Posted on 11/28/2012 7:28:26 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Edited on 11/28/2012 7:35:26 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
MINNEAPOLIS (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at brainerddispatch.com ...
OK. Being as we had a functioning society when we hanged horse thieves, rustlers, footpads, card cheaters, robbers, thieves, and burglars, I agree that death is appropriate for these two burglars.
If you subscribe to Biblical principles...
OK. I'll go with Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Covet, and thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, and I agree that Smith should administer the punishment.
Shooting s thief(burglar) who is down and no longer a threat in a well-lit situation is different.Execution or coup-de-grace shots are not part of normal self-defense training,nor is bragging about it afterwards.
I never asserted such, I only assert that your liberal definition of "no longer a threat" is betting someone else's life on your opinion.
The two burglars were in the wrong and if the old man was threatened then he had the right to defend himself,...
Well, we do agree on something. Suppose we consider at this point what would have happened if the two burglars had just decided to NOT got to Smith's home and steal his stuff?
How many people would Smith have killed? How angry would Smith have become? How many families would have destroyed? How many people on either side would be so offended?
Now consider the same questions if the two had decided NOT to commit their first burglary. Who had the power here, and who had the responsibility?
I think (the) fictional Sheriff Taylor of Mayberry...
That's the best thing about fiction, it allows ya to commit False Witness from a non existent platform of moral superiority.
No jackboots needed.
However, that's exactly what you will get. It's a standard socialist tactic of coddling and protecting criminals to con the public to trade freedom for security, and the socialists deliver control instead of security to the useful idiots who give them power.
Freedom doesn’t mean killing and hiding evidence with impunity anymore than it means robbing someone’s home with impunity.
I never said that, you did.
You have a warped idea of freedom.
And there is the setup for the act of false witness.
Gosh I bet you would win a game of twister!
Look,the old man BRAGGED about shooting the burglars when they were down;and he had time to drag the man out of sight and wait to ambush the young woman.Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight.Yet he had no time to call the police?
I would not want that old man as my neighbor;his actions and words will convict him.
BY the way,the Nazis had a functioning society;I prefer a more enlightened one.
Ever read or see Les Miserables ? I suppose you think the man life should have been forfeit for stealing a loaf of bread ?
Oh yes, one Biblical commandment :Thou Shalt Not Murder(at least I have it on authoriy that was the original Aramic-not thou shalt not kill.)
The homeowner appears to have gone beyond defense to murder.We shall see what the law makes of it.
“Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight”
Someone who breaks into my home and gets killed has been ambushed? You lost me right there.
Your problem is I didn't let YOU select the Biblical passages applied or the person(s) they would be applied to.
Look,the old man BRAGGED about shooting the burglars when they were down;and he had time to drag the man out of sight...
I never said he didn't.
...and wait to ambush the young woman.Yes,ambush is exactly the right word for waiting concealed and then shooting when the other person comes into sight.
"Ambush", see there you go again using inflammatory rhetoric from a non existent platform of moral superiority. Smith's action could be described as maintaining a tactical advantage, ambush is a term commonly used to describe surprising innocent persons with an attack. Using "ambush" is a device to transfer the perception of innocence onto a serial burglar and druggie criminal, While demonizing and criminalizing a homeowner, in his own home, and disallowing the possibility that Smith was legitimately in fear of his life, otherwise afraid, angry, or unsure he cold best multiple home invaders in combat.
Maintaining tactical advantage is neutral in all these areas and allows that Smith has rights IN HIS OWN HOME.
End of part one, stand by.
Yet he had no time to call the police?
YOU assert that Smith was required to call police in the middle of combat with home invaders, the Constitution does not. If you are so concerned with informing the police, why did you not require it of the burglars, as well? Also I will note here that you did not answer my question to you regarding the results of this incident if the burglars had decided NOT to burgle Smith's home.
I would not want that old man as my neighbor,...
Is that because you fear him waiting in HIS basement for you to break into HIS home and come down HIS stairs, or because you fear he will repeatedly break into your home and steal your stuff to finance his drug habit? I notice you don't seem to be so concerned with druggie burglar neighbors.
