Agree with Big there. I simply don't think the bible (or koran, or ANY other "sacred" book) is a totally and absolute set of rules we have to follow. There was this guy who came along, named Yeshusha bin David bar Yussif, who kind of changed all those ironclad rules.
When a thief is caught in the act, whether he is shot or not shot is a decision best left up to the victim. I'm fine with it either way. While I personally wouldn't shoot a teenage shoplifter, or an adult stealing a 6-pack of beer, in this case we're talking about a 12-pack. TWELVE, not a six. Say your prayers, varmint.
Would you feel that way if someone killed your kid over a snickers bar? Were you always so morally correct even as a teen? I did some pretty dumb stuff as a kid, most kids do. Not stealing mind you but I'm sure there are a few fathers who would have shot me for what I did to their daughters. As a father of 3 girls, a much worse offense then minor theft IMO. An eye for an eye maybe, a life for a six pack, I dunno.
Edited to add, I think there should be a difference in this law for home vs a business.
Well let me see, I have raised 2 children one passed away suddenly at 30 from natural causes. The other will be 32 this December. Both were raised fearing God, Feel good about themselves and do unto other as you would have them do unto you. Neither has ever been in trouble for anything.
To answer your question feel free to bust a cap in them if legal but a good upbringing will keep this from happening.
Would you feel that way if someone killed your kid over a snickers bar?
That is a question from someone like Treyvon Martin's parents, my response is raise your kids right!
timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
AKA: Former Founding Member
Well let me see, I have raised 2 children one passed away suddenly at 30 from natural causes. The other will be 32 this December. Both were raised fearing God, Feel good about themselves and do unto other as you would have them do unto you. Neither has ever been in trouble for anything.
To answer your question feel free to bust a cap in them if legal but a good upbringing will keep this from happening.
That is a question from someone like Treyvon Martin's parents, my response is raise your kids right!
First, I'm sorry you lost your child. I too raised three good kids, much of it by myself as my wife was sick for 10 yrs before she passed at 45. Losing a child is the only thing I can think of being worse. You have my sympathies.
So, because a kid is not lucky enough to be born with decent parents to provide an example, he can't make a stupid mistake? Not like Trevon Martin, he got what he deserved, but if a kid grows up in a bad environment, it's not his fault, and kids are products of their environment. Bottom line is kids do some dumb things, hopefully they learn from it, many don't but they deserve the chance to and don't deserve to die over petty theft. I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of civilized people feel that way.
"He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
I understand your comments, Big, but I still have concerns. I appreciate the somewhat flowery rhetoric about the undertaker but the bottom line is whether we might willingly shoot someone in the back, someone who was clearly fleeing, clearly not a physical threat, after stealing a candy bar?
Today it's a candy bar. Tomorrow it's a case of beer. A few weeks later it's your car at gunpoint. Next it's banks. That's just the material gain side of things. They will eventually learn they can spread their DNA and STDs with coercive force too. All because we have too many in our society who grew up on the artificial code of honor of the B-western, which postulates that it somehow makes a difference what side of the body a bullet enters from. Is blowing them out of their socks at the first petty offense the desired course of action? Certainly not, but what else do we have in our current society that has that kind of deterrent effect?
Here's another thing to consider - you have the means, training, and ability to stop a criminal career. The person this hoodlum later decides to work over with a tire iron may not. Consider the predator's ethos - deliberately hit the soft targets. In this hypothetical encounter, you have the opportunity to exemplify the "critical failure of the victim selection process". Let the troll go, and he will continue to select soft targets. How long until he screws up and meets another one with the ability to shoot back? What innocent gets victimized because you're uncomfortable using shoulder blades as an aiming point?
This is of course setting aside for the moment what the state legislatures say we can or cannot do, and getting into what we consider to be morally right. One phrase I've become acquainted in recent months is "You encourage what you tolerate". As a society, we have gotten to the point of tolerating, and thereby encouraging, A LOT of behavior that is reprehensible by any reasonable standard of decency. The question then becomes "at what point DO you take action?" I maintain it's easier to deal with pests when they're in the larval stage BEFORE the entire village dies of bubonic plague.
First, I'm sorry you lost your child. I too raised three good kids, much of it by myself as my wife was sick for 10 yrs before she passed at 45. Losing a child is the only thing I can think of being worse. You have my sympathies.
So, because a kid is not lucky enough to be born with decent parents to provide an example, he can't make a stupid mistake? Not like Trevon Martin, he got what he deserved, but if a kid grows up in a bad environment, it's not his fault, and kids are products of their environment. Bottom line is kids do some dumb things, hopefully they learn from it, many don't but they deserve the chance to and don't deserve to die over petty theft. I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of civilized people feel that way.
Well Lets hope those dumb kids don't live in Texas! Nobody wants to see a child harmed, nobody wants a store owner to have to tolerate someone steal from him taking the food off his children's plates either. You will never convince me to take the bleeding heart poor misguided soul, its ok side. That is the problem with society today, everyone thinks its ok to do what they want even if wrong because the weren't raised properly or came from a broken home. If the law allows it then the store owner was justified, simple as that.
Again would I have shot the guy over a few beers, probably not but I do respect the store owners right to do so and I really don't care squat what the thief's age was. I would respond to the owner saying "Sorry you had to go though that".
timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
AKA: Former Founding Member
Today it's a candy bar. Tomorrow it's a case of beer. A few weeks later it's your car at gunpoint. etc
Here's another thing to consider - you have the means, training, and ability to stop a criminal career. etc What innocent gets victimized because you're uncomfortable using shoulder blades as an aiming point?
I maintain it's easier to deal with pests when they're in the larval stage BEFORE the entire village dies of bubonic plague.
Again, good metaphors and imagery, but if the language is separated from the facts and precise situation, the scenario may be different. What I'm saying is that we read lots of metaphoric pronouncements about "Old West" rules and biblical righteousness and such, but for a real world situation, the flowery politically keen language needs to be deleted.
First, I'm happy that I'm not the designated "truth bringer", the avenging angel, the mystically appearing Eastwood icon who can blow away future career criminals. I don't remember seeing any golden scrolls or hearing heavenly instructions for that. Therefore if someone considers it necessary to shoot somebody (kid or adult) in the back after the theft of a candy bar or a pack of cruddy beer, it won't be me. I don't wear that badge nor would I. I'll stick to self defense, thank you. And none of my self defense readings or instructions have offered a situation as to how I'm in direct peril from the disappearing backside of a petty thief. I'll let someone a lot more holy and dangerous and vengeful than I am do that backshoot. As Bob Dylan says, "It ain't me".
Again, I really do NOT have the means, training, or ability to stop a criminal career. My psychic predictive skills are plumb wore out and I also lost my mindreading talents recently. Nor do I possess the heavenly mission to wreak havoc upon the unholy, as do the muslim extremists. I DO however have a reasonable amount of self defense training, coupled with a fairly active brain and cognitive ability. And first on the list of the self defense guidelines is "Are you or a loved one being threatened by immediate harm?" Duh.
And as to foreseeing the future and preventing that kid from victimizing a person in the future, naw, that is not too good a way to get off 2nd degree murder charges "But your honor, I could just tell, by the way he looked as he was running away with that six-pack that he would eventually kill a family of four, so I just appointed myself judge, jury, executioner ahead of time to save the government money. Those people in the future should be thankful!" Right.
For example, if 16-year old Jimmy Wayne Dupree (middle name "Wayne" the key to danger here!) steals my 12 buck garden shears and I miss getting him in the back with my handy AR15, I really can't go to his house later that evening and blow him away while he's in his bedroom playing video games, and chalk it up to "self defense".
So I'll stick to self defense behavior when it concerns lethal force and leave the vengeance excesses to other, smarter, more prescient, and more holy and righteous saints among us, those who base their behavior on fantasy feelgood movie hero scenarios. I don't have that ability, sorry.
Today it's a candy bar. Tomorrow it's a case of beer. A few weeks later it's your car at gunpoint. Next it's banks. That's just the material gain side of things. They will eventually learn they can spread their DNA and STDs with coercive force too. All because we have too many in our society who grew up on the artificial code of honor of the B-western, which postulates that it somehow makes a difference what side of the body a bullet enters from. Is blowing them out of their socks at the first petty offense the desired course of action? Certainly not, but what else do we have in our current society that has that kind of deterrent effect?
The deterrent would be to others considering taking legal shortcuts to acquiring their heart's desires; we're still talking about a possible death sentence to the hypothetical beer thief. In any case, the desire/need to provide that deterrent wouldn't justify the use of deadly force against a retreating thief in my book.
You make a valid point about the escalation of criminal activity and possibly violent action, but right here, right now, I can't know what this kid running away from me will do with his future; all I know is the immediate danger to me and mine has passed, and for me, so has my need for defense.
Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
So, because a kid is not lucky enough to be born with decent parents to provide an example, he can't make a stupid mistake? Not like Trevon Martin, he got what he deserved, but if a kid grows up in a bad environment, it's not his fault, and kids are products of their environment.
BS. Up until he is aware of his surroundings, then I will go with it being the parents fault. After about age 14 when he is able to put cause and affect together, that is a excuse. It may be a excuse that his parents have taught him, but it is a excuse.
Bottom line is kids do some dumb things, hopefully they learn from it, many don't but they deserve the chance to and don't deserve to die over petty theft. I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of civilized people feel that way.
So if its a item that costs a hundred bucks or less, its OK to steal it? Or is it just OK because the victim was a buisness owner? Who says that the extra expense that the shop has to cover because of dirtbags means that he won't make his bills, meaning that he goes under or that he has to take from his family to cover the cost. That affects the lives of every one of his suppliers, landlord, utilities, and the people who rely on the store.
There were points in my life that someone stealing a 100 bucks worth of groceries from me would have been real bad, and since I am a person who will do what I can to get by, it would not have been life threatining, but it would have been bad.
Sorry, to get items, I have to give up a portion of my life to someone to get paid so that I have dollars to barter for goods. If I spend my life to get something, and you take it, I have to spend more of my life to replace it. If you steal something from me, you are taking a portion of my life. I have no use for theives. There is no difference from someone taking a 12 pack to someone stealing a car.
The whole mindset of "lucky birth" is a bunch of chicken excrement. I was told by a bunch of people who lived at home until they were 25, and are working at the same pay grade I am, that I was "lucky" to be able to afford what I have. A union hack will bring it up once in a while still. It isnt luck, you make your own way, or find something to blame.
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
You make a valid point about the escalation of criminal activity and possibly violent action, but right here, right now, I can't know what this kid running away from me will do with his future; all I know is the immediate danger to me and mine has passed, and for me, so has my need for defense.
I, too, am unlikely to shoot down a snatch and grab thief who is leaving. But I'm also unlikely to vote guilty on a jury, if someone is tried on a homicide charge for shooting a thief.
If I'm running a store, and word gets out that I'm too tender-hearted to shoot a thief, and I start getting several a day, I might harden my heart at some point, and I want the law of the land to back me up if I decide to fight back in the only way I am able.
Some are....in the sense that they are predators and parasites...a threat to everyone they come in contact with....like it or not Sam...they exist. Not ALL human life is precious
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
You obviously have not bought a candy bar in the recent past...
Jeez... nits to pick... I meant of course the value to the store, wholesale. The candy bar thing is just an example anyway. C'mon. My point was petty theft. okay?
BS. Up until he is aware of his surroundings, then I will go with it being the parents fault. After about age 14 when he is able to put cause and affect together, that is a excuse. It may be a excuse that his parents have taught him, but it is a excuse.
So if its a item that costs a hundred bucks or less, its OK to steal it? Or is it just OK because the victim was a buisness owner? Who says that the extra expense that the shop has to cover because of dirtbags means that he won't make his bills, meaning that he goes under or that he has to take from his family to cover the cost. That affects the lives of every one of his suppliers, landlord, utilities, and the people who rely on the store.
There were points in my life that someone stealing a 100 bucks worth of groceries from me would have been real bad, and since I am a person who will do what I can to get by, it would not have been life threatining, but it would have been bad.
Sorry, to get items, I have to give up a portion of my life to someone to get paid so that I have dollars to barter for goods. If I spend my life to get something, and you take it, I have to spend more of my life to replace it. If you steal something from me, you are taking a portion of my life. I have no use for theives. There is no difference from someone taking a 12 pack to someone stealing a car.
The whole mindset of "lucky birth" is a bunch of chicken excrement. I was told by a bunch of people who lived at home until they were 25, and are working at the same pay grade I am, that I was "lucky" to be able to afford what I have. A union hack will bring it up once in a while still. It isnt luck, you make your own way, or find something to blame.
I never said the kid should not be held accountable for his actions. Everyone should, and yes the system is way to easy on criminals. I just think a death sentence is a bit much for petty theft. That's Sharia law kind of stuff. Worse actually, they would just hack his hand off.
"He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
That's Sharia law kind of stuff. Worse actually, they would just hack his hand off.
That's just a slow death sentence. They hack the thief's RIGHT hand off, then throw him into jail. The other prisoners won't let the thief put his "unclean" left hand into the communal food bowl. I sort of agree with the principle- - - -it lets the thief have several days of hunger pains before he finally starves, or dies of an infection. Much better than a quick bullet to end his thievery career!
