Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470


    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    As far as a pro gun state where the homeowner takes things into his own hands to "protect" himself, thats exactly the vigilante justice that i disagree with, and there is a faction of people that want and seek that opportunity. A guy hiding in your boat is not imminent danger to your life worthy of killing him on the spot. I know he was injured pretty severely and im not sure he still had his gun or not. Knowing that we were still unsure about things, taking him alive was the best scenario and something i was actually worried about happening. now well get some better answers before he faces the same death penalty. you shoot him in the head on your own will, we dont get those questions answered. If the police were forced to, or a civilian that was actually threatened, so be it but i dont think that would have been proper course of action for anybody to do considering the circumstances.
    He had a gun in the boat. Infrared saw it and he got into a small shoot out with the police when they arrived.

    So yes, given that same scenario I'd have no problem with putting two in his head then calling the police. He already blew up innocent people and murdered a police officer. It's hardly being a vigilante. It's insuring your safety and the safety of your family.

    It isn't about being a vigilante (although, I know that term is bandied about by those opposed to The Castle Doctrine). It's about being truly safe and secure on your own private property, recognizing it's far better to protect yourself than rely on the police to do it for you.

    And he isn't getting the death penalty. Mark my words.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    As far as a pro gun state where the homeowner takes things into his own hands to "protect" himself, thats exactly the vigilante justice that i disagree with, and there is a faction of people that want and seek that opportunity. A guy hiding in your boat is not imminent danger to your life worthy of killing him on the spot. I know he was injured pretty severely and im not sure he still had his gun or not, but hiding is not a dangerous action. Knowing that we were still unsure about things, taking him alive was the best scenario and something i was actually worried about happening. now well get some better answers before he faces the same death penalty. you shoot him in the head on your own will, we dont get those questions answered. If the police were forced to, or a civilian that was actually threatened, so be it but i dont think that would have been proper course of action for anybody to do considering the circumstances.
    Obviously if he is killed before the chance to question him we don't get those answers, but at the same time it tells people who want to commit acts like this, shit we have to look out for the citizens too, d'oh!
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #18

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    He had a gun in the boat. Infrared saw it and he got into a small shoot out with the police when they arrived.

    So yes, given that same scenario I'd have no problem with putting two in his head then calling the police. He already blew up innocent people and murdered a police officer. It's hardly being a vigilante. It's insuring your safety and the safety of your family.

    It isn't about being a vigilante (although, I know that term is bandied about by those opposed to The Castle Doctrine). It's about being truly safe and secure on your own private property, recognizing it's far better to protect yourself than rely on the police to do it for you.

    And he isn't getting the death penalty. Mark my words.
    The proper action in that scenario, where your life isnt actively being threatened is to call the police, not put two in his head then do it. that is exactly what a vigilante is and still is supported by the castle doctrine which states that fear of death is imminent. It cannot be imminent in a scenario where hes the one hiding. You just made yourself judge, jury and executioner of a guy because of what he did to somebody else, not what he was doing at the time, to you. A lot of states you can shoot somebody inside your house for just about anything and have just cause, outside your house and that changes drastically because its no longer imminent.

    I hope youre wrong about that and he gets the death penalty but really im not sure if theres reason to think one way or the other on it at the moment. Curious but why do you think he wont?
    -JAB




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,812
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigPlayReceiver View Post
    Different POV, and I don't know how Joe/Jane Photographer felt about it at the time, but when shit is going down, bullets are flying/have flown and law enforcement and those otherwise deputized are in the process of executing their duties, do try to keep your happy ass away from the doors and windows.

    Leave the live documentation to the credentialed and well-identified professionals. Be a free citizen, but be a smart citizen too.
    Good point.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,812
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    The proper action in that scenario, where your life isnt actively being threatened is to call the police, not put two in his head then do it. that is exactly what a vigilante is and still is supported by the castle doctrine which states that fear of death is imminent. It cannot be imminent in a scenario where hes the one hiding. You just made yourself judge, jury and executioner of a guy because of what he did to somebody else, not what he was doing at the time, to you. A lot of states you can shoot somebody inside your house for just about anything and have just cause, outside your house and that changes drastically because its no longer imminent.

    I hope youre wrong about that and he gets the death penalty but really im not sure if theres reason to think one way or the other on it at the moment. Curious but why do you think he wont?
    I think, well...at least in my opinion...a vigilante is someone that actively seeks out wrong-doers and punishes them.

    If someone comes onto your property, threatens your family/you, and you drop him...that isn't being a vigilante. That is purely and simply self-defense.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  6. #21

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I think, well...at least in my opinion...a vigilante is someone that actively seeks out wrong-doers and punishes them.

    If someone comes onto your property, threatens your family/you, and you drop him...that isn't being a vigilante. That is purely and simply self-defense.
    Where we differ is whats considered threatening to the point of requiring deadly force. if somebody is trespassing and takes up shelter, yeah i dont want them there but theres not immediate danger, so you call the police. A guy breaking into my house, totally different scenario, which id agree, deadly force is needed. one is protecting by being a reaction, one is protecting by preemptively removing a possible threat. I dont think the latter is within the intent of the law.

