Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[finity]

Ok, so now we find that there are a few members who feel that they are above the rule of law & are OK with summary executions.

Do any of you even KNOW what the term "rule of law" actually means or do you simply pay it lip service because, well, it just sounds cool to say it & you can pat each other on the backs & brag about how "tough on crime" you are?

Do you guys believe in summary executions for any crimes? I guess that Tucson marine in the other thread deserved to be executed by the cops since he MAY have been involved in a crime either in the past or even in the future? That last cop to shoot was just making sure that he wasn't able to raise that AR & hurt any innnocent cops who were just trying to do their jobs & go home at the end of the day. Where's the harm in that? Hey, he may have had a gun under him & was planning on grabbing it killing all of those innocent cops. You can never be too careful where criminal's are concerned.

You guys really need to keep your fake righteous indignation straight. I can't keep up.

Maybe the anti's are right.

Maybe this IS becoming the "wild west"?

Nah, even the "wild west" still had the local sheriff & the territorial judges to maintain some semblance of "the rule of law". Crap, there's that pesky incovenient term again that many seem to have no idea what it means.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Ok, so now we find that there are a few members who feel that they are above the rule of law & are OK with summary executions.

Do any of you even KNOW what the term "rule of law" actually means or do you simply pay it lip service because, well, it just sounds cool to say it & you can pat each other on the backs & brag about how "tough on crime" you are?

Do you guys believe in summary executions for any crimes? I guess that Tucson marine in the other thread deserved to be executed by the cops since he MAY have been involved in a crime either in the past or even in the future? That last cop to shoot was just making sure that he wasn't able to raise that AR & hurt any innnocent cops who were just trying to do their jobs & go home at the end of the day. Where's the harm in that? Hey, he may have had a gun under him & was planning on grabbing it killing all of those innocent cops. You can never be too careful where criminal's are concerned.

You guys really need to keep your fake righteous indignation straight. I can't keep up.

Maybe the anti's are right.

Maybe this IS becoming the "wild west"?

Nah, even the "wild west" still had the local sheriff & the territorial judges to maintain some semblance of "the rule of law". Crap, there's that pesky incovenient term again that many seem to have no idea what it means.

Yes I can honestly say that Im OK with executing most violent criminals on the spot if it is done by the victim and during the attack.

 

[finity]

...and during the attack.

And therein lies the problem.

In this case the guy didn't kill him "during the attack". He calmly walked up to the BG (after walking past him two other times) who was unarmed & incapacitated from a bullet wound to the head, stood directly over him & shot him 5 more times.

That is not self-defense. That's murder. I guess that's what the jury thought, too.

IF he would have shot the guy in the head & 5 more times in the gut because the guy was still standing & threatening him then we wouldn't be having this debate because I'd be 100% on your side.

 

[Hooker]

My understanding from news reports is that the kid didn't have a gun. The first BG took a shot at the pharmacist and he returned fire. He shot the unarmed kid (BG2, which I don't blame him for as he had no idea he wasn't armed) and then chased the BG1 from the store.

At this point I don't think anyone could convict the pharmacist for his actions. However...

He then came back to the store, retrieved a different gun, and then shot an unarmed, bleeding 16 year old 5 more times while he laid there on the floor. Now, I understand the opinion of many will be that this kid was a POS and deserved what he got, but as I see it in my mind he was executed, plain and simple.

Who knows the pharmacist's state of mind when he did it, but he had plenty of other options once he was back in the store.

 

[dross]

As a society, we can't condone killing someone like that after they've been subdued. On the other hand, the fact that a criminal came into someone else's property threatening harm to them should be a huge mitigating factor.

Here you have a guy who has never committed a crime who only commits the crime in response to someoene else's attack. To me, that automatically takes it to something less than 1st degree murder.

As an aside, my sister, who lives in Oklahoma, says that in response to this situation, the legislature there will soon pass a law that extends the castle doctrine to a place of business, which would have the effect of making it impossible to convict someone in a similar situation.

 

[femurphy77]

dross scribbled in crayon;

"As an aside, my sister, who lives in Oklahoma, says that in response to this situation, the legislature there will soon pass a law that extends the castle doctrine to a place of business, which would have the effect of making it impossible to convict someone in a similar situation."

It's unfortunate that it was an afterthought but it is a good afterthought. I said earlier that what he did was wrong BUT, had I actually made it to the jurors booth it would have resulted in a hung jury.




The crayon remark is in no way a slander to dross. . . . . .it just sounded entertaining

 

[finity]

As a society, we can't condone killing someone like that after they've been subdued. On the other hand, the fact that a criminal came into someone else's property threatening harm to them should be a huge mitigating factor.

