Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.
No, they were on his property. Read up.No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Not in this case. The only thing at risk here was a TV-set. The man was in absolutely no danger at all.
Also read up. There was no TV.Not in this case. The only thing at risk here was a TV-set. The man was in absolutely no danger at all.
Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?
Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?
Luckily that doesn't apply to this case, more than that he probably was pissed off enough to absolutly not letting the thives getting away to kill them and cold enough to calculate that he had the law on his side. You can hear it on the tape. Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
And the person in question was only unsafe when he went out of his house and confronted the criminals. He was also aware that the ending of this situation would most likely be the death of the criminals.Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
May I suggest that you make it legal for the police to provoke a situation were it's legal to kill the criminals? That would cheapen your prison costs considerably.
TuffStuffMcGruff, do you buy lottery tickets in the hope of becoming a millionaire?
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
No, they were on his property. Read up.
Read up yourself, they were posing absolutely no threat at all, so there was absolutely no reason to shoot them other than to prevent them from getting away. And that means a death penalty on burglary.No, they were on his property. Read up.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Also read up. There was no TV.
I didn't mean a TV specifically, I said "tv-set" meaning they had some random loot. Exactly what it is doesn't matter in the slightest.Also read up. There was no TV.
Looking at these statistics for Norway burglaries, that poor country has a net deficit. We need to help our scandanavian friends get back up to par. So:
Don't shoot your friendly, neighborhood burglar anymore. Merely hog-tie him/them, slap $25 postage on their foreheads, and address them: "HoreTore, Norway"; our communist connection there will no doubt set them up to pursue a more-lucrative (and much less dangerous) career as journeymen burglars there.
Sometimes, I crack me up . 
Don't shoot your friendly, neighborhood burglar anymore. Merely hog-tie him/them, slap $25 postage on their foreheads, and address them: "HoreTore, Norway"; our communist connection there will no doubt set them up to pursue a more-lucrative (and much less dangerous) career as journeymen burglars there.
Sometimes, I crack me up . Nah no need for that... We have the russian mafia next door remember, all you need to do is make them come over here 
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Looking at these statistics for Norway burglaries, that poor country has a net deficit.
That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States. Looking at these statistics for Norway burglaries, that poor country has a net deficit.
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
* Your Country Sucks
Well I can tell you for sure that it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the police force, as the police here usually don't bother with theft...
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
* Your Country Sucks
Uhm, nope. But it might indirectly explain why citizens think it might be OK to shoot burglars, and some jurisdictions might look the other way, when it happens.That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
* Your Country Sucks
Originally Posted by :
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
Its the deterrant value , most burglars in Norway know that they might face some crazed loon who thinks just walking on his lawn is a justification for shooting you so they don't do burglaries anymore .Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
No, they were on his property. Read up.
No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)No, they were on his property. Read up.
Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)
no need for that - you only get my response when you attempt an unfair baised accusation based upon bad information and your own baised views especially when the generalization is proven false by the individual in question.No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)
I happen to think Horn made a very bad judgement on this issue, and in the papers it seems Horn agrees with that sentiment.
Originally Posted by :
Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.
Which still falls within the statue in the state of Texas for the Castle defense law.Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)
Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.
And then, when they come out, they come across his lawn. That isn't in the phone call, hence the 'read up'.No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)
Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.
Oh - and to everyone whining about an 'execution' - it certainly was not. He did not go out there and shoot immediately - he confronted them and they wouldn't stop.
CR
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.
They were on his front lawn.No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.
Whatever. I'm losing patience with people presenting the fact whether one or both of them accidentally stepped on his lawn when they were running away as a valid reason to blow up someone with a shotgun. One of the first things he said to the dispatcher was "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them" and then several time repeated that he isn't going to let them go. He went out even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to.
I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...
I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Whatever. I'm losing patience with people presenting the fact whether one or both of them accidentally stepped on his lawn when they were running away as a valid reason to blow up someone with a shotgun. One of the first things he said to the dispatcher was "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them" and then several time repeated that he isn't going to let them go. He went out even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to.
I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...
The valid reason for blowing them away was when they started breaking into his neighbors home. The police department is a new idea and it should compliment natural defenses, not neutralize them.Whatever. I'm losing patience with people presenting the fact whether one or both of them accidentally stepped on his lawn when they were running away as a valid reason to blow up someone with a shotgun. One of the first things he said to the dispatcher was "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them" and then several time repeated that he isn't going to let them go. He went out even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to.
I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
The valid reason for blowing them away was when they started breaking into his neighbors home.
NEIGHBORHOOD SUPERHERO!The valid reason for blowing them away was when they started breaking into his neighbors home.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?
Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
I couldn't agree more. The individuals who made up the grand jury that refused to indict this murderer showed themselves to be so completely lacking in moral perspective that I fear for the justice system as a whole in Texas.Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?
Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.
Since most of you dodged my original question, then one of you came out with "Oh, that's different," let me ask you this:
Let's say I live next door to a shopping mall, and I happen to be sitting on my front porch, drinking some iced tea and lovingly fondling my shotgun, then I hear "Stop thief!" from a mall rent-a-cop yelling at a 40 year old housewife who has just shoplifted 5 pairs of panty-hose from Target. Unfortunately for this thief, she doesn't realize just what a moral, upstanding, gun-toting citizen I am, and tries to make her getaway by running across my front lawn. At which point, I yell "Stop or I'll blow your head off!" When she fails to comply, I open up with both barrels, and am rewarded by seeing her head turn into crimson mist and flying bone chips.
Still think that we can chalk that up as one for the good-guys?
And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
* Your Country Sucks
1) Consider that Norway is overwhelmingly Norwegian. I believe there's something to the argument that homogenous societies are more stable than heterogenous ones. However one should not factor in ethnicity without factoring in...That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.
Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?
* Your Country Sucks
2) Culture. Consider that Norway's culture is vastly different from the US'. To reference Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' take note of the segment where he contrasted Canada's gun related crimes to those of America's. The difference was like night and day. Culture clearly has an effect on crime rates (as does ethnic diversity, an issue which Moore really didn't delve into with any kind of detail).
3) Consider illegal immigration. Norway's influx of immigrants (both legal & illegal), even when adjusting for population size, is tiny compared to the US. Norway's problems with illegal immigrants committing crimes pales in comparison to the US where such crimes are increasing at an alarming rate.
4) Consider intelligence. Typically people with lower IQ's are more likely to engage in petty & violent crimes. America's IQ has been in decline for a few decades, the last I heard/read about it was somewhere around 95. The more SPPM (stupid people per million) you have the more likely you are to have a higher crime rate. I'd be interested in knowing what the mean IQ for both countries is. I'd also like to know which country has a higher percentage of people with IQ of 85 or less.
5) Consider higher crime rates as one of the by-products of meritocracy on a diverse population. (see points #1, #2 & #4). Smart & hard working people advance and make more money than those who are dumb and lazy. Socioeconomic mobility is quite limited for those lacking the talent, skill & ambition to break out of their tax bracket. The growing socioeconomic disparity between the rich/intelligent and the poor/unintelligent creates a greater demand in the lower classes to break through the glass ceiling by any means necessary.
6) Consider the fact that I refuse to delve into unpleasant side of the nature/nuture argument in this thread. As far as the internet is concerned I'm done trying to defend the concept of genetic inequity as related to intelligence, ethnicity, etc. Sorry if that posture rubs you the wrong way but the effort isn't worth the agita that follows. Feel free to take my list and feed it to the dog or whatever you like.
7) Oh, by the way... Your Country Sucks!
Just kidding....
Originally Posted by Goofball:
And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.
Are you essentially saying that you prefer being burgled to defending your property and those within it by use of deadly force?And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.
Maybe if you did you could avoid a third time?
I don't have kids and don't live with my girlfriend, so my responses would be different from someone else's. I would risk my life to kill criminals. Call me crazy, but I'm sure my plans would change if there were kids or loved ones in the house.
Think about it - if you kill them, you could save the people in the next houses they hit in the case it went bad.
You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
Originally Posted by :
I couldn't agree more. The individuals who made up the grand jury that refused to indict this murderer showed themselves to be so completely lacking in moral perspective that I fear for the justice system as a whole in Texas.
Well said Goof , it was the same over here with the Nally case , it was without the slightest shadow of a doubt cold blooded murder , but he is walking free .Though he can no longer own a gun as he has shown himself to be an irresponsible gun owner, which kinda negates Tuffs last nonsense as if someone tries to burgle him now he hasn't got a gun to shoot them with .I couldn't agree more. The individuals who made up the grand jury that refused to indict this murderer showed themselves to be so completely lacking in moral perspective that I fear for the justice system as a whole in Texas.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
But will they be as fun or memorable? I know it'is nonsense until it happens.You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places. The less resistance there is to home invasion the less safe everyone is.
You guys believe that if someone enters your home to steal or whatever else, you should be charged with murder and imprisoned in the event of their violent death? You are nuts and unethical. You are the oppressive tyranny that everyone is afraid of. I know this is different because it took place outside, but you don't know about his relationship with those neighbors.
Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.
*looks at US crime statistics*If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.
You might want to reconsider that opinion
Originally Posted by :
Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.
Yes, in a functioning court system, even the most evil villain gets a chance to defend himself, and most certainly small-time burglars. Not sure why that sickens you though...Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.
Who wants to live in a country full of crazy jerks in unknown houses?If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.
You have dug a hole for yourself that is now big enough to fall into. No wonder it makes you sick. It is no use blaming Tribesman and others for the fact that you are so confused on this issue.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
*looks at US crime statistics*
You might want to reconsider that opinion
Blame crime on low median income and opportunity. Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.*looks at US crime statistics*
You might want to reconsider that opinion
If I'm confused, when do we use the firearms which we keep for protection? Who is it meant to protect.
If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.
Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.
You'll scare the elephant.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.
A bank robbery tends to be an armed robbery, i.e. victims are usually threatened with a gun - which is very different from a situation where burglars/thieves are in the process of leaving the scene with loot.If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.
Apart from that the idea that you get a "clear shot" during a bank robbery (i.e. you can make absolutely sure that the robber is incapacitated and has no chance to harm bystanders before and after you make your shot) seems very hypothetical.
BTW, where I live people working at a bank are strongly encouraged to simply hand over the money and to only activate the silent alarm - instead of trying to play the hero.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO