I'm saying nothing of the sort about victims. I didn't say that the criminals actions weren't bad, or that the victims deserved it, or that the criminals shouldn't go to prison. I'm say that criminals are not evil people, they are people in need of rehabilitation.jdun said:You know your statement is an oxymoron. It's like saying rape isn't bad because the rape victim deserve it. It's like saying murdering a baby isn't bad because the baby bad deserve it. It's like saying that burning a house full of people while they are sleeping isn't bad because they deserve it.orangeban said:I said nothing about the victims, didn't mention that. I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life.jdun said:This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.orangeban said:Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.jdun said:The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/
http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.
Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).
These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
You are criminalizing the victims and victimize the criminals. Unfortunately your mind can't comprehend that.
Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder
- Thread starter GistoftheFist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The young lady isn't going to jail because Oklahoma adopted the Castle doctrine which allow you to kill home invader(s) without any fear of prosecution and civil lawsuits.newwiseman said:
Castle doctrine are good laws which I support. It prevent liberal prosecutors from criminalizing victims.
But that's what you're saying.orangeban said:I'm saying nothing of the sort about victims. I didn't say that the criminals actions weren't bad, or that the victims deserved it, or that the criminals shouldn't go to prison. I'm say that criminals are not evil people, they are people in need of rehabilitation.jdun said:You know your statement is an oxymoron. It's like saying rape isn't bad because the rape victim deserve it. It's like saying murdering a baby isn't bad because the baby bad deserve it. It's like saying that burning a house full of people while they are sleeping isn't bad because they deserve it.orangeban said:I said nothing about the victims, didn't mention that. I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life.jdun said:This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.orangeban said:Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.jdun said:The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/
http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.
Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).
These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
You are criminalizing the victims and victimize the criminals. Unfortunately your mind can't comprehend that.
"I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life."
Who 'rehabilitates' the victims? Are the criminals responsible for reparations to their victims? Or can you do pretty much whatever you want, and just being 'rehabilitated' is good enough?orangeban said:
Bad OP summary and stuff.senordesol said:
The robber is just dumb then they could have robbed her without trying to kill her.
OR (and I know this will be a novel idea to some of you, but bear with me) they could have tried NOT FUCKING ROBBING HER AT ALL.Twilight_guy said:
Yes, I know I said that, but that quote doesn't imply that all criminals should be released, or that the victims are at fault.jdun said:But that's what you're saying.orangeban said:I'm saying nothing of the sort about victims. I didn't say that the criminals actions weren't bad, or that the victims deserved it, or that the criminals shouldn't go to prison. I'm say that criminals are not evil people, they are people in need of rehabilitation.jdun said:You know your statement is an oxymoron. It's like saying rape isn't bad because the rape victim deserve it. It's like saying murdering a baby isn't bad because the baby bad deserve it. It's like saying that burning a house full of people while they are sleeping isn't bad because they deserve it.orangeban said:I said nothing about the victims, didn't mention that. I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life.jdun said:This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.orangeban said:Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.jdun said:The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/
http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.
Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).
These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
You are criminalizing the victims and victimize the criminals. Unfortunately your mind can't comprehend that.
"I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life."
Look, I'll set my opinion straight down -
There are no bad people, only bad actions and bad reasons
Criminals are people who have done a bad action for a bad reason
[NOTE: killing someone in self defence is a bad action for a good reason, so the lady in this story isn't a criminal]
The justice system should put criminals (who have done a serious enough crime) in prison
In prison, they should be rehabilitated, helped to overcome their personal problems, and taught about what are bad and good actions/reasons, so that they can become productive and active members of society.
Some people are beyond help, this tends to be people like psychopaths or the seriously mentally ill, in which case they should go in a mental hospital (not prison, just a secure hospital).
Just an aside on the three-shot deal, that's 1 for 1 officer and 2 for the other. Double-tap (two shots at a time) is a trained response, because 1 bullet is not a sure stop for an assailant. I think the numbers run something like 40-70% depending on the caliber of gun and placement. Two shots has nearly a 100% chance of stopping an assailant, and so it's a known, trained response. Looked at that way, the officer who only shot once was either confident his partner would fire at the same time, or was taking a big chance on a return shot, possibly out of consideration for the fact that it was a child assailant.rhizhim said:GistoftheFist said:this applies to every first world country. you have the right to protect yourself and more so if the life of your child is possibly in danger.Fawxy said:
mothers have even more rights in every countries.
in germany for example:
when you see an accident, you are normally obligated to try and help the injured and get help/call an ambulance. if you fail to do so (at least call for help and stay on the site) you will face charges if one dies.
mothers, if accompanied with children don't even have to call the ambulance.
they are obligated to protect their children from any harm, be it physical or psychological at all times and at all cost.
and this mother didn't had any way to avoid this. she could not flee. and calling the police was the best thing she could do.
the strange thing about this case is that other countries wouldn't press murder charges to the second intruder for the murder, the first intruder possibly attempted. and thats the grey area and the strange thing about american law.
the thing about the bully is justified. you can stab someone in panic multiple times before realising that he has been incapacitated.
the bully was looking for a fight/make someones life as miserable as he can make, but this time he didn't consider that his douchebaggery would be the end of him.
the thing about the pellet gun. first off:
he is in texas. this state is known for shoot first, shoot again and perhaps ask later when you are out of bullets.
but besides that:
1)he brought a 'gun' to a school.and i really don't fell like telling you why this is such a bad idea [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting]
2)he didn't use this pellet gun as a prop for a student movie, he used it to threaten people.and the police has repeadedly been called to any campus on the suspect of a firearm. someone even called the cops on students because they thought that this:
was an assault rifle.
3)he aimed the pellet gun at other people
4) when the officers asked him to lower his gun he aimed at the officers.
it looks like assisted suicide to me.
how the hell should the officers know that its a pellet gun?
and you really think you can incapacitate an attacker with one single bullet to the shoulder? they don't even have the right ammunition (rubber bullets) to do so.
they shot 3 times hitting him 2 times. considering that it is in texas its almost rare that officers can control themselves that much. and that he was just a young boy doesn't mean shit.
for almost the three cases i can't but say:
THEY HAD IT COMMING
and i just can't find any sympathy for the people that say it was unjustified.
Just saying, the whole "they shot him 3 times 'cause Texas is gun-crazy" attitude isn't justifiable here.
The victims presumably don't need rehabilitation, since they (probably) are normal citizens, who obey the lwa.senordesol said:
The criminal might be responsible for reparations, depends on the crime and the criminal.
Yeah, being rehabilitated is good enough. Rehabilitated basically means becoming a normal, law-abiding and productive citizen.
Yeah, after being assaulted and nearly killed; no one is going to need any sort of counseling. Sure.orangeban said:
What crimes? What Criminals?
And if they merely fake 'rehabilitation'?
Rehabilitation isn't the same as councilling, I think you're confused about that.senordesol said:
Well, the most obvious is robbery, return the stolen goods. For stuff like murder it can be more difficult. You don't want to take all the criminals possesions for practical reasons (if they leave prison and have nothing, they'll probably re-offend). I think it's the judges call.
And mentally ill people shouldn't pay reparations (if the mental illness is the reason for the crime of course), because they aren't really in control of themselves.
If they aren't really rehabilitated then something has gone wrong in the system. If they re-offend (which is really the only effective test for rehabilitation) then we need to try harder, don't we?
here in my country there is no such thing as "self-defence", you CANT kill other people whitout getting in trouble PERIOD, even if they are clearly assailants tresspasing in your house, your lookin at least 3 days detention during "inquires" (wich are just another word for how much are you willin to pay for them to let you out) matter of fact is easier to shoot them IN the house then throw them out on the sidewalk and wait it out, just deny anithing if anyone asks, is nearly impossible to get a licence to buy a firearm if your a civilian (and actual firearms are prohibitely expesive for most)
Rehabilitate. Verb: To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.orangeban said:
If you think there's no potential for crippling mental (or physical) trauma after being forced to fight for your life in your own home, I don't know what to do with you.
What if the stolen good were hawked or hidden? And if a mentally ill person stole your stuff, how are you to get it back?
Finally, faith in the 'system' is folly. Non-violent offenders might have a shot, but I don't want to take the chance otherwise. I don't much care if they are 'bad people' or not, that doesn't matter nor change the damage to the victims.
If it really did go that way and just that way then it's pretty open and shut case. Regardless of right or wrong or "had it coming" she had no choice but to defend herself and her baby. You can't ask a woman with a baby to surrender to knife wielding thugs, especially after a whole 21 minutes the police STILL had not come to her rescue.
But on gun ownership my stance is one of dilemma:
As a member of the public, I want a gun. There are crazy people out there.
Members of the public can't have guns. There are crazy people out there!
