|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 13, 2012 18:36:18 GMT
I don't believe that we humans have any moral right to send anyone to hell. If hell exists then God is the only one who has the moral right to choose their destination. And God, I think, instructed us to leave the judging to him. Oh dear, you've got me worried now! Only the other day I told a persistently annoying mobile phone salesman on the phone to go to hell!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 13, 2012 19:29:47 GMT
I don't believe that we humans have any moral right to send anyone to hell. If hell exists then God is the only one who has the moral right to choose their destination. And God, I think, instructed us to leave the judging to him. I believe it is up to the person, their actions and their beliefs, as to where they are going. Now....it just isn't always up to them, WHEN they are going.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 13, 2012 19:39:06 GMT
the simple REALITY is that, when a worthless piece of shyt makes the decision to break into your house, or try to rob you, it is making the conscious, willful choice to die. you have EVERY right, legally and morally, to send it to hell where it belongs. actually, you have the moral obligation to kill it, and ensure that it isn't robbing your neighbor tomorrow It is one thing to say that people have the right to defend their own lives in a reasonably proportionate response to a threat to their life or limb, but it sounds instead as if you are willing to allow people to act as judge jury and executioner. If you really believe that an appropriate punishment for stealing or attempting to steal someone's property is the death penalty then advocate making theft a capitol crime. So the person still has to be properly proven guilty in a court of law, but then they get the, as you believe, correct punishment. It shouldn't be for private citizens to decide for themselves whether a person is legally guilty of a crime and so is to get the prescribed punishment carried out, again, by themselves. when a worthless piece of shyt chooses to break into my house, HE is deciding to die. he, and he alone makes that choice. when a punk is halfway through a window or door, there is no question of guilt anyway. besides, only looney tunes think that a thief's life is worth more than a pencil off my desk
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 13, 2012 19:45:33 GMT
I don't believe that we humans have any moral right to send anyone to hell. If hell exists then God is the only one who has the moral right to choose their destination. And God, I think, instructed us to leave the judging to him. you are right insofar as only god sends anyone anywhere. of course, where he sends them is totally up to them. they make the choice. obviously, a piece of shyt who burglarizes houses or robs has decided that it wants to go to hell, so, when it is despatched from life because it chose to be, it will be going to hell. again, it is TOTALLY that individual's choice. NO ONE else's
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 13, 2012 20:06:21 GMT
Wasn't it on this board somewhere that we once had a discussion about the meaning of ''an eye for an eye''? And I think it was skylark who got to the true meaning of it.
Punishment equal to the crime.
Seems like a guy stealing a radio should have, say, his freedom robbed in return -- but not his life.
I'm going to be interested in what the jury says about Raul Rodriguez. All I've seen is the video so I'm not pretending to be an expert! and I can see how he was scared and wound up, but it strikes me as obvious that he should have gone home and let the police deal with it.
I think it was a real example of feeling confident to risk a confrontation because he knew he had a gun. If he hadn't had one, he probably would have gone home.
There's a real problem when self-defence laws combine with concealed weapons, I think.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 13, 2012 20:21:37 GMT
From the Task Force discussion so far: Motions to amend ~ Trayvon Martin's father said: "We come here to ask you to consider the Trayvon Martin amendment to the stand-your-ground law, that is you cannot be the pursuer, you cannot initiate the confrontation, and then say you were standing your ground." Motions to repeal ~ Allie Braswell, president of the Central Florida Urban League and a former US marine, said: "This law gives more leeway to someone with a handgun on our streets than someone in the military subject to the laws of engagement....There is no consistent application of this law. We need to look at it, review it at the very least and repeal it if necessary." Motions to maintain ~ Frank Darden, a former deputy commissioner of the Florida department of education, who has a concealed weapon's permit, said he was attacked by a youth with a knife, and might have died had he not had the right to produce and use a firearm: "When he realised he'd brought a knife to a gun fight he dropped it and ran," he said. "I didn't fire but I have no doubt that the law saved me." obviously, if you initiate the confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. obviously, you can never, under any circumstance, initiate anything when a criminal breaks into your house, or tries to rob you on the street. only the basest imbecile would even consider trying to claim that you should just acquiesce.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 13, 2012 20:22:44 GMT
I don't believe that we humans have any moral right to send anyone to hell. If hell exists then God is the only one who has the moral right to choose their destination. And God, I think, instructed us to leave the judging to him. I believe it is up to the person, their actions and their beliefs, as to where they are going. Now....it just isn't always up to them, WHEN they are going. in the case of a criminal, it ALWAYS is
