why that was nice

[slick rick 10+ year member]

I agree, and I believe that was said by the dispatcher a few times IIRC. That will probably be the shooter's downfall too - was that he was told by the police (I assume it was the police on the phone) to stay indoors. He will undoubtedly be charged with some crime, whether it be manslaughter, or obstruction of justice, or whatever it may be..

manslaughter should be the outcome...but pending evidence could show he did pre-meditate the killing. But I think in terms of public policy, the local DA will not try to prove 1st degree murder.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

No property is worth someones life. In that regard I feel he went overboard and should be punished. Unless the robbers did something to actually threaten his life in the front yard. Vigilante justice when it involves capitol punishment is a bad idea. Very few crimes in our criminal justice system warrant capitol punishement when viewed objectively. Our laws show this pretty clearly. For a person under stress in a situation like this, he's not likely to be thinking rationally and will go overboard, ala killing someone over a relatively small amount of money. No court would have sentenced those men to death, ever. What they did wouldn't have warranted it objectively. For someone thinking this is MY neighborhood, these are MY friends, this could be MY house, etc, a empathic arguement could be made for killing them, if only to himself in his own mind. That's the dangerous part about it. Having a single person dole out a capitol punishment when he may not have all the facts, be in a bad mindset for decision making etc, is a bad idea.
PS. what they are using is a well known and accepted logicall FALLACY google slipperly slope fallacy. If this happens then so does this this this this and this, no end to the madness, blah, blah, blah.

too few crimes are capitol punishment warranted. I'd like to see rapists and murderers be killed no matter what. All the shit about "they have feelings too" when people say they shouldn't kill them. It's BS.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Not true. You NEVER NEVER NEVER know what's going to happen when you break into anyone's house. You don't know for 1000% certain no one is in there, even if all the lights are off, even if the place looks deserted. Hell, someone could come home and see you robbing their place if nothing else. Making an ASSUMPTION that no one is home does not equate to removal of the risk involved. That's just silliness.

Following your reasoning to its conclusion would indicate that every victim of crime is ultimately responsible for being a victim. There is inherent risk in everything. There is a risk that i could die in my sleep. Should i avoid sleep to mitigate that risk? There is a risk that i could be shot the next time i leave my house, yet i indeed leave my house. If i take that risk does that mean i am responsible for my own death should i end up murdered after leaving? Your logic seems in-line with the Saudi court system when it sentenced the victim of a gang **** because she was in the company of a male non relative when the **** occurred and thereby is responsible for her own ****.

There is inherent risk in everything we do, but a REASONABLE person isn't controlled by such minuscule risks and takes such risks with the understanding that they are a part of life and unavoidable.

It works both ways. If these two are responsible for their own deaths, then ultimately every victim of a crime is responsible for becoming a victim and the only way to escape responsibility for ones victim status is to kill yourself before you become a victim.

Once again, senseless and useless hyperbole. No one here is advocating that, yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it's our stance. It's not. Please stop putting words in our mouths and making assumptions that are not based on what we're saying. If you want to have a logical discussion, that's fine, but vilifying us for placing some of the accountability on the perpetrators of the crime will not help your cause.

More senseless and stupid hyperbole. Do I need to post the definition of this term so you guys realize what you're doing? No... you guys are well aware of what you're doing, in my opinion, and it's one of the lowest forms of debate, indicating (to me at least) a number of things, including a lack of debate skills, a lack of a reasonable stance and a conviction on that stance, and desperation in trying to discredit one's opponent by use of inflammatory means. It's one of the things I despise about most politicians in this country, too...

There is a difference between following ones line of reasoning to its conclusion and hyperbole.

You cannot make claims regarding policy, morality, justice ,and law, without expecting them to be generalized from. To claim that applying ones reasoning to the broader context is evident of a poor debate is extreme naivety.

Not sure I agree with this, but I haven't (and don't intend to) listened to the 911 tape, because it is irrelevant to my point.

You haven't even listened to the tape but are making claims to the intent and disposition of the shooter? Maybe you should try listening to it before you make judgments about the intent and credibility of the shooter. Aside from what is said on the tape but not included in the transcripts you might be able to examine the tone of voice and credibility of the shooter. To make claims while refusing to listen to it is asinine.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

He didn't want them to get away scott-free is how I understand that... he did not say he was going out to kill them. He said he wasn't going to let them get away. People are making the assumption that he intended all along to kill these guys... if that were the case, why would he have called the police first? Why would he have stayed on the line with the dispatcher? Why would he have warned them to stand still? It would have been much better for him to simply go over to "investigate" suspicious activity he noticed, then "spontaneously" shot them and claimed they threatened him. MUCH MUCH easier... no... I think this guy was trying to get things done the proper way, and when he saw that the thieves were (apparently) going to get away, he decided that the last resort was for him to step in... I believe he showed remarkable restraint for some time, waiting and waiting, only intervening when he felt there was no reasonable option left that would still result in the perpetrators being captured.

However... once again, I am not defending him shooting them, as I don't know what happened in that yard.

Not sure I agree with this, but I haven't (and don't intend to) listened to the 911 tape, because it is irrelevant to my point.

Faulkton, did you even read what he said? That's pretty much exactly how it happened.

How the hell can you tell what the shooter was thinking? You can't. Nobody can. So don't say he doesn't know the intent of the shooter because neither do you. He could be calm because he used to be in the armed forces and had to deal with people dying all the time. He could be angry because he is going to be getting evicted. Don't think that burglars are the only thing that will define his emotions.

You need to listen if you are going to argue.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

No property is worth someones life.

The value of a person's life can be calculated. I have participated in such an actuarial activity.

If a person's life has the value of x. And property has a value of y. Is it not possible that y > x? It is possible. When someone is killed, sometimes there is a civil suit where the court attempts to place a value on a person's life.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Lets say i go to buy some weed from someone and instead of selling me weed they shoot me in the head.

Is that my fault?

Say the shooter tells the police that they had no intention of selling me drugs, but just wanted to capture me and turn me over to the police and i refused and attempted to flee.

Am i responsible for my own death? Should the person who shot me be released with no charges filed?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The value of a person's life can be calculated. I have participated in such an actuarial activity.
If a person's life has the value of x. And property has a value of y. Is it not possible that y > x? It is possible. When someone is killed, sometimes there is a civil suit where the court attempts to place a value on a person's life.

Property can be replaced, life cannot.

life > property

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

that comparison is weak. Burglary is not only a crime, but it is stealing. You can piss in public and that is a crime. but burglary is different. You are taking something.

you still assume you know the thoughts of the shooter were though, which you don't.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

Property can be replaced, life cannot.
life > property

clones.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Property can be replaced, life cannot.
life > property

Tell that to OJ.

that argument does not hold in our legal system

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

that comparison is weak. Burglary is not only a crime, but it is stealing. You can piss in public and that is a crime. but burglary is different. You are taking something.
you still assume you know the thoughts of the shooter were though, which you don't.

But can't we gain some knowledge based on the conversation and his subsequent actions?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

If i am doing one over the speed limit and a drunk driver crashes into me and kills me, am i responsible for my own death?

I was breaking the law and speeding is inherently dangerous.

So i must be responsible for my death.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

You contributed to your own death. Depending on the state, you could be held partially responsible.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

that comparison is weak. Burglary is not only a crime, but it is stealing. You can piss in public and that is a crime. but burglary is different. You are taking something.

So what? A crime is a crime and involves risk, so anyone committing a crime is taking their life into their own hands.

you still assume you know the thoughts of the shooter were though, which you don't.

You are making the same assumption.

 

[hoxie08 5,000+ posts]

Lets say i go to buy some weed from someone and instead of selling me weed they shoot me in the head.
Is that my fault?

Say the shooter tells the police that they had no intention of selling me drugs, but just wanted to capture me and turn me over to the police and i refused and attempted to flee.

Am i responsible for my own death? Should the person who shot me be released with no charges filed?

Correct. Drugs are bad, and that example would lead to one less hippie in this world. Less hippies = Better world. And after we eradicate the hippies it's time to exterminate the..... well, i'll keep that one to myself.