Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tRidiot" data-source="post: 3547665" data-attributes="member: 569830">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.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...I never said they should have been killed for stealing or that simple larceny should be a capital offense. People being afraid of going into places like the ghetto is not from fear of people enforcing the law by themselves, but because of crime... because of a lack of people willing to step up and see that the law is upheld. It's a significant difference. I have lived in places where the common people will pull a child molester out and beat him within an inch of his life, where thieves caught red-handed have "street justice" meted out, and where people are not afraid to stand up for what is right... it's actually nice to know that the common man walking the street will have your back if you're a victim.I don't support them being killed, although it is most certainly a risk any non-mentally-ill American should be able to assess when deciding if they are going to rob someone or not.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.</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list