Teen kills elderly woman for $6

[Kuya]

then you oppose humanity. Since you oppose humanity, your life is meaningless, IMO.

Strange, you seem to live in America, yet you've come to this conclusion that most clearly opposes the concept of individuality that many Americans adhere to, and this same concept of individuality, perhaps too extreme, is what defends the idea that a human has the right to kill to defend his property even when his life is not in danger.

When you defend killing in the name of your property, you don't support humanity, you support yourself, and when you say that the individual who goes against humanity is meaningless, you contend that the individual by himself is subjected to humanity, to the majority, to a collective. Vigilantism isn't about the majority, the collective, or humanity, it's about the individual's desires; in this case crowning themselves judge, jury, and executioner.

[fantasticdan]

Strange, you seem to live in America, yet you've come to this conclusion that most clearly opposes the concept of individuality that many Americans adhere to, and this same concept of individuality, perhaps too extreme, is what defends the idea that a human has the right to kill to defend his property even when his life is not in danger.

When you defend killing in the name of your property, you don't support humanity, you support yourself.

As well as your family, and potentially other people that could have been robbed by the same person/people.

[Kuya]

You must not have been following; are you saying that Joe Horn was defending his family/other people? Or the man who killed the 13 year old kid was defending anything but his property? Even if his property was just a snack?

[eunhye]

That man could have done nothing more than just call the police. The young guys would not have died. The young men probably would've gotten away. He took a batman-esque approach to dealing with what was going on at the time. 99% of situations like this, most likely end with people calling the police and the thieves getting away. No one gets killed. Great. You can move on with your life. That's what you want. What if the young men feel they are invincible after the first heist? Then they continue to do this. And people continue to call the police. And they continue to get away.

It just so happens that in this 1%, some old man just decided to take justice in his own hands. Is it unfortunate? Yeah. Does it give that old man the right to do what he did? IMO, yes.

[Kuya]

1st: Who says they were always going to get away? You?

2nd: He took justice into his own hands? Just what do you think justice means?

[eunhye]

1. The police. http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us...Disclaimer.jis I want you to search First: DEREK Middle: WILLIAM Last: BARNES This guy continues to get away with car theft. Continues.

2. Justice to me means doing something about it other than calling the police. It's unfortunate the men died. I am pretty sure he wasn't going to say kill them on purpose. Was he?

[fantasticdan]

You must not have been following; are you saying that Joe Horn was defending his family/other people? Or the man who killed the 13 year old kid was defending anything but his property? Even if his property was just a snack?

So I must support joe horn's actions in defending his neighbors property, and ignoring orders from authorities if I support peoples right to defend their homes and property?

In the case of the snack burglers, if the guy did kill the kid execution style, than that's beyond the point of defending his life or property, since he would have had the situation under control at that point, and he shouldn't have gotten away with it if that's what really happened. However I don't really know the facts behind that case, and I doubt you do either.

[Melchiah]

Your last paragraph is once again irrelevant, because that's not the situation i'm talking about, and as to the situations i mentioned, you avoided forming a solid opinion on it.

It's only irrelevant to you because you are too close-minded to allow yourself to see how they are related.

Do you or do you not think that in the situations where a person actively positions himself in a dangerous situation where neither his life or his property are in danger, but instead chooses to get himself into a dangerous situation where he will no doubt have to defend himself with deadly force, does this person deserve some form of punishment, whether heavy handed or light handed, in order to serve as a deterrence against irresponsible gun owners getting themselves into situations where they will escalate a situation that they didn't have to agitate at all?

Yes.

I don't know a thing about gun responsibility, the only i can compare this to is my martial arts training, where it was always stressed that you should never go looking for fights or put yourself into dangerous situations. I guess i had assumed that gun owners too would be taught not to get into situations outside of self defense or the defense of someone else's life.

That is normally the correct attitude to have, but again you are missing the point I'm driving at, and thus you fellate yourself by citing irrelevance.