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 13, 2012 20:31:18 GMT
when a worthless piece of shyt chooses to break into my house, HE is deciding to die. he, and he alone makes that choice. when a punk is halfway through a window or door, there is no question of guilt anyway. besides, only looney tunes think that a thief's life is worth more than a pencil off my desk It is not for a private citizen to decide guilt, it is for the courts. It is not for a private citizen to mete out the punishment, it is for the legal system to do so. I can say that you put your hand in my back pocket and so I knew that you were guilty of attempted theft of my wallet and accordingly I decided to punish you with the death penalty on the spot, but these aren't my decisions to make. It is for the courts to assess the evidence and decide whether there is sufficient evidence that you were trying to steal from me (and I'd hope that my simple say alone so would not be sufficient for that) and then order your punishment if you are found guilty by them. As I say, if you believe a crime deserves capitol punishment at least let it be done sensibly rather than just 'oh you say he or she was going to commit a crime and so you killed them? Fair enough, say no more'.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 13, 2012 20:39:18 GMT
you are right insofar as only god sends anyone anywhere. of course, where he sends them is totally up to them. they make the choice. obviously, a piece of shyt who burglarizes houses or robs has decided that it wants to go to hell, so, when it is despatched from life because it chose to be, it will be going to hell. again, it is TOTALLY that individual's choice. NO ONE else's Only very young children or the severely mentally disabled can be said to not be in control of their choices and actions. A person can choose to commit a crime and similarly we can choose how to respond to it, including whether to punish the crime by jail or death or whatever. Your belief that the death penalty is an appropriate and proportionate response to the theft of a pencil is your belief. Nothing is compelling you to kill a pencil thief, that is a choice that you make, not them.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 14, 2012 9:05:05 GMT
Wasn't it on this board somewhere that we once had a discussion about the meaning of ''an eye for an eye''? And I think it was skylark who got to the true meaning of it. Punishment equal to the crime. Seems like a guy stealing a radio should have, say, his freedom robbed in return -- but not his life. I'm going to be interested in what the jury says about Raul Rodriguez. All I've seen is the video so I'm not pretending to be an expert! and I can see how he was scared and wound up, but it strikes me as obvious that he should have gone home and let the police deal with it. I think it was a real example of feeling confident to risk a confrontation because he knew he had a gun. If he hadn't had one, he probably would have gone home. There's a real problem when self-defence laws combine with concealed weapons, I think. rodriguez should be convicted. he initiated the confrontation, and, as i said, an aggressor loses any claim of self defense. he was NOT standing his ground. he had no business being on the ground that he was standing on. you can make a case, although not a good one, for the state not executing a thief. you cannot make a case of any kind for a person killing it in their house, or when it is trying to rob them. there is NO similarity whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 14, 2012 9:10:42 GMT
you are right insofar as only god sends anyone anywhere. of course, where he sends them is totally up to them. they make the choice. obviously, a piece of shyt who burglarizes houses or robs has decided that it wants to go to hell, so, when it is despatched from life because it chose to be, it will be going to hell. again, it is TOTALLY that individual's choice. NO ONE else's Only very young children or the severely mentally disabled can be said to not be in control of their choices and actions. A person can choose to commit a crime and similarly we can choose how to respond to it, including whether to punish the crime by jail or death or whatever. Your belief that the death penalty is an appropriate and proportionate response to the theft of a pencil is your belief. Nothing is compelling you to kill a pencil thief, that is a choice that you make, not them. i have not said that the death penalty is an appropriate and proportionate response to theft. the death penalty is a punishment meted out by the state, long after the crime has been committed. killing garbage breaking into your house, or trying to rob you on the street, is NOT. it IS the proportional response to a worthless piece of shyt's violation of you. for the record, it is the punk's choice to break into my house, or try to rob me, that it deserves to die for, not what is taken
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 14, 2012 9:39:59 GMT
