Candidate for Arizona utility commission wants to cut off utilities of illegals

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Their parents are responsible. See above.

To a degree, but there is a point where you full well know its a distinct possiblity that they cross that its your problem..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Interstate=dangerous territory to cross on foot. Landmine=dangerous territory to cross on foot. Same thing.

Except one isn't desigend to stop people..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Your silly to assume that it will not be tried..dkrustyklown

You're silly to dismiss the efficacy of brute force. It really is the simplest solution.

It is also the most brutal and will result in the loss of human life.

Maybe becasue we value human life and the like far more instead of being inconvienced alittle in life to getting a extra card to stop the businesses who are brekaign the law.. Yeah they are also warzones to stop troops, not desperate civilians.. You maybe able to live with it, but I certainly can't.. If me going a hour out of my way to get an extra card which will better police the bussinesses willing to breka the law and hire illegals at slave wages.. And avoid something like this that will undoubtably lead to the possibility of loss of human life including children that were not responsible.. Then yes..

sSubZerOo

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally.

Even at the cost of children? You think that a guy that is on a shoot out in his house with children in the mix that the police will go balls in and gun downe very one? No..

You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

Maybe you would if that burglar was carrying their child?:lol:

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well it seems to me that it's difficult to stand up for the Constitutional rights of those whose Constitutional rights are not being violated in any way, shape, or form.

sSubZerOo

Both party are guilty of hypocrisy, its silly to suggest that one party is some how the moral superior or what not.

............Uhh that is a ascertion that isn't true.. And its assumption..sSubZerOo

People don't tend to walk into minefields if they know that there are mines present. And if they do, then it's their fault, regardless of whether they're dragging anyone else with them.

See thats the thing about kids and infants they do not have control with what their parents do or whats happenign.. Desperation can lead people to new levels in trying to get across.. They are already risking their lives..

yet again children and infants do not have a say with this,t hey go where their parents are..sSubZerOo

Once again, that's their parent's fault. The blame rests only on the parents that are placing their own children in danger.

I wasn't aware young children and infants were responsible whre they ended up..sSubZerOo

Once again, it's the parent's fault. They are responsible. It is not my responsability to ensure that someone else does not endanger their children.

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally. You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

dkrustyklown

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

People don't tend to walk into minefields if they know that there are mines present. And if they do, then it's their fault, regardless of whether they're dragging anyone else with them.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]See thats the thing about kids and infants they do not have control with what their parents do or whats happenign.. Desperation can lead people to new levels in trying to get across.. They are already risking their lives..

yet again children and infants do not have a say with this,t hey go where their parents are..dkrustyklown

Once again, that's their parent's fault. The blame rests only on the parents that are placing their own children in danger.

I wasn't aware young children and infants were responsible whre they ended up..sSubZerOo

Once again, it's the parent's fault. The are responsible. It is not my responsability to ensure that someone else does not endanger their children.

edit: Awesome broken quote tags, Gamespot. Whatever, I'm tired of constantly having to fix every post I make on these forums.

To a degree, but there is a point where you full well know its a distinct possiblity that they cross that its your problem..

It is not our resonsability to ensure the safety of Mexican nationals crossing the border illegally. If they die trying to cross, be it from dehydration or a landmine, then they are fully responsible for their own demise and the US and it's people are not at all responsible for the outcome.

Except one isn't desigend to stop people..

Then it follows that one that is designed to stop people be more effective and less restricted in its means.

It is also the most brutal and will result in the loss of human life.

Only the lives of careless people who are bent on criminally entering the US. As such, no loss.

Even at the cost of children? You think that a guy that is on a shoot out in his house with children in the mix that the police will go balls in and gun downe very one? No..

Police will not hesitate to use lethal force to protect their lives and carry out their duties, regardless of whether or not children are present.

Maybe you would if that burglar was carrying their child?:lol:

Whether or not a burglar is carrying his or her child would have no impact on my course of action. I would gun the burglar down the same either way.

sSubZerOo

Would you shoot someone for stealing a loaf of bread for their family that hasn't eaten in weeks?jalexbrown

If it's my loaf of bread, then yes.