Let me try to rephrase, maybe increase the clarity: In a world where people do violence for the sake of violence, or to facilitate the commission of another crime, it is not unreasonable to assume the worst until more information becomes available. You are taught as a gun owner that you always assume a weapon is loaded until you verify it yourself. This is basic firearm safety. We can relate this to a break-in in the same way, the safest thing for me to do as a homeowner is to automatically assume the worst, assume the weapon is loaded, assume the other person means me harm, and take the necessary precautions. If you break into a home, or are otherwise there unauthorized or unannounced, sneaking around, you imply malicious intent. The message here is the same thing you are preaching about not looking for a fight, don't put yourself in the position that a homeowner feels the need to defend himself from you. No one will shoot you for breaking the law if you don't break the law. No one will shoot you for appearing as a threat if you don't appear as a threat.

I also told you that I'm not sure what to think about the first situation you described. I don't think there is anything wrong with defending the property of your neighbor, though the situation could have been handled better, I will concede. The man should have fired a shot into the air to get attention, issued directives to the thieves at gunpoint and called the authorities. Was he wrong to shoot them? We could debate that forever, because we don't have all the information, thus we are very limited in our qualification to pass judgment on the man's actions. He might have perceived a threat after confronting them with the intention of detaining them for law enforcement, or he might have just hauled off and started spraying his scattergun.

As for the second case, if the man perceived a threat upon confronting the thieves, then yes, I would have authorized him to shoot. If the thieves complied with the directives they were given in regards to detainment until the arrival of law enforcement, and he shot anyway, then he committed murder. I think this is the same thing I said in my last response, so I don't know how much more of a solid opinion you want.

Another thing is that when confronted at gunpoint, it should be common sense that there is a certain way one must behave himself to maximize his safety. Such as complying with directives, not making sudden movements or attempting to be a badass and confront the weapon holder. Those are good ways to get shot, as any police officer will tell you. So yet again, if you break into someone's home and they put a gun in your face, and you still try to be an asshole, you deserve every grain of lead they put in your sorry ass, just for being stupid and an asshole.

[Kuya]

So I must support joe horn's actions in defending his neighbors property, and ignoring orders from authorities if I support peoples right to defend their homes and property?

Not at all, but for some reason you quoted a response to someone else. My point was those two cases that exceeded and went without punishment, and in that response i was contesting the bit about humanity and meaninglessness; your mistake for quoting it.

1. The police. http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us...Disclaimer.jis I want you to search First: DEREK Middle: WILLIAM Last: BARNES This guy continues to get away with car theft. Continues.

2. Justice to me means doing something about it other than calling the police. It's unfortunate the men died. I am pretty sure he wasn't going to say kill them on purpose. Was he?

Excellent, this man thinks that one guy getting away with car theft equals all thieves getting away with theft.

Justice means doing something about it other than calling the cops? Is there any reason you think this definition of justice is right? Or did you just sort of assume your definition of justice must be right, and everyone else wrong? Justice can't be relative, or else there is no justice at all. Unless you think fairness is also relative, and can you not be broad and tell me what that something is?

[Sythe]

All you people defending the old man who shot the kid who took a snack or whatever are full of shit because if that kid was your son, nephew, brother, etc. you'd be having a fucking fit. He went too far and that's that. But more importantly, America needs to get over their fucking love affair with guns so shit like this doesn't happen. Lets just get back to stabbin people =D

[Charismatic]

All you people defending the old man who shot the kid who took a snack or whatever are full of shit because if that kid was your son, nephew, brother, etc. you'd be having a fucking fit.

How much you want to put on that one?
Considering one of my cousins was shot and killed breaking into someone's residence and I didn't QQ, I don't think that I personally am full of shit.
He got what he had coming to him and I can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone who does that no matter who that is.

[Sythe]

Well grats on being so cold. I hope you never mistakenly walk on someones yard...

[Charismatic]

If you want to call that cold, I guess it is.
It's not as if I didn't care at all that he died, but honestly... he got what he was asking for.
Why should I be outraged?

