Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

He broke into a house that he had no business in, what is the problem?

The problem is that though breaking into a house (actually it was the garage) is a crime, it is not a crime that warrants the death penalty.

Why do you refuse to understand that the death penatly was not involved in this?

You are very stupid if you think this is a valid point. Of course it was a death penalty: the boy's penalty for going into this man's garage (he didn't break and enter, the door was left open) was death.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that though breaking into a house (actually it was the garage) is a crime, it is not a crime that warrants the death penalty.

Why do you refuse to understand that the death penatly was not involved in this?

You are very stupid if you think this is a valid point. Of course it was a death penalty: the boy's penalty for going into this man's garage (he didn't break and enter, the door was left open) was death.

He was somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, on someone else's property, and up to no good.

 

[Esmeralda]

When you present yourself as a threat to someone, you have it coming.

There ws no death penalty here.

Are you nuts? That's exactly what it was.

The death penalty is an action taken by the state, after a conviction.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

 

[martybegan]

Are you nuts? That's exactly what it was.

The death penalty is an action taken by the state, after a conviction.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

You are the one using the wording/concept the wrong way. He shot an intruder. Its justifiable homicide, nothing more.

 

[Pogo]

The death penalty is an action taken by the state, after a conviction.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

You are the one using the wording/concept the wrong way. He shot an intruder. Its justifiable homicide, nothing more.

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

 

[Iceweasel]

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

It's got nothing to do with anarchy or vigilantism, it's the law. It isn't a death penalty because there is no certaintee of death. If you walked up to him while down and helpless and finished him off, you're in trouble. A state sponsored death sentence is very long and complicated.

 

[martybegan]

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

You are the one using the wording/concept the wrong way. He shot an intruder. Its justifiable homicide, nothing more.

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

One cannot be a "vigilante" when one defends ones own property and loved ones from an unknown threat.

Anarchy is you assholes accepting this kids "right" to rob peoples houses because it was a game.

 

[Bush92]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

It is America. You can shoot someone who looks at your house and claim you 'feared for your life'.

Yessireeebob...and thats what makes it a great place to live. I hope the exchange student was a gay communist. that would be like an added bonus.

 

[Pogo]

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

It's got nothing to do with anarchy or vigilantism, it's the law. It isn't a death penalty because there is no certaintee of death. If you walked up to him while down and helpless and finished him off, you're in trouble. A state sponsored death sentence is very long and complicated.

If "it's the law" that a kid gets his head blown off walking into an open garage, then you're back to "state-sponsored". As I said -- either way. How long one process takes over another is immaterial.

And if you recall a recent execution, there's not always a certainty of death even with all State systems in place. No matter the efficiency; it's the intent.

 

[Pogo]

You are the one using the wording/concept the wrong way. He shot an intruder. Its justifiable homicide, nothing more.

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

One cannot be a "vigilante" when one defends ones own property and loved ones from an unknown threat.

The death penalty inflicted certainly can, which is what those of us with respect for human life are saying here. The question has already been posed and ignored but again, why would you blow the kid away instead of either (a) announcing you have a gun on him or (b) firing a warning shot?

Anarchy is you assholes accepting this kids "right" to rob peoples houses because it was a game.

Specious reasoning is making up strawmen because you can't defend your own sorry position.

 

[thanatos144]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

It is America. You can shoot someone who looks at your house and claim you 'feared for your life'.

we know you only believe in killing the innocent unborn

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

Because some idiot in Montana kills an unarmed kid in his garage, that means the MILLIONS of other people who own firearms would do the same thing this guy did.

Makes perfect sense............if you are a control-freak left wingnut.

 

[martybegan]

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

One cannot be a "vigilante" when one defends ones own property and loved ones from an unknown threat.

The death penalty inflicted certainly can, which is what those of us with respect for human life are saying here. The question has already been posed and ignored but again, why would you blow the kid away instead of either (a) announcing you have a gun on him or (b) firing a warning shot?

Anarchy is you assholes accepting this kids "right" to rob peoples houses because it was a game.

Specious reasoning is making up strawmen because you can't defend your own sorry position.