Jerry
Jeez... nits to pick... I meant of course the value to the store, wholesale. The candy bar thing is just an example anyway. C'mon. My point was petty theft. okay?
If I see a nit....I pick 'em....It was however, a good nit to pick...
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
I never said the kid should not be held accountable for his actions. Everyone should, and yes the system is way to easy on criminals. I just think a death sentence is a bit much for petty theft. That's Sharia law kind of stuff. Worse actually, they would just hack his hand off.
I know we should soundly scold him by saying how disappointed we are, give him a 5 minute time out and tell him we will be really angry next time he does it. That will turn him around for sure! :roll:
timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
AKA: Former Founding Member
I know we should soundly scold him by saying how disappointed we are, give him a 5 minute time out and tell him we will be really angry next time he does it. That will turn him around for sure! :roll:
Exactly what part of "the system is to easy on criminals" didn't you get? I'm pretty sure you have broken some kind of law in your life, speeding, rolling stop or heaven forbid, ate a grape out of the bag before you paid. Perhaps you should turn yourself in if you are so righteous.
"He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Exactly what part of "the system is to easy on criminals" didn't you get? I'm pretty sure you have broken some kind of law in your life, speeding, rolling stop or heaven forbid, ate a grape out of the bag before you paid. Perhaps you should turn yourself in if you are so righteous.
Watch it, outburst of aggression will certainly get you a time out. LOL
:group:
timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
AKA: Former Founding Member
I didn't know Texas had a law like that. Most states have no such law allowing a shooting over petty theft. Florida requires fear of imminent serious physical injury or death to yourself or another person. I wouldn't personally do it for a 6-pack, but maybe for something more valuable like my truck or motorcycle. A home burglary is a different story. Intruders can be shot just for being in your house.
I didn't know Texas had a law like that. Most states have no such law allowing a shooting over petty theft. Florida requires fear of imminent serious physical injury or death to yourself or another person. I wouldn't personally do it for a 6-pack, but maybe for something more valuable like my truck or motorcycle. A home burglary is a different story. Intruders can be shot just for being in your house.
Texas law does indeed "technically" allow deadly force for theft. Deciding to shoot some jerk in the back after he's grabbed a 12pak out of the cooler is however frowned upon and can get you indicted. Like I say, the law "technically" allows it, using the terms "it is a defense against prosecution..." which means that you're not given carte blanche by the law, just that you can use the theft as an excuse to avoid prosecution. Whether of course the Grand Jury or county prosecutor agrees? A tossup here.
IMHO, shooting a fleeing thief (IF only a thief and not someone who's attacked or harmed or even threatened somebody -- that's assault) but ONLY stolen something and is fleeing? That for me, personally, is outside the boundaries of what I consider "self defense justified lethal force" and as we see here, others disagree. Which is fine.
Myself, I can't countenance my shooting in the back and killing someone who's just stolen my garden rake and is hightailing it. Now my shovel? That's another matter! ha ha
Replies
Agree with Big there. I simply don't think the bible (or koran, or ANY other "sacred" book) is a totally and absolute set of rules we have to follow. There was this guy who came along, named Yeshusha bin David bar Yussif, who kind of changed all those ironclad rules.
Well let me see, I have raised 2 children one passed away suddenly at 30 from natural causes. The other will be 32 this December. Both were raised fearing God, Feel good about themselves and do unto other as you would have them do unto you. Neither has ever been in trouble for anything.
To answer your question feel free to bust a cap in them if legal but a good upbringing will keep this from happening.
That is a question from someone like Treyvon Martin's parents, my response is raise your kids right!
AKA: Former Founding Member
First, I'm sorry you lost your child. I too raised three good kids, much of it by myself as my wife was sick for 10 yrs before she passed at 45. Losing a child is the only thing I can think of being worse. You have my sympathies.
So, because a kid is not lucky enough to be born with decent parents to provide an example, he can't make a stupid mistake? Not like Trevon Martin, he got what he deserved, but if a kid grows up in a bad environment, it's not his fault, and kids are products of their environment. Bottom line is kids do some dumb things, hopefully they learn from it, many don't but they deserve the chance to and don't deserve to die over petty theft. I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of civilized people feel that way.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Today it's a candy bar. Tomorrow it's a case of beer. A few weeks later it's your car at gunpoint. Next it's banks. That's just the material gain side of things. They will eventually learn they can spread their DNA and STDs with coercive force too. All because we have too many in our society who grew up on the artificial code of honor of the B-western, which postulates that it somehow makes a difference what side of the body a bullet enters from. Is blowing them out of their socks at the first petty offense the desired course of action? Certainly not, but what else do we have in our current society that has that kind of deterrent effect?