Wait if you could pin-point their location why not just arrest them and send them back home?

The difference is that burglars and vandals have malicious intentions; the same cannot be said about illegal immigrants. In fact the illegal immigrants have the best of intentions - to provide better for their families. Would you shoot someone for stealing a loaf of bread for their family that hasn't eaten in weeks?jalexbrown

It really doesn't matter what their intentions are. Most of us understand why they do what they do. It's illegal, however, and it puts unnecessary strain on American tax payers. You can't just throw away the law because of sympathy.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Would you shoot someone for stealing a loaf of bread for their family that hasn't eaten in weeks?dkrustyklown

If it's my loaf of bread, then yes.

I'm sure that would hold up really well in court. :lol:StopThePresses

It would. You see, we have this law here, called "The Castle Doctrine", and it gives me the legal right to use lethal force to protect my home (castle) and its contents (property).

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] I'm sure that would hold up really well in court. :lol:dkrustyklown

It would. You see, we have this law here, called "The Castle Doctrine", and it gives me the legal right to use lethal force to protect my home (castle) and its contents (property).

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally. You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

jalexbrown

Instead of hopping the boarder then, they should go through the process that people each year manage to go through to come here legally.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] I'm sure that would hold up really well in court. :lol:dkrustyklown

It would. You see, we have this law here, called "The Castle Doctrine", and it gives me the legal right to use lethal force to protect my home (castle) and its contents (property).

I'm sure that would hold up really well in court. :lol:StopThePresses

I'll just leave this here.

You do know that under Castle Doctrine you can only attack someone if they pose a threat of violence, right?jalexbrown

You are so wrong, LOL. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Texas Penal code. In particular, sections 9.41, 9.42. & 9.43.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally. You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

topgunmv

Instead of hopping the boarder then, they should go through the process that people each year manage to go through to come here legally.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]You do know that under Castle Doctrine you can only attack someone if they pose a threat of violence, right?dkrustyklown

You are so wrong, LOL. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Texas Penal code. In particular, sections 9.41, 9.42. & 9.43.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] I'm sure that would hold up really well in court. :lol:dkrustyklown

I'll just leave this here.

If you're in a restaraunt and someone steals bread off of yoru plate, no, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot them.

Where did he say it has to be from your house? StopThePresses

Where else would they steal a loaf of bread from me? You think I keep my bread in the mailbox or something?

You are so wrong, LOL. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Texas Penal code. In particular, sections 9.41, 9.42. & 9.43.

dkrustyklown

Jesus, I wish I could shoot someone who tried to enter my home illegally.

My state is on the side of the criminals, though.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

You are so wrong, LOL. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Texas Penal code. In particular, sections 9.41, 9.42. & 9.43.

airshocker

Jesus, I wish I could shoot someone who tried to enter my home illegally.

My state is on the side of the criminals, though.

Wow, you want to kill unarmed people? Most veterans that I know didn't even want to kill people that had guns pointed at them.jalexbrown

If they come into my home they're inherently threatening me and my family by their very presence.

Absolutely I want to put two in their chest.

In my eyes, your forfeit your right to live when you do something like that.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Wow, you want to kill unarmed people? Most veterans that I know didn't even want to kill people that had guns pointed at them.airshocker

If they come into my home they're inherently threatening me and my family by their very presence.

Absolutely I want to put two in their chest.

In my eyes, your forfeit your right to live when you do something like that.

They aren't supposed to be here. There are perfectly legitimate and legal ways to move to a country, follow them. No sympathy from me.

I suppose the argument against just deporting them is that this is cheaper, and that is correct.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

I value my convenience more than the lives of criminals who enter this country illegally. You might be willing to sacrifice some of your time in order that illegal aliens be kept out peacefully, but I'm not. If I have to choose between my spare time and the life of a criminal, I choose to keep my time. I'm the type of person that wouldn't think twice about gunning a burglar or vandal down.

jalexbrown

Jesus, I wish I could shoot someone who tried to enter my home illegally.

