24
   

Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:21 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
How can you fill an entire jury with morons like David and MM

Pick 12 people at random in Texas.
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:27 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

If it was up to me, all 4 of those boys would have been shot for burglary and theft.

Un-F-believable.

Advocating the death sentence for stealing Twinkies? Shocked
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:44 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
Advocating the death sentence for stealing Twinkies? Shocked

The Twinkie is taken very seriously down in Texas. He's a cowboy, you know:

http://www.reginacoeli.org/magistra/objects/twinkmen_p2b.jpg
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
How can you fill an entire jury with morons like David and MM


Quote:

Pick 12 people at random in Texas.

I really feel at home here in NY,
otherwise, I 'd really be tempted to move there or to Vermont.
Alaska is good too.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:52 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
nimh wrote:
Advocating the death sentence for stealing Twinkies? Shocked

The Twinkie is taken very seriously down in Texas. He's a cowboy, you know:


Well, I hope at least he has a BOOT GUN.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:55 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
mysteryman wrote:

If it was up to me, all 4 of those boys would have been shot for burglary and theft.


Quote:

Un-F-believable.

Advocating the death sentence for stealing Twinkies?

Is there a PROBLEM that I don 't know about
with people just NOT stealing ??
Is that too much to ask ?





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 12:56 am
@Mame,
Quote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I still wonder whether Mame is advocating defense of home WITHOUT WEAPONS.


Quote:

Yes, I am.
If that idiot hadn't had a gun, that kid wouldn't have been shot.

MAME,
I don 't want to change your mind about anything,
but ( with the fullness of respect ) I hope that u will help me to understand your thinking:
If u see a criminal break down your door and crash into your home,
HOW can u defend your home WITHOUT weapons ?
I mean, u r standing there naked,
looking at him, while he is looking at u . . . . WHAT DO U DO NEXT ?

HOW do u defend your home ?

Do u ask to borrow his cell fone to call the police ?
Truly, Mame,
if I were gunless, I do not know how I 'd approach this problem.
Will u enlighten us ? Please ?

I 'd really like to hear this.







Quote:

Of course, one could argue that he could have had the gun and not shot him,
just told them to get off his property,

That 's what I 'd have done.



Quote:

which would have been the rational thing to do.
Seems many gun-toters are not rational, though.

A friend of mine is a famous psychiatrist; best selling author.
He told me:
"David, anyone who you think is NOT crazy,
is just someone who you don 't know well enough."




Quote:

Some even advocate arming children, if you can believe that.

Well, since I used to be an armed child, until I got too old for that, I can believe it.

The rationale with that is the same
as dressing him in warm, heavy clothing ( no offense )
to protect him from injurious elements in the environment,
be thay rain n cold wind, wolves, perverts, or robbers.

The idea is to give him what he needs, to be SAFE (including safety education)
because u love him and u don 't want him to perish from violent depredation.


I will concede this much:
It 'd be terrible judgment
to put a revolver into the hands of a chimpanzee.
Likewise, if u deem a person (of any age) to be so badly off mentally, (think: frenzied psychotic)
as to fall below minimal criteria of competent self-defense, then u shoud not lend him a gun,
even if it costs his life (as if he 's being devoured by wolves).




David
Mame
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 03:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I would scream, call the police, hit him with a lamp, run out the back door, whatever, but that's it. If you say I'd have no time to call the police, I'd also have no time to get my gun, so what good would that do? Unless, of course, you think I should be carrying it, loaded, on my person 24/7?

But... I am Canadian and therefore think like one. We do not generally run around with weapons or even think about it. At my last home, I never locked my car and often didn't lock my front door if I was just running out for a short time. While that may be advisable, I wasn't in a high crime or high population area and it just goes along with the rest of my thinking.

In other words, I wouldn't defend my home. I'd go get help while he ransacked and burgarlized it. But I'd be happier than if I shot him while defending it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 05:15 pm
@Mame,
Quote:

I would scream, call the police, hit him with a lamp, run out the back door,
whatever, but that's it. If you say I'd have no time to call the police,
I'd also have no time to get my gun, so what good would that do?

Unless, of course, you think I should be carrying it, loaded, on my person 24/7?

I will confess that I don 't do that at home, but I DO recommend that,
in that historically, it has been found to be necessary in predatory emergencies.
Do u have a gun in your home for defensive purposes ?



Quote:

But... I am Canadian and therefore think like one.
We do not generally run around with weapons or even think about it.
At my last home, I never locked my car and often didn't lock my front door
if I was just running out for a short time. While that may be advisable,
I wasn't in a high crime or high population area
and it just goes along with the rest of my thinking.

I also have left my front door and my car unlocked, on a very short term basis,
because we have very little crime in my neighborhood.



Quote:

In other words, I wouldn't defend my home.

I suspected that.
I was simply perplexed by the idea of defending it without weapons.
I don 't know how that coud POSSIBLY be done, unless someone like
Bruce Lee were a Martial Arts expert and in a good state of health.



Quote:

I'd go get help while he ransacked and burgarlized it.

If he were looking at u (in my example) u think he 'd tolerate that ?



Quote:

But I'd be happier than if I shot him while defending it.

U raise a very powerful point,
important to your future emotional well being.

In this Texas case, for example, it remains to be seen how well
this will sit with Mr. G 's subconscious mind, whether he will come
to feel bad about it. Historically, sometimes that happens.
(I remember feeling guiltstricken [in retrospect] about 40 years ago,
after I rejected the supplication of a beggar, who had a good con,
but at least, I didn't kill him.)
I remember cases of police in NYC who have killed in conspicuously
righteous self-defense, who sought psychological help from police
psychologists, took leave time off for mental rehabilitation and
who committed suicide. My memory on this point is a bit vague,
but I seem to remember this happening a few times.

Most of the time, this does not happen,
but different people react differently.


I don 't mean to suggest that Mr. Gonzalez SHOUD feel bad
about this homicide; he has asserted that it was necessary for his self-defense.
Maybe it was.

I only mean to point out
that different people have had different emotional reactions to homicide.

I wish joy and beauty upon him




David

Mame
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 06:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I found this really funny - maybe it's just the kind of day I'm having where odd, quirky things are making me laugh:

You said:

(I remember feeling guiltstricken [in retrospect] about 40 years ago,
after I rejected the supplication of a beggar, who had a good con,
but at least, I didn't kill him.)

For some reason, that just struck me as funny.

Well, I'm heartened to know you don't run around with a gun on you at all times, especially in your own home; that'd be ridiculous. And that begs the question of what you do when you're going to have a shower... and so on.

And no, I don't own a gun - never even seen one (in real life). I'd rather run away than try to defend my possessions Smile



gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 06:49 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
And no, I don't own a gun - never even seen one (in real life). I'd rather run away than try to defend my possessions...


Guns are for the times when there's no place to run (or hide)....
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 06:51 pm
@gungasnake,
This guy went and got his gun, went back and started terrorizing out of revenge...

(not the same thing)
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 07:01 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:

This guy went and got his gun, went back and started terrorizing out of revenge...


And all four of the teen burglars were crippled and on crutches and what not so they couldn't run while the guy was off retrieving the gun??
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 07:04 pm
@gungasnake,
I think they were eating because they were hungry...

The right to kill needs to come with some real value judgements.

Tejas lacks that for the most part.

(they just seem to like the killin' part...)
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:06 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
Re: OmSigDAVID (Post 3418177)
I found this really funny - maybe it's just the kind of day I'm having where odd,
quirky things are making me laugh:

You said:

(I remember feeling guiltstricken [in retrospect] about 40 years ago,
after I rejected the supplication of a beggar, who had a good con,
but at least, I didn't kill him.)
For some reason, that just struck me as funny.

Thank u.
There were 2 con men, around Times Square (8th Ave & 44th St)
around 1 AM, posing as a guy n his girl, out on a date,
with a storyline that he 'd prematurely exhausted his financial resources
and was appealing for the mercy of assistance in getting her home.
I was dismissive; brushed him off, whereupon the girl audibly laid a guilt
trip on him.

On my way home, I slowly became so remorseful qua my cold lack of sympathy that
(like a fool) I returned to the scene to help them out. Of course, thay were not there.
Several years thereafter, within a radius of less than half a mile from there,
in the daytime, I was re-visited by the same scam.
I suspect that it was by the same team, but my memory is uncertain qua identification.
I gave them a few $$, more than was requested
(and for the second consecutive time, I did not kill him, again).



Quote:

Well, I'm heartened to know you don't run around

too old, fat n lazy to do much running



Quote:

with a gun on you at all times, especially in your own home; that'd be ridiculous.

Well, its like I have a fire extinguisher too,
but I don 't always carry it around, at home.

However, I am aware of instances wherein people got killed
for having their defensive guns out of reach at home; unexpected fatal attacks.




Quote:
And that begs the question of what you do
when you're going to have a shower... and so on.

Yes; that 's not where I clean my guns (rust, u know)



Quote:

And no, I don't own a gun -

Difficult for u to carry concealed ?
A gunbelt might chafe u.

Do u support the right to bare arms ?





Quote:

never even seen one (in real life).

I remember my earliest years -- lying in bed around age 3 and up,
remembering my having beheld (locked my eyes on) a revolver on the gunbelt
of a NYC policeman, or a bank guard. I imagined my misappropriating
not just his gun, but the entire rig. I slowly rolled the image around: mind candy.
However, I remained gunless (had to be satisfied with defensive knives)
until age 8, when I won a .38 revolver. We were inseparable, until I reconsidered
my wisdom and upgraded to a .44 some years later, for better stopping power.





David

OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
buy a pitbull, best crime deterrent ever.

Except police hate them, but thats about it.

Very Happy


if that doesnt work a 12 gauge is pretty good too. second best crime deterrent ever.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:48 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
I think they were eating because they were hungry...

If so, then Y did thay not just go home and eat ?
Will u favor us with the juvenile mortality rate from starvation in Texas ?


Quote:
The right to kill needs to come with some real value judgements.

Tejas lacks that for the most part.

Perhaps u will demonstrate that YOUR value judgments
r better than those of the citizens of Texas ?

I will admit that I 'd have treated the boys a lot more gently.
I 'd not have been harsh on them, and I 'd have let them go.
I woud not begrudge them Twinkies.

I am not so naive as to believe that thay sought to plunder for FOOD
(nor do I invest much credence in the Easter Bunny)
with no interest in cash or miscellaneous electronics to fence.
In 2008, I doubt that even in INDIA, burglars woud pillage for FOOD, let alone here.

HOWEVER, regardless of my own differences of choice
qua the best ways to have handled this situation,
I resolutely support the natural right of any citizen
to kill a robber or a burglar.
If I ever serve on a jury
with those facts in evidence before me, I will actively
procure a vote of acquital.






David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 11:08 pm
Let me put it another way:
I believe that it is good to be KIND,
as a matter of voluntary charity,
but everyone is morally justified in defending his property
and the rights of the criminal predator are in a state of suspension
during his participation in his predatory act, or in flight therefrom.

That includes the criminal predator 's moral right to life.
The laws of the polity shoud reflect that.





David
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:40 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
In other words, I wouldn't defend my home. I'd go get help while he ransacked and burgarlized it. But I'd be happier than if I shot him while defending it.


Would you also not defend yourself or you children?
Are you willing to allow a criminal to do whatever they choose to you or your kids, or would you use deadly force to protect them?

As for the rest of you, I knew my remarks would get all of your collective panties in a knot, thats why I said what I did.

That was fun to watch, BTW.
Now I will finish my remarks, now that all of you are crying, pissing, and stomping on your hankies and blaming the homeowner for the criminal acts of those kids.

Like I said earlier, a criminal CHOOSES to live outside the law, so they get no protection under the law.
If a homeowner shoots a criminal burgling their home, thats the burglars fault, not the homeowners.
Having said that, I am not saying to give the homeowner a free pass.
Let the law investigate, using EVERY possible means to arrive at the truth.
That includes polygraph, "truth serum", hypnosis, and any other means at their disposal.
IF the police conclude that the shooting was justified (the criminals were in the house, they were threatening him or his family, etc.) then the case is closed, with no further action needed.

If the cops decide that there IS cause for arrest, then let the homeowner go to trial and face a jury.
If the homeowner is aquitted, the case is closed.
That means that the homeowner cannot be sued by the burglars family, nor can he face any more criminal prosecution.

If the homeowner is convicted,then they go to prison.

But that doesnt mean that the burglars get off without punishment either, if the homeowner didnt kill them.
They would also face a jury and would go to prison if convicted.
And yes, the homeowner would be allowed to testify at their trial.

I have said it before and will say it again...the best way to eliminate crime is to eliminate criminals.

BTW, I am willing to bet the other kids involved in burglarizing the mans home will never do it again.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 05:45 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Having said that, I am not saying to give the homeowner a free pass.
Let the law investigate, using EVERY possible means to arrive at the truth.
That includes polygraph, "truth serum", hypnosis, and any other means at their disposal.
IF the police conclude that the shooting was justified (the criminals were in the house, they were threatening him or his family, etc.) then the case is closed, with no further action needed.

If the cops decide that there IS cause for arrest, then let the homeowner go to trial and face a jury.
If the homeowner is aquitted, the case is closed.
That means that the homeowner cannot be sued by the burglars family, nor can he face any more criminal prosecution.

If the homeowner is convicted,then they go to prison.


It is not the job of the police to determine guilt. It is the job of the courts. That is exactly what was happening so what was your qualm with the trial in the first place?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 12:08:43