A homeowner can do that, however they are under no obligation to do that in their own home, or should they be required to do it. All you are doing is placing the homeowner at a disadvantage if the intruder is actually armed, which was an unknown at the time this guy shot the intruder.

This all could have been avoided if he stayed out of the garage, and you refuse to admit that, instead blaming the actual victim here, the homeowner.

 

[Pogo]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

Because some idiot in Montana kills an unarmed kid in his garage, that means the MILLIONS of other people who own firearms would do the same thing this guy did.

Makes perfect sense............if you are a control-freak left wingnut.

-- or if you simply read this thread.
Unless they're lying.

 

[Pogo]

One cannot be a "vigilante" when one defends ones own property and loved ones from an unknown threat.

The death penalty inflicted certainly can, which is what those of us with respect for human life are saying here. The question has already been posed and ignored but again, why would you blow the kid away instead of either (a) announcing you have a gun on him or (b) firing a warning shot?

Anarchy is you assholes accepting this kids "right" to rob peoples houses because it was a game.

Specious reasoning is making up strawmen because you can't defend your own sorry position.

A homeowner can do that, however they are under no obligation to do that in their own home, or should they be required to do it. All you are doing is placing the homeowner at a disadvantage if the intruder is actually armed, which was an unknown at the time this guy shot the intruder.

This all could have been avoided if he stayed out of the garage, and you refuse to admit that, instead blaming the actual victim here, the homeowner.

Riiiiight... "A" kills "B"; that makes "A" the victim. After all, "B" stole "A"s bullet.

As I said --- specious reasoning.
File under "she was askin' for it!".

 

[thanatos144]

There is a moral to this story kids.... If you break in to someones house you could get killed for it so dont break into other people property. Secondary moral Liberals only want innocents and cops killed.

 

[Meathead]

The death penalty inflicted certainly can, which is what those of us with respect for human life are saying here. The question has already been posed and ignored but again, why would you blow the kid away instead of either (a) announcing you have a gun on him or (b) firing a warning shot?



Specious reasoning is making up strawmen because you can't defend your own sorry position.

A homeowner can do that, however they are under no obligation to do that in their own home, or should they be required to do it. All you are doing is placing the homeowner at a disadvantage if the intruder is actually armed, which was an unknown at the time this guy shot the intruder.

This all could have been avoided if he stayed out of the garage, and you refuse to admit that, instead blaming the actual victim here, the homeowner.

Riiiiight... "A" kills "B"; that makes "A" the victim. After all, "B" stole "A"s bullet.

As I said --- specious reasoning.
File under "she was askin' for it!".

No, but it can sometimes clearly pre-empt "A" from becoming a victim. You need look no further than the Zimmerman case.

 

[Pogo]

There is a moral to this story kids.... If you break in to someones house you could get killed for it so dont break into other people property. Secondary moral Liberals only want innocents and cops killed.

Apparently the "moral" is, don't bother making up an argument; just make up a strawman.

 

[Pogo]

A homeowner can do that, however they are under no obligation to do that in their own home, or should they be required to do it. All you are doing is placing the homeowner at a disadvantage if the intruder is actually armed, which was an unknown at the time this guy shot the intruder.

This all could have been avoided if he stayed out of the garage, and you refuse to admit that, instead blaming the actual victim here, the homeowner.

Riiiiight... "A" kills "B"; that makes "A" the victim. After all, "B" stole "A"s bullet.

As I said --- specious reasoning.
File under "she was askin' for it!".

No, but it can sometimes clearly pre-empt "A" from becoming a victim. You need look no further than the Zimmerman case.

You'll have to settle that with Marty; he says "A" is the victim.

Hey I know -- maybe you and he can just shoot it out. You get a settlement, you both get to play with guns, everybody's happy.

 

[Pogo]

after the teen broke into his garage.

Got what he deserved. In America we enjoy being able to protect our property. You break in my home I am not gonna ask you if you intend to harm me. By breaking in you have already made yourself a threat to me and my family.

Riiiight, because walking into an open garage is the same thing as murder.