Teen kills elderly woman for $6

[eunhye]

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

I thought it was obvious. I mean, thieves want something not theirs so they steal. And I think you are trolling and you are a moderator. So if all moderators are trolling, then they'll get away with it.

[Khamsin]

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.

They weren't outside, but even if they had been, they just got done robbing him. Whether it's right or wrong, it wouldn't have happened had they just been innocently cutting a corner on his yard. I don't think these homeowners are just looking for an excuse to kill, there is a level of reason involved, whether you agree with that reasoning or not.

[Kuya]

but I will not agree that pointing a gun at someone who is trespassing on your is a crime.

And i never said it was a crime; you keep bringing up non issues. Where we disagree, and put attention here, is when the home owner is not the one being threatened, because if he is allowed to act when he is not the one in danger, then we allow vigilantism, and vigilantism isn't a good thing because unlike trained professionals, they can rarely be held accountable for their mistakes nor can they be expected to act correctly.

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.

Non issue. I neither said that all home owners with guns are vigilantes nor did i ever argue about who or how one is assessed or treated.

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.

When is vigilantism a good thing, and when is vigilantism a bad thing? The bad part about is is that you can't control what a vigilante does as opposed to a trained cop; a loose vigilante is bound to cause far more trouble than it's worth. The good part about is when the authorities are not living up to their duties.

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.

I am advocating that home owners can't shoot to defend themselves? You are arguing with ghosts. The point is that he can't defend the property of others, and that we should discuss the dubious situation of the home owner not actually being in the home in question, and therefore not being in danger, but still taking it upon themselves to engage in dangerous situations that lead to needless deaths.

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.

Of course i don't expect that; you Americans demand the most but you don't ever want to pay for it.

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.

Alright then, why is it ok to defend the property of a neighbor, but not the property of anybody else?

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.

You keep bringing this up as if i disagree with it, but here we ago again. You seem to agree that the point of using weapons against someone who trespasses into your property is because this person may very well mean you and your family harm, therefore the point of shooting someone who enters into your home is to protect yourself and your family members, more so than the property itself. So thus we have a problem if a person kills another when his life is not in danger.

[Kuya]

I thought it was obvious. I mean, thieves want something not theirs so they steal. And I think you are trolling and you are a moderator. So if all moderators are trolling, then they'll get away with it.

So about your definition of justice; are you going to defend it or not?

[Melchiah]

Kuya, you are full of shit. And with this, I'm bowing out of this. You cry non-issue and irrelevance anytime an example is posed if it runs counter to your position, and frankly, I can't argue with someone who refuses to be objective.

There is nothing wrong with pulling your weapon and subduing a person breaking into your neighbor's home. Nothing at all. Once the situation progresses to this point, it carries the possibility of becoming very volatile, very fast. This is the point at which your stance is that the 3rd party should never have become involved beyond calling the police. I will not say what that man should or should not have done, but I also will not say he was wrong IF his intention was to subdue those men until the arrival of law enforcement. I will also agree with you on the idea that seeing a crime in progress and using it as an excuse to shoot someone is murder.

Once the decision is made to pull a weapon, things can happen, bad things. All I can say is that as a criminal, if you find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun, self-preservation should govern. If not, you are taking your life into your own hands, and if you do not comply with a lawful directive given by that citizen and cause him to think that you are going to hurt him, regardless of if he is your victim or just your victim's neighbor, you might very well get seriously hurt and I would vote not-guilty on the jury every time.

You see Kuya, I have been paying attention to your argument, and I have responded to your argument. You seem to have issues when you can't shit all over someone and masturbate by claiming irrelevance and non-issue.

[Kuya]

I guess it isn't irrelevant, when you say that i don't want homeowners to defend themselves against home invaders when i never said that, and i guess it really isn't irrelevant when you try to describe the psychological composition of a thief, when we're discussing whether defending someone else's property should be encouraged or otherwise. And lastly, why is defending the property of a neighbor the right thing to do, when we can't rely on the vigilante to do the right thing as opposed to a cop who's trained to handle these situations properly? You also never said why you can defend the property of a neighbor, but nobody else's. You see, the argument that goes beyond defending your life and the life of those inside your home, which is that property > your life, seems to have had very little defending. The only thing people have said thus far to defend it is: it's right because it is.

Convincing.

[Melchiah]

I guess it isn't irrelevant, when you say that i don't want homeowners to defend themselves against home invaders when i never said that, and i guess it really isn't irrelevant when you try to describe the psychological composition of a thief, when we're discussing whether defending someone else's property should be encouraged or otherwise. And lastly, why is defending the property of a neighbor the right thing to do, when we can't rely on the vigilante to do the right thing as opposed to a cop who's trained to handle these situations properly? You also never said why you can defend the property of a neighbor, but nobody else's. You see, the argument that goes beyond defending your life and the life of those inside your home, which is that property > your life, seems to have had very little defending. The only thing people have said thus far to defend it is: it's right because it is.

