Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

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.

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.

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.

You are a bigot. You assumed he was poor for living in a trailer.

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.

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.

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?

The facts r not at issue in the middle of a violent crime, such as burglary

dave...

burglary is a property crime.

robbery would be a violent crime.

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 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.

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.