Here's another thing to consider - you have the means, training, and ability to stop a criminal career. The person this hoodlum later decides to work over with a tire iron may not. Consider the predator's ethos - deliberately hit the soft targets. In this hypothetical encounter, you have the opportunity to exemplify the "critical failure of the victim selection process". Let the troll go, and he will continue to select soft targets. How long until he screws up and meets another one with the ability to shoot back? What innocent gets victimized because you're uncomfortable using shoulder blades as an aiming point?
This is of course setting aside for the moment what the state legislatures say we can or cannot do, and getting into what we consider to be morally right. One phrase I've become acquainted in recent months is "You encourage what you tolerate". As a society, we have gotten to the point of tolerating, and thereby encouraging, A LOT of behavior that is reprehensible by any reasonable standard of decency. The question then becomes "at what point DO you take action?" I maintain it's easier to deal with pests when they're in the larval stage BEFORE the entire village dies of bubonic plague.
Probably not in your normal range of musical taste Sam, but it illustrates my point pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vXW66o15e0
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Well Lets hope those dumb kids don't live in Texas! Nobody wants to see a child harmed, nobody wants a store owner to have to tolerate someone steal from him taking the food off his children's plates either. You will never convince me to take the bleeding heart poor misguided soul, its ok side. That is the problem with society today, everyone thinks its ok to do what they want even if wrong because the weren't raised properly or came from a broken home. If the law allows it then the store owner was justified, simple as that.
Again would I have shot the guy over a few beers, probably not but I do respect the store owners right to do so and I really don't care squat what the thief's age was. I would respond to the owner saying "Sorry you had to go though that".
AKA: Former Founding Member
Again, good metaphors and imagery, but if the language is separated from the facts and precise situation, the scenario may be different. What I'm saying is that we read lots of metaphoric pronouncements about "Old West" rules and biblical righteousness and such, but for a real world situation, the flowery politically keen language needs to be deleted.
First, I'm happy that I'm not the designated "truth bringer", the avenging angel, the mystically appearing Eastwood icon who can blow away future career criminals. I don't remember seeing any golden scrolls or hearing heavenly instructions for that. Therefore if someone considers it necessary to shoot somebody (kid or adult) in the back after the theft of a candy bar or a pack of cruddy beer, it won't be me. I don't wear that badge nor would I. I'll stick to self defense, thank you. And none of my self defense readings or instructions have offered a situation as to how I'm in direct peril from the disappearing backside of a petty thief. I'll let someone a lot more holy and dangerous and vengeful than I am do that backshoot. As Bob Dylan says, "It ain't me".
Again, I really do NOT have the means, training, or ability to stop a criminal career. My psychic predictive skills are plumb wore out and I also lost my mindreading talents recently. Nor do I possess the heavenly mission to wreak havoc upon the unholy, as do the muslim extremists. I DO however have a reasonable amount of self defense training, coupled with a fairly active brain and cognitive ability. And first on the list of the self defense guidelines is "Are you or a loved one being threatened by immediate harm?" Duh.
And as to foreseeing the future and preventing that kid from victimizing a person in the future, naw, that is not too good a way to get off 2nd degree murder charges "But your honor, I could just tell, by the way he looked as he was running away with that six-pack that he would eventually kill a family of four, so I just appointed myself judge, jury, executioner ahead of time to save the government money. Those people in the future should be thankful!" Right.
For example, if 16-year old Jimmy Wayne Dupree (middle name "Wayne" the key to danger here!) steals my 12 buck garden shears and I miss getting him in the back with my handy AR15, I really can't go to his house later that evening and blow him away while he's in his bedroom playing video games, and chalk it up to "self defense".
So I'll stick to self defense behavior when it concerns lethal force and leave the vengeance excesses to other, smarter, more prescient, and more holy and righteous saints among us, those who base their behavior on fantasy feelgood movie hero scenarios. I don't have that ability, sorry.
And people aren't rats or fleas, either.
The deterrent would be to others considering taking legal shortcuts to acquiring their heart's desires; we're still talking about a possible death sentence to the hypothetical beer thief. In any case, the desire/need to provide that deterrent wouldn't justify the use of deadly force against a retreating thief in my book.
