Despite that truism, I haven't seen evidence that the death penalty reduces crime levels at all; making the whole thing kind of pointless.

Maybe not, but it does prevent each executed criminal from doing it again, which saves innocent people lives...

Jat850
If I was making a living stealing from innocent people, and I knew they were armed, I would simply arm myself better, or bring help.

I'd suggest, unless you're a complete moran (not saying you are), that you would likely avoid the armed people and prey on the unarmed. Because, when it's YOUR life, simply bringing a bigger gun or more people doesn't guarantee you won't die in the exchange anyway.

Given a choice, almost every criminal who intends to offend will do so against a victim who cannot prevent the offense.

anomaly2.0,

it does prevent each executed criminal from doing it again, which saves innocent people lives...

As opposed to locking them up in jail for life?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not voting for Bush. :)

anomaly2.0,

And how will eliminating one "perp" stop another from trying the same thing the next day? And the day after that?

It doesn't, but if you look at a typical criminals rap sheet they usually have countless crimes listed. Take them out early and overall crime rate will go down...

craig328,

Probably a fair assumption - but how are criminals going to know which potential targets are unarmed or not? It's not like they survey before a mugging attempt, or a B&E, or something...

As opposed to locking them up in jail for life?

Until some bleeding heart liberl parole board gives them parol so they can kill, rape, steal again...

As far as I'm concerned, everyone has certain basic rights as a Human Being, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. The second that anyone violates in another person any of those rights, they immediately lose every single one of them. If you violate these rights willingly and without remorse (by stealing, for example), then you have absolutely no value as a human being, and your life is worthless.

anomaly2.0,

That's an entirely separate judicial system issue that needs to be addressed.

I haven't got a strong position to defend on this one. Feel free to sway me with those numbers.

Numbers???? okay, dead perp = 0% chance of re-offending.

jat850
BINGO!

Let me ask you then...if it's possible or likely that your intended victim may be armed, do you take the chance and do the crime anyway?

This is the entire reason why citizens ought to be compelled to own a working, servicable firearm. Before anyone jumps to conclusions on that point, I also believe that anyone who owns a firearm should have had to pass an owenership and usage course administered by the state.

Hell, we do less to ensure a proper responsible gun owner than we do proper and responsible drivers. Drivers have to get a license after they demonstrate their knowledge of traffic laws AND pass a driving test. Gun buyers have to wait a few days for a background check.

anomaly2.0,

Numbers???? okay, dead perp = 0% chance of re-offending.

That's all well and fine. And how have you reduced your actual chances of being a victim of a crime, by eliminating one specific criminal?

None.

jat850:

You're assuming that most criminals are enterprising enough (and brazen enough) to just come back with more firepower.

Chicken->Egg.

Given that most criminals rob and steal because it's an easier path than, say, getting a job -- when it becomes easier to get a job than to rob somebody is when you'll see the improvement. When you can't tell who's armed and who's not, you've just made it more difficult.

My $0.02.

Great shooting. One less goblin to deal with.

To our out of the US farkers- Does the name Tony Martin mean anything to you? That was a justifiable shooting too. Take your anti-gun rants somewhere else.

Anyone looking to steal my gear gets a 12 gauge wakeup call.

anomaly2.0,

That's an entirely separate judicial system issue that needs to be addressed.

Locking up a murderer for life doesn't prevent him from murdering in prison either. Example Murderer X gets put into a cell with convicted pot smoker Y

X gets pissed at Y because he won't put out, so X kills Y. Just because Y was in prison with X doesn't mean he deserves to be killed.

/I'm just sayin'...

craig328

I can't disagree with you, basically. I am fully for responsible and legal gun ownership.

I am also fully for the right to defend yourself, and your family, from a direct threat, with force if necessary.

I am NOT for the right to shoot someone stealing your car (or your bike, or your ATV), unless you are under the threat of physical violence.

Despite that truism, I haven't seen evidence that the death penalty reduces crime levels at all; making the whole thing kind of pointless.

Oh, the evidence is there to be read, but by and large you have to do a lot of manual correction on the data - most organizations which gather data on capital punishment treat all such programs equally, and fail to adjust for the efficiency of the individual implementations. Capital punishment, as practiced in the US, does not constitute an effective deterrent, because it's efficiency is very low. There is a huge delay in execution of punishment, and a very small number of convicts eligible for such punishment ever receive it. States where capital punishment is swift and more equitably applied do see significant deterrent effects.

That's all well and fine. And how have you reduced your actual chances of being a victim of a crime, by eliminating one specific criminal?

None.

How can you say that? We know that criminals repeat their crimes when left to their own accord. So, if we take the criminal out at anypoint in his lifetime all future crimes he would have commited will be nullified. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands and your chances of of being a crime victim go down conciderably...

Yeah, a human life is worth less than a farking four wheeler.

I'm all for respecting property rights, but murder over recreation property is just farking asinine.

Kill for survival, not fun.

Now, shooting him in the leg and then beating the shiat out of him, that I could deal with.

But murder over property, you farks need to get your priorities straight.

anomaly2.0

Locking up a murderer for life doesn't prevent him from murdering in prison either. Example Murderer X gets put into a cell with convicted pot smoker Y

X gets pissed at Y because he won't put out, so X kills Y. Just because Y was in prison with X doesn't mean he deserves to be killed.

/I'm just sayin'...

No, you're absolutely right. Again - that's a separate issue of the judicial system, as I see it. I cannot even begin to guess where the solution to that lies.

I do respect your opinion on the issue; I'm not here to tell you your beliefs are wrong ... at least you present your argument in a fairly rational manner.

jat850, as to bringing friends, that's a valid point when considering gang retaliations. I don't know what sort of weight they give to self preservation versus member loyalty. And not being a merchant, I can't weigh property defense against shoplifting with any authority.

I suppose I'll concede to you that one shouldn't make a habit of shooting shoplifters since shop owners are much bigger targets than home owners.

anomaly2.0

How can you say that? We know that criminals repeat their crimes when left to their own accord. So, if we take the criminal out at anypoint in his lifetime all future crimes he would have commited will be nullified. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands and your chances of of being a crime victim go down conciderably...

You're making what I see as an unfounded assumption that new criminals aren't going to be born and take their place in line as soon as that criminal is gone.

If that was the case, one would think murder WOULD have been eliminated by now, based on the number of people who have been put to death for that crime, no?

But death penalty statistics don't indicate a reduction in murder rates.

Now, shooting him in the leg and then beating the shiat out of him, that I could deal with.

Always aim for the center of mass.

But murder over property, you farks need to get your priorities straight.

Read some of the better articles on this - he shot someone who appeared to pose a threat.

I laugh when I hear about thieves getting fatally shot. fark those people...everyone works hard so they can make a living by getting to and from their jobs in their cars and some low level hood comes by and steals that means of transportation??? It feels me with joy when they get shot dead.

Weed out the germs...they may be good people internally, but I gotta get to work on time.

No, you're absolutely right. Again - that's a separate issue of the judicial system, as I see it. I cannot even begin to guess where the solution to that lies.

I can - stop criminalizing activities which lack victims.

jat850

I hear ya. I don't totally support the death penalty either mainly because I trust the court system to prevent wrongfull convictions. I do, however, support killing criminals caught in the act :)

I think our whole judicial system is a farking mess! We send people away who do not belong in prison and let go those who do! I have no answers on how to fix it either... Uggg...

woops, I don't trust the court system

Clark said he spied the two men while waiting for his wife to return home from night school. He tried to call 9-1-1, but his cordless phone was dead. He tried to trip his home alarm, which also failed, neighbor Moore said.

Clark fired at Hamilton with a 9mm Taurus handgun, hitting him in the right shoulder. The bullet exited the left side of Hamilton's chest, killing him. Clark then chased the second suspect.

Clark fired three shots into the air as he ran, but the suspect was not hit. Clark, a former emergency medical technician in Berlin, then went back to administer first aid to Hamilton.


I think, when you consider the details fo the case, it's quite obvious that this guy is just another yahoo, like a lot of you, who got a weapon to help himself feel powerful and had a burning desire to "protect himself" ever since by filling some sucker full of lead.

yeah, his phone was dead AND his home alarm system wasn't working.

Suuuuuure...


Nice gun, sorry 'bout yer cock.

anomaly2.0,

Points taken. It is indeed sad (also in a minor reference to Sloth_DC's post) that there are crimes with victims and that people do get hurt; maybe someday society won't be at a point where we need to hurt each other for whatever the reasons they do it.

This post brought to you by Convoluted English Dancing Around Whatever Point I'm Trying To Make (Because I Forget Now), Inc.

And indeed, it is hometime, and the weekend.

Take care everyone.

Chris62vw

I don't agree. The kind of person who 'heroically' kills someone for breaking into their shed is probably pretty likely to resort to extreme violence for other reasons. Plus, they are a sick fark and I don't want to live near them.

Read some of the better articles on this - he shot someone who appeared to pose a threat.

I read them. Two people trying to break into his SHED.
He was inside, with access to a phone that was conveniently dead, and a security alarm that was conveniently inoperative as well.

Good thing he got his gun from a differnt dealer, or that might not have gone off either!

I repeat, if these folks were trying to get into his house, that would be one thing. He shouted freeze, then shot, then chased the other one down the block.

Face it, it's a nut on a power trip.

The life of a criminal is worth more than your precious 4-wheeler.

A person breaking into your house at midnight is a THREAT. That homeowner deserves a reasonable doubt for shooting, even if the thief had no gun. A person in your shed is NOT A THREAT. This person may be a moran/repeat offender, but that is not a justifiable homicide IMHO. Personally, I would call the police, then yell at them to stop. If they come at you they're history.

Personally, I would call the police, then yell at them to stop. If they come at you they're history.

Oddly, that's exactly how this dude's story reads. He tried to call the cops (phone dead), yelled at them to stop, and when one turned and pointed something at him, he shot him.

Good thing for Johnny Rambo it wasn't the Repo man come to take back his 84 Chevy Bronco. He would be going away for murder.

No wonder they have a President who thinks it's okay to execute the retarded.

DarwinEffect, how do you value human life?

ParrotheadParadise
2004-10-22 03:10:20 PM Fantastic_Dan

"so everyone who thinks this is great news thinks that the shooter's car (his car!) is worth more than the burglar's life?"

I'll type it slow so you can understand....Y...E..S

You sir, and everyone else on this thread who thinks you can just execute someone for burglary is a waste of skin.

The life of a criminal is worth more than your precious 4-wheeler.

Umm, no it's not.

You sir, and everyone else on this thread who thinks you can just execute someone for burglary is a waste of skin.

Sounds to me like you are a burgler? Maybe?

Actually you don't have to kill burglars, just shoot them in non-lethal areas.

When I lived in Carson City Nevada there was a guy that shot two kids that were breaking into his garage. They were running away, and he got 'em both in the ass.

Both lived, and both went to jail.

/you run a lot slower without butt cheeks.

Steve, you never heard of the case in Texas where the owner sniped the repo-man as he was driving off? He was acquitted, since he had no way of knowing it was a legal siezure.

For your amusement...

I'll paraphrase a joke I read on another site, though I can't take credit for it, I'll try to reproduce it as accurately as I can.

HOW YOU CAN TELL IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT

The test: You're minding your own business, walking down the street with your nine year old girl. You have just gone to the ATM, and you're carrying a substantial amount of cash. A man comes out of nowhere and confronts you, pulls a knife, and threatens you, telling you to give him all of your cash. How do you react? Choose below to find out whether you're a republican or a democrat.

A: A democrat: You would immediately begin thinking. "This man seems in desperate straits. What could've driven him to do this? He must have had a neglected upbringing as a child, and now he's a drug addled criminal. By his speech, his education level must be low. How sad this is that he is driven to crime when society has clearly given him the cold shoulder...no one's ever shown him some love, he doesn't know violence isn't the answer. He's so needy, it isn't fair that he goes without when I have the cash to help him."

B: A republican: BANG! .... (thud)

C: A Southern republican: BANG BANG BANG (thud) BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG (shunk...click-clack) BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG! "Gee dad, that was great grouping of you shots there. Were those the hollowpoint Remington Z-9 rounds or the Glock security crosstips? They sure sounded like the Remingtons."

You sir, and everyone else on this thread who thinks you can just execute someone for burglary is a waste of skin.

Eh, I think you're a bit of a waste if you think the proper response to someone stealing what you earned and built is to give in. No, killing them is not generally the goal - but if it happens as a result of preventing them from successfully completing their robbery, I'm not really too upset about it.

Zaphod42, you think we're wastes of skin for thinking thieves are a waste of skin. There's something logically wrong with that train of thought, unless you're a thief.

mcflizzy

There is no flaw in the logic there. You are assuming something I'm not: Burglars are wastes of skin.
I say murders are wastes of skin. Burglars? The jury is still out on that one. You see the point? Due process? The victim was not in danger. He's a murderer plain and simple.

Sloth_DC:
"Oddly, that's exactly how this dude's story reads. He tried to call the cops (phone dead), yelled at them to stop, and when one turned and pointed something at him, he shot him. "

Sounds fishy to me. But maybe that's why they didn't indict. We are really debating whether it would be OK even if he did not feel threatened.

Here's another funny one. A few years ago, an undercover drug cop decided to take a piss on a tree at the edge of someone's yard in a high crime area in Houston. Mr homeowner steps out the door with a shotgun and gives him a dose of buckshot in the arse. The cop's injured but recovers. This guy doesn't get indicted either, even though the cop wasn't stealing anything and was not a perp (in retrospect).

Zaphod, I would agree if he had executed the first and attempted to execute the second.

His story doesn't support that and a grand jury didn't believe the evidence did either.