|
United States13896 Posts
On September 16 2009 15:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:35 p4NDemik wrote:
Could you possibly be any more condescending Arcbound? Get a grip man. Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:34 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Did you really go from a post about money equaling life, to losing your mind and friends in a robbery? Did you both serious not answer the question (again). If I take the money that you earned in a work day, did I take away those 12(eight, whatever) hours of your life or not?
No, because work isn't just about the money earned, it's also about fulfilling some need of self worth that everyone feels in their life, and shooting the shit with your buds at your job, and whatever other social needs you fulfill through it. If you believe otherwise then your concept of what constitutes your "life" leaves you in a more fragile state than us.
|
On September 16 2009 14:50 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 14:44 Masamune wrote:On September 16 2009 14:34 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On September 16 2009 14:30 Masamune wrote:
You know, if this burglar was some young student who committed a few offences here and there, I would feel bad for him dying because he could have just been troubled and had a whole life ahead of him to turn things around. Sure, the way the situation was handled is questionable, but when someone is 49 years old and has committed 29 offenses in the past, I say good riddence to bad rubbish. I don't know what's worse; that tax payers would have to pay for this man's meals and internet acccess in jail again or that this guy had another 30 years left to potentially add to the gene pool. I don't want to agree or disagree on your first statements. I just want to say for the discussion of the morality you can't assume any of this. What's right and what's wrong and even what's in the middle is all done without having any information on who this person is. It could be a kid 16 years old forced to do this by his father. It could be a pregnant mother illegal and jobless desperately trying to provide for her future kid. It could be a grandfather whos grand-child is without health care and will die without funding. Oh no, you're totally right. You can never justify killing someone in this situation or in most. I was just commenting on this story after the fact and based on what we know. I think what I was trying to convey was this was a fresh feeling...that someone got what was coming to them....yeah I know that sounds bad but I lose faith in humanity day by day. Losing faith in humanity is cliche and trendy. Acceptance and compassion are much more productive, and harder to do. You have to have pity for the burglar. People who do shit like that typically have pretty fucked up childhoods or untreated mental disorders. We are largely the product of how we were raised. After that period, it's pretty tough to change core things about yourself, i.e. how you see the world and how you perceive the world sees you.
Have you not watched the news lately? Do you not see what's happening with healthcare in your country? Some people will complain that a life was lost here and then reject a universal health care plan that can save millions of lives and dollars. Look at how humans treat environmental issues. Look at how we treat other species, let alone our own. I think I genuinely do lose faith in humanity day by day.
And no, I don't give a shit to accept and feel compassionate towards someone who has committed 29 past offenses and who is approximately half a century old. He's really a lost cause and I don't think things would have changed if he were allowed to live through his 30th crime.
I think, ironically, what's more cliche and trendy is your whole, ''Oh, but he's a product of his environment, he was probably raised having a bad childhood and may have had mental disorders''. Cut the crap, we all know this, we don't need it rehashed by you. Besides, I don't think there are many humans who are capable of compulvisly committing crimes, be it burglary or murder, who are mentally stable or regular people--but let me rape your sister and then attribute it to psychological problems, and we'll see where you really stand. This burglar may have been influenced by his life events, but he was probably predispositioned to behaving in such a compuslive manner. Am I glad he's dead? No. Do I care? No. I just think that it's refreshing, for once, to see that the burglar on the receiving end of death is not some young guy with a few thefts here and there. This guy pointed a gun at a cop once and had it wrestled away btw. I don't see why people even have compassion for him. There are billions of us around, so what if a bad apple gets thrown into the compost a little early?
|
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
Let this kid go...
EDIT: It also mentions this robber was charged with having weapons, specifically a gun.
|
On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life.
the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
|
If someone wants to break into your house, then they should be aware of/accept the possible consequences. If someone breaks into your house, they are telling you "I'm a criminal." They are not telling you "I'm only a thief; I would not hurt someone." Your property is being taken and your life could be on the line, and people seriously want to split hairs over what is "acceptable" force...
If someone doesn't scope out your house well enough to know no one will be home, or they don't seem to care... you should be ready to defend yourself if you have the means to do so, and once adrenaline kicks in, it's "kill or be killed," not "let's make sure we only slap him on the wrist."