You make a valid point about the escalation of criminal activity and possibly violent action, but right here, right now, I can't know what this kid running away from me will do with his future; all I know is the immediate danger to me and mine has passed, and for me, so has my need for defense.
BS. Up until he is aware of his surroundings, then I will go with it being the parents fault. After about age 14 when he is able to put cause and affect together, that is a excuse. It may be a excuse that his parents have taught him, but it is a excuse.
So if its a item that costs a hundred bucks or less, its OK to steal it? Or is it just OK because the victim was a buisness owner? Who says that the extra expense that the shop has to cover because of dirtbags means that he won't make his bills, meaning that he goes under or that he has to take from his family to cover the cost. That affects the lives of every one of his suppliers, landlord, utilities, and the people who rely on the store.
There were points in my life that someone stealing a 100 bucks worth of groceries from me would have been real bad, and since I am a person who will do what I can to get by, it would not have been life threatining, but it would have been bad.
Sorry, to get items, I have to give up a portion of my life to someone to get paid so that I have dollars to barter for goods. If I spend my life to get something, and you take it, I have to spend more of my life to replace it. If you steal something from me, you are taking a portion of my life. I have no use for theives. There is no difference from someone taking a 12 pack to someone stealing a car.
The whole mindset of "lucky birth" is a bunch of chicken excrement. I was told by a bunch of people who lived at home until they were 25, and are working at the same pay grade I am, that I was "lucky" to be able to afford what I have. A union hack will bring it up once in a while still. It isnt luck, you make your own way, or find something to blame.
Not only no, but HELL no. Why, the business owner considered a rich man? He can afford the loss?
No. Same rules apply.
I do however agree that I wouldn't shoot a kid for a snickers or a wino for a 12 pack.
You obviously have not bought a candy bar in the recent past...
I, too, am unlikely to shoot down a snatch and grab thief who is leaving. But I'm also unlikely to vote guilty on a jury, if someone is tried on a homicide charge for shooting a thief.
If I'm running a store, and word gets out that I'm too tender-hearted to shoot a thief, and I start getting several a day, I might harden my heart at some point, and I want the law of the land to back me up if I decide to fight back in the only way I am able.
Some are....in the sense that they are predators and parasites...a threat to everyone they come in contact with....like it or not Sam...they exist. Not ALL human life is precious
Jeez... nits to pick... I meant of course the value to the store, wholesale. The candy bar thing is just an example anyway. C'mon. My point was petty theft. okay?
I never said the kid should not be held accountable for his actions. Everyone should, and yes the system is way to easy on criminals. I just think a death sentence is a bit much for petty theft. That's Sharia law kind of stuff. Worse actually, they would just hack his hand off.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
That's just a slow death sentence. They hack the thief's RIGHT hand off, then throw him into jail. The other prisoners won't let the thief put his "unclean" left hand into the communal food bowl. I sort of agree with the principle- - - -it lets the thief have several days of hunger pains before he finally starves, or dies of an infection. Much better than a quick bullet to end his thievery career!
Jerry
If I see a nit....I pick 'em....It was however, a good nit to pick...
I know we should soundly scold him by saying how disappointed we are, give him a 5 minute time out and tell him we will be really angry next time he does it. That will turn him around for sure! :roll:
AKA: Former Founding Member
Exactly what part of "the system is to easy on criminals" didn't you get? I'm pretty sure you have broken some kind of law in your life, speeding, rolling stop or heaven forbid, ate a grape out of the bag before you paid. Perhaps you should turn yourself in if you are so righteous.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Watch it, outburst of aggression will certainly get you a time out. LOL
:group:
AKA: Former Founding Member
You're missing the philosophical aspect of this discussion....
Texas law does indeed "technically" allow deadly force for theft. Deciding to shoot some jerk in the back after he's grabbed a 12pak out of the cooler is however frowned upon and can get you indicted. Like I say, the law "technically" allows it, using the terms "it is a defense against prosecution..." which means that you're not given carte blanche by the law, just that you can use the theft as an excuse to avoid prosecution. Whether of course the Grand Jury or county prosecutor agrees? A tossup here.
IMHO, shooting a fleeing thief (IF only a thief and not someone who's attacked or harmed or even threatened somebody -- that's assault) but ONLY stolen something and is fleeing? That for me, personally, is outside the boundaries of what I consider "self defense justified lethal force" and as we see here, others disagree. Which is fine.
Myself, I can't countenance my shooting in the back and killing someone who's just stolen my garden rake and is hightailing it. Now my shovel? That's another matter! ha ha