Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[BigMatt]

I think that in a situation like this, if am man is confronted by a criminal, the confrontee should be able to retaliate without fear of charges being filed.

Like in this case:

Someone confronts a guy with a gun, and the man shoots him. If there is irrefutable proof that this is what happened, the guy should walk. If he goes farther than what is considered self defense, then so what? A man shouldn't have to ask himself, "If I shoot this guy again, will a jury think I am a murderer?"

IMO, The thief asked for it.

If I am in my house, I should be able to shoot a burglar and not worry about whether or not I am shooting them at the right angle as to make it look like self defense. It is the criminal's fault they were in my house, not my fault for reacting to a threat to me and mine.

 

[beararms1776]

I would, too, if I was empty. I'm not against re-arming (in whatever manner available) to be able to continue to defend myself, but I am against putting more rounds into someone who's no longer a threat.

It sounds like the pharmacist just plain killed the guy. In my mind there a huge difference between self-defense and retribution.

Shoot to stop the attack. Let the judge/jury/executioner decide that if your initial shots were missplaced.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I dunno barearms1776...

On the ground in a narrow aisle with a jacket on & moving arms after being part of a 2-man holdup crew = threat to be stopped, IMO.

Contrastingly; on the ground in a clearly visible location without a jacket on & arms fully extended with splayed fingers after being part of a 2-man holdup crew = minor potential threat to be covered, IMO.

 

[indyjoe]

I believe you shoot to stop the attack. Once the attack is over you dial 911 - not reload and pump several more shots into the attacker. I know that adrenaline does weird things to the body/mind, but this seems like an execution.

Actually you DO reload, then dial 911, so you are set to pump more rounds into the threat if needed.

 

[Keith_Indy]

YouTube - Raw Video: Pharmacist Kills Would-be Teen Robber

It looks to me like the guy who got shot had his hands over his ears when he was shot. If you look at the 12th second on the youtube video, it doesn't really look like there was anything in his hands either. But that's just my opinion of a grainy video from a bad angle.

If the guy was a threat, then continuing to shoot would be justified. I don't think that fact, "guy still being a threat," can be determined from the video. And that's what juries are for.

 

[lashicoN]

Isn't it a satisfying feeling watching those cowards scatter and fall to the floor when an armed citizen fights back?

I think every problem in this country would scatter like that kid did if we simply got our backbones back.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I'm having a hard time seeing anything in the video at all. I see a thug with a gun and a gun and another one assisting him with a backpack. Whoever instigated the attack should be held at fault for the deaths involved in this situation. Did you notice that this GENTLEMAN is protecting what appear to be two more employees with him behind the counter? How could anyone convict this person with that in mind?

 

[dross]

I hope this guy didn't make any statements, because I don't see how anyone could say whether there was still a threat except him.

 

[Cru]

I hope this guy didn't make any statements, because I don't see how anyone could say whether there was still a threat except him.

If you research it, he went on FOXNEWS and a bunch of other shows. I don't think it helped his case.

That being said, I have no real stance on either side because I don't have enough information. I'd say chances are, if I were on the Jury, they would have to PROVE to me that the guy was definitely not a threat, which would be hard.

Tough spot to be in.

 

[PapaScout]

Actually you DO reload, then dial 911, so you are set to pump more rounds into the threat if needed.

Agreed on reloading. Not the coup de grace.

 

[finity]

No. Criminals don't follow laws. Example, it is against the law to break into someone's house or store and rob them at gun point. These guys did it anyway.

When someone threatens your life and you have the opportunity to defend yourself, make your shots count and KILL THEM. If you don't, what is to stop them from coming back later? A law that says they cant?

The pharmacist didn't seek these criminals out, they came to him and got absolutely everything they deserved. Why aren't we thanking this man for getting two pieces of crap off the streets and away from us?

You have the right to keep and bear arms for a reason, and firearms weren't invented just to look pretty on your wall or in your holster.

The difference here is what seperates us (the GG's) from the BG's. You can't act like them & then claim the moral high ground. To talk about killing someone "because they deserve it" is no different from any other gang-banger who says they killed someone who "dissed" them or stole their woman.

It's called 'civilized society'. We're a country of laws, not men. No one gets to decide individually who lives or dies. Not even in self-defense.

Your right to keep & bear arms is for your defense not to go killing people because they "might come back later". The guy that you accidentally cut off in traffic "might" stop at the next light & beat the crap out of you. Well, I guess you better kill him first before he comes to get you.

Even if Ersland's Criminal charges are dropped or if he beats them I am sure he will be getting sued by the dead thugs mammy.

Why does EVERY story about a black criminal have to bring out the racist remarks. I'm surprised that the mods here tolerate it.

Why do we as a Society allow criminals to terrorize us? They are only allowed to do this because we have a failed Justice system.

Are you still going on about that? There are many reasons for the seeming increase in violent crime (key word: seeming) but a failed justice system is not one of them.