...his actions and words will convict him.
Quite likely, in a socialist/statist tyranny, unless a couple of informed jurors are accidentally impaneled.
By the way, the Nazis had a functioning society;I prefer a more enlightened one.
You seem to agree with the Nazi legal system, when applying it to Smith.
Ever read or see Les Miserables ? I suppose you think the man's life should have been forfeit for stealing a loaf of bread ?
Ah, yes, fiction again, where the criminal can be gloriously good and evoke the sympathy of all over that evil rich guy who had the temerity to rise at two AM and bake bread.
I realize you prefer an enlightened society where Jean Valjean shows up the second day to take the bread he is entitled to, and the third day when he is followed by Juan Valjaun, and Wilford Valwilford, and Horst Valhorst, and Yuri Valyuri, and Jamal Valjamal, ect, all entitled to the baker's bread for free, and entitled to invade his shop and use the force they are entitled to use against the baker.
When you cite fiction, I am entitled (ooh, I like that!) to extrapolate fiction. Of course we both know that this is fiction, and no society has descended into mass starvation and death from the imposition of socialist entitlements, and the enlightened concept that private property is evil and no one should be allowed to have any, or keep for themselves anything they produce if there is a person in need.
...one Biblical commandment :Thou Shalt Not Murder...
I stipulate that the Lord God has laid down specific meaning to all his Commandments. I believe that your use of the English translation is correct, and therefore, I agree.
To expand, "murder" is not synonymous with "kill", murder is forbidden, killing is not.
When citing scripture you can often find passages with conditions that permit or even seem to command some acts. ( Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.)
You have accused Smith of murder, and scripture seems to permit him to kill.
Moreover, scripture seems to command that those acting in fear of God will not allow retribution by persons or even the State.
If you disagree with scripture, why?
Is it the manner of killing? The fact that the burglar was female? A hundred pounds? That Smith is unattractive and the burglar is cute? That Smith is 63 or 64? That 18 year olds should get a pass?
How about we let the burglars go if they promise to get off drugs and promise not to come back and murder Smith in his sleep? Finally, I do not know if Smith murdered the burglars (I do agree that he has acknowledged killing them), nor am I the one to make that judgment.
As for calling the police ,if Smith had safe access to a phone ,I will say he could have called police and barricaded himself;but Smith definitely should have called police immediately after the break-in ,not the next day.And it is unclear if he actually asked for the police to be called or the neighbor called police on his own.Not reporting the death of a human is a crime in itself.And a strong indicator that Smith knew he had gone too far.
Do we not have laws that ,at least in theory, punish the robber more severely if the victim dies than if the victim was injured but survived ? Arguments about the reasonableness of these laws is another point.
Your view seems to be that if someone breaks into your home or steals your car or tries to rob you that you have the right,maybe even the duty, to kill that person.Fortunately or unfortunately,depending on one’s position, American law does not generally agree with summary execution of the criminal by the intended victim,only stopping the criminal.
Some states have harsher penalties for breaking into an occupied home, in the perhaps vain hope that burglars will at least only take goods not lives.
Out of curiosity ,do you favor execution for kids stealing candy bars from the convenience store?
At what point does theft become a death penalty offense? $1000 ? $100 ? $1 ?
Just as I reject the notion that police are innocent of any wrongs if they happen to shoot or run over an innocent third party in the course of attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect,and also reject the corollary that the suspect is responsible for every wrong that occurs in the entire sequence of events;I also reject the notion that just because a person was the original victim that he can then do no wrong in his or others’ defense.
Humans are supposed to use good judgment in all things.And when they do not there will be consequences.
On the fiction front.it would have been better had Jean ValJean had found some work to do for someone or begged stale bread,but those cases which surelly did happen would not make the point of the Les Miserables tale which is an obseessed pursuit of an individual for a single act of petty crime.