That's my dilemma on gun ownership. I want a gun to defend myself but I understand the very same mechanism can be abused by crazy people to jeopardise my life, though a lot can be done to keep guns out of the hands of the murderous and in hands of the reasonable. Though it is not as if I am safe in a gun free world, lets cast our mind back to a time BEFORE guns: the Dark Ages. Times of inquisitions, lynching and routine pillaging. You may not get shot but you may get a pitchfork instead.
Of course, want is want. It is illegal to own ANY weapon for self-defence in the UK, so I don't own any weapons.
The state of UK law at the moment seems to have been written around obvious criminal elements abusing the law. Its clear from test cases where violent career criminals have used vaguely written self-defence laws to cover up their criminal enterprises and the result is of course that now ALL people cannot be trusted with any kind of tool of violence. You may own a weapon like a knife or sword for historical or ceremonial reasons but not for self-defence.
But on gun ownership my stance is one of dilemma:
As a member of the public, I want a gun. There are crazy people out there.
Members of the public can't have guns. There are crazy people out there!
That's my dilemma on gun ownership. I want a gun to defend myself but I understand the very same mechanism can be abused by crazy people to jeopardise my life, though a lot can be done to keep guns out of the hands of the murderous and in hands of the reasonable. Though it is not as if I am safe in a gun free world, lets cast our mind back to a time BEFORE guns: the Dark Ages. Times of inquisitions, lynching and routine pillaging. You may not get shot but you may get a pitchfork instead.
Of course, want is want. It is illegal to own ANY weapon for self-defence in the UK, so I don't own any weapons.
The state of UK law at the moment seems to have been written around obvious criminal elements abusing the law. Its clear from test cases where violent career criminals have used vaguely written self-defence laws to cover up their criminal enterprises and the result is of course that now ALL people cannot be trusted with any kind of tool of violence. You may own a weapon like a knife or sword for historical or ceremonial reasons but not for self-defence.
That's incorrect. In liberal cities with liberal prosecutors they will take the home owner to court on criminal charges.Nielas said:
The Castle Doctrine was created to prevent that short of crap. It prevent the prosecutor taking the home owner to court even if they know the home owner is 100% in the right. By not going to court this young lady save herself ten of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and months of unnecessary stress.
It says so quite clearly in this particular article right here:Blablahb said:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9968356-no-charges-for-teen-widow-who-killed-intruder
Note this particular line:
"The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in. Martin charged at McKinley with his knife, but she said she shot at him before he could get to her."
Also:
"Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents, Martin was holding a knife when he died."
Did not show any intent to harm? Really? What fairytale world are you living in. We've been over this before, but it seems you and the real world just do not agree.
That's not the case since he spent 21 minutes breaking he. He very likely knew she was on the phone with the police, armed, and ready to defend her baby. He also had 21 minutes to give up and go home; alive. He did not choose to exercise his right to give up and go home.
That's quite a foolish assumption seeing as how she could only speculate as to why they were trying to break into her home while she was there. What? Would you have had her ask them, "Hey! Why are you trying to break into my home?" I promise you, that would not have worked.
We also know from (now both) articles that the person breaking into her home was indeed armed. Threat =/= 0!
Really, this very story proves otherwise, and so does this one:
Remember this? A homeowner stopped armed intruders from breaking down his door and murdering them. Please tell me these men drove up and intended no harm. I would love to see you justify their actions and render them, "Harmless."
The problem is, that only works on minors.orangeban said:
After you grow up and become an adult... you need to take responsibility. It's part of growing up. You can't sit down and blame your parents or society, because that's excusing you from your mistakes and trying to make others responsible for them.
If you're over 18, you're responsible for your life. You can't blame society.
Only 80-70 years ago, people didn't have as much education as we typically have now. It does not excuse us for not getting a job. There is a lot of public awareness about diseases and drug abuse, that did not exist just a few decades ago.
Simply put, being a violent criminal is not excusable.
As far as I am concerned, there are a lot of crimes you can commit without threatening people's lives/being violent.
Stop. You're making gun owners look bad. You're making the average American look bad.jdun said:
There are no "liberal" prosecutors. There are shitty prosecutors that do things that stereotype both Republican and Democrat attitudes, but they aren't "liberal" or "conservative," except in the single issue that they are prosecuting for.
Interesting situation to consider:galaktar said:
Now, I have had it pt to me that the pumping adrenaline of a fight is a justification to the seemingly savage stabbing. I have been told by you that to kill is justified in order to protect one's own life.
So, say the bully is stabbed once or twice, non-fatally (say in a limb). He recoils in fear of this victim-turned-threat, but the red fog has come down, and the bully comes under attack. Would the fully be within his rights to try to fend off what is now his attacker, even if that defence was fatal?