Gotta Love Those Texas Women.

NDS · #21 05-11-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CathyInBlue

...In the end, the incident was one of the criminal's making, not the self-defense shooter. If he didn't want to get shot in the back, there was an easy way for him to accomplish that... don't be a criminal that day.

Exactly the point of this exercise. If criminals don't want to be harmed they should find other work. When people are damaged, by personal attack or some form of theft, they become upset. When you upset people they may strike back. Had this woman been a cop, any accomplices would have been charged in this criminals death. That's not something I agree with, but it shows the multi-layer of standards we have built in this nation. This woman is blameless in protecting her property (TEXAS people, she is within the law of her state-- CA and CT please note that some people are more free than others) and any injury / damage the criminal suffers is his fault for initiating the confrontation.

cgnavarro · #22 05-11-2009, 12:49 PM

BoomBoy007, here here. CathyInBlue, I think your not stating my case in a favorable light. Do I think one needs to be reholstering their gun or cleaning my blood off ytheir knife before I think I'm in danger, no. But, I certainly know that a person who is running away from me with his back turned not brandishing a weapon is of no "immediate" danger to me. NDS, I realize that in Texas you have the right to defend your property by force if necessary (Castle Doctrine, etc.), but this is a policy I must humbly disagree with. Is it not that same policy who vindicated a man who after watching his neighbors house being robbed in the middle of the day called the police and told them he was going to shoot them if they didn't get there in time ignoring the dispatchers urgings to stay inside where he was safer? Then, did he not confront them outside with a shotgun where he proceeded to shoot both of the men in the back with a as they ran away, ignoring his orders to stop? Forgive me, but killing anyone for the defense of any property is simply wrong, because it places the value of human life (criminal or innocent) at the price of what's being stolen. Furthermore, to say that someone is justified in killing a criminal simply becasue he is a criminal is also wrong. We can't decide to kill someone just because he's a criminal and he stole from us. In my belief system, the right to decide who lives and who dies is God's alone. We have the right to defend our lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters against those trying to take our lives, nothing more. This shooting just doesn't pass the sniff test. It just doesn't seem clean. And I think that as responsible gun owners, we shouldn't relish in this criminals (humans) death or glorify the woman who took his life when she was not in danger of losing hers. Might she have felt it was in danger, yes, perhaps. But her words on the stand give me pause.

HK4U · #23 05-11-2009, 02:15 PM

Everyone has to decide for themselves what to do in a situation like this. Are you willing to let him flee with what belongs to you rather that shoot that person. What if it is your last dime you have and some punk that does not want to work for a living helps himself to it? Another thing to consider. If you let him get away what if tomorrow he kills someone for their money.? How will you feel then?

cgnavarro · #24 05-11-2009, 03:24 PM

What keeps being fallen back on is that he was a criminal and it serves him right getting shot for stealing a purse, or what if he had gone on to do something worse. If that's the logic here, then let's extend it out past this incident. Let's just shoot everybody on the grounds that they might at some point in their lives fall on hard times and turn to a life of crime. Let's shoot jaywalkers, because as we all know, that's just a gateway crime to mass murder. Let's tell convenience store owners it's alright to shoot anyone regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or creed in the back as they try to run out of their stores with the snickers bar they just pocketed, because after all they were engaged in a cime and deserved it, be it a 40 year old man, or a 15 year old girl who was doing it on a dare. I don't understand how life can be regarded so cheaply not to find it ridiculous to shoot someone over things. Even if it's every penny you have in the world, that gives you the right to take one of God's creatures and erase them from existence? You take life to prevent your own life from being taken from you, why is that so extreme a view? I think what bothers me most is not what happened; because for all I know she honestly felt her life was in danger when she fired (though her statement to the jury tells me otherwise). What really bothers me is how people can view this as anything but a tragedy. How we can applaud what was either a killing as a result of a theft, or a killing as a result of a misjudgement, ir beyond me.

