Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

Here's that hypocrisy again of which I've spoken so may times. The sad old meme about personal responsibility. And after the last eight years of supporting a group that has absolutely no sense of personal responsibility.

He wasn't defending himself. The kid was on his knees and apparently his back was to him. How did he lunge at him, him with the big gun, who'd been kicking and smashing a youngster?

What is wrong with you that you think deadly force is necessary a) on a child, and b) over a twinkie????????

Yes, the kids were wrong. But calling the police would have been the best option. You have some wires loose in your circuitry, MM. That shooting was waaaaay over the top and has no justification in any civilized society.

Texas must have a lot of sick, sick people in it, and those jurors are some of them.

You might not oughta visit there, ma'am.

(everthing is just bigger...)

MM I don't ever expect you to get it. I have been reading your posts all the way back to Abuzz, and I can't remember a sensible one of them all.

Well, I don't plan on breaking into any trailers, for sure.

How'm I supposed to visit Shewolf if I don't go to TX? Huh? Tell me that, then.

She gets about some, keeps threatening to come find me. But iff'n ya do, please let me have a private take on your thoughts of them thar varmints?

By varmints, you'll be meaning the Wolf family? You betcha. But maybe it'll work out where I'll visit you when she does, and then I can protect you. 'Course, I won't be totin' no gun.

No guns is best, as Strangers don't get the same rights as Resdents down here...

That doesn't mean it's morally justified to summarily execute someone.



Despite your lack of sympathy for the boy, surely you can see a difference between protecting your property and a summary execution.

What if the cops had handcuffed them and shot them in the car. Would that be acceptable as well? Despite your absolutism you must have a line somewhere.

If the man had raped the children would that be an acceptable consequence for you? After all, if they hadn't broken in they wouldn't have been raped.



Who cares whether they "deserved" it. That is not for any citizen to decide on their own. It it the citizen's right to use lethal force to defend themselves or their property but it's not their right to conduct arbitrary executions.



I don't believe you are that stupid, you must be overstating your opinion.

Nobody has the right to execute them arbitrarily. Nobody has a right to arbitrarily impose punishment at all. They can defend themselves but if this was not a case of defense, and was a case of arbitrary vigilantism there's no moral justification for it.

I once hopped my neighbor's fence to fetch a wiffle ball (yay, home run for Robert!). While retrieving it I plucked an apricot from his tree (theft). He banged his kitchen window and I ran off. He later came by and gave me a bowl full of them, but according to you he could have executed me without trial and been within his moral rights.

Are you really idiotic enough to advocate this nonsense? Do you really have such little respect for civilization and rule of law? It's not legal to arbitrarily execute someone. It is not even legal to try to punish them yourself. Do you not see the value in having rules in society that govern crime and punishment? Do you not see the value of judges and juries and a system that is more rational than one man's hot head in the heat of the moment?

Let's say the neighbor had come out with a shotgun and I got on my knees as he ordered. Let's say he didn't feel like letting the cops and the legal system handle it and decided to just execute me for my crimes. Do you really consider that to be morally acceptable?

David I don't believe you are this stupid either. He's not being charged for defending his property, he's being charged for an illegal execution. This case may or may not constitute such a crime but surely you see the value of having such a crime (the crime of an illegal execution, not self-defense).



Do you really see no limit to what constitutes defense? What if he'd decided to torture them? What if he'd decided to punish them by cutting off their hands.?

Would you find that acceptable or do you have a line at which it's no longer self-defense and is taking the law into your own hands and being the judge, jury and executioner?

The man is not being charged for defending his property, but for carrying out a summary execution after his property and personal safety had already been secured.

Surely you can discern the theoretical difference. Surely you have a line somewhere.



If you don't know whether or not it was legitimate self defense, why do you hope they acquit?

Do you not want to have a line between self defense and illegal execution? Do you not believe in due process of law?

It's hard to believe you were an attorney at all if you still don't understand the value of due process. Do you have a problem with the part of the constitution that says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?

Surely, even in Texas, as well as the stuff Robert has said, there must be some concept of REASONABLE force to use in self-defence?


Hmmm..I seem to recall a similar thread somewhere where a man killed another man who had entered his property, and who he THOUGHT might intend to try to enter his home, and this was ok under Texas law...so perhaps not.

I can see no ethical right to use more force in defending oneself than is reasonable...this would preclude killing kids with no deadly weapons.

I wish to clarify one point:

I am almost never a sadist;
i.e., a person who takes pleasure
from the misery of another person, including any animals.

The only exceptions to that being in 1953, when we fried the Rosenbergs
( I was THRILLED with that )
and when Gus Hall was interviewed soon after the collapse n death of communism.

I need not burden myself down under the heavy wate of ill will
toward those burglar boys. If I had been in Mr. Gonzalez's position,
I woud not even have been impolite to them
( well, perhaps in the shock of surprize of discovering them
at the beginning, I might have been momentarily rude ).

More than anything,
I 'd have been very alert to any attack from them.
I deem it extremely IMPLAUSIBLE
that thay really broke in to find CANDY; (any bridges for sale ?)
I 'd have been careful to remain out of arm 's reach
to avoid being overwhelmed and disarmed by 4 healthy criminals.

