Posted on 12/04/2007 10:21:49 PM PST by Hardshell
Edited on 12/05/2007 4:02:19 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The “clean hands” doctrine only applies to equitable remedies, like injunctions. It doesn’t apply to legal remedies, like damages.
I wondered by Quanell “Jackson” X was involved since the perps weren’t black -
Other than Federal lands, public highways, infrastructure, etc., the citizens own this country, period.
If we don't defend our properties, (even being killed in the process), it's up for grabs by thieves or illegal invaders or a foreign army. At this point, if we are being told that, it ain't worth it to get killed over property; Floridians might as well concede Florida to an invading Castro's army without firing a shot. (just an example :-) )
Frankly, I don't see any difference. Am I legally on the right track, Lady Lawyer?
“Reckless discharge” is when you miss.
Legally, perhaps not. Morally, I’m beginning to soften up on the proposition.
Joe Horn - American Hero - shooting the bad guys - illegal invaders and criminals.
reckless ??? I hope you got asbestos undies and an ABC extinguisher...
They no longer have *any* problems. In this world anyway. In the next they are probably in a place somewhat warmer than Houston in August.
I guess they looked black, that is how Joe Horn described them to the 911 operator. But it was known well before Quniell Ten staged his little photo op that backfired that they were Hispanic but I'm not sure if the authorities has sorted out were they were actually from by then. They had multiple documents from different countries, including the US (Puerto Rico).
Thought? He saw them break in, he saw them break out (yea they broke more glass to get out, rather than just unlocking a door). They had a bag of something (cash as it turned out) coming out that they did not have going in. He knew they didn't live there. Ergo, he *knew* they were burglarizing the neighbors house. "Innocent until proved guilty" is a requirement on the judicial system, not someone defending their neighbor's property and (later) their own person.
Yep, and those eyes worked real well.../sarc
I believe this (non surprising) revelation justifies the gloves coming off in my opinion...
That's because you don't really understand what a persons private property represents.
My property is a piece of my life. I worked hard for it. Every single thing I purchase cost time out of my life that I can never get back. Stealing something of mine is stealing a piece of my life that simply cannot be replaced.
For instance, let us say that I have a 50 inch plasma TV that cost $4,000.00. The number of hours that I worked to pay for that item can never be 'put back' into my life.
Therefore thieves aren't just stealing 'stuff', they stealing hours, days, weeks, or even months of my life.
And that is most certainly worth killing them over.
L
Probably, but all he has to do is drive to the nearest Wally World, gun shop, or sporting goods store to get another. After all he's not been charged with any crime, nor has he been arrested. He'll eventually get the one he used back, but for the moment, it's "evidence".
There's an Academy Sports right there in Pasedena, that has these:
H&R PROTECTOR HOME DEFENSE SHOTGUN for $169 plus tax.
I agree with you. I still don’t like the idea of killing someone over property.
But my point is that killing a thief over property is a completely moral act IMO.
Especially if said thief or thieves are approaching me in a menacing manner during the commission of a crime.
In that circumstance, the life insurance policy on said thieves better be paid up.
L
What was reckless about it? There's been no reports of "collateral damage". A shotgun is the very best for avoiding that. Inside, you may blow a big hole in your own wall, but outside, it's not likely that you'll do more than scratch the paint or a chip a window on a neighbor's house or vehicle. Especially true if you load something lighter than 00 buck, or any buck at all. Even bird shot would be devastating at 15 feet, but nearly harmless at 100 yards. (Instant hamburger).
If a guy were walking out of my house with my property, you better believe I’d stop him. And I wouldn’t be above using lead to do it. I’m not going to mix it up with him. That shouldn’t be my burden.
I agree with you in principle. I just wouldn’t like being put in that position.
It’s one thing to reason as we do, but it’s entirely another to put an actual bullet in a guy over a VCR. Would I? Probably so.
They just busted a group of nine *Hispanics* up here in Austin doing the same thing. (homes, cars, businesses)
Their smug little faces in print made me want to shoot the paper.
bmflr
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
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.