• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arlington Man Arrested In Fatal Shooting Of Alleged Burglar

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:
Wait, so it's wrong for this guy to steal things people acquired and he deserves to be killed but when the IRS does the same thing it's okay and they deserve our money?
Yep thats why IRS and income tax need to be abolished.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

tyguy808 wrote:
I think that we should have the Texas Death Penalty law, If there is DNA evidence proving positive, or two or more credible EYEwitnesses, you go right to the front of the line. Ron White said it best, "your state is trying to abolish the death penalty, my state is putting in an express lane!"
This doesn't address the wrongfully convicted. All you've done is advocate killing some (based on an entirely arbitrary -- and false -- standard of "proved") more rapidly. You just argued, essentially, "Don't worry about the wrongfully convicted, we'll just execute those we are less unsure about first." It entirely dodges the pertinent issue.

In your eagerness to grant the state more power to deal with people you should be defending yourself against, you ran right past the salient detail.

I'm on the same page as Citizen on this issue. I don't oppose the death penalty per se on moral or ethical grounds, I just highly question the competence of our (or any) government to carry it out without an unacceptable (read: any) false positive rate.

This is why Citizen's warning ought to be carefully heeded. If the death penalty is to be used, it must be with exactly the same kind of consideration that you so willfully just breezed past as though it were entirely irrelevant.

I also question, in general, those who are the victims of government aggression (like essentially every non-LEO gun owner), recognize this, and fight against it, but advocate an increase of government power anywhere at all so long as it doesn't affect them, intentionally ignorant of the supreme foolishness of such an act.

Personally, I'd have no problem wiping our country free of murderers and a few others sorts of offenders, from a purely moral perspective.

I simply don't trust the government anywhere near enough to willingly cede the power over my life and death to it. Which is what the death penalty entails in the read world where the innocent may be accused and convicted base on "conclusive" but misleading evidence (ESPECIALLY that of notoriously unreliable "eyewitnesses").

I trust most people enough to allow them to arm themselves, and I trust that, in general, people will make the best decisions they are able to. I trust that, most of the time, you have nothing to fear from an armed citizen as long as you don't aggress against him.

I simply don't extend this level of trust to the government. Were I to, it would prove me a fool time and time again.

If we want to take a bite out of crime while preserving liberty, the ONLY option is an enhanced emphasis on individual self-defense (that's why I'm here!). Giving the state more power can only reduce liberty.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

I am old enough to remember a couple "public hangings" in my home state(1943) They made no appreciable difference in the rate of murder. My point is, the threat of death really has no effect upon those predisposed to most types of crime. That being said I do not believe the option of shooting a "fleeing felon" or any other type of miscreant would reduce the amount of those crimes either.

Hendu024 wrote:
Trigger Dr wrote:


Right......The same way the death penalty stops murder.

FrankC wrote:
I understand what the law is but that doesn't change my opinion in the slightest...I have a sneaky suspicion that if shooting was the norm for home invasions (legally) they would quickly cease to be a problem.
No the 'death penalty' may not stop murder, but public hangings and death by firing squad would sure as sh#t get people's attention. None of this b.s. 20 years on death row, either. Oh, but then the states wouldn't get their revenue...
 

FrankC

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
101
Location
Mukilteo Wa, , USA
imported post

Apparently you can't do the math then! Two BG break into a house to loot and pillage, homeowner wakes up and promptly puts a bullet in one as they flee into the night. BG is hit bad and dies on scene (crying buckets now), in this interaction the future crime rate for home invasion was reduced by 50%...Do that a few times and it WILL make a difference.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

I am not opposed to Death penalty either except I have dealt with our "justice" system and know it is no "justice" system. They make way too many mistakes.

I give as an example OJ. He got the exact verdict he should have ( as far as our courts are supposed to go). Because nobody should be convicted on circumstantial evidence, but it took a rich man to get that "justice", most of us can be innocent of crimes but find it too difficult or expensive to defend ourselves against zealous prosecutors.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:
Orphan wrote:
What adumba$$, people like this give the responsable gun owners a bad name. I hope they put him under the jail.



Orphan
I disagree, he doesn't give responsible gun owners a bad name sense he was not responsible. To people against others owning guns then yes they will use this to promote there efforts but anyone who believes that is a fool and deserves what they get.
The problem is that there a lot of fools out there that react to situations like this and apply what they hear to responsable gun owners, thus my comment.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

FrankC wrote:
Orphan wrote:
What adumba$$, people like this give the responsable gun owners a bad name. I hope they put him under the jail.



Orphan

Only due to laws geared towards protecting criminals instead of law abiding citizens. I think you should be able to protect your property against thieves.
I wish we could have Texas style laws that were more geared to allowing honest people to legaly defend their property.
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
imported post

If the facts play out as indicated - this was not a case of self defense. I believe the shooter was irresponsible and should be held accountable.

The death of anyone is not a small thing and I judge there is too much casual callousness in many posts.

We don't want politicians, cities or states playing loose with the Constituition and Amendments - then subsequently let's not play loose (killing) with the Homicide laws.

My opinion

PS Dave Workman - Appreciate your WA State Gun Rights and Responsibilities. Responsible gun owners should know the law - if only to be able to change what they do not agree with.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:
That being said I do not believe the option of shooting a "fleeing felon" or any other type of miscreant would reduce the amount of those crimes either.

There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that you are wrong here. "Hot" burglaries are much higher in Britain than they are here. Thieves would prefer to break in while alarm systems are deactivated and while someone can provide a quick map of where the valuables are. However, in the United States there is also a good chance of getting shot. Therefore the statistics show that "cold" burglaries are much more prevalent in the United States.

To back this up, a study was done, I believe by either John Lott or Gary Kleck, in which they interviewed career criminals currently in prison. Overwhelmingly those interviewed stated that they would be less likely to invade a home if the homeowners were present or if they believed that the homeowners might have firearms.

I'm not suggesting that someone should shoot a fleeing felon, but "any other miscreant" could be a different issue. Any other would, of course, include non-fleeing miscreants.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

Heresolong,

I agree with you with regards to that study. My point is the ability to legally shoot in the aforementioned circumstances, would not be much of a deterrent, as the perpetrator would more than likely be the one who did not fear the armed citizen. There are a few of those out there. The ones who responded to that interview would be the ones that would not commit in those instances .
 
Top