Convincing.

You know what, I lied. I will respond to this. You can't just cut and paste what fits into your little sphere and claim irrelevance on everything else. This entire discussion has always been about more than your little side-trolling. Every example and position I have posed in this thread has had a purpose and was relevant. If you cannot grasp it, then I question your purpose in this thread, other than outright trolling. You sir, are a master of the art, I congratulate you.

[Kuya]

Is the word Troll the new Nazi? It seems to be used for the same purpose.

And you still haven't answered the question.

[Melchiah]

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.

Should be answer enough for that bullshit, trap question.

[Kuya]

I want you to tell me why it is ok for one to defend a neighbor's property, but not the property of somebody else. I want you to tell me why property is more important than life, why property > life, and let's not try to add the world criminal to life there, because that would just be an appeal to emotion, therefore an irrational argument, and let's not add the word my to property, because many of you have agreed that defending the property of someone else, when there is no danger to life, is alright. You have to explain to me why is it ok for a person to go above and beyond the call of defending not only his life, but also his home, and go on what is essentially vigilantism to defend the property of others. You have to explain to me why we should allow someone with no training, no way to be held accountable for their mistakes, why we would should allow this person to do the work of our law enforcement force, a force which is far better trained to handle these situations, and therefore not usually needlessly waste life when it can be avoided.

Explain to me how answering why it's ok to defend the property of your neighbor, but not anybody else's property is a trap question then.

And to make sure we're clear here, and i remember you said you didn't agree with it, Joe Horn was not defending his property, nor his life, nor the life of his neighbors, he was of course, defending the property of his neighbor, and chose instead to kill the thieves instead of letting the appropriate authorities handle it. You said this is good vigilantism; i disagree, and you also did not explain why this is good vigilantism.

[Seraph]

Explain to me how answering why it's ok to defend the property of your neighbor, but not anybody else's property is a trap question then.

With an immediate neighbor, you know if the intruding person doesn't live there. With the immediate proximity, I could also argue there is a vested interest in what goes on right next to your home. Neighbors are often good friends and watch out for each other, so I don't think this example is as outragous as you are making it out to be. When the same situation is applied to 'other people' you really have no idea who or what belongs in that place or not. Unless it's an obvious assault or hostage situation, the obvious correct course of action isn't quite so obvious.

With most cases of this 'defending property' the question also comes into play if the person is just defending property, or protecting themselves too. When you get a situation when someone enters a house illegally, I will tend to side with the person who belongs there over the person who doesn't. "Why is this person breaking in? Are they comming to kill me? Are they comming to just rob me? Are they comming to rape my daughter? I can't be too sure, I better not take any chances." How is that not a reasonable train of thought? I doubt many people would absolutely make sure of an intruders intent before taking up defense. If you happened to wake up to someone in your bedroom with some stranger there wearing a mask not that far away, what are you going to do? Hope they let you call the cops, or defend yourself?

You seem very pissed at people defending themselves and/or their stuff, and not quite pissed enough at someone trying to break into someone else's house. Most of these examples are like blaming the campfire because some idiot choose to stick his hand in it to see what would happen. Stupid people are going to get burned.

[Khamsin]

You can add the word my to property, as long as you include the phrase "and those in immediate proximity, but no one else's."

[Melchiah]

I told you that we didn't have all the facts on the Joe Horn case, and probably never will. I also said that type of vigilantism was not necessarily a bad thing, it all depends upon intent and responsibility.

The reason it is ok for a normal citizen to take action is because the police are stretched thin, and the normal citizen vastly outnumbers the police force and is often on the scene when a crime occurs. Police do not arrive at crime scenes until a crime has been reported. If Joe Citizenry is able to prevent a crime in progress, be it one against his direct neighbor or someone walking down the street he has never met, he has done his civic duty. If Joe Citizenry uses a crime in progress as an excuse to kill a person, then Joe Citizenry is a murderer and should face charges.

You present your arguments like you are taking the stance that violating the property of another person is ok, I think perhaps you should re-evaluate your method of presentation.

The way you worded that question is the issue Kuya. It was a trap to get me to say that I condoned rampant vigilantism with no accountability, and it was done by omitting key details in the example we were discussing and wording it in such a way as to only have two acceptable answers, yes and no.

Example: Kuya, did you stop sexually molesting adolescent girls?