I 'd have let them go. If there really WERE any candy
around that thay wanted, I 'd have let them have it,
as I held them at gunpoint.



As a matter of PRINCIPLE, I wish to live in an armed society,
wherein no citizen will be in danger of civil nor criminal litigation
for defending his property or himself. Accordingly, I 'd acquit him.

Personally, I do not approve of him beating the boys or shooting any of them,
if that were unnecessary.

Contrary to Ed 's allegation,
I do not take pleasure in the burglar boys' misery.

So...you actually defend capital punishment of minors with no recourse to any legal process?

No ******* way. How can you fill an entire jury with morons like David and MM (assuming either or both are really demented enough to believe what they post.) That is one hell of a precedent.

There ya go, so you do accept the 5th amendment. Do you also accept that the government should prosecute potential cases where this law is broken?

You seemed to have a knee jerk reaction against the government prosecuting at all, but how else would such a determination (whether it was self defense or murder) be made?



Why would you acquit him? You already stated that you have no idea if he was acting in self defense or if he carried out an illegal execution so what would you base that legal opinion on?

This is contemplated within the realm of DEFENSE, not punishment.





David

YES way !




Everyone please take notice
how I magnanimously restrain myself from retributively
ass essing Bill 's I.Q.

I forgive u, Bill.





David

Earth to Dave,

Dave, can you hear us...


Dave...

To which clause thereof do u have reference ?


Only to the point of a simple inquest to ascertain the operative facts,
in this case that the boys were in a state of violent felony (burglary),
at the time and place of the loss of life. Permit me to explain:
Suppose that 65 year old John Q. Public is on his way home from his retirement party,
looking at his gold watch, as he strides thru some trees,
when he falls victim to a mugging. He is pushed to the ground
and he is struggling to defend his life and other property.
He picks up a rock and desperately bashes one of the malefactors
in the face with it, thereby knocking out an eye. The other muggers flee.
Someone calls police, who arrest mugger and mugee for knocking
out mugger 's eye. Mugger sues mugee for use of excessive force.
D.A. prosecutes mugee, calling him a vigilante, saying that he shoud
have been satisfied to call police.

Even if Mr. Public WINS both the civil and criminal cases,
his own lawyers' fees may well be so high as to wipe out Mr. Public 's life savings,
possibly including forfeiture of his home, so that he is reduced
to his condition before he got his first job after high school.
That 's not a joke.
This potential is a very serious matter.


By an inquest into the operative facts,
in this case: whether the boys were in a state of felony
at the time n place of the loss of life.
If this were found to have been the case,
then the case woud not proceed to the grand jury,
the idea being to keep defendant 's (Mr. Gonzalez 's) lawyer fees low.

My knee jerk reaction is THIS:
if a citizen falls victim to violent, predatory felony, from which
he must defend his life n other property, GOVERNMENT shoud NOT
make that WORSE, more stressful, more financially painful, than it already has been.
The government that we have created, that we nurture
thru our taxes, shoud not torment the hand that feeds it (Mr. Gonzalez).
Government shoud not throw salt in the wound
after the criminal has caused the original injury.
We citizens need to insist upon a very strong public policy
that government (police and D.A.) must be very sympathetic
TO THE VICTIM, not to the predator.
There shoud be very severe penalities (loss of pensions, fines and incarceration)
for police and for D.A.s who fail to impliment that policy.

This is literally a matter of life n death:
if a citizen falls prey to a violent felon,
hesitation in his defense may = suicide.
" He who hesitates is lost." Every citizen, of any age, shoud know
that he is not threatened by his own government
if he rises quickly and aggressively to his own defense
(or to defense of his mother or his children) in the face of criminal violence.
We need to live in a society wherein no citizen will be retarded
in his personal defense from criminal violence, by FEAR of his own government.



Because the trial evidence showed that the decedent
was in a state of violent felony at time of the JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

I have never had a burglary.
If it ever happens, I intend to let the burglar go
( except that if he charges at me, then I will shoot to kill, as fast as possible ).
Having said that, as to MYSELF, my own personal choice,
if I ever sit on a jury wherein evidence shows that a decedent
was committing a violent crime when defendant killed him,
that will be enuf for me to acquit.
I deeply believe that once a criminal begins a robbery, or a burglary
or any violent crime, it is morally very proper for the victim
to kill the predator, and I will support the victim accordingly.



That is error.
I did not say that, nor did I think it.

Changing the subject, for a moment:
a few weeks ago, I fleetingly complained to u
about loss of censorship of obscenity on this new forum.
I 've had second thoughts about that.

On reconsideration, when Bill chooses to say:
" No ******* way " I think my sensibilities
can live with that; in a spirit of libertarianism, I withdraw
my earlier complaint, and instead, I substitute my suggestion
that u allow free use of language on this forum, as u r doing now.
I wish people woud restrain themselves from excrementitious references,
but I am not King of the World n people do not have to follow my preferences.

The extant state of affairs is nowhere NEAR as bad
as it was on Abuzz, as to abusive obscene speech.
I don 't believe that those abusers are on this forum at all.

I also wish to thank u
for your obvious efforts to find n bring good and interesting topics here for our discussion.





David