Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose
Just as I thought, you can't answer the question.

You're not making much sense here Perknose...

Sigh.

JD40 still can't answer the question.

You can't even seem to find or understand the question.

On 11/17/07 @ 12:44am, WHAMPOM said:

The prime deterrent of crime is the armed citizen.

So, an armed citizen is THE PRIME DETERRENT against crime? Well, Iraq has amongst the most fiercely and thoroughly armed citizenry in the world.

In Iraq, by law, every household is allowed to own at least one AK-47, and most do.

Even the United States Army respects this Iraqi law.

Yet, apart from political strife, crime, violent personal crime, is out of hand in Iraq.

So, here you two go, again. Understand the question. Ponder the question (prime deterrent? Check!)

Answer the question:

How does Iraq's fully armed citizenry help lower their crime rate?

JHC Perknose, now you're just being an idiot. I said "I have no idea how it effects their crime rate, I haven't studied the crime statistics of Iraq, have you?". I answered your question as best I could without you giving me any data.

What crime statistics are you talking about? Can you show me some data? Have you even studied it at all or are you just talking out of your ass? My questions doesn't even require you or me to present any data, I'm asking your opinion on something, why are you avoiding my questions? I'll repeat them for you....

Are you a proponent of strict gun control and universal healthcare?
Do you think that the crime rate would go down in Iraq if we went door to door and took everyones AK-47?

What are you trying to argue here Perknose? If you don't think that an armed citizenry is the primary deterrent against crime, what is? Why am I even taking you seriously, you tried to somehow compare the tribal regions of Pakistan to Texas.

Edit - Oh, I do think that every single person having an AK-47 in their home is probably a bigger deterrent to a lone burglar than anything else....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Looks like someone hasn't been paying attention to what I write. I'm not a "gun grabber". I think its unfortunate that our constitution has such strong protections for weapon ownership, but it does and so until that's changed it should be respected. How could I get all mad at Bush for shitting on the fourth amendment if I didn't respect the other ones?

All of my positions against gun ownership are practical ones. They make you more likely to be killed in the event of a home invasion, so you are fearful of being killed in a home invasion because you have a gun they make your family vulnerable to kids playing with them, you are scared of your kids finding your gun and playing with it suicide rates are higher, you are scared of committing suicide because you have a gun in your home, kinda weird that this concerns you but ok you could shoot your own kid when he's coming in at night, you're fearful that you might shoot your kidthings like that. I'm not fearful of my neighbors having guns at all, I just think the evidence shows that it's generally a bad idea. On the other hand I see most people in this thread so far who are for what this guy did talking about how the streets are filled with criminals, how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from home invaders, how criminals all need to be executed, etc. That's fear plain and simple. It's anger and hatred stemming from being terrified of the world around you.

I've never owned a weapon in my whole life, and I never will. I don't live in a particularly nice place, but I walk around at night without the slightest worry. Why? Not because there isn't crime in my area, but because I know how unlikely it is that any one person will be the target of it. I own a gun and I sleep at night without the slightest worry. Why? Because I know that I am a responsible gun owner, I keep my gun locked up so that my kids won't get into it and I know that I'm not going to committ suicide just because I have a gun, I know that it is very unlikely for these things to happen to me I can either bunker down every day of my life, or live like a normal human being unafraid of his neighbors and maybe get robbed someday. I'll take #2 every time.

My comments are in bold. As for your last statement, I already addressed that. 99.99 percent of gun owners are not "bunker[ing] down every day of their life." This is why gun owners get so pissed off at people like you. You tell us that we can't be trusted with a firearm (see all of your "practical" positions), and then you make it sound like all gun owners are bunkering down in their house and that we don't live like normal human beings.

All of the "practical" positions that you listed would not effect you one bit. They would effect the gun owner and his family. If someone chooses to take that risk what business is it of yours? Just because someone wants to have the ability to defend his family and his house, doesn't mean that they are living in fear.

Also, you say that your position has nothing to do with being afraid of your neighbors having guns, yet you said this..."holy crap Texas is insane. That's reason #3,298,920 not to live there." If you aren't afraid of being shot by a legal gun owner defending his property, his life, or the life or property of another person, what exactly is your "#3,298,920 not to live there."?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose
Just as I thought, you can't answer the question.

You're not making much sense here Perknose...

Sigh.

JD40 still can't answer the question.

You can't even seem to find or understand the question.

On 11/17/07 @ 12:44am, WHAMPOM said:

The prime deterrent of crime is the armed citizen.

So, an armed citizen is THE PRIME DETERRENT against crime? Well, Iraq has amongst the most fiercely and thoroughly armed citizenry in the world.

In Iraq, by law, every household is allowed to own at least one AK-47, and most do.

Even the United States Army respects this Iraqi law.

Yet, apart from political strife, crime, violent personal crime, is out of hand in Iraq.

So, here you two go, again. Understand the question. Ponder the question (prime deterrent? Check!)

Answer the question:

How does Iraq's fully armed citizenry help lower their crime rate?

JHC Perknose, now you're just being an idiot. I said "I have no idea how it effects their crime rate, I haven't studied the crime statistics of Iraq, have you?". I answered your question as best I could without you giving me any data.

What crime statistics are you talking about? Can you show me some data? Have you even studied it at all or are you just talking out of your ass? My questions doesn't even require you or me to present any data, I'm asking your opinion on something, why are you avoiding my questions? I'll repeat them for you....

Are you a proponent of strict gun control and universal healthcare?
Do you think that the crime rate would go down in Iraq if we went door to door and took everyones AK-47?

What are you trying to argue here Perknose? If you don't think that an armed citizenry is the primary deterrent against crime, what is? Why am I even taking you seriously, you tried to somehow compare the tribal regions of Pakistan to Texas.

Edit - Oh, I do think that every single person having an AK-47 in their home is probably a bigger deterrent to a lone burglar than anything else....

What the hell does universal healthcare have to do with this topic and why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you a proponent of strict gun control and universal healthcare?

What the hell does universal healthcare have to do with this topic and why do you keep bringing it up?

He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Sad, really. I'm done with him. He's apparently too stupid to even understand how lame he is.

Shhhhhh. Don't tell him that one of the US imposed Iraqi reforms bought with the death of all our soldiers is ~ Universal Health Care! ~ or his little head will explode.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose
Just as I thought, you can't answer the question.

You're not making much sense here Perknose...

Sigh.

JD40 still can't answer the question.

You can't even seem to find or understand the question.

On 11/17/07 @ 12:44am, WHAMPOM said:

The prime deterrent of crime is the armed citizen.

So, an armed citizen is THE PRIME DETERRENT against crime? Well, Iraq has amongst the most fiercely and thoroughly armed citizenry in the world.

In Iraq, by law, every household is allowed to own at least one AK-47, and most do.

Even the United States Army respects this Iraqi law.

Yet, apart from political strife, crime, violent personal crime, is out of hand in Iraq.

So, here you two go, again. Understand the question. Ponder the question (prime deterrent? Check!)

Answer the question:

How does Iraq's fully armed citizenry help lower their crime rate?

JHC Perknose, now you're just being an idiot. I said "I have no idea how it effects their crime rate, I haven't studied the crime statistics of Iraq, have you?". I answered your question as best I could without you giving me any data.

What crime statistics are you talking about? Can you show me some data? Have you even studied it at all or are you just talking out of your ass? My questions doesn't even require you or me to present any data, I'm asking your opinion on something, why are you avoiding my questions? I'll repeat them for you....

Are you a proponent of strict gun control and universal healthcare?
Do you think that the crime rate would go down in Iraq if we went door to door and took everyones AK-47?

What are you trying to argue here Perknose? If you don't think that an armed citizenry is the primary deterrent against crime, what is? Why am I even taking you seriously, you tried to somehow compare the tribal regions of Pakistan to Texas.