boris · #25 05-11-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgnavarro

What keeps being fallen back on is that he was a criminal and it serves him right getting shot for stealing a purse, or what if he had gone on to do something worse. If that's the logic here, then let's extend it out past this incident. Let's just shoot everybody on the grounds that they might at some point in their lives fall on hard times and turn to a life of crime. Let's shoot jaywalkers, because as we all know, that's just a gateway crime to mass murder. Let's tell convenience store owners it's alright to shoot anyone regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or creed in the back as they try to run out of their stores with the snickers bar they just pocketed, because after all they were engaged in a cime and deserved it, be it a 40 year old man, or a 15 year old girl who was doing it on a dare. I don't understand how life can be regarded so cheaply not to find it ridiculous to shoot someone over things. Even if it's every penny you have in the world, that gives you the right to take one of God's creatures and erase them from existence? You take life to prevent your own life from being taken from you, why is that so extreme a view?

it is generally understood that most gun owners have a little thing called common sense. here in texas, the use of deadly force is authorized if any crime is being committed on your property at night. would i shoot some kid t.p.ing my yard? no. would i shoot the same kid breaking into my house and robbing my family? yes. we do not tolerate dumbbutts inthis state for very long. you commit a crime and you get shot... not my problem. i am sure though that your buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress will find a way to make us out to be the bad guy. will you go along with that? shoot more bad guys, there will be less bad guys to deal with. those who remain will likely wind up as politicians.

cgnavarro · #26 05-11-2009, 04:01 PM

Boris: My "buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress", I hadn't realized McCain had won the election and switched parties. If you must know, I'm a Democrat who voted for McCain. I think gays should be allowed to marry, and I think that abortion is wrong. I'm a Methodist, and am currently on unemployment. When I was working I paid my taxes to support not only social security for my elders, but welfare for those that need a hand.

And all of that has nothing to do with the fact theft is not a justification for killing someone.

Furhtermore, labeling people accomplishes nothing. If we wan't to protect our 2nd ammendment rights and stop people from taking our guns, it's going to take conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christians, Muslims and Atheists all working together. Devisiveness only makes us weaker. Try to think about that before you post. Be a team player.

Lastly, I support shooting BG's that deserve to be shot, ie. those attempting to take life.

boris · #27 05-11-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgnavarro

Boris: My "buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress", I hadn't realized McCain had won the election and switched parties. If you must know, I'm a Democrat who voted for McCain. I think gays should be allowed to marry, and I think that abortion is wrong. I'm a Methodist, and am currently on unemployment. When I was working I paid my taxes to support not only social security for my elders, but welfare for those that need a hand.

And all of that has nothing to do with the fact theft is not a justification for killing someone.

Furhtermore, labeling people accomplishes nothing. If we wan't to protect our 2nd ammendment rights and stop people from taking our guns, it's going to take conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christians, Muslims and Atheists all working together. Devisiveness only makes us weaker. Try to think about that before you post. Be a team player.

Lastly, I support shooting BG's that deserve to be shot, ie. those attempting to take life.

there is NO ONE who is more of a team player than i. people who know me and have worked with me are well aware of this. but you are from california, and that fact explains a great deal. i have visited your state twice. 'nuff said.

cgnavarro · #28 05-11-2009, 04:17 PM

Great, then let's argue the issue, and not the geography.

CathyInBlue · #29 05-11-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDS

Had this woman been a cop, any accomplices would have been charged in this criminals death.

Actually, I think even in this case where the scumbag was deleted by a non-police officer, the scumbag's cohorts would get charged for the scumbag's death. If there's a cadre of dirtbags robbing a Stop `n' Rob, and the cashier pulls a shotgun and blows the two at the counter away and the wheelman outside floors it and is caught later, that wheelman still gets charged with his accomplices' deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgnavarro

CathyInBlue, I think your[sic] not stating my case in a favorable light.

We're in the arena of public opinion. It is not my responsibility to state your case well. It's my responsibility to state my case well. For your case to be well stated is your responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgnavarro

But, I certainly know that a person who is running away from me with his back turned not brandishing a weapon is of no "immediate" danger to me.

As long as I am still in the "immediate" aftermath of a criminal attack, the perpetrators are an "immediate" danger to me unless they can demonstrate by positive action to be surrendering, disarming, and offering no more resistance to me.