Wasn't it on this board somewhere that we once had a discussion about the meaning of ''an eye for an eye''? And I think it was skylark who got to the true meaning of it. Punishment equal to the crime. Seems like a guy stealing a radio should have, say, his freedom robbed in return -- but not his life. I'm going to be interested in what the jury says about Raul Rodriguez. All I've seen is the video so I'm not pretending to be an expert! and I can see how he was scared and wound up, but it strikes me as obvious that he should have gone home and let the police deal with it. I think it was a real example of feeling confident to risk a confrontation because he knew he had a gun. If he hadn't had one, he probably would have gone home. There's a real problem when self-defence laws combine with concealed weapons, I think. rodriguez should be convicted. he initiated the confrontation, and, as i said, an aggressor loses any claim of self defense. he was NOT standing his ground. he had no business being on the ground that he was standing on. you can make a case, although not a good one, for the state not executing a thief. you cannot make a case of any kind for a person killing it in their house, or when it is trying to rob them. there is NO similarity whatsoever I think we agree. The Irish version of the law concerns someone entering your house. My feeling is that anyone illegally entering my house means to cause me harm and I cannot tell how much harm, therefore anything I do to that person will be in self defence. That person may not - probably does not - deserve to die but if that's the outcome I shouldn't feel any guilt or shame about it. I can extend this logic to a situation on the street where someone physically attacks me. But that's where SYG becomes confusing. I've been mugged before and had someone threaten to stab me: I've been pushed up against a wall by two people while they held a knife to me and said they would use it. Truth is I didn't believe them so I talked my way out of it. SYG seems to say that had I shot them I would have been justified -- but clearly I wouldn't have been. The evidence points to them never intending to do anything and they were just relying on my fear. If I'd had a knife or a gun, maybe I would have assessed the situation differently, maybe I would have skipped the negotiation stage. There is some statistic knocking around that says "justified homicides" have risen dramatically in states with SYG while regular homicides have stayed about the same. It's hard to tell if that statistic tells us that ''justified homicide" is being recorded differently or -- worryingly! -- if people are more likely to kill now that they are less likely to be punished for it.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 14, 2012 13:37:37 GMT
i have not said that the death penalty is an appropriate and proportionate response to theft. the death penalty is a punishment meted out by the state, long after the crime has been committed. killing garbage breaking into your house, or trying to rob you on the street, is NOT. it IS the proportional response to a worthless piece of shyt's violation of you. for the record, it is the punk's choice to break into my house, or try to rob me, that it deserves to die for, not what is taken There are killings in order to defend life or limb and there are killings for revenge and punishment. If you get the drop on a burglar and they see you with your gun and put their hands in the air, then by pulling the trigger regardless you are not defending life or limb, you are punishing. The latter is not for a private citizen to decide to do.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 14, 2012 19:36:04 GMT
LA Times ~ By Molly Hennessy-Fiske ~ June 14, 2012, 9:32 a.m. HOUSTON -- A retired Houston-area firefighter could face life in prison after a jury convicted him Wednesday of murder in the shooting of an unarmed neighbor, rejecting his "stand your ground" defense.
The trial's punishment phase is scheduled to begin Thursday.
During the trial, Raul Rodriguez, 47, argued that he was protected under Texas' self-defense law when he killed neighbor Kelly Danaher two years ago.
Rodriguez, angry about a noisy birthday party at Danaher's home, went over to his neighbor's house, according to testimony and court documents. He got into an argument with Danaher, a 36-year-old elementary school teacher, and two other men at the party.
Rodriguez’s attorneys did not present any witnesses in his defense. But in a 22-minute video Rodriguez recorded the night of the shooting, he can be heard telling a police dispatcher: "My life is in danger now" and "These people are going to go try and kill me." He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera.
The case is among the first to test a "stand your ground" defense in the wake of the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. In that case, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who has admitted shooting the unarmed teenager, has cited Florida's "stand your ground" law in his defense.
But "stand your ground" laws vary from state to state, and Rodriguez's case was decided under a different type of self-defense law than Florida's.
Texas' Castle Doctrine, revised in 2007, allows people to defend not only their homes with deadly force, but their workplaces and vehicles. Under the law, a person using force to defend himself or herself can't provoke their attacker or be involved in criminal activity.
Prosecutors argued that Rodriguez couldn’t cite the law in his defense because he provoked the confrontation at the party and attacked someone who was unarmed, which is a crime.
Defense attorney Neal Davis said he doesn't believe his client did anything illegal. He said Rodriguez didn't wield his gun until he was outside Danaher's house and his neighbor approached him in the street.
"He was not provoking anybody. He was not engaged in any criminal activity. The law is not only for home invasions. That's why the law was changed," Davis said, according to the Associated Press.
Prosecutors disagreed, arguing that Rodriguez lured and bullied his victim.
"Self-defense was never meant to protect the one who started the fight," prosecutor Donna Logan told the jury, according to the Houston Chronicle.
Jurors deliberated for about five hours before reaching a verdict Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 14, 2012 19:43:54 GMT
I think that case proves that there's something amiss with the laws.
Whilst I believe the jury was right to convict, I have sympathy for Rodriguez who - I suspect! - genuinely thought he was defending himself and was naive about the law. The way he announces "I am standing my ground" tells us that he thought he had some right.
Is the law dangerous?
Did the SYG law just kill someone?
|
|