another gun owner makes us all look bad

[A2theK]

If you plan to steal in my neck of the woods you'd hope you'd be dead after a couple of days of waterboarding. Bad shooting per the books, but I don't feel bad for the "poor" thief.

People who said that's sad for them to die for just stealing, but where do you draw the line?

They must live in the "communal" cities where if someone "needs" the stuff for drugs or whatever you should just let them take it and work more OT next week to pay for it. While you are working, they will be out stealing or sitting on the couch smoking meth and playing Xbox.

 

[Bruce]

He wouldn't have died if he was not a thief. It is hard to feel sorry for a thief, most likely a doper stealing stuff to sell for scrap.

 

[22many]

The thief absolutely deserved to die. If he didn't want to risk death, he should not have set foot on another man's property and taken something that did not belong to him.

No loss here, unless the state railroads an old man just protecting what was his.

X2 on that! He got what was comming to him.

 

[ZachS]

I really don't undertand all the vengeful, un-American disrespect for the Constitution in this thread. I thought that folks around here believed in freedom, but it almost seems like some of you can't count past the number 2.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

In fact, it appears that more than a few of you think we should have a legal system like the one they have in China, Russia, or Mexico - or a 'government' like the one in Somalia that leaves the messy business of justice to upstanding citizens who know crime when they see it.

You all can think whatever you want, but I think our Constitution's approach to justice is the best one in the world.

 

[Bruce]

ZachS, I don't think anyone here says our Constitution's approach to justice isn't the best one in the world. People are tired of criminals getting away with murder (literally) because of poorly selected judges and ignorant jurors. If the shooter fired at this person when not in danger then they will be prosecuted.
The sad thing is that most likely these are career criminals and have committed numerous other crimes they have not been held accountable for.
Dopers steal scrap to get money for drugs. If they died young, a lot of future thefts have been thwarted.

 

[ZachS]

ZachS, I don't think anyone here says our Constitution's approach to justice isn't the best one in the world. People are tired of criminals getting away with murder (literally) because of poorly selected judges and ignorant jurors. If the shooter fired at this person when not in danger then they will be prosecuted.
The sad thing is that most likely these are career criminals and have committed numerous other crimes they have not been held accountable for.
Dopers steal scrap to get money for drugs. If they died young, a lot of future thefts have been thwarted.

I don't have any problem with the shooter acting in self-defense, and he obviously deserves the benefit of the doubt in this situation. What disturbs me are the people here who advocate, in any way, summary execution for petty offenders like thieves. Frankly, I'm disgusted that any man who considers himself a patriotic American would seriously suggest that the medieval practices used in nations like Iran, North Korea, and failed third-world states have any place whatsoever in our democratic society.

The Founding Fathers did not say that we should punish people for crimes we think they may have committed in the past, or crimes that they might commit in the future. The Constitution is clear on this point. If you disagree with them, that's your right - but I believe that doing so puts you in the same category as those who would deny that the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to bear arms.

 

[Bruce]

ZachS, I did not say at any point the citizenry should punish anyone for past crimes real or imagined. My personal view of right and wrong or good and evil does not put me at odds with the founding fathers. I am curious as to why you would put me in the same lot as gun banners?

 

[snew]

Theivery is not petty.

 

[ZachS]

ZachS, I did not say at any point the citizenry should punish anyone for past crimes real or imagined. My personal view of right and wrong or good and evil does not put me at odds with the founding fathers. I am curious as to why you would put me in the same lot as gun banners?

I'm not saying that you are. I think you're just frustrated about crime and letting off some steam. What I am saying is that people who suggest that summary execution of thieves is ok do not understand or respect the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Summary execution of any type, but especially for a petty crime, is an absolute violation of the right to due process of law. There are no exceptions to that right in this context.

The Constitution does not have a "we're all angry about crime" exception or a "he deserved it" exception. It doesn't have a "thieves give up their right to live" exception. It doesn't have an exception for cutting off hands - that's in the Quran. (I'll stick with the Constitution).

The closest thing it has is the President's ability to suspend habeas corpus in an emergency, has not been invoked for 150 years.

On a fundamental level, a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of Fifth Amendment is no different that a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of the Second. That's a cold, hard fact.

 

[Bruce]

You are reaching ZachS.

Posted by ZachS: "On a fundamental level, a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of Fifth Amendment is no different that a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of the Second. That's a cold, hard fact."

What does the right to remain silent or not self incriminate have to do with the second amendment?

 

[8ball]

The thief absolutely deserved to die. If he didn't want to risk death, he should not have set foot on another man's property and taken something that did not belong to him.

In this case, it's not clear if the thief was on the shooters property - the report says the scrap metal was located in a county ditch across the road from the shooters property. It's also not clear if the shooter owned the scrap metal in question, or if it had been dumped there by someone else.

The shooter's self defense angle is almost certainly going to be that the thieves tried to run him down. Since there are no witnesses, forensics will have to clear that up.

I'm not sure if stepping out with a gun is how I'd handle this crime if i saw it (as opposed to taking some photo's and calling 911).

And a media update:

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2010/06/11/gun-owners-had-best-know-defense-from-offense/

 

[ZachS]

You are reaching ZachS.

Posted by ZachS: "On a fundamental level, a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of Fifth Amendment is no different that a person who doesn't accept the clear meaning of the Second. That's a cold, hard fact."

What does the right to remain silent or not self incriminate have to do with the second amendment?

The Self-Incrimination Clause is just one small part of the Fifth Amendment. There's a lot more to it, including the part I've been referring to. Here's the whole thing, with the Due Process Clause highlighted:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

People who don't believe in due process, and therefore the Fifth Amendment, are like people who don't believe in the Second Amendment: they either don't understand, or don't care about the Constitution, and often don't even accept basic American values.

If you want to learn more about the Due Process Clause, here's a short summary of its historical basis. If you research this subject further (and I think every American should learn more about the Constitution), note that the topic we're discussing is "procedural due process," not "substantive due process," which is a different thing entirely. Also note that this right comes not just from the Fifth, but also the 14th Amendment.


Finally:

I already quoted the relevant part of the Fifth Amendment in an earlier in this thread. It's hard for me to justify debating somebody who does not actually read my posts. If your next reply is not thoughtful and well-considered, I'll probably bow out of this discussion.

 

[talntid]

Just a thought.... To all the people saying "shoulda wrote down the license plate and reported it!"

.... If the kids are stealing scrap metal, what's to say the vehicle they are in is not stolen?

 

[MarkAd]

I was shooting with a gun who turns out to be with the defense attorney. He shared that this is being investigated as a homicide, but not as a murder. and most od what the paper has is wrong.

 

[Stomper]

Well... I think ALL the lawyers should be rounded up and have their..... nevermind... JUST KIDDING!!! (sorta)