24
   

Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

 
 
MrDamage
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 01:35 pm
@Ceili,
Right, he was doing fine and their offense was trivial because he had "snacks" in his home. Someone in this discussion is a bigot, certainly.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 01:38 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
He could afford a gun and some bullets...
He wasn't starving if he could afford twinkies and potato chips. Doesn't sound like he was on the edge of any abyss.
He wasn't on the streets. Some people prefer to live in a trailer. I know people who live in beautiful trailers. I'm going to assume you're a bigot.
Assuming that everything u said is true,
the victim was within his moral rights to defend his property
and he has reduced the chances of u or us becoming victims to these burglars.
A rich man has as much right to defend his property as a poor man.

With luck, others will be deflected from a life of crime, taking this as an example.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 01:45 pm
@MrDamage,
MrDamage wrote:
Right, he was doing fine and their offense was trivial because he had "snacks" in his home.
Someone in this discussion is a bigot, certainly.
I refuse to kiss the foot of the King of England (or the Queen, either).
That makes me a "bi Gott" and I 'm in this discussion.





David
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 01:50 pm
@MrDamage,
MrDamage wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Quote:
"In a situation where juveniles break into someone's home and the homeowner shoots one of those juveniles in the back (after the youths allegedly plead for their lives), why would it be relevant whether some or all of them had any prior offenses or brushes with the law"


It affects how seriously we should view the boys protestations of purity and innocence.

Mame and I were discussing the justification of the homeowner, not the credibility of the witnesses. If you're going to jump into the middle of two-year old discussion, you have no excuse for not keeping up.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 01:53 pm
@MrDamage,
You are a bigot. You assumed he was poor for living in a trailer.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 02:06 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
You are a bigot. You assumed he was poor for living in a trailer.
Being a bi Gott relates to having strong views against foot kissing, not to being poor.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 05:46 pm
@MrDamage,
MrDamage wrote:

Right, he was doing fine and their offense was trivial because he had "snacks" in his home. Someone in this discussion is a bigot, certainly.
And that someone is a presumptive idiot as well. I have an aunt and uncle who choose to spend their 7 figure retirement in a trailer by the sea, when they're not traveling. Living right on the edge of the abyss... Drunk
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 05:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Ceili wrote:
He could afford a gun and some bullets...
He wasn't starving if he could afford twinkies and potato chips. Doesn't sound like he was on the edge of any abyss.
He wasn't on the streets. Some people prefer to live in a trailer. I know people who live in beautiful trailers. I'm going to assume you're a bigot.
Assuming that everything u said is true,
the victim was within his moral rights to defend his property
and he has reduced the chances of u or us becoming victims to these burglars.
A rich man has as much right to defend his property as a poor man.

With luck, others will be deflected from a life of crime, taking this as an example.
When did you stop believing in due process, David?

And why won't any of the nuts answer Robert's question of whether or not it would be okay if he had raped the boy, instead of summarily executing him with a shotgun blast to the back?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 08:33 pm

For the record, tho I have never used one,
I see nothing rong with trailers.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 08:48 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Ceili wrote:
He could afford a gun and some bullets...
He wasn't starving if he could afford twinkies and potato chips. Doesn't sound like he was on the edge of any abyss.
He wasn't on the streets. Some people prefer to live in a trailer. I know people who live in beautiful trailers. I'm going to assume you're a bigot.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Assuming that everything u said is true,
the victim was within his moral rights to defend his property
and he has reduced the chances of u or us becoming victims to these burglars.
A rich man has as much right to defend his property as a poor man.

With luck, others will be deflected from a life of crime, taking this as an example.
OCCOM BILL wrote:

When did you stop believing in due process, David?
The facts r not at issue in the middle of a violent crime, such as burglary.




OCCOM BILL wrote:
And why won't any of the nuts answer Robert's question of whether or not it would be okay if he had raped the boy,
instead of summarily executing him with a shotgun blast to the back?
I did not see that question. I looked at the last few pages, in quest of it, but I did not see a post by Robert.

Anyway: Not having read the law of whatever jurisdiction is involved,
I will not comment on the law involved, but morally, every victim of burglary has the right to defend his property.
I see no problem with using lethal defensive force, and I feel SAFER because he did so.

Sexual conduct is not related to defense; perhaps to revenge, in a twisted, perverted kind of way.
I see no need to consider that.
So far as I 'm aware, there is no evidence that the victim of the burglary is a homosexual.





David

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 09:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
dave...

burglary is a property crime.

robbery would be a violent crime.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 09:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The facts r not at issue in the middle of a violent crime, such as burglary
This summary execution took place after the burglary, not in the middle of it. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? We both know you know better.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 10:46 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

dave...

burglary is a property crime.

robbery would be a violent crime.
We SHOUD have been referring to it as a robbery,
since the victim RIGHT THERE; it was also a burglary.

Thank u for pointing that out.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 10:52 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The facts r not at issue in the middle of a violent crime, such as burglary
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This summary execution took place after the burglary, not in the middle of it. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? We both know you know better.
Not at all; your point woud be well taken, if he had chased them down the street,
NOT in the middle of a larcenous struggle inside his home, which was
the place of the crime. This was a ROBBERY, still in progress.
It was also a burglary.





David
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 11:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The facts r not at issue in the middle of a violent crime, such as burglary
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This summary execution took place after the burglary, not in the middle of it. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? We both know you know better.
Not at all; your point woud be well taken, if he had chased them down the street,
NOT in the middle of a larcenous struggle inside his home, which was
the place of the crime. This was a ROBBERY, still in progress.
It was also a burglary.
3 of 4 witnesses claim it was after the fact, David. Do you have some special insight the rest of us weren't privy to?

If your standard of evidence before summary execution is acceptable; what is there to stop anyone from shooting anyone in the back in their home, and simply claiming he was stealing?


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 01:35 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Lemme re-read the thread; its not clear in my memory.

I 'll get back to u.





David
0 Replies
 
MrDamage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 01:49 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The term "bigot" serves the same purpose in progressive "debate" as "racist" and "sexist": it used to be effective in shutting down opposing views regardless of whether the opinion in question met even the loosest definition of the word in question. Overuse has rendered this strategy ineffective.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 01:53 am
@MrDamage,
I 'm uncertain as to what progressive debate is.





David
0 Replies
 
MrDamage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 01:57 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Both you and Ceili might want to re-read what I wrote, paying particular attention to the words "almost certainly". One or two anecdotes to the contrary do not render non absolute statements false. Particularly considering that Ceili is busy assuming that possessing twinkies is evidence of being financially comfortable.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2010 07:47 am
@MrDamage,
MrDamage wrote:

Both you and Ceili might want to re-read what I wrote, paying particular attention to the words "almost certainly". One or two anecdotes to the contrary do not render non absolute statements false. Particularly considering that Ceili is busy assuming that possessing twinkies is evidence of being financially comfortable.
And you might want to consider retracting idiotic statements, rather than putting forward feeble defenses for same. Only a complete idiot would assume that living in a trailer "almost" certainly means one's living on the edge of the abyss. Drunk

(What makes this fool think either of us missed that the first time? Laughing )
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 © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 10:40:50