Here you have a guy who has never committed a crime who only commits the crime in response to someoene else's attack. To me, that automatically takes it to something less than 1st degree murder.

I agree.

As an aside, my sister, who lives in Oklahoma, says that in response to this situation, the legislature there will soon pass a law that extends the castle doctrine to a place of business, which would have the effect of making it impossible to convict someone in a similar situation.

I think that would be fairly difficult to do without giving a blanket justification for deadly force against ANYONE on your property at all for any reason.

If they make the justification for the use of deadly force hinge on "self-defense" or "reasonability" at all you'll still see convictions in situations similar to this, and from reading your post above, I think you agree would be reasonable at least to some degree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As a society, we can't condone killing someone like that after they've been subdued. On the other hand, the fact that a criminal came into someone else's property threatening harm to them should be a huge mitigating factor.

Here you have a guy who has never committed a crime who only commits the crime in response to someoene else's attack. To me, that automatically takes it to something less than 1st degree murder.

As an aside, my sister, who lives in Oklahoma, says that in response to this situation, the legislature there will soon pass a law that extends the castle doctrine to a place of business, which would have the effect of making it impossible to convict someone in a similar situation.

Was he convicted of 1st Degree murder? That changes my stance drastically. If that was the charge he was facing, I would have voted him innocent. No way I'd call his actions pre-meditated

 

[E5RANGER375]

Ok, so now we find that there are a few members who feel that they are above the rule of law & are OK with summary executions.

Do any of you even KNOW what the term "rule of law" actually means or do you simply pay it lip service because, well, it just sounds cool to say it & you can pat each other on the backs & brag about how "tough on crime" you are?

Do you guys believe in summary executions for any crimes? I guess that Tucson marine in the other thread deserved to be executed by the cops since he MAY have been involved in a crime either in the past or even in the future? That last cop to shoot was just making sure that he wasn't able to raise that AR & hurt any innnocent cops who were just trying to do their jobs & go home at the end of the day. Where's the harm in that? Hey, he may have had a gun under him & was planning on grabbing it killing all of those innocent cops. You can never be too careful where criminal's are concerned.

You guys really need to keep your fake righteous indignation straight. I can't keep up.

Maybe the anti's are right.

Maybe this IS becoming the "wild west"?

Nah, even the "wild west" still had the local sheriff & the territorial judges to maintain some semblance of "the rule of law". Crap, there's that pesky incovenient term again that many seem to have no idea what it means.

maybe you should read up on how a lot of justice was served cold throughout the west you could shoot someone for defaming you and walk free.

there is no way (from the evidence I have heard) would have convicted this man. no way. Im ok with what he did, I just wish he would have got the other one too.

 

[EdC]

Was he convicted of 1st Degree murder? That changes my stance drastically. If that was the charge he was facing, I would have voted him innocent. No way I'd call his actions pre-meditated

Yes, he was. The jury could have found him guilty of 1st degree manslaughter, which in Ok. is:

"Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:

3. When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed."

Initially, I thought that first degree manslaughter could have fit, and that's just based on seeing the video and giving the Pharm. the benefit of the doubt. The jury, however, having the benefit of all the evidence, saw things differently.

The jury found this:

"A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

So, I think it's fair to sum this up as, after the jury heard and weighed all the evidence at the trial, they decided that is was beyond a reasonable doubt that the Pharm. did not believe the robber posed a threat any longer, but that he wanted to kill the guy, punch his ticket (not just stop a threat) for trying to rob him, for vengeance, he was mad, "frontier justice", doesn't believe in repeat offenders, just dead offenders, or whatever.


.

 

[dross]

Nah, even the "wild west" still had the local sheriff & the territorial judges to maintain some semblance of "the rule of law". Crap, there's that pesky incovenient term again that many seem to have no idea what it means.

The "rule of law" doesn't mean that we have laws and we follow them and they are enforced.

The rule of law is a counter to the concept of the rule of men. The rule of men means that the laws are what certain people say they are. They apply differently to kings and peasants. The king or other leader decides what the law is based on his own judgment.

The rule of law means that you know what the law is before you act, not after.

 

[finity]

The "rule of law" doesn't mean that we have laws and we follow them and they are enforced.

The rule of law is a counter to the concept of the rule of men. The rule of men means that the laws are what certain people say they are. They apply differently to kings and peasants. The king or other leader decides what the law is based on his own judgment.

The rule of law means that you know what the law is before you act, not after.

Um...yeah. I know.

