Old redneck shoots burglars...

[K. A. Pital]

How many times have you said "I am going to kill him" in anger without actually intending the death of the individual?

In none of those times I was going out to meet said individual with a fully loaded gun. Words combined with actions prove his intent, not words alone, thus, this point is a massive strawman.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh come on.

All of this bending over backwards because we're not supposed to "like" the victims (yes, victims) or something is retarded.

What is SO FUCKING WRONG about treating vigilantes like other murderers? Why is it so many people defend them? Do these people feel THAT powerless that they have to protect this worthless hick?

No i dont believe he meant it that way, because he said it more than once, and was loading his gun, and if i recall the recording actually said it several times after being told to stay in his house.

He's some loser hick who killed to people. I honestly dont see why anyone would defend him for any reason.

The law, police, they do not actually prevent victimization and often cannot even find the person guilty of the crime. The loss of power and control is the part of being a victim of many crimes that is the most difficult to deal with. Someone who is willing to victimize someone for personal gain is scum. They are not innocent, and they took a risk when they entered someone's home. They paid the price for that risk. I am not saying that what this guy did was necessarily morally right. But guess what, I am not going to impinge on his character either. He was doing what he thought was morally right at the time, despite if you can tell from what was on the tape, more than likely not wanting to.

There is something to be said about acting on one's moral convictions, even if those convictions are wrong.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How many times have you said "I am going to kill him" in anger without actually intending the death of the individual?

In none of those times I was going out to meet said individual with a fully loaded gun. Words combined with actions prove his intent, not words alone, thus, this point is a massive strawman.

Not really. Words said in anger do not prove intent. If he actually intended to kill them, he would have simply shot them, rather than give an order to stop.

Additionally "If you go out there you will get shot"

responded to with "You wanna bet, I am gonna kill them"

Says to me at least that he was responding to the remark that he himself will get shot. The proverbial "Not if I get them first" It is a matter of interpretation.

[18-Till-I-Die]

We have a justice system. We have police, we have judges, jurries, lawyers, jails.

There is no need for vigilantism in that. It's been supplanted by more civilized and ethically right forms of justice.

I, personally, feel no reason at all to laude sympathy and what not on this loser. I know what i need to know about his "character" or lack thereof from the fact he's a double murderer, an admitted one at that, and a remorseless one as far as i can tell. His "moral convictions" are about as moral as any other double murderer i've seen.

I'm sorry if it bothers some people, but i just dont feel powerless enough to care about this little shitkicker redneck. Indeed, i for one, feel much less safer wth people like HIM in the world, deciding the "worth" and "worthlessnes" of human lives at random, than some robber.

[Kuja]

There is something to be said about acting on one's moral convictions, even if those convictions are wrong.

Ignore logic and go with the gut huh?

[brianeyci]

Because it is meaningless chest thumping. There are not very many libertarians on this board, and those that are here A) may not have read the thread and as such cannot answer your challenge and B) Even if they had checked the thread, probably rolled their eyes and left on the first page and thus did not read your challenge.

As for biting you, I am not into that....

Half the shit here is mindless chest thumping.

You also forget the real reason. Hardcore libertarians will possibly not be convinced, but people who are watching, moderates, will get alienated. That is the real reason to challenging people's core beliefs... it is highly unlikely they will ever change their position, based on any sort of debate. But it does make them look silly to other people. You would be surprised at how many people hold the belief that property is very important, to be as important as human life, that humans can be viewed as money. Anybody remotely successful wants to keep the fruits of his labor.

Actually it seems perfectly consistent to me if you believe that property has the same value as life to kill over property.

Well I'll give you that. Looks like this guy was logically consistent. But I'm not going to say, don't challenge them. The analogy is flawed, but killing an unarmed man puts a certain discomfort into even the most hardcore libertarian, to the point they say in theory they would kill but in practise they would not.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Oh Jesus Christ.

If someone says "You'll be shot!"

And the other responds, "You wanna' bet! I'm gunna' kill 'em!"

That implies he intended to kill them. That IS the same as saying "Not if i get them first!" it's just translated into Action Movie lingo.



I mean that isnt even a nitpick, it's basically taking what in any other case would be an admission of guilt and trying to use it as a defense. What? Huh?

"Objectivity"? And what pray is that?

[Justforfun000]

How do people feel about the right to go out and threaten the robbers with the shotgun. As in "drop that stuff or I'll shoot". The cops are allowed to do so, and the same consequences can happen to the robbers. Is there any MORAL reason why the guy shouldn't be able to interfere and potentially stop the crime from occurring?

Obviously I'm not arguing he should just be allowed to shoot them willy-nilly, but what is REALLY the difference if the police would ALSO shoot if they ignored them and tried to flee the scene with the other guys possessions? I find this a sticky question....

[K. A. Pital]

Obviously I'm not arguing he should just be allowed to shoot them willy-nilly, but what is REALLY the difference if the police would ALSO shoot if they ignored them and tried to flee the scene with the other guys possessions? I find this a sticky question....

There is:
1) police have legal authority to do so, the vigilante does not
2) police are trained to incapacitate, at least some of them, the vigilante killed them
3) ignoring the police might be a little harder for the robber than ignoring an old vigilante with a shotgun

[18-Till-I-Die]

Because the police are...

Police.

They're given the authority to do so by our system of justice.

He's not a police officer, he's a hick with a shotgun. And there for he is not given ANY authority to threaten or kill ANYONE.

And before you ask, self-defense is completely different. In the realm of self-defense, AFAIK, the burden of proof is on YOU to show you were in immediate danger, whats known as an "affirmative defense" if i recall.

And even then, cops are still put under a microscope and investigated when they kill someone. Or at least they should be, sometimes they're given a walk but we'll talk about that another time *coughamadoudiallocough*...oh i'm sorry i meant to type Amadou Diallo but i coughed there.

[General Zod]

There is:
1) police have legal authority to do so, the vigilante does not
2) police are trained to incapacitate, at least some of them, the vigilante killed them
3) ignoring the police might be a little harder for the robber than ignoring an old vigilante with a shotgun

Number 2 isn't quite right. Police are trained to respond with appropriate force. If the burglars didn't have weapons the incapacitation would be an option. But the moment they brought out a weapon and showed deadly intent all bets are off.

[Gaidin]

And before you ask, self-defense is completely different. In the realm of self-defense, AFAIK, the burden of proof is on YOU to show you were in immediate danger, whats known as an "affirmative defense" if i recall.

I thought you just had to show you had reason to believe you were in danger?

Given what 20/20 hindsight has shown us many times, proving you were in immediate danger in many circumstances is a bit off.

[Justforfun000]

Yeah I understand the reasons put forth of course, but this would be ideal if they were PRESENT and you then give them the situation. If they are NOT present, and are not going to be expected to arrive in time to stop the crime, why should the criminals be allowed to continue without even a threat from someone? What is wrong with even trying a "citizens arrest" by threatening them with the shotgun?

I'm playing devils advocate here....I don't think he should have the right to actually shoot them unless they attack him, but these grey areas are interesting debates on where to draw the lines...

[K. A. Pital]

If they are NOT present, and are not going to be expected to arrive in time to stop the crime, why should the criminals be allowed to continue without even a threat from someone?

The 911 operator did say to him that the police are underway, right?

What is wrong with even trying a "citizens arrest" by threatening them with the shotgun?

And by what legal right do you even arrest other citizens?

[General Zod]

Yeah I understand the reasons put forth of course, but this would be ideal if they were PRESENT and you then give them the situation. If they are NOT present, and are not going to be expected to arrive in time to stop the crime, why should the criminals be allowed to continue without even a threat from someone? What is wrong with even trying a "citizens arrest" by threatening them with the shotgun?

I'm playing devils advocate here....I don't think he should have the right to actually shoot them unless they attack him, but these grey areas are interesting debates on where to draw the lines...

