Stephan Turk
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
When it's clear they came to harm and steal, then maybe I can see the willingness to defend yourself, but what would happen is that people would just shoot/attack first without questioning it because they assume they are justified in doing so, which would result in more deaths, and possibly the lives of the innocent.
this really
its an EU state - while you've got a right to defend yourself you don't have an inherent right to take revenge/dish out 'justice'
shooting someone in the back as they're getting away - essentially using lethal force to try and recover property isn't on - this isn't Texas*
you can use lethal force when your own life is threatened, you don't get to use lethal force to recover mere possessions
*Seemingly in Texas you can shoot a hooker in the back as she runs away over a dispute about whether you paid for her time or for more than that...
Lol, sounds legit.
So effectively hookers are free?
nope - but they run into danger of being shot if they keep their pricing ambiguous and then state the fee was just for turning up and not for performing a sex act...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-dead-Craigslist-escort-refused-sex-him.html
Texas law apparently allows the use of lethal force when recovering property - in this case a small amount of cash, so yup you can shoot a hooker in the back legally - jewelry store owner from this thread would likely be fine with his actions too
in most places in the developed world, other US states, EU countries etc.. shooting someone in the back as the run away isn't generally accepted as being a reasonable thing to do, at least as far as the law is concerned - though seemingly lots of the UK population (as per Tony Martin case) and seemingly the French population now think otherwise
I don't think he should be charged with murder. It was a foolish retaliation in the heat of the moment and possibly an attempt to prevent their escape with his money rather than a revenge shooting.
Of course I'm not condoning what he's done... but labeling him a murderer seems somewhat unfair.
Of course I'm not condoning what he's done... but labeling him a murderer seems somewhat unfair.
Last edited:
Whether or not they deserved it or not is one thing but in the heat of the moment things happen that people would never do in a normal situation, road rage is a perfect example, perfectly normal people can be reduced to swearing shouting swerving wrecks in an instant.
I think the fact they held him at gun point really did it and he may not have shot them otherwise, of course its impossible to say!
I think the fact they held him at gun point really did it and he may not have shot them otherwise, of course its impossible to say!
^^ This, end of story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
But he did murder somebody, with an unlicensed fire arm so that's exactly what he should be labelled.
He was the innocent victim of a violent crime until he took the law and justice system into his own hands and shot somebody in the back.
But he wasn't protecting his property was he. They had already left and was making their escape.
Why should he walk free? What he did was illegal, just like the robbery of his store, however, one of the thieves have unjustly paid with their life so cant have a fair trial like the jewellery store owner will get.
Ok, let's deconstruct this mess.
"Emotionally unbalanced? Quite certain that would render me useless in my job as a trauma nurse" - Dealing with victims isn't the same as dealing with criminals, simply this statement gives you no green card for ignorance on this subject.
"a job which has in turn made me pretty jaded toward the usefulness of the 'dregs of society'" - Another emotive charged meaningless statement, so you are jaded.. - so what?, it gives you no excuse to be ignorant.
"I understand too what is ''required to contemplate the finer points of a retributive justice system'' - evidently not.
"However the 'justice system' fails most people. Take the story today of five murderers given 'life' in prison yet all were released and murdered again, some within weeks of release." - Explain what this has to do with killing people in response to property theft.
I'll hazard a guess at absolutely nothing, also if you could please expand upon "fails most people" - most, that implies above 50%?, do you have any data to back up this daily mail style headline, or is this more emotionally charged hot air?.
If you want to have a discussion on issues regarding risk assessment on the release of people incarcerated for murder then perhaps you should make a thread about that, but don't you see how dropping in completely unrelated story's gives you impression you are lacking in the brains department?.
I mentioned my profession to highlight the fact I am not emotionally unbalanced.
Ignorant of what, exactly? Forming the opinion of ''Ah well'' if a criminal is killed committing illegal activity which could harm a law abiding, innocent member of society? Ah well.
What is evident from that statement? I know the difference between retributive justice and the legal system.
I never claimed it DID have anything to do with killing people in property theft?
The old, clichéd 'Daily Mail style headline'.
I also am aware what 'most' means, but thank you for the explanation. Unfortunately I can't supply data to back it up, no. Maybe I should have re-edited for the statement to read 'most people I know believe the 'justice' system' fails most people'. My mistake.I wasn't dropping in completely unrelated stories.
For the record, I don't read the Daily Mail, I don't believe in the death penalty, and I don't believe a person should shoot another in the back without facing punishment. I do, however, think 'Ah well...' when I hear about a criminal 'coming unstuck'.
Look if I was shop owner I would have shot the fools too but I wouldn't be whinging that it was self defense if I shot them fleeing in the back, it's simply not defense, end of story.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
It sounds like manslaughter to me. end of story.
I mentioned my profession to highlight the fact I am not emotionally unbalanced.
Ignorant of what, exactly? Forming the opinion of ''Ah well'' if a criminal is killed committing illegal activity which could harm a law abiding, innocent member of society? Ah well.
What is evident from that statement? I know the difference between retributive justice and the legal system.
I never claimed it DID have anything to do with killing people in property theft?
The old, clichéd 'Daily Mail style headline'.
I wasn't dropping in completely unrelated stories.
For the record, I don't read the Daily Mail, I don't believe in the death penalty, and I don't believe a person should shoot another in the back without facing punishment. I do, however, think 'Ah well...' when I hear about a criminal 'coming unstuck'.
Your job will give you an insight into human behaviour, some people have to rely on getting that from behind a keyboard. If you fantasize that people only turn to crime under stress or duress, it makes defence of a criminal element much more rational, so don't take it too hard, people often overreact when you risk popping their illusory bubble.