Every 5th thread here is about the rampant abuse of power by many in the LE profession but somehow, miraculously, that abuse is only ever aimed at the innocent & law-abiding and somehow, strangely, the criminals always get a free pass from those same power hungry cops. Credibility dictates that if the cops are abusing their authority, they are abusing it equally for both GG's & BG's. Probably worse for the BG's who have normally little recourse.

Again, we have one of the highest incarceration rates of any industrialized country. Our system isn't perfect but unless you are OK with the idea of becoming like any other third-world dictatorship & violating our Cobstitution through the use of cruel & unusual punishment it's the risk we have to take to live in a free society. Nobody said freedom doesn't come at a price.

as long as i can legaly get away with it then i have no problem permanently eliminating a scum bag.

Neither do I. Now we have to define "legally".

i dont care if your just stealing a persons wallet. If they get the chance to kill you then they should legaly be able too in my opinion. this country would be much safer if criminals had fear of REAL consequences. jail is club med to a street thug. its a better life in there than what he has on the street.

Seriously? How much would you bet (aside from the clinically retarded or super-institutionalized individuals) if you asked anyone who has ever been in prison if the would like to go back that the answer would be "no"?

Club med huh? Typical rationalization that people use to justify extra-Constitutional punishments, but only for those "others".

until we start getting firm with punishments and stop letting the bleeding hearts control everything then violence will continue to get worse.

Can you show any stats that show that violence is increasing? Strange, I thought the NRA & other gun-rights organizations have claimed that since the rise in shall issue states over the last few decades the crime rate has steadily fallen.

Why do people always try to have it both ways. You can't (well, at least, you shouldn't) change the "facts" to promote your agenda. Darn that credibility dilemna.

if you make it legal for me to shoot and kill you if you try and steal my car, then watch the number of stolen cars from individuals drop.

i dont believe there is ever an "over the top" when it comes to punishing a criminal you catch in the act of a serious crime.[/quoute]

So you now define a serious crime as stealing a wallet (remember above you said you should be able to kill someone for being a pick-pocket). So what other crimes are "serious crimes"? Who gets to decide? You? If you define serious as simply stealing a wallet then I don't think I trust your judgement. I agree that any crime that involves bodily injury is fairly "serious". Other than that, I think we can step it down a notch on the punishment scale.

Is torture not "over the top"?

Now we have you condoning torture & the death penalty as a punishment for someone simply stealing a wallet. So how are you any different than the Taliban or Saddam Hussein?

That's what happens when you use extreme blanket statements. Sometimes you get what you ask for.

As far as "he didn't have to shoot my baby like that", I get sick of hearing that. "Your baby" shouldn't have been holding a gun in the man's face.

Agreed but that doesn't condone vigilante justice.

I think that in a situation like this, if am man is confronted by a criminal, the confrontee should be able to retaliate without fear of charges being filed.

Like in this case:

Someone confronts a guy with a gun, and the man shoots him. If there is irrefutable proof that this is what happened, the guy should walk. If he goes farther than what is considered self defense, then so what? A man shouldn't have to ask himself, "If I shoot this guy again, will a jury think I am a murderer?"

IMO, The thief asked for it.

If I am in my house, I should be able to shoot a burglar and not worry about whether or not I am shooting them at the right angle as to make it look like self defense. It is the criminal's fault they were in my house, not my fault for reacting to a threat to me and mine.

In both of your scenarios above you WOULD be fine legally (barring any rogue prosecution). Both of those situations are covered in the self-defense statutes.

OTOH, your response "If he goes farther than what is considered self defense, then so what? A man shouldn't have to ask himself, "If I shoot this guy again, will a jury think I am a murderer?" is also covered in the self-defense statute. It's in the use of the term 'reasonable'.

You ABSOLUTELY SHOULD have to ask yourself if you're acting withing the limits of the law. Otherwise we degenerate into a lawless society where every individual person decides what the law should be.

 

[dross]

OTOH, your response "If he goes farther than what is considered self defense, then so what? A man shouldn't have to ask himself, "If I shoot this guy again, will a jury think I am a murderer?" is also covered in the self-defense statute. It's in the use of the term 'reasonable'.

You ABSOLUTELY SHOULD have to ask yourself if you're acting withing the limits of the law. Otherwise we degenerate into a lawless society where every individual person decides what the law should be.

I agree with much of what you posted. My point is that the huge benefit of the doubt should be given to the citizen being preyed upon. It shouldn't be that when armed predators enter his place of business he must become some sort of rational thinking totally in control person so he doesn't cross the line. If he said, "Hey, the guy moved and I wasn't sure if he still had a gun," that's enough for me. Any reasonable explanation, even a far-fetched one should be good enough. We extend the benefit of the doubt to cops in this situation - as we should - and if anything, citizens should be extended even more benefit of doubt.

Now, if the guy said, "Hey, we don't need guys like that on the street so I capped him to save the city a trial," he should be prosecuted. Even in that instance, though, I wouldn't want him to be charged with first degree murder.