Isn't that kind of what we are talking about here?

The LAW states that it is not legal to kill someone unless they are an imminent threat to you or another person. That LAW applies equally to every person, even a pharmacist who just got robbed.

If the guy is no longer a threat (by, say being shot in the head, laying on the floor with no weapon) then BY LAW the pharmacist had no Right to finish him off.

It is "rule of men" to believe that it is OK for someone to take the law into their own hands & individually decide who deserves a death sentence for some action that they find unsavory outside of a clear & present NECESSITY to protect his life.

Once we go down THAT road then it's completely open season on what "crimes" someone will deem deserving of death (at their own hands, mind you).

Those places exist in this world. I don't know about you, but I, for one, sure don't want to live there.

 

[rmabrey]

Well I know im a little late to this thread but I finally watch the video. What I saw was murder. Doesn't mean it was murder, that's just what I SAW. The detectives testimony that the perp didn't have a gun only reinforces that thought.

 

[BBill]

Ok, so now we find that there are a few members who feel that they are above the rule of law & are OK with summary executions.

Do any of you even KNOW what the term "rule of law" actually means or do you simply pay it lip service because, well, it just sounds cool to say it & you can pat each other on the backs & brag about how "tough on crime" you are?

Do you guys believe in summary executions for any crimes? I guess that Tucson marine in the other thread deserved to be executed by the cops since he MAY have been involved in a crime either in the past or even in the future? That last cop to shoot was just making sure that he wasn't able to raise that AR & hurt any innnocent cops who were just trying to do their jobs & go home at the end of the day. Where's the harm in that? Hey, he may have had a gun under him & was planning on grabbing it killing all of those innocent cops. You can never be too careful where criminal's are concerned.

You guys really need to keep your fake righteous indignation straight. I can't keep up.

Maybe the anti's are right.

Maybe this IS becoming the "wild west"?

Nah, even the "wild west" still had the local sheriff & the territorial judges to maintain some semblance of "the rule of law". Crap, there's that pesky incovenient term again that many seem to have no idea what it means.

If you do any historical reading most of the "gunfights" and killings in the old wild west were backshooting and ambushes!!

 

[finity]

If you do any historical reading most of the "gunfights" and killings in the old wild west were backshooting and ambushes!!

Wait, I thought the standard response to the anti-gunners saying "this isn't the wild west" was to point out how civilized & safe the wild west was since everybody always carried their guns?

Now when I point out that the "wild west" still had justice & the rule of law all of a sudden the "wild west" was nothing but a bunch of killers & vigilantes.

Which is it? I need to know so I can keep the "party line" straight.

Or maybe it's just that the pro-gun people do the same thing the anti's do & just make up their facts as they go along to promote their own "agenda du jour"?

So I guess my next question is did blood really flow in the streets over minor arguments like taking someone's horse parking spot? Were the anti's right?

 

[BBill]

Wait, I thought the standard response to the anti-gunners saying "this isn't the wild west" was to point out how civilized & safe the wild west was since everybody always carried their guns?

Now when I point out that the "wild west" still had justice & the rule of law all of a sudden the "wild west" was nothing but a bunch of killers & vigilantes.

Which is it? I need to know so I can keep the "party line" straight.

Or maybe it's just that the pro-gun people do the same thing the anti's do & just make up their facts as they go along to promote their own "agenda du jour"?

So I guess my next question is did blood really flow in the streets over minor arguments like taking someone's horse parking spot? Were the anti's right?

Well, I'm pretty sure they didn't kill over parking spots-but they DID hang people for ripping horses. That's what we need to do to carjackers! Would you rather be shot or hung?

 

[finity]

Well, I'm pretty sure they didn't kill over parking spots-but they DID hang people for ripping horses. That's what we need to do to carjackers!

In areas where "justice" was not available on a regular basis I could understand the need to take the law into your own hands to ensure the "rule of law", as it were. In those cases the people needed to punish people who broke the law even though I think that a death sentence for theft is a little bit (ok, VERY) excessive.

WE aren't in that situation. We have a system of "fair" justice. Outside of a clear & imminent threat we need to let that system deal with criminal's.

Vigilante "justice" is completely outside the values that America was founded on. Vigilatnte "justice" is completely outside the values of ANY civilized society.

Would you rather be shot or hung?

I'd like "door number 3".

 

[downzero]

Principle of legality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigg cheese]

Would you rather be shot or hung?

exactly how well hung could I be?

 

[J_Wales]

Robbery should be a deadly proposition for the thug.

Thanks to this man, there is one less of them on the streets.

Give him a medal and call it a day.