THe Middle Ages had a long list of crimes punishable by death and the rich and powerful apparently lived quite lavishly while condemning their fellow humans to severe poverty;not exactly according to Biblical principles as I understand them.The rich have obligations,not to give away all they worked for,but to at least give something.Remember the owner of fields was not to go over the ground a second time but leave the grain missed in the harvest for gleaning by widows and poor.
Now let it be stated the burglars of Smith’s home were not desperately poor ,starving Frenchmen and I made a mistake bringing up Les Miserables in the first place.
I was not aware ambush meant the intended targets were innocent;I seem to recall military setting up ambushes of the opposing forces.
The online dictionary defines ambush as attacking suddenly from a concealed position;nothing is mentioned as to relative morality of the actors.
I therefore submit that waiting concealed with the intent of shooting on sight does constitute an ambush.Whether that is an appropiate tactic in home self-defense is yet another argument.
Look,the main problem in this is Smith bragging about,and actually shooting each of the two unarmed burglars in the head after they were down.
I agree, and note there is no anger or inflammatory rhetoric in that statement.
The act itself goes beyond normal self-defense as most people think of it.
Ditto my last.
Cuteness and age of the dead really shouldn't matter legally but you know appearance,gender,race, and economics always are a part of reality even in,or especially in, criminal trials.
Agreed from several perspectives, not disputed from any.
At this point I would like to repost my original post on this thread:
"I don't like the way this guy ended these two repetitive criminals, but the only way I would give the state any power over him is if the two had gone to his house with only legitimate intent.
For a victim to have his life destroyed, a criminal has to get lucky just once for a second. The victim must be alert, on guard, and physically capable of defending himself 24/7, 365, for life.
Only dead criminals can't come back when you're asleep, sick or injured."
As for calling the police ,if Smith had safe access to a phone ,I will say he could have called police and barricaded himself;but Smith definitely should have called police immediately after the break-in ,not the next day.And it is unclear if he actually asked for the police to be called or the neighbor called police on his own.Not reporting the death of a human is a crime in itself.And a strong indicator that Smith knew he had gone too far.
This is a mix of assumption of facts and legal issues. I cannot ascertain the factual ability of Smith to call police during combat, so I must not assume.
Calling police later is a legal matter and as such is covered by the Constitution. If Smith believed he might be prosecuted, he has the Constitutional right to refuse to self incriminate. I agree that Smith was a poor advocate of his right to refuse to self incriminate.
I tried to get you to stumble onto this point by suggesting that you require the burglars to self incriminate by calling the police.
Do we not have laws that ,at least in theory, punish the robber more severely if the victim dies than if the victim was injured but survived ? Arguments about the reasonableness of these laws is another point.
We do, I know of three (two teenagers) who received a sentence of life in prison for binding, gagging, beating and murdering an acquaintance of mine in her home, her husband had gone grocery shopping for her as she didn't fell well. They beat her mercilessly because she had the temerity to be home, then shot her in the head to murder her.
I have additionally had other personal friends murdered during burglaries or home invasion robberies while being "protected" by "reasonable" law.
Your view seems to be that if someone breaks into your home or steals your car or tries to rob you that you have the right,maybe even the duty, to kill that person.
Now you're slipping, there are several charges in that sentence. I only give near absolute rights in a persons home, over invaders for criminal purpose. In public I endorse considerable more scrutiny, I refer you to my original post.
Fortunately or unfortunately,depending on one’s position, American law does not generally agree with summary execution of the criminal by the intended victim, only stopping the criminal.
And I occasionally speak with the historical perspective on the consequences of this policy.
Out of curiosity ,do you favor execution for kids stealing candy bars from the convenience store?
You're slipping, again (an inflammatory question), children should be educated to the true cost of theft and envy, and punished enough to remember easily.
At what point does theft become a death penalty offense? $1000 ? $100 ? $1 ?
Ditto this question, it's not the dollar amount it's when the theft and "reasonable" reaction to it render the civil productive society unsustainable because the criminal human nature to be endorsed and enabled.
The US will fall because the "reasonable" US population coddled criminals, endorsed envy and handed that power to the state.