There are only two answers to this question and both imply the same premise, that you are in fact a child molester. This type of question is forbidden for use in a courtroom when questioning a defendant or a witness because either answer implies guilt. That's how it's a trap.

You omitted key details from the example in question and my argument and presented a question with the answer choices "agree or disagree". If I had chosen "agree" the next thing out of your mouth would have been a slippery slope type example leading into lawlessness which I would have agreed to. Had I chosen "disagree", I would have basically been recanting my entire position. That's how your question was a trap.

[Kuya]

With an immediate neighbor, you know if the intruding person doesn't live there. With the immediate proximity, I could also argue there is a vested interest in what goes on right next to your home. Neighbors are often good friends and watch out for each other, so I don't think this example is as outragous as you are making it out to be. When the same situation is applied to 'other people' you really have no idea who or what belongs in that place or not. Unless it's an obvious assault or hostage situation, the obvious correct course of action isn't quite so obvious.

Thank you; this is very reasonable. You'd probably defend your neighbors' property because you'd probably know if the person who was trying to get in is a stranger or not; you know what's going on as opposed to anyone outside of your circle. Of course the whole little problem of inserting yourself into a dangerous situation where the likeliest outcome will be the use of deadly force is still reprehensible, but the reasoning for doing it for neighbors and not for anyone else is reasonable.

You seem very pissed at people defending themselves and/or their stuff, and not quite pissed enough at someone trying to break into someone else's house.

You probably should have accused me of supporting terrorism; it would have been more effective. That is if you're not trying to devalue my argument by saying i don't hate thieves enough, but then again one can not see why you would make such a pointless comment if you didn't intend that, as we're discussing whether vigilantism is right or wrong in these cases, not whether bad criminals are bad or not.

[Kuya]

The reason it is ok for a normal citizen to take action is because the police are stretched thin, and the normal citizen vastly outnumbers the police force and is often on the scene when a crime occurs.

They are also more vastly unprepared, leading to many regrettable incidences that could have been avoided were these actions discouraged enough.

Police do not arrive at crime scenes until a crime has been reported.

That is why life or death situations require immediate action to save lives, as opposed to actions where the sole purpose is to defend property, where we also can't tell if the person wanted to help or he just had an itchy trigger finger. I say we err on the side of safety, where we make sure the vigilante is not harmed, or he harms others, and where we make sure he doesn't get into a situation where he can't be held accountable for mistakes, and how can we hold him accountable when he's not a professional!

If Joe Citizenry uses a crime in progress as an excuse to kill a person, then Joe Citizenry is a murderer and should face charges.

It is difficult to determine this intent after the killing has happened, which is why it is best to avoid the entire situation by only allowing action to be taken in the name of defending life. Certainly you should be allowed to stop or even kill a thief if he enters into your neighbor's house when he is there because the thief might mean him harm... but when no one is in danger, your motives become questionable, and therefore we shouldn't allow this ambiguous situation to take place.

The way you worded that question is the issue Kuya. It was a trap to get me to say that I condoned rampant vigilantism with no accountability, and it was done by omitting key details in the example we were discussing and wording it in such a way as to only have two acceptable answers, yes and no.

Hence why i reworded the question twice so it wouldn't be a yes or no answer. Seraph answered; why couldn't you?

[Seraph]

You probably should have accused me of supporting terrorism; it would have been more effective. That is if you're not trying to devalue my argument by saying i don't hate thieves enough, but then again one can not see why you would make such a pointless comment if you didn't intend that, as we're discussing whether vigilantism is right or wrong in these cases, not whether bad criminals are bad or not.

Just commenting on your extreme distaste of the use of force against the intruders, and the lack of distaste for the intrusions themselves. The vigilantism in these cases always seems more defensive than offensive which is why I usually don't get quite so upset about it. There are the obvious extreme exceptions since stupidity isn't limited to criminals.

That was my point, wasn't really meant to be a personal attack or a trolling attempt.

[Melchiah]

It's ok to defend your neighbor's property in his absence should you happen to notice a crime taking place. Obviously the wiser thing to do would be to notify the authorities, arm yourself as a precaution, and make observations to report to the police. I will concede this much, but I also will not fault Mr. Horn for investigating what was happening at his neighbor's home when he knew they were away. Sometimes, it involves more than stolen property. Consider something in that home that might be priceless and irreplaceable to it's owner. Were it destroyed by an act of vandalism or arson, an arrest of the perp after the fact doesn't set the situation right. With stolen property, either the recovery of or an insurance check usually satisfies the victim, but there are other violations of property to consider outside of just theft. In those cases, an attempt to investigate and put a stop to the violation is warranted, especially when the act might be completed before the authorities arrive.