If you make your presence known and they don't run.. you shouldn't be at fault. If they run... then of course.. killing them wouldn't be "right."
|
On September 16 2009 15:53 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life. the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
You don't know that. He's already stolen and gotten away with it before.
|
On September 16 2009 15:53 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life. the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
I guess he was pretty impulsive to face a robber by going downstairs instead of going and calling the police, but that isn't what happened. The fact is he went into his garage with a sword, that's legal in his area apparently, and acted on self-defense; so the kid didn't break any laws, so he shouldn't be charged.
|
On September 16 2009 16:02 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:53 eMbrace wrote:On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life. the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses. You don't know that. He's already stolen and gotten away with it before.
i read that cops were already arriving on the scene from hearing the screams before he even hung up the phone 0_o
and besides, even if he did get away -- was it really worth risking your life?
|
On September 16 2009 16:03 Neos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:53 eMbrace wrote:On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life. the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses. I guess he was pretty impulsive to face a robber by going downstairs instead of going and calling the police, but that isn't what happened. The fact is he went into his garage with a sword, that's legal in his area apparently, and acted on self-defense; so the kid didn't break any laws, so he shouldn't be charged.
right, he shouldn't be charged -- mostly everyone agrees.
im just saying he's dumb for doing what he did, and lucky he left that encounter unscathed.
|
That robber has had so many fucking charges its ridiculous. You think after 30 B and E's and weapons charges and shit he would just get locked up for life. Some people just never learn and some get cut to death by a ninja sword. Justice served.
|
justice served indeed. society lost nothing. it is the right of the resident who resided in the home how he wished to proceed. why shouldnt ppl have a right to protect their belongings? are we supposed to lay over like a slave and just take all the abuse? why cant we fight back against the criminals. and in this post, why cant we even INVESTIGATE what is going on in our own house armed due to suspicious behavior? u can choose to call the cops and hope they make it in time, or you can investigate the problem urself, its on the person to decide when they are in that moment. one option is much safer than the other, but it is not the students fault the dumbass lunged at someone with a sword.
the fucker shoulda learned after his 2nd, 3rd , hell his 30th offense for breaking and entering, but our society loves doting on the dumbasses who never learn. nothing like a good hanging, or saudi arabia style it up and chop off the idiots hand for stealing to set an example;
|
On September 16 2009 15:53 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:48 Neos wrote:
I think that the kid was justified in killing that guy.
The story says that the garage door was pried open (meaning he had some kind of tool, like a crowbar), the guy lunged at him, and it was all in self-defence. It's better that he brought the sword with him because if it wasn't the robber's life, it'd be his life. the issue here isn't people caring about the burglar's life -- it's the fact that the student thought he'd risk his life to protect his stuff rather than calling the cops which would have easily been there in time as the burglar was unaware he had been found out -- and cops are everywhere near college campuses.
This place is apparently a bad neighborhood. (I didn't know John Hopkins was a bad neighborhood either.) This guy had been arrested 29 times prior. The kid got his stuff stolen a week ago already and I'm imagining the cops were little help afterwards. Not to mention what his neighbors were saying about it. Suffice to say the neighborhood was shitty and the cops would have likely took their sweet time. Or arrested him for the 30th and he'd just rob the guy again, what does the fact that this guy got arrested 29 times and is still doing the same thing say about cops or crime here?
Even if the cops did arrive I'd imagine he'd be at the point where he'd think they wouldn't do anything.
|
You know, cops tend to arrive faster on more urgent things, like people screaming. Just letting you know. The cop would take his sweet ass time if the guys wasn't dieing.
|
On September 16 2009 12:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 12:34 Phayze wrote:On September 16 2009 12:24 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
You gotta be one shallow son of a bitch to think the protection of your property is worth a human life. So you are saying that in any case when your in the heat of the moment, potentially scared for your life, your family, your friends, that you should roll over and die? This man seems desperate enough in the past to attempt to pull a gun on a police officer, granted not every "intruder" would be this far through the cracks. But there are many justifications for using deadly force and if you feel that under no circumstance should you attempt to defend yourself and your belongings on your own property just wait till perhaps you, or someone you know is put in the same situation. Today's society is so scared of conflict in the interest of self preservation that you would think they should atleast be able to defend themselves. That man should be considered a hero. It's simply not safer for your family when you carry a gun out to meet a burglar. It's fucking stupid and gets people killed it's like the most retarded misconception Americans have. Walk out without a weapon and you are more likely not to die and keep your family safe. Most burglars run when they get caught, but try pointing a gun at them see if they care about their life. I guarantee you they will fight to survive. There is not a single justification to walk out with a sword or a gun to meet a burglar. And then to cut him down when he isn't carrying a weapon is downright nuts.
try living in Baltimore Maryland
|
On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote:
A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it.
Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."
You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened.
All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on.
|
Hello Mr Criminal would you be so kind as to fill in this questionnaire while your lunging at me:-
Q.1 Intention tonight is to:
a. Rape
b. Kill
c. Steal
d. Torture/GBH
e. All of the above
Q.2 On your persons in sight or concealed do you have any weapons?
a. Yes in hand and visible in this darkness as its got bright LED's on my gun & knifes
b. No, well yes concealed in my pocket is my Glock and a blade in my other pocket
c. No, my i'm built like a brick shithouse so my fists are my weapons(Fist of the North Star Yooo!)
So I got this criminal lunging at me in the dead of night and only after he fills in this questionnaire and I frisk him to check for weapons and get a witness to corroborate can I even defend myself. Yehhh, right....
