Man chases down burglar and stabs him to death. Judge: "Self Defense"

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not when they've left your house.....with your chase...YOU become the threat.LJS9502_basic

You're a threat to a person who has already shown themselves willing to break into your home or car.  Just because they leave doesn't mean they're not a threat anymore.  That's naive.  

Negative.  Also, they guy stabbed the burglar to death, he didn't shoot him.  Was he waving a gun around?  I'm telling you, the best way to stop people from trying to break in to people's homes/cars or commit other crimes is to empower the citizens to retaliate before the law gets involved.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're a threat to a person who has already shown themselves willing to break into your home or car.  Just because they leave doesn't mean they're not a threat anymore.  That's naive.  

hartsickdiscipl

Negative.  Also, they guy stabbed the burglar to death, he didn't shoot him.  Was he waving a gun around?  I'm telling you, the best way to stop people from trying to break in to people's homes/cars or commit other crimes is to empower the citizens to retaliate before the law gets involved.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No the person pursuing another waving a gun around is the threat. That's common sense.LJS9502_basic

Negative.  Also, they guy stabbed the burglar to death, he didn't shoot him.  Was he waving a gun around?  I'm telling you, the best way to stop people from trying to break in to people's homes/cars or commit other crimes is to empower the citizens to retaliate before the law gets involved.  

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

And frankly I find people condoning that to be a little left of center.LJS9502_basic

Why do you feel the need to spin things and generalize constantly?
Politics have nothing to do with this topic...

I mean this is the Off-Topic forum, but we generally try to stay on the thread's topic LJS.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Negative.  Also, they guy stabbed the burglar to death, he didn't shoot him.  Was he waving a gun around?  I'm telling you, the best way to stop people from trying to break in to people's homes/cars or commit other crimes is to empower the citizens to retaliate before the law gets involved.  

hartsickdiscipl

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Negative.  Also, they guy stabbed the burglar to death, he didn't shoot him.  Was he waving a gun around?  I'm telling you, the best way to stop people from trying to break in to people's homes/cars or commit other crimes is to empower the citizens to retaliate before the law gets involved.  

hartsickdiscipl

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

I would gladly shoot someone who broke into my house.  But I think there's something wrong with someone who would chase down and murder a would be thief.  But on the bright side a few more of these will send a nice message to criminals that perhaps it's not worth your life to steal.  That I can appreciate.

Stand your ground laws are good, but what this guy did seems to me to go beyond what the intention of the law is.   I feel the judge made a mistake here.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't care how he killed him. The man left the house....therefore the threat was over. No physical threat means no right to kill. That law needs changed. It's idiotic. And frankly I find people condoning that to be a little left of center.PannicAtack

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

Wrong.  They talked about it.  They didn't attempt to do it.  Also, there is no true way of judging what is a "proportionate" response when someone is attacking you or yours.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't care how he killed him. The man left the house....therefore the threat was over. No physical threat means no right to kill. That law needs changed. It's idiotic. And frankly I find people condoning that to be a little left of center.toast_burner

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

Wrong.  My logic does not include allowing the government to later "round everyone up."  My argument is based solely on allowing individuals to defend themselves and what is theirs to the extent they deem necessary.  If they are found to have gone too far, there will be consequences, enforced by the government.  If the person was not able to stop the offender themselves, the government is there to punish the offender.  The government is not there to tell people how they can defend themselves or their belongings.  

For anybody that wants to argue with me anymore, here it is- I believe the role of government should be to defend the rights, safety, and property of those who cannot do it for themselves.  The government should not be telling people how or where they can defend themselves from someone attacking them or theirs.  That is all.  Should answer any questions about my thinking.  

For anybody that wants to argue with me anymore, here it is- I believe the role of government should be to defend the rights, safety, and property of those who cannot do it for themselves.  The government should not be telling people how or where they can defend themselves from someone attacking them or theirs.  That is all.  Should answer any questions about my thinking.  

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

For anybody that wants to argue with me anymore, here it is- I believe the role of government should be to defend the rights, safety, and property of those who cannot do it for themselves.  The government should not be telling people how or where they can defend themselves from someone attacking them or theirs.  That is all.  Should answer any questions about my thinking.  

Aljosa23

Right.  So I should just assume that the person who tried to break into my home or car is no longer a threat.  Great logic.  :roll:

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

For anybody that wants to argue with me anymore, here it is- I believe the role of government should be to defend the rights, safety, and property of those who cannot do it for themselves.  The government should not be telling people how or where they can defend themselves from someone attacking them or theirs.  That is all.  Should answer any questions about my thinking.  

hartsickdiscipl

Right.  So I should just assume that the person who tried to break into my home or car is no longer a threat.  Great logic.  :roll:

Of course this is the same guy who advocated rape soooooo

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

The threat isn't what the person is doing right at that second.  The threat is the person, since they have shown what they are willing to do.  

hartsickdiscipl

Wrong.  My logic does not include allowing the government to later "round everyone up."  My argument is based solely on allowing individuals to defend themselves and what is theirs to the extent they deem necessary.  If they are found to have gone too far, there will be consequences, enforced by the government.  If the person was not able to stop the offender themselves, the government is there to punish the offender.  The government is not there to tell people how they can defend themselves or their belongings.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]There's a difference between defending yourself and going on the attack after the threat has subsided, though. Which is the issue with what you said earlier.

Aljosa23

Right.  So I should just assume that the person who tried to break into my home or car is no longer a threat.  Great logic.  :roll:

Of course this is the same guy who advocated rape soooooo

You generalize too much.  Every situation has specifics that need to be taken into account.  No, a person running away momentarily does not mean that they are not a threat.    

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]With the logic you might as well round up everyone who's done a crime or has a mental illness increasing their chances of commiting a crime, and then execute them all.

toast_burner

Wrong.  My logic does not include allowing the government to later "round everyone up."  My argument is based solely on allowing individuals to defend themselves and what is theirs to the extent they deem necessary.  If they are found to have gone too far, there will be consequences, enforced by the government.  If the person was not able to stop the offender themselves, the government is there to punish the offender.  The government is not there to tell people how they can defend themselves or their belongings.  

Looking at history, I'd much rather have civilians killing people in defense of themselves and their property than have the government limit people's abilty to defend themselves.  Yes, it is better for people to have the option to take a shot at criminals that targeted them.  The government is there to protect those who don't have the ability to do it for themselves.  

 

 

Looking at history, I'd much rather have civilians killing people in defense of themselves and their property than have the government limit people's abilty to defend themselves.  Yes, it is better for people to have the option to take a shot at criminals that targeted them.  The government is there to protect those who don't have the ability to do it for themselves.  

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

 

Looking at history, I'd much rather have civilians killing people in defense of themselves and their property than have the government limit people's abilty to defend themselves.  Yes, it is better for people to have the option to take a shot at criminals that targeted them.  The government is there to protect those who don't have the ability to do it for themselves.  

toast_burner

Lol..  ok then.  

I was stabbed yesterday, too. How ironic.

Kinda like Zimmerman, who followed Travis and stuff went down.gago-gago

[QUOTE="gago-gago"]Kinda like Zimmerman, who followed Travis and stuff went down.Nibroc420