but not were I live. Last jury I was on the instructions were to determine if the defendant broke the law or not. There was NO allowance for our feeling about the law of if the defendant was justified or not.

If there was a choice to make that decision then I would think the defense attorney would have made a comment in his closing or appealed the decision. Neither happened.

Again, if what was stated in the original article is true than this man broke the law. The DA may chose not to bring it before the grand jury and the grand jury may not indite but if this went to trial where I live he would be guilty.

I am not sure about your point about giving up my guns. The Constitution give me the right to own guns under the Second amendment. Any state law would not supersede the second.

If it came down to a decision, I would then have to make a decision to follow the law or not. If charged a jury would have to decide if I was guilty or not.

As for unjust laws we have the obligation to work within the system to change such laws. Ignoring laws we don't like seems a poor option to me.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by Penguin

As I stated I no longer claim the title of Christian. And the brand of Christianity I grew up in was hard boiled, conservative as hell, and literalist to a fault. And even then I never knew a single preacher who would have held this up as Jesus like behavior.

Will


Take a vacation and come stay at my place Will. I will show you what you are looking for.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
Scott---Washington self defense laws are not that bad.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force � When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.










RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide � By other person � When justifiable.


*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5045.SL) ***

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.


[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 � 9A.16.050.]


Thanks for posting. It was my understanding Washington requires retreat before using deadly force.


The first time I shot myself in the head...

Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
803 members (007FJ, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 01Foreman400, 10gaugeman, 12308300, 80 invisible), 3,141 guests, and 1,280 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,714
Posts18,400,344
Members73,820
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.119s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9116 MB (Peak: 1.0872 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 02:11:12 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS