Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Shogun]

oh i know the difference between and vs or, and a semi colan vs a comma, DO YOU?

WHY WAS DEADLY FORCE NECESSARY? BY LAW, HE was allowed TO USE FORCE, BUT deadly source, WAS NOT IMMINENT.....necessary, according TO THE LAW.

Clearly you don't. Do you want to jump on the grammar bandwagon after talking about colans? whatever the fuck THOSE are?


WHY? because Joe felt he was in danger after confronting would be thieves. The thieves came into his yard after his confrontation with them. What the fuck ELSE would you suppose Joe should have assumed? That they wanted to shake his hands?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the

Both clauses were met for 2.

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

And both clauses under 3 were met. The property was being removed, he tried to stop them and they refused to stop. And one of them charged him, putting his life in danger.

Anymore questions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What? There are no laws protecting property?
Killing someone for stealing is too steep of a punishment

When you kill someone in self-defense you arent punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them. Thus, this argument holds no water.

 

[Steerpike]

oh i know the difference between and vs or, and a semi colan vs a comma, DO YOU?

WHY WAS DEADLY FORCE NECESSARY? BY LAW, HE was allowed TO USE FORCE, BUT deadly source, WAS NOT IMMINENT.....necessary, according TO THE LAW.

Obviously not. You referred to 3(b), but you missed the OR at the end of 3(a).

 

[Ravi]

When you kill someone in self-defense you arent punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them. Thus, this argument holds no water.

When you shoot someone in the back as they are running away you're nothing buy a psychotic coward.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you shoot someone in the back as they are running away you're nothing buy a psychotic coward.

Even if he is running away with your infant child in his arms?

Never mind that your statement doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.

Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.

 

[Ravi]

Even if he is running away with your infant child in his arms?

Never mind that your statement doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.

Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.

Maybe a remedial reading class will help you. I said killing someone for stealing property is too steep a punishment.

 

[DiamondDave]

and again.. in terms of trial and sentencing, YES.... in terms to a reactions in a dangerous situation of protecting one's self or property... NO

It is not a punishment

If you react to your child in an unknown danger situation that is thrust upon you, and you somehow break that child's arm in the reaction... it was not that you were punishing the child by breaking their arm

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe a remedial reading class will help you. I said killing someone for stealing property is too steep a punishment.

I'm sorry - I didnt see your response:
If you shoot someone while he running away with your infant child in his arms, are you nothing but a psychotic coward?

And maybe you don't understand that defense of property is a subset of self-defense.

And even if you dont, it doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.

Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.

 

[Ravi]

and again.. in terms of trial and sentencing, YES.... in terms to a reactions in a dangerous situation of protecting one's self or property... NO

It is not a punishment

If you react to your child in an unknown danger situation that is thrust upon you, and you somehow break that child's arm in the reaction... it was not that you were punishing the child by breaking their arm

No offense, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen here.

 

[DiamondDave]

No offense, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen here.

It is not comparing a robbery situation and a situation of endangerment to a child... but showing you that there is a difference between punishment and reaction.... something you cannot seem to comprehend

 

[Ravi]

I' sorry - i didnt see you comment:
If you shoot someone while he running away with your infant child in his arms, are you nothing but a psychotic coward?

And maybe you don't understand that defense of property is a subset of self-defense.

And even if you dont, it doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.

Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.

In this case, the man wasn't in any danger when he decided to go outside and kill two people for breaking into his neighbor's house. You may judge him a hero, I judge him a psychotic coward.

 

[Shogun]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.

In this case, the man wasn't in any danger when he decided to go outside and kill two people for breaking into his neighbor's house. You may judge him a hero, I judge him a psychotic coward.

fair enough.. opinions and assholes, Ravi.


i'll choose Joe Horn for a neighbor before you all day long.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.

Funny... you were hanging an entire argument on the idea that 'death for stealing was too harsh a punishment'. Now, it's 'beside the point'. Hmm.

I judge him a psychotic coward.

Oh. Well, who cares?

 

[Ravi]

fair enough.. opinions and assholes, Ravi.


i'll choose Joe Horn for a neighbor before you all day long.

I'd pick him over you as well.

 

[Ravi]

Funny... you were hanging an entire argument on the idea that 'death for stealing was too harsh a punishment'. Now, it's 'beside the point'. Hmm.


Oh. Well, who cares?

That we disagree on the definition is besides the point. But like you say, who cares?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That we disagree on the definition is besides the point.

It IS the point if that's your argument.
And your argument to that end holds no water.

So, thus far, your argument is based on you calling someone a psychotic coward -- which carries no weight whatsoever.

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.

In this case, the man wasn't in any danger when he decided to go outside and kill two people for breaking into his neighbor's house. You may judge him a hero, I judge him a psychotic coward.

I personally do not judge him a hero or a coward.... simply as a man who was reacting to a criminal activity right next to his house and directly within the immediate neighborhood that he lives in...

 

[Shogun]

I'd pick him over you as well.

cool. works for me!




I hope you have a great evening, Ravi!

 

[AllieBaba]

And maybe you don't understand that defense of property is a subset of self-defense.

Ravi doesn't think people should have property to begin with.