- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DC homeowner fatally shoots 13-year-old boy breaking into cars
Posted on 1/10/23 at 8:50 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 1/10/23 at 8:50 am to AggieHank86
I'm just asking as it seems that you are saying that someone shooting someone before the crime escalated is a bad thing. No one knows what this kid would have end up doing, putting a stop to it early isn't a bad thing. Heck being a "vigilante" in the right isn't a bad thing either. People should have the right to defend their own, because the law won't be there in time.
This is like the people saying the "white Hispanic" should have left the teen thug continue to beat him up until the thug decided when it was enough...
This is like the people saying the "white Hispanic" should have left the teen thug continue to beat him up until the thug decided when it was enough...
0
Posted on 1/10/23 at 8:55 am to AggieHank86
Is the burden on the victim to be able to discern when the crime being witnesses is simply a theft vs a theft and a battery? If the theft becomes a battery, does the victim have the right to use deadly force or is the burden on them to determine how violent the battery upon them will be?
Posted on 1/10/23 at 8:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Why be disingenuous?
Equity of response?
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:00 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Is the burden on the victim to be able to discern when the crime being witnesses is simply a theft vs a theft and a battery? If the theft becomes a battery, does the victim have the right to use deadly force or is the burden on them to determine how violent the battery upon them will be?
Any time you use deadly force, whether it's justified or not, you're going to have to deal with this. If you feel your life is in danger, and a reasonable person would agree with you, then you're most likely not going to face criminal charges. However, you will almost certainly face civil penalties. You just have to decide if it's worth it to you.
The shooter in the topic of discussion confronted the 13 y/o thief. It resulted in him using deadly force. According to the article, he was doing CPR on the thief when first responders arrived.
Doesn't sound like a vigilante to me. Just a guy trying to protect his property.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:05 am to BBONDS25
quote:YOU know the answer to all of these questions.
Is the burden on the victim to be able to discern when the crime being witnesses is simply a theft vs a theft and a battery? If the theft becomes a battery, does the victim have the right to use deadly force or is the burden on them to determine how violent the battery upon them will be?
Why are you asking me to write a primer on the law of self-defense for a bunch of yahoos who will do nothing but dismiss anything I write?
The most vocal of my opposite number on this thread do not care one with about applicable law. They own a shiny gun, and they think they get to use it.
No personal offense, but you have never shown any indication of a willingness to help shut this childish nonsense down. If I wrote everything 100% accurately, you would not step in and say anything when they attacked. It just isn’t worth the effort.
This post was edited on 1/10/23 at 9:13 am
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:07 am to Ricardo
quote:
Just a guy trying to protect his property.
There is more to the story.
The article mentioned that the thug and the resident had an interaction.
Knowing what we know about the thug life we can make some educated guesses about what the thug did when confronted.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:10 am to roadGator
We actually do not know many details of the confrontation as yet, but it is not difficult to visualize what happened. (Insert the usual dimwits accusing me of “making stuff up”).
The owner went downstairs because he heard the noise. He confronted one perpetrator, who got back in his face. Then the owner realized that he was outnumbered 3 to 1.
He had a little choice but to defend himself at that point. Candidly, I don’t have much complaint about the owner’s actions in this case, based on what little we know to date.
The bulk of the conflict in this thread is not related to this particular incident, but rather to broader concepts.
The owner went downstairs because he heard the noise. He confronted one perpetrator, who got back in his face. Then the owner realized that he was outnumbered 3 to 1.
He had a little choice but to defend himself at that point. Candidly, I don’t have much complaint about the owner’s actions in this case, based on what little we know to date.
The bulk of the conflict in this thread is not related to this particular incident, but rather to broader concepts.
This post was edited on 1/10/23 at 9:15 am
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
We actually do not know......(Insert the usual dimwits accusing me of “making stuff up).
Um.....but you DID just make stuff up as evidenced by your admission that you don't KNOW.......
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:12 am to roadGator
quote:
Knowing what we know about the thug life we can make some educated guesses about what the thug did when confronted.
Oh, I agree. There's no real doubt in my mind that the POS troglodyte tried to intimidate or threaten the armed citizen. Did he reach for the gun? Probably.
Again, it's unfortunate. It didn't have to go the way it did, but I don't blame the shooter at all. There is no good reason for a 13 y/o to be out at 4 am, much less, breaking into cars. Sooner or later he or someone he victimized was going to end up dead. IMO, whoever was in charge of him should pay for the emotional trauma for the shooter. I doubt he woke up wanting to kill a 13 y/o; regardless of how the media will try to portray it.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:13 am to Ricardo
quote:We agree 100% on this point.
I doubt he woke up wanting to kill a 13 y/o; regardless of how the media will try to portray it.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It just isn’t worth the effort.
You have 35,000 posts you creepy frick
It's obviously been worth the effort quite a bit to you.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Philosophically, however, you will have a hard time ever convincing me that it is not utterly barbaric to kill a criminal for theft. The penalty is simply grossly-disproportionate to the crime, whether imposed by the state or by an individual citizen.
As you lay your philosophical reasoning at the alter of the law/ legalese.
To Christians it's not barbaric, but justifiable.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:16 am to Ricardo
quote:
There is no good reason for a 13 y/o to be out at 4 am, much less, breaking into cars.
Democrat policies coming home to roost.
Democrats have continued to enslave millions of black people by directly attacking the Nuclear family.
This is the result.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:16 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:Really?
To Christians it's not barbaric, but justifiable.
Please cite me to the New Testament verse which supports this novel assertion.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:17 am to Ricardo
I can envison his last words "what ya gonnn doo shuuts me you granpa mutha f###$$"
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Philosophically, however, you will have a hard time ever convincing me that it is not utterly barbaric to kill a criminal for theft. The penalty is simply grossly-disproportionate to the crime, whether imposed by the state or by an individual citizen.
You continue to ingeminate this point, which is not the argument. This incident was situational, not planned vigilantism as you have tried to insert.
Kid got shot because he put himself in a situation, it seems he also escalated the event with a confrontation.
The Homeowner had a licensed firearm, which is a small feat to accomplish in DC. Given the random acts of violence playing out across the city, he wanted to protect himself and family. Confronting someone destroying your property is his right, protecting himself during this incident is as well.
This is all cultural, the criminal justice system is part of that culture. Instead of addressing the issues within the community, community leaders blame the system.
Somewhere along the way there has to be consequences that stop innocent people from being victimized.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:23 am to squid_hunt
quote:
This is incorrect. They understand perfectly the value of their stuff. They build walls and hire guards and put up cameras to protect it. But they don't get why you think you deserve your stuff.
I have to disagree. Protecting their stuff is distantly secondary, they build those walls, hire guards and buy cameras to protect themselves and to avoid that sense of violation from someone uninvited being in their home. I say "distantly secondary" because they can always buy most of what's stolen if there is a break-in so the value they place on "stuff" is generally less than the value placed on the same item when owned by someone who struggled to afford it (caveat: items with a high sentimental value).
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:30 am to rltiger
quote:
You continue to ingeminate this point, which is not the argument. This incident was situational, not planned vigilantism as you have tried to insert.
But if he is HONEST about what actually happened, then he doesn't get to insult and belittle the people who disagree with him which is his entire reason for posting incessantly on this board....
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:34 am to rltiger
quote:thank you. It is not often I learn a new word. Not sure how often I will get to use that one, but I appreciate it.
ingeminate
This post was edited on 1/10/23 at 9:35 am
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Please cite me to the New Testament verse which supports this novel assertion.
I'm a proponent of capital punishment, as I believe Jesus wasn't condemning the punishment tactic itself. Therefore He wasn't condemning the punishment for the 2 thieves He was crucified with.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News