Just as I reject the notion that police are innocent of any wrongs if they happen to shoot or run over an innocent third party in the course of attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect,and also reject the corollary that the suspect is responsible for every wrong that occurs in the entire sequence of events;I also reject the notion that just because a person was the original victim that he can then do no wrong in his or others’ defense.
That is a philosophy to which you are entitled, but the important point is absent. That is: to whom do you give the power to right THESE wrongs, the state, or the individual...
...If anyone.
Humans are supposed to use good judgment in all things. And when they do not there will be consequences.
Agreed, and the question that I ask myself is do I want to get Smith more than I care about making it easier for anyone, including those misbehaving police you mention, to break into MY HOME,....and yours.
Lastly, I enjoy good fictional literature but avoid it for debate points as I can make fiction support anything I want. Also, I usually don't initiate Scripture, but I will choose other parts than those proffered for obvious reasons.
And the point of the Smith tale which is an obsessed pursuit of an individual for a single act that may not be a crime.
...the rich and powerful apparently lived quite lavishly while condemning their fellow humans to severe poverty; not exactly according to Biblical principles as I understand them.
I agree on both points, however, the rich and powerful accomplished this by being the State,... and the courts and the enforcement that comes with being the State.
The fictional baker, Valjean and Smith are individuals, NOT the State, and all must be protected from thieves, the State, and, most importantly, State thieves.
Now, understanding that the State is the bad guy, reading the rest of your post has a different meaning.
Hugo's brilliant fictional novel avoids discussion of state responsibility to maintain human interest.
I can find no evidence that the baker or Smith obtained their stuff immorally or unethically so it should not be taken from them. Not even by the State.
Guessing there won't be too many more break ins at the guys house now that the teens know he isn't playing around.
You do realize the homeowner here was the victim and was burglarized 8 times prior by teens and had many of his guns stolen. Sympathizers for criminals amazes me. He had a right to defend his property. PERIOD. Was he supposed to serve them tea and crumpets after he shot them the first time? He shoots the girl, she falls down the stairs and then his rifle jams, SHE LAUGHS, and then he shoots her dead. If his story is accurate, her bf or whatever is dead, she gets shot and falls down the stairs and then she LAUGHS when his rifle jams? That druggie was put out of her misery.
Shoot & Shovel. Criminals need eliminated.
you’re probably right about these 2 gloating over their thievery,they probably posted their spoils on Facebook in the past, holding the stolen guns from the old guy’s house.
Do you honestly think if he shot them and let them live, that these two criminals wouldn’t come back or better yet get their gang of friends to terrorize the old man even worse than before? I’ll go so far and speculate they would have tried to kill the old man after this incident had they lived.
no shovel required. Got rid of the threat. Let the coroner do their job.
I did not say ...."why should he"
You said that in post #95. So what are you talking about? What is your point.
The point of my post is that in my opinion the conditions simply changed as referable to a life-threatening circumstance. If the shooter did feel his threat had been neutralized, he no longer has a circumstance which require a lethal response. Others see it differently, from what I read on this post.
Your question me is unknowable. I do not know what they might have otherwise done.
And had he allowed them to live, you don’t think he would be terrorized and possibly hunted down and killed by the gang of criminals these teens probably call their “friends”? He’d be living in a 24/7 fear of retaliation had they lived, mark my words. I think for his own life, he did the right thing by taking out the criminal/enemy.
I believe you have the right to protect yourself but not to execute the intruder once disabled.Pretty sure that is also the intent of most American law.Executions are only to be done by the state after a fair trial.And yes I do realize criminals kill some of their victims every day.
If the homeowner or intended victim fires multiple shots at one time and kills the intruder that is one thing;but shooting the unarmed,disabled criminal lying on the floor is going too far.ONLY if the criminal is still struggling to reach a weapon does he or she still constitute a legitimate target.
Legally the threat made by anyone to kill someone else is not grounds for execution;even threatening the President is not an automatic death sentence.
YOU may feel that anyone uttering a death threat should be killed at the first chance but American law doesn’t agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.