Someone breaking into your home has already displayed their intent, so there's no reason to take chances with them as far as self defense is concerned. But in the case of other people's property it really is best to simply call the cops and just let them deal with it.

[General Zod]

And by what legal right do you even arrest other citizens?

You can only perform citizens arrests if you witness a felony being committed afaik. The last I checked, home burglary wasn't one.

[Gaidin]

You can only perform citizens arrests if you witness a felony being committed afaik. The last I checked, home burglary wasn't one.

Burglary, I believe, requires you enter the premise with intent to commit a felony. Mostly theft isn't on the list, but some jurisdictions do have it.

Burglary on wiki. So...grainOfSalt++;

[Gaidin]

You can only perform citizens arrests if you witness a felony being committed afaik. The last I checked, home burglary wasn't one.

Burglary, I believe, requires you enter the premise with intent to commit a felony. Mostly theft isn't on the list, but some jurisdictions do have it.

Burglary on wiki. So...grainOfSalt++;

Oh wow...wrong damn page...

forget this burglary thing I said....

[Justforfun000]

Ok. Was curious what the opinions would be. I agree with the basic law as described personally. I think if someone was creating a felony, and I'm assuming that means something serious enough as murder, then you would be in the clear to shoot them. But just theft/damage to property? No.

What about threatening though? Are there laws against threatening someone with a loaded, pointed shotgun from your own yard basically as a deterrent? It would cross the line if you demanded they drop the loot or you'll shoot of course, but what about just a defensive stance?

I guess this is also totally dependant on where in the world you are naturally. I'm asking these more as your personal opinion on where the lines should be drawn because I'm see-sawed between some action and some restraint.

[K. A. Pital]

Call the police and wait. You can't be sure thieves are unarmed. In fact, risking your life like that would be very fucking stupid. There are people in the public service who are paid to do exactly that.

[General Zod]

Ok. Was curious what the opinions would be. I agree with the basic law as described personally. I think if someone was creating a felony, and I'm assuming that means something serious enough as murder, then you would be in the clear to shoot them. But just theft/damage to property? No.

If they're making off with something on your property but not in your home, then it's a gray area, but the moment they break into your home all bets are off.

What about threatening though? Are there laws against threatening someone with a loaded, pointed shotgun from your own yard basically as a deterrent? It would cross the line if you demanded they drop the loot or you'll shoot of course, but what about just a defensive stance?

Pointing a gun at someone without the intent to use it is fucking stupid and goes against any gun safety course you can think of. It makes things especially worse if the people it's pointed at are armed and call your bluff.

[Justforfun000]

Pointing a gun at someone without the intent to use it is fucking stupid and goes against any gun safety course you can think of. It makes things especially worse if the people it's pointed at are armed and call your bluff.

Yeah I suppose your right. Ultimately I guess it makes sense to not get involved unless you can prevent a crime of harm to another human being.

[Justforfun000]

Damn it.. How do you make this thing put an image on the bottom of my posts like you guys have? I tried both the url and the img tags at the location where the picture is. What am I doing wrong?

[Kanastrous]

Pointing a gun at someone without the intent to use it is fucking stupid and goes against any gun safety course you can think of. It makes things especially worse if the people it's pointed at are armed and call your bluff.

Yup. By the time you're lining up over the sights you should be exhaling for the shot. If you are in extremis and aiming a deadly weapon at someone, I think you should have already formed the intent to kill them.

Unless you are a peace officer operating under your department's guidelines, which may say different.

[Jadeite]

Because he's a libertarian. Or at least he shares the same core belief.

Come on libertarians. Come here and disavow your association with this guy. I dare you. And just what would happen if this guy says he is a libertarian? That's right, it's no-true-scotsman staring you libertarians in the face.

This came out of totally fucking nowhere and has pretty much nothing to do with this thread.

Don't like it: it's the logical consequence of valuing property as much as human life.

One could look at it from another point of view: The robbers were valuing property as much as their lives, by purposely taking that risk. Why should we condemn the old man for placing exactly the same value upon them that they put upon themselves?