    I didnt mean to highjack, I think this is a good debate to be had, so ill try to keep it back on topic.
    -JAB




  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Can't believe I am saying this, but I am leaning with JAB on this specific example. From what I understand the homeowner peaked in the boat and saw the suspect and said he was out of it, so at that point there was no threat. Had the guy not been out of it and looked up and noticed you.... well. boom, boom, boom
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #23

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Can't believe I am saying this, but I am leaning with JAB on this specific example. From what I understand the homeowner peaked in the boat and saw the suspect and said he was out of it, so at that point there was no threat. Had the guy not been out of it and looked up and noticed you.... well. boom, boom, boom
    dont make it seem so horrible... .

    Id agree, you look in and the guy sees you and goes for his gun... pull the trigger, no questions asked.
    -JAB




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    dont make it seem so horrible... .

    Id agree, you look in and the guy sees you and goes for his gun... pull the trigger, no questions asked.
    It's not that bad. We usually agree on the end game, just not always the way to get there.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470
    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    The proper action in that scenario, where your life isnt actively being threatened is to call the police, not put two in his head then do it. that is exactly what a vigilante is and still is supported by the castle doctrine which states that fear of death is imminent. It cannot be imminent in a scenario where hes the one hiding. You just made yourself judge, jury and executioner of a guy because of what he did to somebody else, not what he was doing at the time, to you. A lot of states you can shoot somebody inside your house for just about anything and have just cause, outside your house and that changes drastically because its no longer imminent.

    I hope youre wrong about that and he gets the death penalty but really im not sure if theres reason to think one way or the other on it at the moment. Curious but why do you think he wont?
    No, that is not what a vigilante is nor is that an accurate interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.

    Wicked's definition is vigilante is spot on and the precise legal interpretation. The Castle Doctrine allows anyone to defend their home AND property against any person who the OWNER feels is threatening. Granted, a few Castle Doctrine states have an imminent peril clause in them, but most do not. I know in Texas, if a person is on your property and engaged in a felony, deadly force is authorized.

    Take the exact same scenario with the terrorist suspect is hiding on your property and is armed, you're free to dispatch him in any manner you see fit -- deadly force or call the police; it's the property owners prerogative. Him having a weapon makes it a no-brainer. You can, and it seems like you are, argue that the *safest* thing to do may have been to retreat and call the police, but from a legal standpoint, 50 states in the country would have have found the property owner justified in using deadly force against an armed person on his property.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470
    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    dont make it seem so horrible... .

    Id agree, you look in and the guy sees you and goes for his gun... pull the trigger, no questions asked.
    Didn't see this until after my last post.

    I think we may have been arguing apples and oranges. I was speaking from more of a specific legal standpoint.

    Yes, assessing the situation and acting in the safest manner is always best and it appears that's what this home owner did. But I also agree with NC. If he was passed out, and by all accounts he was at some point, yeah, retreat back and call the cops. Had I peaked in and this douche looked up with a gun in his hand, he'd be room temperature along with his brother.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #27

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Didn't see this until after my last post.

    I think we may have been arguing apples and oranges. I was speaking from more of a specific legal standpoint.

    Yes, assessing the situation and acting in the safest manner is always best and it appears that's what this home owner did. But I also agree with NC. If he was passed out, and by all accounts he was at some point, yeah, retreat back and call the cops. Had I peaked in and this douche looked up with a gun in his hand, he'd be room temperature along with his brother.
    im not sure if i misinterpreted your saying of "two in the head and then call the police" as if shooting him on sight at his mere presence rather than if he actually was a threat to you. i didnt know the guy actually looked and saw him, merely that he saw the boat door open. to me that warrants a call to police and not going in with guns ready to kill him on your own accord, which to me is being a vigilante, even if its just your way of protecting your property. considering the circumstances of a known intruder being hunted, youre kind of asking to be in that situation at that point. I think theres a fine line as to what is deemed necessary for protection and what isnt when using deadly force. Ive grew up in the wooded hills where a stranger walking through your yard with a gun isnt exactly uncommon, especially in hunting season. if im inside, that threat is pretty much voided unless they do something to change that obviously. I go outside after them, I just eliminated the protection of my home between us. This guy for everything he did, which was horrible and would be considered dangerous, didnt do anything to that actual boat owner besides trespass. be on alert, sure, have your gun ready, but i think the call to police comes before you shoot in that particular scenario.
    -JAB




  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,470

    Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?

    Multiple outlets are reporting now that the dude in the boat DID NOT have a gun.

    This is getting creepy now. How far did the Boston police go? If they fired on an unarmed person, that's inexcusable.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Wow. This just got a whole lot more interesting.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,812
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Multiple outlets are reporting now that the dude in the boat DID NOT have a gun.

    This is getting creepy now. How far did the Boston police go? If they fired on an unarmed person, that's inexcusable.
    Alex Jones is probably eating this up.



    Where are they getting this info from?

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland