|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 13, 2011 15:04:45 GMT -5
This, so much this, and the other stuff. That's why I have a vitirolic hatred of Joe Horne.. that and he was a sociopathic fucker who defied 24+ dispatch orders to "remain where the fuck you are" to kill two robbers who broke into his neighbor's house and shot them when they fled. I hold him up as being a horrible, horrible human being and I was disgusted when the CNN polls came out showing at least 60% supporting his actions. I see no better way to kill a couple of theiving rats. Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to treat a person commiting armed robbery with the utmost respect. If you want to brake into someone's home or establishment, you should receive a bullet for your troubles. Dehumanization is never a good thing, even towards criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jul 13, 2011 15:27:26 GMT -5
Maybe it's just because I'm a flamin' liberal Australian with his weird socialistic ideas but...
...putting five bullets into the now prone robber seems a tad excessive!
Really comes down to the difference between justifiable homicide and first degree murder. Justifiable homicide as I understand it can be justified on the grounds of self defense, first degree murder involves intentional killing without self defense but then that's Commonwealth/Australian law-might work differently over there.
|
|
|
|
Post by eldalar on Jul 13, 2011 15:39:19 GMT -5
I see no better way to kill a couple of theiving rats. Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to treat a person commiting armed robbery with the utmost respect. If you want to brake into someone's home or establishment, you should receive a bullet for your troubles. Okay then lets talk about this a bit more, when exactly does it stop? When does your right to kill someone that has done something illegal end? After 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hours, 1 day? I mean he was subdued and was posing no threat at the moment. Would the Pharmacist still have the right to do that if he had tied up the robber? What if he somehow escapes and you see him tomorrow on the street, do you have the right to pull your gun and kill him? Because he is still a "thieving rat" who deserves not even the "utmost respect". Because clearly if you say that you have the right to kill anyone who is trying to rob you even if they are already subdued it isn't about self preservation or trying to hold them till police comes, but clearly it is about revenge and the need to "teach them a lesson" or did I get that wrong? And when does that right to take revenge end? |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jul 13, 2011 15:44:36 GMT -5
If I shoot someone in the head, I'm going to assume that he is less of a threat than he was before I shot him in the head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lime Paradox on Jul 13, 2011 15:50:08 GMT -5
This, so much this, and the other stuff. That's why I have a vitirolic hatred of Joe Horne.. that and he was a sociopathic fucker who defied 24+ dispatch orders to "remain where the fuck you are" to kill two robbers who broke into his neighbor's house and shot them when they fled. I hold him up as being a horrible, horrible human being and I was disgusted when the CNN polls came out showing at least 60% supporting his actions. I see no better way to kill a couple of theiving rats. Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to treat a person commiting armed robbery with the utmost respect. If you want to brake into someone's home or establishment, you should receive a bullet for your troubles. Last I checked, not killing someone =/= "utmost respect".  |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 13, 2011 15:52:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 13, 2011 15:58:06 GMT -5
Video can't be embedded, Damen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 13, 2011 15:59:00 GMT -5
I see no better way to kill a couple of theiving rats. Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to treat a person commiting armed robbery with the utmost respect. If you want to brake into someone's home or establishment, you should receive a bullet for your troubles. And he did. He received one bullet to the head, which rendered him a nonthreat. Continuing to shoot him afterwards crosses the line into psycho territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 13, 2011 16:00:41 GMT -5
Video can't be embedded, Damen. Edited with a link. |
|
Colosphe
Junior Member
And nothing of value was contributed
Posts: 92
|
Post by Colosphe on Jul 13, 2011 16:08:40 GMT -5
I can't say I agree with what the pharmacist did. I mean, if he shot him when he was an immediate threat, and he died from that? Okay. I can see justifiable self-defense in that case.
Five rounds when he's down and out on the floor with a gunshot wound to the head? Not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Jul 13, 2011 16:14:30 GMT -5
I see no better way to kill a couple of theiving rats. Quite frankly, I don't see a reason to treat a person commiting armed robbery with the utmost respect. If you want to brake into someone's home or establishment, you should receive a bullet for your troubles. Okay then lets talk about this a bit more, when exactly does it stop? When does your right to kill someone that has done something illegal end? After 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hours, 1 day? I mean he was subdued and was posing no threat at the moment. Would the Pharmacist still have the right to do that if he had tied up the robber? Until the police arrive or if the suspect manages to escape like his partner did. Quite frankly, if someone is caught on camera doing this and walking the streets the next day like nothing's wrong and not being hounded by police then we already have a problem. If a person has a total disregard for their own lives and wishes to engage in reckless behavior then they should obviously face the consquences of their actions. |
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jul 13, 2011 16:15:14 GMT -5
Just because a person commits a crime they deserve to be dehumanized? Do they become complete monsters with no redeemable qualities?
I think you'd be surprise to know that most criminals are morally gray and some are quite redeemable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jul 13, 2011 16:18:04 GMT -5
I suspect it has to do with shooting an unconscious person 5 times. The dude was already unconscious due to the head shot. What was the point of shooting him 5 more times? How do you know the person will not regain conscious and fire their weapon again? People have been known to get shot in the head and regain consciousness a short while later, it all depends on where in the head. Oh, well, that's a perfect rebuttal. How can you know for sure that the kinda suspicious looking guy who just walked into your store won't pull a gun and start shooting? Better kill him just to be sure. Not fucking murdering someone has nothing to do with respect. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 13, 2011 16:29:24 GMT -5
If a person has a total disregard for their own lives and wishes to engage in reckless behavior then they should obviously face the consquences of their actions. I'm not sure I'm understanding you properly. Are you implying if someone engages in actions that are reckless and life threatening that it's okay to kill them? After all engaging in life threatening actions does have dying as a possible consequence. Edited to fix tags. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 13, 2011 16:30:14 GMT -5
How do you know the person will not regain conscious and fire their weapon again? People have been known to get shot in the head and regain consciousness a short while later, it all depends on where in the head. Oh, well, that's a perfect rebuttal. How can you know for sure that the kinda suspicious looking guy who just walked into your store won't pull a gun and start shooting? Better kill him just to be sure. Not fucking murdering someone has nothing to do with respect. Also, first off, they have to have a weapon to fire (this kid was unarmed). And secondly, if he's unconscious, then you take his fucking weapon away and lock him in a storage closet. You don't get another gun and come back to put five in his chest. |
|