My state is on the side of the criminals, though.

airshocker

Oh, it's even better than that. Check out subsection B.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
  (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.Texas Penal Code

I'm sorry, but if you point a gun at someone and they put their hands in the air, your life is no longer in danger. Why not call the cops and let them deal with it? They exist for a reason you know.jalexbrown

Sorry, I don't accept the philosophy that a criminal's life is worth more than a law-abiding citizen's.

In that specific situation I know what to do. I know what the law allows and doesn't allow me to do. I can defend myself with and without a firearm But the average citizen? Scared out of their minds? No, I wouldn't blame them for blowing the person away.

Everything changes when you have a family.

Oh, it's even better than that. Check out subsection B.

[QUOTE="Texas Penal Code"]

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
  (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.dkrustyklown

I couldn't shoot someone in the back for any reason, except maybe if they were running away with my child.

We need to move to Texas. They have the right idea.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Jesus, I wish I could shoot someone who tried to enter my home illegally.

My state is on the side of the criminals, though.

dkrustyklown

Oh, it's even better than that. Check out subsection B.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
  (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.Texas Penal Code

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I'm sorry, but if you point a gun at someone and they put their hands in the air, your life is no longer in danger. Why not call the cops and let them deal with it? They exist for a reason you know.airshocker

Sorry, I don't accept the philosophy that a criminal's life is worth more than a law-abiding citizen's.

In that specific situation I know what to do. I know what the law allows and doesn't allow me to do. I can defend myself with and without a firearm But the average citizen? Scared out of their minds? No, I wouldn't blame them for blowing the person away.

Everything changes when you have a family.

Or when you're faced with someone who has broken into your home and possibly in possession of a weapon, instead of debating the immorality of self defence on a forum.

Or when you're faced with someone who has broken into your home and possibly in possession of a weapon, instead of debating the immorality of self defence on a forum.

topgunmv

People are more concerned with the criminals being fairly treated rather than the life of my pregnant wife. I find it a little bit disgusting, to be honest.

People are more concerned with the criminals being fairly treated rather than the life of my pregnant wife. I find it a little bit disgusting, to be honest.

airshocker

Yes, clearly the liberals here don't care about your wife, and value the criminal much more, and would easily trade her life for his if asked. :P

I mean, seriously?

Yes, clearly the liberals here don't care about your wife, and value the criminal much more, and would easily trade her life for his if asked. :P

I mean, seriously?

GabuEx

That's the impression I get from a lot of the pro-criminal responses, Gabu.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, clearly the liberals here don't care about your wife, and value the criminal much more, and would easily trade her life for his if asked. :P

I mean, seriously?

airshocker

That's the impression I get from a lot of the pro-criminal responses, Gabu.

You can't think of any other explanation other than that they value the criminal's life more than your wife? Really?

If someone breaks into my house (well.. apartment) I'm not thinking twice about it either.

It'd be an automatic response just to ensure the safety of my girlfriend.

Luckily my state also has a 'shoot first, ask questions later' policy.

Considering ICE has pretty much stated that they will not help arizona enforce its law, i can understand this as a practical method from removing illegals from your state. Ultimately a national reform that secures the border and works the illegals into legal residents is necessary, and honestly I think a lot of these measures by Arizona is to twist the federal governments into doing it ASAP. I can't blame them for being pissed about having thousands and maybe millions of illegals leeching off the American and Arizona system.

You can't think of any other explanation other than that they value the criminal's life more than your wife? Really?

GabuEx

I can, but to me this is all clear-cut and simple. I don't try and advocate that someone puts their own life and the life of their family in jeopardy by dealing with criminals using kid gloves. I'm not going to have that on my conscience if it all back-fires. Shoot the man and call the cops.

What if the guy runs while you try and call the cops? That means a criminal is on the loose that knows where you live for as long as he is free. I would be scared to live in the same house until the person got caught.

Your life, and the life of your family is paramount compared to that of someone whose every intention was to do harm.

That's a little excessive...chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You can't think of any other explanation other than that they value the criminal's life more than your wife? Really?

airshocker

I can, but to me this is all clear-cut and simple. I don't try and advocate that someone puts their own life and the life of their family in jeopardy by dealing with criminals using kid gloves. I'm not going to have that on my conscience if it all back-fires. Shoot the man and call the cops.

What if the guy runs while you try and call the cops? That means a criminal is on the loose that knows where you live for as long as he is free. I would be scared to live in the same house until the person got caught.

Your life, and the life of your family is paramount compared to that of someone whose every intention was to do harm.

You said you'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread. Isn't it at least a slight exaggeration to suggest that his intention was to do harm?jalexbrown

dk said he'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]You said you'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread. Isn't it at least a slight exaggeration to suggest that his intention was to do harm?airshocker

dk said he'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]You said you'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread. Isn't it at least a slight exaggeration to suggest that his intention was to do harm?airshocker

dk said he'd shoot a man for stealing a loaf of bread.

[QUOTE="Texas Penal Code"]

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
  (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.jalexbrown

This undermines the whole idea of fair punishment. Why should you be allowed to kill someone when the government of the United States couldn't?

It's not punishment. It's just a means of stopping the loss of property. Basically, this law says that I can kill a thief to prevent him from getting away with my property. If the thief lets go of my property and then flees, then I cannot gun him down. If the thief persists in attempting to deprive me of my property, then I can use lethal force to secure my property rights.

I'm not "punishing" the thief. It isn't about punishment. It's about what means a property owner can use to stop theft. Texas just has different priorities. In Texas, a person's right to his or her property overrides a thief's right to life.

Do I value my property more than the life of a thief? I do. I will admit this openly. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Humanity is practically endless. My property, however, is finite. Replacing a piece of stolen property could cost many hours of my time. Keep in mind that if I have to work 40 hours to replace that which a thief has stolen, then the thief has effectively enslaved me for those forty hours. I don't take kindly to being enslaved, and will happily kill to prevent it.

I wouldn't think twice about using lethal force to protect my property rights. I wouldn't even blink at it. Seriously, there are over 6 billion people on this planet. That is far too big a number for us to be concerned with the lives of thieves, brigands, and other criminals. If a few thiefs have to die in order to ensure that citizens are secure in their property, then so be it.

Heck, if I were in charge, the death penalty would be radically expanded and public executions would be the order of the day. The likes of Bernie Madoff would at the very least entertain us in their last moments as they burned at the stake. Here's a tip on burning people at the stake: if you want it to last longer and be more painful, make the people you burn wear water-soaked sackcloth.

I have been accused of having 16th century mentality. Check out my sig.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You can't think of any other explanation other than that they value the criminal's life more than your wife? Really?

airshocker

I can, but to me this is all clear-cut and simple. I don't try and advocate that someone puts their own life and the life of their family in jeopardy by dealing with criminals using kid gloves. I'm not going to have that on my conscience if it all back-fires. Shoot the man and call the cops.

What if the guy runs while you try and call the cops? That means a criminal is on the loose that knows where you live for as long as he is free. I would be scared to live in the same house until the person got caught.

Your life, and the life of your family is paramount compared to that of someone whose every intention was to do harm.

And all of that is fine. I'm not going to wade into the argument on whether or not someone morally, ethnically, or otherwise should shoot a criminal with the intent to kill in this situation or that one. I feel that that is an argument based almost wholly on intangibles, which makes it in my view not likely to be a productive discussion insofar as it is unlikely to either change any minds or bring to light something that one didn't already know.

What I'm focusing on is more your implicit and rather inflammatory assertion that those who disagree with you on that point are effectively in favor of the murder of your wife, or at least would prefer her murder to the criminal's. This sort of accusation and - frankly - demonization of those with whom one disagrees seems fully and wholly unconducive to a productive discussion. Arguing that their assertion lacks experiential grounds or such like, and therefore is unrealistic, is perfectly fine, but I can't see how it helps to basically assert that they would not mind it if your wife was murdered. It seems to me that, given that no one here is a legislator, it is rather more important to keep dialog friendly, above-board, and above the belt than to make any sort of point on a debate that is really basically academic in nature as far as this thread is concerned, insofar as our opinions here don't have any effect on impactful legislation.