"Well, here it goes buddy"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tiamat
I think that instead of shooting to kill the other option would have been to shoot them in the knee caps thereby taking them down which should have been the ultimate goal here.

Unless the guy had special firearms training, why do you think he should have tried to maim the lowlifes and avoid the largest target he had to aim at? Keep in mind he had a shotgun not a handgun.

And before I forget: Joe McShotgun

[Arrian]

Also, it is hard to maintain he intended to kill them regardless given that he clearly warned them before shooting and then gave them enough time afterward for the cop to notice they started running towards him.

Right. Manslaughter, not murder.

-Arrian

[-Jrabbit]

It's called neighborhood watch, not Neighborhood Defense League. Hell, if he had just stayed inside, his own property would not have been violated. Instead...

He called 911. An officer was promptly dispatched.
He was told to stay in the house.
He ignored the advice of 911.
He got his gun.
He went outside.
He confronted the men.
He shot them both in the back.

Sounds premeditated to me.

No matter what the provocation, I see no way that he should get off without a trial of some sort.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'll take it, then, that you don't understand the distinction I was drawing. Ok.

As for your question, the difference is that the people he shot were in the middle of committing a crime. That crime was burglary, which is not the same as, for instance, murder or rape*, but is nonetheless a reprehensible activity.

-Arrian

Actually, they were no longer committing the crime of burglary by the time he shot them. They were leaving the scene of the crime, which is also a crime, but not one for which people can be shot by civilians.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, they were no longer committing the crime of burglary by the time he shot them. They were leaving the scene of the crime, which is also a crime, but not one for which people can be shot by civilians.

Fine. That doesn't change my position on the matter at all. :shrug:

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

When you fire a shotgun at close range at a human being, there can be no serious thought that it will not kill them. Firing a shotgun at close range is evidence of intent to kill.

[Arrian]

And, therefore, you think he's a murderer. Ok. I disagree, but only slightly and I don't feel all that strongly about it. Whether it's murder or manslaughter, the point is Joe McShotgun should not be judge, jury and executioner.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
He ordered them to freeze. They didn't - instead they ran. He shot them in the back.

Sounds like manslaughter to me.

-Arrian

You've lost your mind, completely.

[chequita guevara]

Manslaughter can put you in prison for a damn long time, and I don't have a real problem with it if he gets the max.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I concede that I do see a difference between shooting random people in the street and shooting two thieves in the midst of thieving.

The difference between you and I is that I see people as equal value, always. I never rank people according to value, like you do. All people have the same right to life, freedom and happiness. That said, everyone has problems. I don't judge them at all. Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though. Just because someone breaks the law though, that doesn't change the value of their life.

This is essentially liberal thinking. Either you believe this or you don't. If you don't believe people have equal value you shouldn't call yourself liberal, not even a little bit.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You've lost your mind, completely.

This is something of a compliment, coming from you.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The difference between you and I is that I see people as equal value, always.

[edit: bold mine] That's pretty silly. People's actions (or non-actions) matter. Everyone is not, in fact, exactly the same. We all make choices, and those choices matter.

All people have the same right to life, freedom and happiness.

Up until the point that they hurt others. That's a pretty basic (liberal, I might add) principle. That said - AGAIN - I think Joe McShotgun was clearly in the wrong and should be tried for manslaugther.

That said, everyone has problems. I don't judge them at all. Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though. Just because someone breaks the law though, that doesn't change the value of their life.

This is incoherent.

This is essentially liberal thinking. Either you believe this or you don't. If you don't believe people have equal value you shouldn't call yourself liberal, not even a little bit.

Liberalism, according to Kidiculous. Ok, dude.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

"That said, everyone has problems. I don't judge them at all. Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though. Just because someone breaks the law though, that doesn't change the value of their life."


"This is incoherent."

That's too bad. What part of "incapable of judging the worth of another human being" don't you understand?

[Patroklos]

The difference between you and I is that I see people as equal value, always. I never rank people according to value, like you do. All people have the same right to life, freedom and happiness. That said, everyone has problems. I don't judge them at all. Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though. Just because someone breaks the law though, that doesn't change the value of their life.

This is essentially liberal thinking.

[Arrian]

What part of "incapable of judging the worth of another human being" don't you understand?

I understand the statement. I don't understand how you can think that.

Regarding the incoherent bit, I can't tell if you are claiming that a system of laws in inherently flawed ("Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though") or if you're saying that you're ok with laws, but not judging (unclear how THAT would work).

I don't claim to judge the inherent worth of a person. I, like everyone else, can make judgments about people's actions, statements, etc. We all do this, all the time. Your claim that you don't ever judge people is hilarious bull****.

-Arrian