You have to take into account that if the citizen committed a crime, it was directly because a situation was forced upon him at gunpoint. All his crimes ensuing should be taken in context, and the bar for his accountability lowered dramatically.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Quote: Originally Posted by semperfi211
Even if Ersland's Criminal charges are dropped or if he beats them I am sure he will be getting sued by the dead thugs mammy.

Why does EVERY story about a black criminal have to bring out the racist remarks. I'm surprised that the mods here tolerate it.

Just curious, how is that quote racist in any way?

Two criminals, one of them armed, are committing a robbery. They are thugs in my handbook.

Civil charges are a fact of life in any number of instances these days.

 

[dross]

Just curious, how is that quote racist in any way?

Two criminals, one of them armed, are committing a robbery. They are thugs in my handbook.

Civil charges are a fact of life in any number of instances these days.

Read every word carefully, keeping in mind the understanding that words have connotations that go beyond their literal meaning.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Read every word carefully, keeping in mind the understanding that words have connotations that go beyond their literal meaning.

And sometimes words are used to mean their literal meaning, and we shouldn't be so quick to judge someone based on our own interpretation. That smacks of political correctness which is inimical to real free speech.

Mammy to me is a derivative of mama.

I obviously don't associate the word with blacks at all, in fact I had to look up other connotations. I guess growing up in CT gives me a different perspective. And it's not thrown around in conversations in my or my wife's family (some of whom are quite bigoted.)

 

[dross]

I'm not judging anyone, just helping you to get an answer to your question. I've had this discussion before here with little success.

Words and images can take on meanings over time. Someone might then use those words or images with a pure heart, not meaning to communicate anything untoward. There's a problem, however. Other people can't see what is in your heart. They must judge based on what you say and do. If you communicate something that to you means one thing, but there's a known connotation to that word, you may certainly argue that you didn't mean it. Just don't be surprised when someone doesn't believe you.

The English language has many words, and often has many words that mean very close to the same thing. Choosing a relatively uncommon word that has certain connotations that also matches some other elements of the point you're making might lead some people to believe that the choice of word was intentional.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Why does EVERY story about a black criminal have to bring out the racist remarks. I'm surprised that the mods here tolerate it.

　
I didnt read any racism into this. Perhaps Crimes are racist?
　
　

Are you still going on about that?

There are many reasons for the seeming increase in violent crime (key word: seeming) but a failed justice system is not one of them.

Oh so our failed Justice system is not to blame? The repeated child molesters, rapiest career criminals... Yep no fail there.


So tell me, what is the problem. Education? Hmmmm America is one of the only Nation that invests so much money, and has a low return rate.

Every 5th thread here is about the rampant abuse of power by many in the LE profession but somehow, miraculously, that abuse is only ever aimed at the innocent & law-abiding and somehow, strangely, the criminals always get a free pass from those same power hungry cops.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CRIMINALS & VIGILANTIES, NOT ABOUT LEO AND POWER ABUSE.

Why do you always appear to revert back to cop bashing when people hoot and hollar for the criminals head on the chopping block.

Criminals are absolutely scum of society. Cops, usually are not; But when they do, they fall, individually to the level of a criminal.

Credibility dictates that if the cops are abusing their authority, they are abusing it equally for both GG's & BG's. Probably worse for the BG's who have normally little recourse.

k

Again, we have one of the highest incarceration rates of any industrialized country.

It's apart of th Industerial Prision Complex; Outlaw and inprision people for ridiculous charges, keep them alive and get "mo money".

At anyrate, it's a fallacy to compare the U.S. to other industrialized nation. Just like it's a fallacy to compare the entire Education system in America to that of Europe, or Asia.

Perhaps we should just tell criminals to quit committing crimes?

OR WE COULD

Make examples out of afew thousand criminals, make Prision/Jail a nightmarish heck hole, and quit giving these animals rewards, like free education, medical, entertainment.

We could even bring back forced labor for the criminals... Which I believe is allowable Constitutionally but just for criminals.

Our system isn't perfect but unless you are OK with the idea of becoming like any other third-world dictatorship & violating our Cobstitution through the use of cruel & unusual punishment it's the risk we have to take to live in a free society. Nobody said freedom doesn't come at a price.

Yep, everyone wants to talk about "freedom" until they are the victim of a criminal.

Would you sing your tune if it was your father, mother, wife daughter or son who had they're life/liberties violated by a career criminal?


Being tough on crime isnt akin to dictatorship. Our Founders would have hung a majority of the criminals today.

Society should not be forced to pay for these people to live comfortably. And I am incredibly sorry you fight for a people who would look at you, rape you, beat you, rob you, and kill you and do it with a smile on they're face.

 

[dross]

Violent crime has been on a steady decline for forty years.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Violent crime has been on a steady decline for forty years.

And who is saying that?


I looked at relative hemogenous State (North Dekota) and the Violent crime is increasing. I cringe to think of the crime rates in California, Florida or the New England area...

 

[Bigum1969]

And who is saying that?


I looked at relative hemogenous State (North Dekota) and the Violent crime is increasing. I cringe to think of the crime rates in California, Florida or the New England area...

The violent crime rate has steeply declined since 1993...


Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia