why that was nice

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

x2. i would much rather have a neighbor who would do that as do nothing and let the thiefs get away.

and why bring racism into it just because of what the guy looks like in a picture? that's just fucking gay and played the hell out.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

Thieves could have been white... their lives are still worth more than property.

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

Forgive the way I worded it - I was referring to what the shooter told the dispatcher. I am not sure if it was an amendment or bylaw or...
My loose wording of the 'right to bear arms' should also be taken FWIW..

Oh I see what you're saying now.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Who cares? Its jsut stuff!



I wouldn't care its just stuff. You are basically arguing for banishing the criminal justice system and allowing people to take matters into their own hands. For society that is a major step backward.

You really might living in Iran.

No shit, but it still doesn't justify what the guy did. I didn't say they were angels, I just made the point that perhaps we should weigh the loss... a few hundred dollars worth of consumer goods or a human life.

wow, it's people like you leading us down this road where criminals have more rights then victims. shot in the back or not, they were breaking the law, are you forgetting that? they were punished and in a way that will make future thiefs think twice about going to that neighborhood. you don't like the wya it was dealt with? fine, it's a free country for the moment. keep thinking the way your thinking and it won't stay free.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

sniping*

Agreed.

Thanks. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Here is the 2nd amendment this chump tried to use to justify capping people for fun...

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

Thieves could have been white... their lives are still worth more than property.

It seems however that some states (counties?) disagree with this statement.

This thread reminds me of the student who was killed by a homeowner because he was encroaching on his property. The homeowner warned him to stay back a number of times before opening fire. It was found later that the victim (or 'bad guy' I guess you can say) was Asian and did not understand English...

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Thieves could have been white... their lives are still worth more than property.

no, their not. it wasn't their property or stuff. they were breaking the law. they were violating someone else's rights and hard work. color means dick in this. and i only brought that up due to faulkton's first post. he brought color into a situation that didn't need it brought up. remember, it was the dispatcher who asked what color the thieves were. joe didn't volunteer it.

and the 2nd amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. and that's just what joe did, in the defense of his neighbor's property and his own safety. he lets them go without doing anything, who's to say the thieves wouldn't be robbing his house next??

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

Thanks. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
Here is the 2nd amendment this chump tried to use to justify capping people for fun...

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is this the "amended" amendment the guy was talking about?

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Its these types of laws that really begin to convolute everything. For example, where I live it is against the law to shoot someone. I know that - meaning I do not have to take the time to ***** it, nor do I require a police officer to tell me.
If the contents of the amendment does in fact state what the shooter interpreted, then I repeat what I posted earlier - that there should be more instances of this going on.

but certain states here allow for one to defend themselves in a manner in which the other person might be killed. and in the case, joe did state they came into his yard after he told them not to move.

the thieves made a decision to move after being approached by a man with a gun. why? didn't think he'd shoot. i guess they should have taken more time to assess the situation. :shrug:

long story short, this can go back and forth forever, with both sides presenting valid points on their behalfs. and it boils down to one's interptation of the law and their responisibilities in it and to society. i, for one, back what joe did. it's about time criminals get treated the way they treat victims.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

So are you suggesting they were stealing food and shouldn't be blamed?
They weighed the value of their lives versus an illegal act... they took their lives into their own hands the first time by entering the dwelling.

Then, when confronted with IMMEDIATE and CERTAIN retribution in the form of a gun-wielding man commanding them to halt, they did it again... and they lost.

So... like I said... I don't feel sorry for them at all. They took the risks, they knew the risks, they saw the immediate and certain life-threatening danger, and still chose to run.

Sorry. They lost.

very well said.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

but certain states here allow for one to defend themselves in a manner in which the other person might be killed. and in the case, joe did state they came into his yard after he told them not to move.
the thieves made a decision to move after being approached by a man with a gun. why? didn't think he'd shoot. i guess they should have taken more time to assess the situation. :shrug:

Yup, I agree. It was a big risk the thieves took by committing such an act in the first place, and they accepted it.

Accept the risk = accept the consequences/take accountability for your actions

long story short, this can go back and forth forever, with both sides presenting valid points on their behalfs. and it boils down to one's interptation of the law and their responisibilities in it and to society. i, for one, back what joe did. it's about time criminals get treated the way they treat victims.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

This sort of crime may happen less if retaliatory actions like this take place more often.

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

no, their not. it wasn't their property or stuff. they were breaking the law. they were violating someone else's rights and hard work. color means dick in this. and i only brought that up due to faulkton's first post. he brought color into a situation that didn't need it brought up. remember, it was the dispatcher who asked what color the thieves were. joe didn't volunteer it.

and the 2nd amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. and that's just what joe did, in the defense of his neighbor's property and his own safety. he lets them go without doing anything, who's to say the thieves wouldn't be robbing his house next??

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

Explain how his safety was jeopardized. I believe it was jeopardized by him leaving the house. He did the right think in calling the police... but exchanging life for goods does not equate. If it does equate for you, then I'm sure you would love slavery to come back. Cause that's really what it was. It was just equating a group of people to property.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Accept the risk = accept the consequences/take accountability for your actions.

take accountibility for your actions. those words speak volumes and is so lost on the majority of todays youth. not all, but the majority.

and it seems that the criminals in todays society don't have to have any accountability, but the victims do. and god forbid a victim defends himself and a criminal gets hurt, because noe the victim is accountable for the criminals pain and suffering.

and yep. if this happened a bit more often, maybe crime wouldn't be so profitable. definitely be a whole lot riskier.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

take accountibility for your actions. those words speak volumes and is so lost on the majority of todays youth. not all, but the majority.
and it seems that the criminals in todays society don't have to have any accountability, but the victims do. and god forbid a victim defends himself and a criminal gets hurt, because noe the victim is accountable for the criminals pain and suffering.

and yep. if this happened a bit more often, maybe crime wouldn't be so profitable. definitely be a whole lot riskier.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

Wow... you guys really do want Sharia law... How does accountability equate to death? Accountability would be imprisonment. Why do we even need police if citizens are going to go out of their way to take the law into their own hands.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

and yep. if this happened a bit more often, maybe crime wouldn't be so profitable. definitely be a whole lot riskier.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

If I was a thief, I for one would not be looking at trying to steal from an area of trigger-happy people //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

take accountibility for your actions. those words speak volumes and is so lost on the majority of todays youth. not all, but the majority.
and it seems that the criminals in todays society don't have to have any accountability, but the victims do. and god forbid a victim defends himself and a criminal gets hurt, because noe the victim is accountable for the criminals pain and suffering.

and yep. if this happened a bit more often, maybe crime wouldn't be so profitable. definitely be a whole lot riskier.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

If this happened more often... Then I guarantee crime will still happen, and the people committing the crime will just become more violent as well. It just creates a more violent state, and more open doors for murder.