Edit - Oh, I do think that every single person having an AK-47 in their home is probably a bigger deterrent to a lone burglar than anything else....

What the hell does universal healthcare have to do with this topic and why do you keep bringing it up?

Because Perknose accused me of making "sophmorific" assumptions when I assumed that he was also in favor of universal healthcare, read my second response to him earlier in the thread. I have a hunch that my assumption was correct because he refuses to answer any of my questions.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Because Perknose accused me of making "sophmorific" assumptions when I assumed that he was also in favor of universal healthcare, read my second response to him earlier in the thread. I have a hunch that my assumption was correct because he refuses to answer any of my questions.

Still has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you a proponent of strict gun control and universal healthcare?

What the hell does universal healthcare have to do with this topic and why do you keep bringing it up?

He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Sad, really. I'm done with him. He's apparently too stupid to even understand how lame he is.

Shhhhhh. Don't tell him that one of the US imposed Iraqi reforms bought with the death of all our soldiers is ~ Universal Health Care! ~ or his little head will explode.

Hold on a second. I answered your question, now you refuse to answer any of mine? Lets just focus on one question at a time, maybe it will be easier for you. What is the crime rate in Iraq that you keep referring to? I've tried to stay somewhat civil with you because I am actually interested in what you have to say about this. I'm pretty sure that you just knee jerked your first response about the "crime rate" in Iraq and Pakistan and that you actually have no clue what the hell you are talking about. You are just confirming my assumption by not showing me any of the data that you have been studying pertaining to the crime rate in Iraq and the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Because Perknose accused me of making "sophmorific" assumptions when I assumed that he was also in favor of universal healthcare, read my second response to him earlier in the thread. I have a hunch that my assumption was correct because he refuses to answer any of my questions.

Still has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

And neither does the crime rate in Iraq and the tribal regions of Pakistan, what's your obsession with me?

BTW - the point was to show him how ridiculous it is to compare how policies effect a third world nation with a civilized western nation. Judging by his deflection and lack of response, it looks like I made my point.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Because Perknose accused me of making "sophmorific" assumptions when I assumed that he was also in favor of universal healthcare, read my second response to him earlier in the thread. I have a hunch that my assumption was correct because he refuses to answer any of my questions.

Still has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

And neither does the crime rate in Iraq and the tribal regions of Pakistan, what's your obsession with me?

LOL. I have no obsession with you. I'll tend to agree that crime rate in Iraq and Pakistan have little to do with this thread other than more guns don't always = less violence. However, healthcare has nothing to do with it, even less than guns in other countries, and you know it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Because Perknose accused me of making "sophmorific" assumptions when I assumed that he was also in favor of universal healthcare, read my second response to him earlier in the thread. I have a hunch that my assumption was correct because he refuses to answer any of my questions.

Still has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

And neither does the crime rate in Iraq and the tribal regions of Pakistan, what's your obsession with me?

LOL. I have no obsession with you. I'll tend to agree that crime rate in Iraq and Pakistan have little to do with this thread other than more guns don't always = less violence. However, healthcare has nothing to do with it, even less than guns in other countries, and you know it.

See my edit...

"the point was to show him how ridiculous it is to compare how policies effect a third world nation with a civilized western nation. Judging by his deflection and lack of response, it looks like I made my point."

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose
He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

Thanks for so promptly confirming my point.

You're responses are positively Pavlovian. Is that drool or froth on your lips?

Down, boy, heel! Or I'll make you watch an advance video of President Hillary's inagural speech.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose
He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

Thanks for so promptly confirming my point.

You're responses are positively Pavlovian. Is that drool or froth on your lips?

Down, boy, heel! Or I'll make you watch an advance video of President Hillary's inagural speech.

Why is it so hard for you to stop with the personal attacks and answer my question? You brought up the crime rate in Iraq and Pakistan, not me.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose
He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

Thanks for so promptly confirming my point.

You're responses are positively Pavlovian. Is that drool or froth on your lips?

Down, boy, heel! Or I'll make you watch an advance video of President Hillary's inagural speech.

Hillary's gonna make Bill look like a Republican and Bush look like a uniter not a divider...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Looks like someone hasn't been paying attention to what I write. I'm not a "gun grabber". I think its unfortunate that our constitution has such strong protections for weapon ownership, but it does and so until that's changed it should be respected. How could I get all mad at Bush for shitting on the fourth amendment if I didn't respect the other ones?

All of my positions against gun ownership are practical ones. They make you more likely to be killed in the event of a home invasion, so you are fearful of being killed in a home invasion because you have a gun they make your family vulnerable to kids playing with them, you are scared of your kids finding your gun and playing with it suicide rates are higher, you are scared of committing suicide because you have a gun in your home, kinda weird that this concerns you but ok you could shoot your own kid when he's coming in at night, you're fearful that you might shoot your kidthings like that. I'm not fearful of my neighbors having guns at all, I just think the evidence shows that it's generally a bad idea. On the other hand I see most people in this thread so far who are for what this guy did talking about how the streets are filled with criminals, how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from home invaders, how criminals all need to be executed, etc. That's fear plain and simple. It's anger and hatred stemming from being terrified of the world around you.

I've never owned a weapon in my whole life, and I never will. I don't live in a particularly nice place, but I walk around at night without the slightest worry. Why? Not because there isn't crime in my area, but because I know how unlikely it is that any one person will be the target of it. I own a gun and I sleep at night without the slightest worry. Why? Because I know that I am a responsible gun owner, I keep my gun locked up so that my kids won't get into it and I know that I'm not going to committ suicide just because I have a gun, I know that it is very unlikely for these things to happen to me I can either bunker down every day of my life, or live like a normal human being unafraid of his neighbors and maybe get robbed someday. I'll take #2 every time.

My comments are in bold. As for your last statement, I already addressed that. 99.99 percent of gun owners are not "bunker[ing] down every day of their life." This is why gun owners get so pissed off at people like you. You tell us that we can't be trusted with a firearm (see all of your "practical" positions), and then you make it sound like all gun owners are bunkering down in their house and that we don't live like normal human beings.

All of the "practical" positions that you listed would not effect you one bit. They would effect the gun owner and his family. If someone chooses to take that risk what business is it of yours? Just because someone wants to have the ability to defend his family and his house, doesn't mean that they are living in fear.

Also, you say that your position has nothing to do with being afraid of your neighbors having guns, yet you said this..."holy crap Texas is insane. That's reason #3,298,920 not to live there." If you aren't afraid of being shot by a legal gun owner defending his property, his life, or the life or property of another person, what exactly is your "#3,298,920 not to live there."?

I'm thinking there is a significant literacy problem in this thread. I don't care what you do with your guns and I don't care if you own them. I made that very clear on several occasions. Please read more carefully in the future. I know that you just made up the 99.99% thing based on what you want it to be, but I also wasn't talking about gun owners at large. I was talking about people in this thread who up to the point I posted that comment had been falling all over each other saying how glad they were the burglers were dead and how it's a great thing. I really shouldn't have to explain this to people.

My reason not to live in Texas was that the type of laws that would allow lethal force to be used so promiscuously are not laws that I support. jesus christ people, pay attention and read... then respond.

Oh, and 1EZduzit I have been held up at knifepoint and had things I own broken into on several occasions. So, it takes at least 2 incidents and counting. Don't live in fear, it's not worth it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


I'm thinking there is a significant literacy problem in this thread. I don't care what you do with your guns and I don't care if you own them. I made that very clear on several occasions. Please read more carefully in the future. I know that you just made up the 99.99% thing based on what you want it to be, but I also wasn't talking about gun owners at large. I was talking about people in this thread who up to the point I posted that comment had been falling all over each other saying how glad they were the burglers were dead and how it's a great thing. I really shouldn't have to explain this to people.

My reason not to live in Texas was that the type of laws that would allow lethal force to be used so promiscuously are not laws that I support. jesus christ people, pay attention and read... then respond.

Oh, and 1EZduzit I have been held up at knifepoint and had things I own broken into on several occasions. So, it takes at least 2 incidents and counting. Don't live in fear, it's not worth it.

Well, I guess that I just assumed that you are not in favor of gun ownership, and that you are in favor of tighter gun control laws when you said "I think its unfortunate that our constitution has such strong protections for weapon ownership". If that is the case, then you DO care what I do with my guns and that I own them.

You made a statement about a lot of people in this thread living in fear and anger, I completely disagree with you. You seem to think that because people are glad that a couple of low life burglars are dead, they are living in fear. My point was that if you truly think that that is living in fear, then you are also living in fear for the reasons that you disagree with gun ownership. Personally, I don't think you are living in fear, I was just trying to make a point.

Yes, the bunker mentality people that stock up on ammo and canned food waiting for the fall of civilization are living in fear, the rest of us are just happy that someone stood up to a couple of burglars that show no regard for life or property.

 

[fskimospy]

I really don't particularly like the culture of weapon ownership that the US has going on to be totally honest, I just respect the constitution. So I do wish it were different, but as I've mentioned earlier in this thread if I'm going to complain about Bush violating the parts of the constitution I DO like, it's important to respect the parts that I could live without. Because of that I'm completely willing to let you go do whatever it is you want to do with your guns... it's your right. I don't care because I don't want to infringe on others' rights.

About the fear thing, I guess we'll agree to disagree. I think hatred often comes from fear, and there is a palpable hatred of those dead guys in many postings here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

About the fear thing, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I think hatred often comes from fear, and there is a palpable hatred of those dead guys in many postings here.

It's not fear of the dead guys, it's anger.

Angry about their stealing and pillage from fellow Americans.

There is supposedly a gazillion jobs out there according to resident Republicans.

 

[jpeyton]

I hope the DA brings charges.

Did the guy even give the people a chance to surrender before he ended their lives?

Sounds like he had an urge to kill regardless of who they were or what they were doing.

 

[RightIsWrong]

IMO, I think that gun rights are something that need to be preserved. But I also think that there needs to be a common sense approach to "Castle Doctrine" laws. If someone is breaking into your house or trying to jack your car, defend yourself in whatever means you deem necessary.

If you see someone leaving a house with a TV that you cannot verify immediately that they purchased from the homeowner/renter....keep your Dirty Harry outlook to yourself and don't think that you need to play Paul Kersey. Use common sense and gather as much info as you feel comfortable getting (description, license plate, direction headed, etc) and then either confirm with the home owner or call the police. Your choice. But don't end a life over something so petty that it can be replaced for a couple hundred dollars. Besides, if you are wrong and they weren't stealing it, you just bought yourself 5-10 for negligent homicide.

Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That's besides the point though... because that's not the debate we were having. Actually that's not the debate I was having, but you have been responding as if it was.

You're trying to argue as if I were supporting some gun control legislation that I'm not. If you want to continue debating me based on what you wish I had said as opposed to what I actually said then feel free. The numbers you gave to me just had absolutely nothing to do with my argument, all they made me think was that you weren't reading my posts. They were made to fight gun control legislation fights... fights that I'm not interested in having and haven't been arguing for.

You also have a limited understanding of suicide, and yes the immediate availability of effective means to kill yourself by a single action is most certainly a contributor to suicide. I had a good friend of mine take his own life with a handy dandy pistol this last July. I would suggest you learn more about suicide before you say that.

I was responding to your statement of "All of my positions against gun ownership are practical ones" which in my opinion are not practical at all. I then presented studies and evidence as to why I didn't think they where practical. I never said that you where supporting gun control legislation. I am simply arguing that your statements where largely inaccurate.