I don't live in the US and we can't have guns here but I would definitely do everything in my power to eliminate any immediate threat to my family and home.
|
On September 16 2009 16:55 Elgar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote:
A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it. Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property." You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened. All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on.
Katko vs. Briney has exactly zero relevance to this case seeing as the burglar wasn't burglaring unoccupied property but rather was lunging towards the homeowner.
|
Everytime a criminal gets killed I´m happy. We don´t need that scum around.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
What's with the (relatively few) idiots in this thread that want to press charges on this kid? He should be given a medal, a commendation, an honorary award.
Lets look at the situation.
First, The guy hears a commotion downstairs. At this point, he doesn't know if it's a stray cat or some prank, but he's still jittery. Why?
The kid was robbed just a few days ago, and this caused you to take extra precautions.
-AND-
The area was known for its violent crime infestation - something he definitely would've checked when he was first robbed.
As he opens the door to the stairs, the commotion he hears becomes banging, screams and scuffling.
Even someone with the most relaxed psyche in the world will be under extreme psychological duress in those kinds of situations.
All the above things probably ran through his mind, in a situation as tense as this. "How did he get in?" "Is he going to kill me?" He may have wondered. And as shown in the article, the burglar pried open the garage door in search of goods, so he was definitely capable of going to the extremes.
I hope you wouldn't be so naive as to say that he should have ignored his only method of self defense, a weapon, and went downstairs barehanded.
Under such psychological pressure, he opened the door. The first thing he saw was the big guy (as he must be, if he was strong enough to PRY open a closed garage door), definitely dangerous and possibly armed, just LUNGE at you. In his situation, will you seriously just submit to him and not defend yourself? With all the violent crimes that commonly occur in the area, and as someone who already was a victim of thievery just a few days ago, when such a man jumps you, you can't help but imagine the worst: that man will kill me.
Looking at the actual moment of contact, the student did the only thing anyone with the right instincts would do: swing at the "predator" that was jumping him with whatever he was holding in his hand. He didn't aim for the head, nor the heart, with the hopes of causing a mortal wound. There was no intent to kill here. It was a fight for survival.
Now lets look at the surrounding circumstances. This undergraduate was a university student, and a damn good one at that if he goes to Johns Hopkins. He has a bright future ahead of him. If he was crippled or befallen with some long term chronic illness because, as you suggest, he did not defend himself, it was clearly a great loss to himself, his future potential, and the society as a whole.
And lets look at the burglar. This guy is already nearly half a century old. He certainly was physically fit enough if he could pry the garage door open. He definitely had the capability throughout his life to, at the very worst, work his ass off in some physical labor and earn his living. And yet he made a conscious choice for over thirty years to live the life of a burglar. Further, look at his records. The university student was not wrong in judging him to be a danger to his LIFE, as the burglar had a record of pulling a gun onto the police officer. The last thing he ever did was to lunge at the victim of his burglary, to subdue him by force and get away with his crime.
Tell me now. Just what did the student do wrong here? The idiocy of (some) of you are pathetic. I hope someone high up there puts you in a similar situation next time and see if you would act your words.
|
On September 16 2009 17:11 General Nuke Em wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2009 16:55 Elgar wrote:On September 16 2009 15:14 Game wrote:
A little known fact about the United States. I forgot the name but there is a law passed in which has a term that is defined like this. If someone comes on your property and you have a slight fear of your life you are allowed to defend yourself by all means, including killing them. I'm too lazy to look up the phrase, but all he has to say in court is "I was afraid for my life, blank blank blank phrase" Not guilty.
P.S if someone comes on my property in a threatening manner I'm blowing 33 holes in them. Empty clip. If you go on someone elses land, you are asking for it. Unfortunately no. Law states that you are not allowed to defend yourself unless someone comes at you with malicious intent, no matter what. Yes, even where you can clearly see a robber packing and making off with your stuff, you are not allowed to use dangerous or lethal force until he made an attempt/threat at you. In the Katko v. Briney case, the court decision that was handed down went with this: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property." You can attempt to subdue and impede the said thief, but you are not allowed to use lethal force. From the original story, it seems to me like the student heard a commotion and went downstairs to check. He found whomever it was there and accordingly, the guy lunged at him. The said thief lunging at him should be enough for a case for self defense, if it was truly what happened. All the people that said he should have called the police first, well think about it. He did not know it was a thief, but he prepared himself for the worst. It could have been anything, as it was a simple commotion at first. It could have been many things....something falling, some stray animal getting in the house and running around, etc. You won't be calling the police right away for every little commotion that goes on. Katko vs. Briney has exactly zero relevance to this case seeing as the burglar wasn't burglaring unoccupied property but rather was lunging towards the homeowner.
It was for all the people who said that they would do this or that if a robber/thief had come into their house. It was not aimed at dispelling whether the student had any right to use the force he did. That was dealt with later on in my post. Rather, I am just referring to the case to bring to light that even in the case of a thief, government will side with them if it is concerning their safety as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
