penguinfaery | (no subject)

Wow, scary stuff.

Yeah, this. Seriously. -.- Ugh.

They pulled a gun on him first. He had every right to kill both of them. Our laws disagree, but I fully believe if someone threatens you with violence or causes violence to you, you have every right to take them down. They are the one responsible as they initiated the violence.

The laws regarding matters like these are fucked up anyhow. So someone is allowed to hold you up, break into your house, whatever, but you can't kill them when they clearly might have killed you? Screw that noise.

Leave the mercy plea to the faggy liberals.

Well, Oklahoma law actually agrees with this. I don't know about other states, but what you say is legal here, if an intruder breaks into your house/car/office/store you have the right to kill them.

Your state is in the minority. Much of the state laws throughout the U.S. only advocates the use of force as necessary to stop or subdue your attacker/whatever. Anything past that is excessive force, and you start going into dangerous territory.

Well, he's vbeing charge with murder, so IDK about that. And I do agree with force to stop them (And if it ends up killing them taking the necessary means to stop them) but...that's past that.

So someone is allowed to hold you up, break into your house, whatever, but you can't kill them when they clearly might have killed you?

Pretty sure last time I checked, those things were, in fact, illegal.

I totally agree with being able to shoot someone, and possibly even to death if that's what it takes, in self defense. I don't believe petty larceny is death sentence worthy crime. He didn't need to kill this person, and took it on himself to illicit the death penalty. Which is what he did. There was no longer any danger at all.

I know that these things are illegal. When I said "allowed", I meant the person can commit these acts, and your retaliatory responses are limited. If you were to accidentally go overboard, suddenly you are the one who will be receiving a harsher punishment than the criminal would have for breaking and entering.

This is where the system is flawed. Defense responses (not in the above cited article) sometimes aren't slow and measured. Sometimes it is instinctual, and next thing you know your attacker is dead. And now you have opened yourself up to the Justice System.

Your comment that this was petty larceny is incorrect. Because the criminal was armed, that automatically jumps the severity of the crime and its punishments. Also, he had an accomplice.

In Arizona, he would be charged with Armed Robbery (Class 2 Felony) and Aggravated Robbery (Class 3 Felony). A Class 2 felony is punishable by 5 years in prison.

To illustrate the seriousness of this crime...the only thing higher than this would have been murder. So yes, the criminal committed a very grievous act upon the victim and the state, according the laws of Arizona at least. Was his punishment justified according the law? No. Was his punishment justified according to the man who's life he endangered? Yes.

I tend to agree with the man, and not the law on this one.

See though, if he'd lost it and shot the guy, say, 6 times off hand because he got freaked out or something, I'd totally agree with you 100%. But to get the situation underhand, know that you are, in general, safe...AND THEN go back, get another gun, and shot someone unconscious and unarmed (the gun went with the kid he chased out) 5 more times...yeah. I agree he should be punished. And I do think going for 1st degree murder is over the top.

And I do think there's should be an allowance for a difference between someone inexperienced freaking out and going overboard, and someone measuredly taking someone out, just like there's a difference between premeditated, murder, and a crime of passion.

Edited 2009-05-30 19:37 (UTC)

Self defense only goes so far, he shot one of them in the head, then came back and shot him some more. If the first shot had killed him, fair game, but in a moral society I think if you incapacitate your attackers and are safe (which he did and was), you then have a responsibility to get them medical attention, not to execute what is now a defenseless man. Someone's intent to kill you does not give you carte blanche to kill them.

Someone's intent to kill you does not give you carte blanche to kill them.

This reminds me of the Jesse Ventura thing you linked me to. And agree. As cheesy as "Not sinking to their level" sounds like...it's true. he went from being a victim, to being a criminal.

Or not even that it's their level, but we are a moral society, and in a moral society you do not do certain things, like torture or kill people when they pose no threat to us.

Actually Intent does give someone carte blanche to kill someone else. The law does permit everyone to defend themselves, and in that defense should the attacker be killed, it can be ok. The point at which it is no longer okay, is if you kill them once your attacker no longer poses a danger to you or anyone else. The police have to follow this, and it is often referred to as the Use of Force Continuum.

Where the man, from the above cited article, went wrong was the follow up shots.

Also, it is important to mention that Intent is everything in a criminal prosecution. Intent is why we have different levels of murder. Intent is one part of how to convict someone on conspiracy charges.

And opening up a whole other can of worms...there are no moral societies, at least what you perceive to be a moral society. What is moral to Americans today, was not moral to Americans when this country was founded.

Morality, like laws, changes over time to reflect the society at hand. Not to mention, morals are a personal quality...but like I said that is a whole other can of worms that I don't wish to open.

Ah, yes, I was wondering if this would come up on the friendslist. This is of course all over the news here because it happened in the city where I live.

The DA is pushing for first degree murder charges, which means he'll be acquitted because it was not premeditated. What it should be, is second degree murder, and he could be put away. And you're right, the first shot is completely legal by Oklahoma law, but the other shots were just to make sure the child would die instead of having the slim chance to possibly survive this.

My opinions have changed after taking my senior thesis class on the strength of states. Now I am thinking, why do we pay so much in taxes if I'm going to get shot in my own store? If the United States is the legitimately recognized power in this area, then by definition they should have a monopoly on the use of violence. And as such, if the store owner felt he was at risk of armed robbery in his store, he should have been able to apply for help from the state and been issued a state-employed guard to stand at the entrance to his store. If we all have to be armed just to get through our daily lives (I'm thinking of the shootout that happened in the middle of the day at one of the shopping malls three miles from my house a few months ago) then this is still the anarchy of the Wild West, and the state serves no purpose here.

And on the other side of things, why is a 16 year old child robbing a store? The state has failed to do its job for this child. I think the struggle for financial stability is a very cruel joke, and it is not the American dream. I know it is very un-American to insist that we become a welfare state, but at the same time I pay so much in taxes each year so GIs can roughhouse the middle east while in my own city, shit like this is happening? The state will let children get shot and killed, but damn if I didn't pay my taxes, there'd be some exertion of force against me. Might as well privatize the water plant and tell Uncle Sam to GTFO.

Ah, sorry about the rant >_>;;;

Yeah I don't think I agree with first degree murder charges either. Man slaughter but he WAS attacked. (Also my comment above...I didn't realize you were replying to Alex's comment, so ignore it) And I totally agree with the first shot (Although ANYONE trained in that kind of work KNOW you just hand over the cash, because the insurance covers it)

And I generall agree with both the lower point. maybe not this kid specifically, but generally kids like that were made by their situation. We don't take care of our own on almost any level. Maybe armed guard at ever street would be a little over the top, but my mom called 911 two weeks ago cause someone was outside our house THROWING SHIT AT IT and cussing her out...and no one bothered to come.

WTF.

I'm confused about your ultimate position.

You seem to be taking the position that the state is unable to uphold its portion of the social contract--that the state holds both a monopoly on the proper use of force, and the supposed means to uphold its monopoly (ie. the amount of taxes you pay), and yet fails to maintain a proper level of security by allowing crime, not posting security guards, etc. And you also say that the government is failing in properly allocating tax money, which it collects via coercion, by funding the Iraqi War.

And you also seem to be supporting increasing the size of the welfare state, in order to level the economic playing field and fix the perversion of the American dream and to better combat crime.

I don't think you can say that the government fails in its obligation to maintain its monopoly on the proper use of force, despite you paying too much in taxes so that the government can fail in its obligation to maintain its monopoly on the proper use of force, AND that the size of the welfare state should be increased to promote more social welfare programs and, presumably, more crime-fighting programs.

I think the logical conclusions of "why do we pay so much in taxes if I'm going to get shot in my own store?" and "The state has failed to do its job for this child." are near-irreconcilable.

I'm not quite sure what your argument is, and that is my fault. I have zero experience in refuting complex argument or debate of any kind.

Okay, your first paragraph is exactly right.

In the second paragraph, it is not only expanding the welfare state but also upholding the "all men are created equal" part of the declaration of independence. I just feel like the 14 and 16 year old boys have not been given equal treatment in state services. It is guaranteed, because they are from my city, that their school is below the national average, but who knows what else contributed? Are they getting food stamps at home? Many families cannot apply for stamps because the head of household has a warrant, so children still go hungry. Are there any community programs to help at-risk kids do better in school and not resort to violence?

For the third paragraph, I think it is true that the government does not have a monopoly over the use of force. Now granted, this is only in certain sections of the city. What I mean by this is, there are areas, I'm sure in every large city, where the police cannot and do not maintain the rule of law. That is why there are parts of the city young women cannot go to, there are "no white" sections, there are even no black and no hispanic sections where if you are in the wrong category and you go to that neighborhood you will more than likely be attacked. That is the Wild West, that is not a civil state.

I don't mind paying more in taxes, if it actually meant helping kids like the 16 and 14 year old. France is a successful welfare state, but it comes at a price because its citizens pay more in taxes.

So what I'm saying is that the state has failed these children, and not because its budget is too small. We have the money to keep things like this from happening, we just don't spend it for that, we'd rather spend it on something else.

The kid was a criminal. He was armed, and he was holding people up. He deserved to die, and to say otherwise is to be soft on crime and coddling a criminal.

lol, jk. Wouldn't it be funny if I were actually that stupid and amoral?

IDK Terra I think this very much goes back to our convo earlier in the week about not choosing the vigilantism side of things. I don't think it was right for a kid to be shot 6 times by a grow adult. Sure he did something stupid, but kids and adults have two different types of brains and they operat differently.

I don't think that man had carte blanch to shoot him exsessively. If this man actually gets out he has, in a way, shown that vigilatism is okay. He protected himself and then whent back and issued a harsher crime than any of the courts would have given him.

This man didn't give the boy a chance, when the courts would have. (most likely segesting counceling and rehibilitation. Along with jail time)

IDK this thing reeks badly. The truth is that if someone comes into your house to rob/kill you. You do have the right to defend yourself as long as you say a warning