Page 8 of 17
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:27 pm
by Liberty
40FIVER wrote:
Finally, this may be a totally different topic, but when did the value of human life become the all important thing? The value of the soul is all important, but the Bible is full of examples where God commanded that human life be taken, and for a lot less than murder. We've all been preconditioned to believe that the human life is all important. And the ones who trumpet this belief the loudest are the same ones who believe in the killing of the unborn child. The One to whom we will all give account to doesn't operate in the gray world we humans operate in.
I don't know that I would have pulled the trigger if I had been the old man. But I believe he had the moral right to do what he did.
Everyone has their own line in the sand to draw, and we should be given a wide lattitude on where we want to personally draw that particular line. I hope that I never need to demonstrate where I have decided that line is to be drawn, I do know that my Lord is a part of that decision process. I couldn't imagine trying to figure out where to draw that line without his help. Perhaps the same can be said about unborn children, but dragging them into this discussion is one of the surest ways of getting this thread locked.
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:29 pm
by 40FIVER
+1 Frankie
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:34 pm
by 40FIVER
My intent wasn't to get the thread locked, but to show the 2 faced attitude of the type of person I was expressing my opinion about.
Back on topic - the shooter will have to live with what he did and so will anyone who ever kills another person. Those who believe in God and that He is supremely interested in us puny humans will have the ultimate help in dealing with that. Knowing that you are morally right to take a life will also help.
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:47 am
by KBCraig
Not in response to any new item or any post, but...
Thieves steal. When they steal, they steal the portion of your life that you labored to pay for the goods they stole. "But that's why we have insurance!" you say? Well, then... who pays for that insurance? The thief? No, the thieves also steal from you the price you pay for insurance, especially if your rates go up when you report a claim.
Property is worth the thief's life.
It's not, however, worth my life, which is what our current legal system would demand when you add up the criminal and civil costs.
Pragmatism is evil. But sometimes, it's just plain pragmatic.
Kevin
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:08 am
by PCS74
KBCraig wrote:Not in response to any new item or any post, but...
Thieves steal. When they steal, they steal the portion of your life that you labored to pay for the goods they stole. "But that's why we have insurance!" you say? Well, then... who pays for that insurance? The thief? No, the thieves also steal from you the price you pay for insurance, especially if your rates go up when you report a claim.
Very good point. Never thought about it like that before.
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:22 am
by Lucky45
Are they any members here that are involved in a neighborhood watch program?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:14 pm
by Doug.38PR
KBCraig wrote:Doug.38PR wrote:Doug.38PR wrote:
Quote:
No, deadly force in response to a theft is retricted to the nighttime. DF to stop a BURGLARY is not so restricted.
Exactly. So Doesn't that alone give the DA legal grounds to go after him?
txinvestigator wrote:
Uhh, I am pretty sure he was stopping a burglary, no?
Well....
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
Doug, you're parsing that wrong. Here's how 2.A and 2.B read:
A)...commission of:
- arson;
- burglary; or,
- criminal mischief
during the nighttime; or
B)...prevent...immediately after committing:
- burglary;
- robbery;
- aggravated robbery; or,
- theft
during the nighttime ;
from escaping with the property
"During the nighttime" only applies to theft and criminal mischief, not to arson, burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Ahhhhhh! I always understood "during the nighttime" was one factor that applied to all when using deadly force to protect property. That's why it closes both A and B
I was ALWAYS told, even by my CHL holder, and everybody on the net, that if I shoot somebody for trying to steal my car, I would be going to jail.
Well, in that case, the old fellow does have a legal leg to stand on
Just out of curiosity, how is robbery different from theft legally?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:28 pm
by seamusTX
Doug.38PR wrote:I was ALWAYS told, even by my CHL holder, and everybody on the net, that if I shoot somebody for trying to steal my car, I would be going to jail.
Just out of curiosity, how is robbery different from theft legally?
Robbery is theft by the use or threat of force.
You didn't ask, but burglary is entering a building with the intent to commit a felony.
The law doesn't justify the use of deadly force to prevent theft or criminal mischief during the day time, but we have seen cases where grand juries returned a no bill on such actions.
- Jim
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:46 pm
by lawrnk
Anyone know if the grand jury has heard the case yet?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:18 pm
by RetiredE9
"During the night time" is a phrase that goes back to our common law roots. People predisposed to commit crimes at night were considered to be all the more henious for it. Night time is when honest folk slept and taking advantage of them added to the offense.
Personally, I think it is still a time when most folks are more vulnerable and I'm glad the "during the night time" provision is an element to justify greater use of force and greater potential for punishment in courts.
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:23 pm
by txinvestigator
seamusTX wrote:
You didn't ask, but burglary is without the effective consent of the owner, entering a building not then open to the public with the intent to commit a felony, theft or an assault
- Jim
Fixed it for ya. ;)
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:15 am
by stevie_d_64
The local news this morning had a short bit that focused on our buddy Quannel X getting his weekly dose of attention...
Him and his ilk stood in front of Mr. Horns house and had a press conference basically wondering where the investigation and proceedings were going???
They know exactly what is going on, and they obviously want to flame this up as much as they can...
Pathetic!
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:30 am
by elwood blooz
stevie_d_64 wrote:The local news this morning had a short bit that focused on our buddy Quannel X getting his weekly dose of attention...
Him and his ilk stood in front of Mr. Horns house and had a press conference basically wondering where the investigation and proceedings were going???
They know exactly what is going on, and they obviously want to flame this up as much as they can...
Pathetic!
Calling Pasadena Tomestone. Again, pathetic.
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:44 am
by Doug.38PR
What's Quannell X doing nosing around there? I thought the goons that were killed were Hispanic (one was Puerto Rican or Cuban I think). Or is he now demanding "equal opportunity" for all gutter trash, regardless of race? Well, regardless, he's in good company as he is nothing more than a lowlife himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quannell_X
I remember seeing him shove down an old man on the news years ago with two armed goons with AR-15s standing at his sides
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:05 am
by rspeir
Quannell X is just another race baiter, just like Jackson and Sharpton. He couldn't care less about the two dead thieves. The two chose a hazardous occupation and paid the price for it.