Your right, I do have a limited understanding of suicide and I won't pretend otherwise. Personally, I think the study I cited earlier is rather valid to the argument but once again that is a rather uninformed opinion.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I hope the DA brings charges.

Did the guy even give the people a chance to surrender before he ended their lives?

Sounds like he had an urge to kill regardless of who they were or what they were doing.

The transcripts indicate that he did, and that they failed to follow his orders. Different states have VERY different laws about what someone has to do. In some states you are legally required to flee someone unless they are committing rape or murder. In others you are legally allowed to kill anyone breaking into your property. It really depends on how the laws of that particular state are written.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

Your first point is exactly what my point was...

Allowing people to skate without any punishment whatsoever for mistakes has the side effect of allowing some people the thoughts that they can shoot anyone at any time and just say....Oops, my bad.

You second point is something that is unfortunate, but it is also something that the shooter(s) involved are trained and when/if something like that happens, they are investigated and some sort of disciplinary action is taken (even if criminal charges aren't).

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

Your first point is exactly what my point was...

Allowing people to skate without any punishment whatsoever for mistakes has the side effect of allowing some people the thoughts that they can shoot anyone at any time and just say....Oops, my bad.

You second point is something that is unfortunate, but it is also something that the shooter(s) involved are trained and when/if something like that happens, they are investigated and some sort of disciplinary action is taken (even if criminal charges aren't).

I think you missed my point. Let's say that I am in a state where CCW is legal. I catch someone in the act of raping a woman. In shooting them (killing someone committing a rape is generally legal in any state IIRC), the bullet goes through the person, but then ricochets, goes through a window some distance away, and kills someone sleeping in their bedroom. Now, what would prosecuting me do? The odds of such a thing happening are probably a million to one, but it does happen. If prosecuted, everyone else with a CCW would be far, far less likely to fire their weapon (and CCW holders almost never do as it is) because they would be afraid that despite the fact that they would save a life, they would go to prison. It would have the same effect as prosecuting everyone who got in a car accident where another person was killed (and drugs/alcohol were not involved)...nobody would want to drive.

This also gets into the second point where they are acting in the capacity of law enforcement officers.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

Your first point is exactly what my point was...

Allowing people to skate without any punishment whatsoever for mistakes has the side effect of allowing some people the thoughts that they can shoot anyone at any time and just say....Oops, my bad.

You second point is something that is unfortunate, but it is also something that the shooter(s) involved are trained and when/if something like that happens, they are investigated and some sort of disciplinary action is taken (even if criminal charges aren't).

I think you missed my point. Let's say that I am in a state where CCW is legal. I catch someone in the act of raping a woman. In shooting them (killing someone committing a rape is generally legal in any state IIRC), the bullet goes through the person, but then ricochets, goes through a window some distance away, and kills someone sleeping in their bedroom. Now, what would prosecuting me do? The odds of such a thing happening are probably a million to one, but it does happen. If prosecuted, everyone else with a CCW would be far, far less likely to fire their weapon (and CCW holders almost never do as it is) because they would be afraid that despite the fact that they would save a life, they would go to prison. It would have the same effect as prosecuting everyone who got in a car accident where another person was killed (and drugs/alcohol were not involved)...nobody would want to drive.

This also gets into the second point where they are acting in the capacity of law enforcement officers.

You and I are talking about the same exact thing but from opposite sides of the fence. I believe that you have a right to do what you described. I also feel that you should not be prosecuted in some freak accident circumstance as you described but the felony in progress claim needs to be fully investigated.

However, I also feel that the idiot in the OP should be prosecuted because there was no clear danger to himself or anyone else AT THE TIME of the shooting. He was clearly sporting a Ron Jeremy size hard on thinking about his chance to get to shoot someone from the 911 transcripts.

The law in TX is poorly written so as to give unabated pathways to murder with the claim that they were witnessed committing a felony at the time. There needs to be a common sense middle ground to both sides of this equation and TX does not come close to this from the side of respect for human life and the opposite side goes to far in restricting people's rights from self defense in other states.