Proof that an armed society is a polite society.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: Very true. But some lives are really not worth replacing if they make the lives of others less pleasant. Personally I have little to no sympathy for the robber, even if he didn't pull a gun. In my opinion it's like this: If you break the law, you've put aside all of your own rights by violating the rights of others. Don't whine if you or your stuff gets hurt in some way, you've brought it on yourself.

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.[/QUOTE]The robber was not killed by the state, He was killed by another person. One that will be tried according to the law. ( MagiK I know in theory )

I would really like to hear more about rammng bears [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Taliesin]

This guy in all likelihood won't see the inside of a courtroom. Unless the prosecution has other information, my guess is they won't prosue charges against him.

A similar situation happened here about a dozen years or so ago, when a man was shot and killed for being a peeping tom. He was shot in the back, while running away. He hadn't hurt anyone. The home owner was charged with murder and when it got to the Grand Jury, they tossed it out. Since then not many of these incidents here have been persued by the District Attornies office. They know it will just get through out.

My personal take on this was that it was murder. The guy was running away. Seems to me that the guy that got hit in the butt with the arrow was probably running away too. I have no problem with self defense... as long as it is self defense.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: Very true. But some lives are really not worth replacing if they make the lives of others less pleasant. Personally I have little to no sympathy for the robber, even if he didn't pull a gun. In my opinion it's like this: If you break the law, you've put aside all of your own rights by violating the rights of others. Don't whine if you or your stuff gets hurt in some way, you've brought it on yourself.

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.[/QUOTE]Weeeeeeeel, it kinda depends on the gun issue. If the guy stealing the car had a gun, then I believe that my basic human right to self protection allows me to take the pre-emptive move of killing him before he kills me. If he didn't have a gun? Much more muddied waters. Who is to say he wasn't going to steal the car, turn around and run the hunter guy over and kill him?

If a guy will steal your car, can you really trust him not to try and injure you with it once he has stolen it? Is it worth risking your life to see whether he's going to drive away form you, or over you?

The first case is clear cut - if he had a gun, he deserved to get killed. Yes, he *deserved* it, because he committed a crime while he was armed with a lethal weapon. The second case? More difficlt to decide.

[Timber Loftis]

This factual speculation we're making does not matter, in all likelihood. In most every state you can use lethal force in self-defense. But, in most states, you must retreat rather than use self-defense if it is at all possible. I can't image the guy couldn't retreat. That only happens when you are close to the attacker or the attacker is pressing the attack. This guy came back from hunting and saw the guy, who pointed a gun at him. Chances are he wasn't so close he couldn't retreat.

It's a simple assumption of the law in most states that life, even the life of a criminal, is worth more than property. This seems a basic assumption, but I agree with those of you who have found it is flawed. There is a dollar value on life - ask any attorney who has litigated fatal car crashes or on-the-job injuries. The law calculates the value of human life all the time. An asbestos exposure mesothelioma death from asbestos exposure is woth about $1M if you can find the company to sue (they're all bankrupt these days).

And I don't feel sorry for the guy. Nor does my wallet come tax time. Definately a Darwin - especially since he likely had plenty of time to shoot while Robin Hood was notching an arrow and drawing his bow.

As for the Grand Jury, they don't get to answer the question "do we prosecute." No, they get a questionnaire from the judge, the first portion of which will look like this:
****************************
Hunter v. Darwinite, Case No. 02-cr-00055554
Judge Whatsizname

1. Did Mr. Hunter reasonably fear for his life?
2. Did Mr. Hunter take every reasonable opportunity to retreat from the danger he faced?

If your answer to both of the above questions is YES, continue with this questionnaire. If you answer NO to either question, sign this form at the bottom where indicated and return it to the bailiff.
***************************

See - grand jury is preliminary fact-finder. The judge uses the questions to enforce the strictures of the law.

[Downunda]

Originally posted by MagiK: I would really like to hear more about rammng bears [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course you would

[Morgeruat]

one point most people tend to be glossing over is that the thief said he had a gun, the article didn't say one way or another about if he actually had a gun, but personally if someone was trying to steal something of mine, and said he was armed, I'd grab the sword off my wall and use it on him (or whatever else I had to do to render him unable to do grievous harm to me), and worry about whether he was telling the truth or not later.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: one point most people tend to be glossing over is that the thief said he had a gun, the article didn't say one way or another about if he actually had a gun, but personally if someone was trying to steal something of mine, and said he was armed, I'd grab the sword off my wall and use it on him (or whatever else I had to do to render him unable to do grievous harm to me), and worry about whether he was telling the truth or not later.

In most States, saying you have a weapon in the comission of a crime, is considered the same as having a weapon.

[Chewbacca]

I really hate thieves, as I catch them every day as part of my job, but even though they are stealing my bonus, I know that some dvd's and vidoe games, or any material item are worth less than a human life as well a s far easier to replace. That is merely a matter of conscience.

It is easy to justify any act if you dont use your conscience.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I really hate thieves, as I catch them every day as part of my job, but even though they are stealing my bonus, I know that some dvd's and vidoe games, or any material item are worth less than a human life as well a s far easier to replace. That is merely a matter of conscience. It is easy to justify any act if you dont use your conscience.

We have managed to manufacture 6 billion odd Humans. Im pretty sure we can do without the thieves, murderers and rapists. We can afford to be merciful to the Bear Rammers though.