[Kuya]

In a world where people do violence for the sake of violence, or to facilitate the commission of another crime, it is not unreasonable to assume the worst until more information becomes available. You are taught as a gun owner that you always assume a weapon is loaded until you verify it yourself. This is basic firearm safety. We can relate this to a break-in in the same way, the safest thing for me to do as a homeowner is to automatically assume the worst, assume the weapon is loaded, assume the other person means me harm, and take the necessary precautions.

This is a given.

If you break into a home, or are otherwise there unauthorized or unannounced, sneaking around, you imply malicious intent. The message here is the same thing you are preaching about not looking for a fight, don't put yourself in the position that a homeowner feels the need to defend himself from you. No one will shoot you for breaking the law if you don't break the law. No one will shoot you for appearing as a threat if you don't appear as a threat

You're lecturing me on criminals being unjust, irresponsible, and stupid? Is there a reason why, when i mention a few certain things that gun owners should not do to exceed and jump into the realm of vigilantism, you mention this to tell me that criminals are bad? Perhaps you're trying to say that because they're bad they deserve to die. Why are you jumping from the idea of defending your property to the idea that those who break the law deserve to be shot? Punishment and defense are two different things; are you telling me that the defense of property and punishment are the same? Are you telling me that home owners who defend their property are also the dispensers of punishment?

I don't think there is anything wrong with defending the property of your neighbor

If there is nothing wrong with defending the property of your neighbor, then there is nothing wrong with defending the property of anyone else. Do you agree or disagree?

So yet again, if you break into someone's home and they put a gun in your face, and you still try to be an asshole, you deserve every grain of lead they put in your sorry ass, just for being stupid and an asshole.

So because what the thief is doing is wrong, the home owner gets carte blanche? That is the idea that you're trying to pass off here; perhaps you should clarify.

[Mizango]

If you want to call that cold, I guess it is.
It's not as if I didn't care at all that he died, but honestly... he got what he was asking for.
Why should I be outraged?

Exactly. I had a cousin that had been arrested for Burglary, Assault and Robbery 4 times that I can remember. He was killed trying to car jack someone at gun point, did I cry? No. Go to funeral? Nope.

Is that cold? Perhaps. Ask me if I have lost sleep over it, not once. People get out of life what they put into it. You spend your life robbing, stealing and doing wrong to others then you get what you have coming. I truly believe that. Being a relative doesn't admonish all of the retarded and harmful things said person did, that is what Char meant I'm sure, and he is exactly right in that statement.

Walking in someone's yard isn't remotely comparable to forcefully entering someone domicile. Whether it be for money, loot for for a motherfucking pop tart is completely moot.

[Melchiah]

This is a given.

You're lecturing me on criminals being unjust, irresponsible, and stupid? Is there a reason why, when i mention a few certain things that gun owners should not do to exceed and jump into the realm of vigilantism, you mention this to tell me that criminals are bad? Perhaps you're trying to say that because they're bad they deserve to die. Why are you jumping from the idea of defending your property to the idea that those who break the law deserve to be shot? Punishment and defense are two different things; are you telling me that the defense of property and punishment are the same? Are you telling me that home owners who defend their property are also the dispensers of punishment?


If there is nothing wrong with defending the property of your neighbor, then there is nothing wrong with defending the property of anyone else. Do you agree or disagree?

So because what the thief is doing is wrong, the home owner gets carte blanche? That is the idea that you're trying to pass off here; perhaps you should clarify.

1) Glad we agree on a point.

2) I'm beginning to believe that you are intentionally missing the point at this time. I fully agreed that both situations could have been handled better, but I will not agree that pointing a gun at someone who is trespassing is a crime. When you bring up irresponsible gun owners, I can't agree with you more. The thing is man, we don't have the details on either case. We don't know what happened, only what the news articles say, and we both know we need a salt shaker with that. You want to pass judgment based on your ideals and some halfass information. There is no "if" conditional in your philosophy, and I won't ever agree with it. If you give off the appearance of ill intent, you will be assessed and treated as such in America. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the candyland fantasy where we are all good neighbors and don't treat others like shit, but it's the way it is. You are coming off like any homeowner who pulls a gun is a vigilante, and I just won't agree with you on that. The man in Texas who defended his neighbor's property can be classified two ways. Either a good neighbor, or a vigilante. All depends upon how you want to look at it. Yes, he voluntarily put himself into a position to pull a gun on another person intent on breaking the law. This can be viewed as vigilantism, but it's not necessarily a bad thing like you make it out to be. For the threat of getting shot by a homeowner to have any kind of teeth, it has to be a very real threat, which means a few homeowners are going to have to shoot some assholes and it get broadcast that assholes are likely to be shot for being in someone's house. Otherwise, the threat is empty, like an unloaded weapon. If everyone knows that homeowners are bound by law to NOT shoot, that's pretty much a free pass to the criminal(pretty much already is), and this is what you are advocating. Law enforcement cannot handle every case sent their way Kuya, unless you'd like to start paying more taxes to employ who knows how many more police officers to chase down the legion assholes in this country.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for homeowners to be able to just point their weapon and tell someone to get on their face and chill out until the police get there, the threat of that firearm has to be real. There has to be a record of homeowners putting bullets in people, and that % has to be great enough that it outweighs the potential jailtime for the perp, or the risk he would take in trying to overpower the homeowner to escape. If the threat of that .357 in your face is hollow because you know the guy will be charged with a crime for shooting you, and that you can then sue him if you live(didn't know about that, did you?), then he might as well just point a water pistol at you while he calls the cops and you take whatever you had and bounce. I hope this is more clear.

Also, to answer your question, do I think thieves deserve to be shot? The answer is no, but I do think they deserve to assume the risks of violating another person's home or person, and those risks are getting shot, stabbed or bludgeoned.

3) I see where you are going with this, and I will not be baited. You are trying to get me to say that I support wanton, irresponsible vigilantism with a cleverly disguised trap where you have omitted key points in the example. The man in Texas was not out looking for someone to shoot, according to the article. He happened to notice a crime in progress and took measures to put a stop to it. It's debatable on whether or not or how far he went overboard, and we don't have all the facts. But he wasn't out looking for a criminal to pass judgment on. Also, the way you asked that question is just like me asking you if you stopped molesting adolescent children, yes or no? If you want to debate and discuss differing opinions and stances I'm cool with that, but you're trying to be an asshole.

4) Carte blanch would be extreme, but again, for the homeowner to be able to secure the situation without bloodshed, the threat of bloodshed has to be real. This seems to be the snag for you. Let's try this: I do not wish to ever have to shoot a person. This is my honest feeling, I'd have to live with ending another person's life and the repercussions on his family and friends. With that being said, if I find a man in my home unauthorized, I will automatically assume that he means me or my family ill, and I will draw my weapon on him and issue directives to him to get him secured while I contact the authorities. If he does not comply with those directives and instead gives the appearance that he is going to ignore the threat of the weapon pointed at him and try to harm me, I will not waste a second deciding if he is running past me at the door or running at me to take my weapon. I will at that point attempt to place a bullet in his center of mass, because he has demonstrated that he is unwilling to face the authorities, which means he is likely to try and harm me to get away.

[Khamsin]

Well grats on being so cold. I hope you never mistakenly break and enter...

Because these people we keep reading about lately were shot for walking on the grass, right?

If there is nothing wrong with defending the property of your neighbor, then there is nothing wrong with defending the property of anyone else. Do you agree or disagree

A neighbor lives next door to you, anyone else doesn't. I don't see any slippery slope potential to be able to defend the guy a few blocks down, or play mall security guard with your own gun (unless threatened).

[Sythe]

Practically Yeah. What the court ruling means is even if there was no threat to the old guy, he was in the right in killing a kid because he was near his house. Werent the kids already outside? Either way he shot him in the back, he coulnd't be to scared for his life as the kids were making a run for it.

[Charismatic]

Werent the kids already outside?

Now, why would he have told them to take the body outside if they were outside?

[Sythe]

I didnt go back and read it. That's why i asked.