Posted on 11/27/2012 7:59:37 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Does not mean that I feel the law is correct, has justice as its basis, or that it exonerates the two thieves in the slightest.
As I stated earlier... They started it by breaking in with intent to burgle. If he'd gone full Ted Bundy on them, I'd have charged him with mistreatment of human remains, but not murder.
That's me though. I fully admit I'm a cold hearted bastard on a few topics. I firmly believe that if you initiate a crime against another person, that whatever punishment they meet out to you at the point of your offense is about as "just" as it gets.
Whatever the law may do to Smith is at best a side point. The two thieves got what they deserved.
Yeah, fastasleep does that a lot. They aren’t here for reasoned discussion, just an argument. Doesn’t really matter what the topic is.
Using the term "Trayvon'd" is conflating the two. What could saying that these two got "Trayvon'd" possibly mean other than what happened to Martin happened to them?
In reality, they were in the opposite situation from Martin.
Martin had Zimmerman on the pavement and was actively bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground when he was shot in the head.
These two were both lying supine on the floor unarmed and severely wounded when Smith deliberately fired bullets into their heads.
The old man should never have been forced into in that situation by these two.
They forced him into shooting at least one of them.
No one forced him to fire lethal headshots into two people who were - by his own admission - badly wounded and completely subdued.
That's the difference here, and that's why it is completely incorrect to say they got "Trayvon'd."
They aren’t here for reasoned discussion
I invite anyone to read our respective posts on this thread in order to test the veracity of that statement.
You are condoning murder, and are therefore undermining the legitimate right of self-defense.
That was done by the lawyers when they sued Bernard Goetz. The dead can’t sue. They were in his house. His house, his rules. Blame the lawyers.
The actual rules are the laws of the state of Minnesota.
If you are no longer in danger, you are not allowed to kill someone.
He murdered that woman in cold blood.
Put the blame where it belongs... On the thieves. Your constant smearing of this guy is what does the damage to our 2A and self defense rights.
As it stands right now, we only have his claim that they broke in and that they were thieves.
That being said, the most logical assumption is that they did break into his house and were there to rip him off. Because they did that, they were asking to get shot.
The problem, as I've stated before, is not with his shooting them (certainly not with his shooting the first intruder), but with his decision to murder them after he - by his own statements - saw that they were unarmed and badly wounded.
Killing them after the fact is simply murder. That's the way the law works and has always worked.
Your constant smearing of this guy
I haven't smeared him. His own statements are damning. There's no need to add to what he has already said about himself.
is what does the damage to our 2A and self defense rights.
This is incorrect: one of the main arguments in favor of 2A and self-defense rights is that law-abiding citizens have a Constitutional - and really pre-Constitutional, God-given - right to self-defense.
When armed citizens turn around and break the law - and use firearms to do it - they are strengthening the argument of the fascists who claim that citizens do not have the self-control to exercise their rights freely.
Smith broke the law, and broke it in an egregious fashion. By defending his actions and claiming that they were acceptable and that any armed citizen would or should do the same, is to proclaim that we are lawbreakers and that we lack the self-control necessary to discern between right and wrong.
Smith is an outlier whose statements reveal that he has serious mental problems. He does not represent the average armed citizen. The average armed citizen should be disgusted by his actions.
Wrong. There is nothing more "just" than an intended victim turning the tables on their aggressor. The matter of punishment is entirely up to the person who had force/fraud/theft initiated against them. That the law limits a victims response is the true injustice.
How many times have we heard about revolving door justice and the law not applying equally? That thieves like this have long careers specifically BECAUSE the law limits what victims can do to stop them.
This statement highlights the flaws in your analysis.
Self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with punishment.
No homeowner has any right mete out punishment as if he were judge, jury and executioner.
If the homeowner sees himself as doling out punishment, he has already crossed the threshold from legitimate self-defense into assault/murder.
A homeowner has a right to defend himself - and to use deadly force if necessary.
He has no right, or privilege, or authority to take revenge or mete out punishment.
That's lawlessness.
Yes. They do. This is the flaw in your ideology. You require State agents to do your work for you.
How... liberal... of you.
The rule of law, and the notion that we have a "government of laws, not of men" are principles of this country's Founders.
Were they "liberals"?
The Constitution guarantees criminals a right to due process.
Is the Constitution a "liberal" document?
That's the government. Was there a government agent present when those thieves broke in to Mr. Smith's home? No? Then via the 10th Amendment those powers devolve to Mr. Smith.
The Constitution guarantees criminals a right to due process.
In a court of law. Were those thieves charged and Mirandized by a court Officer? No? Then your argument does not apply.
This line of argument is the path to madness.
The Fifth Amendment applies to everyone.
A private individual - even if he were the beneficiary of the Tenth Amendment, which he cannot be - cannot use the Tenth Amendment to deprive anyone of their Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The Tenth Amendment cannot abrogate the Fifth.
Due process is an unalterable and irremovable right of every citizen in peacetime.
In a court of law. Were those thieves charged and Mirandized by a court Officer? No? Then your argument does not apply.
Of course it does.
The entire purpose of the Fifth Amendment is prevent extrajudicial proceedings.
Without it, anyone could act as a private judge, jury and executioner to anyone else on any pretext.
This is very basic stuff.
No. You started that with your other crap. If only the type of responses to criminals an individual is allowed use are those the criminal would expect to face after a trial...
Madness? "I'm sorry Mr. and Mrs. Thief... But I'm going to need to incarcerate you for 3-5 years."
The 5th Amendment applies to the Federal government.
You've completely spun off your axle.
You seem unclear on the principle that actions have consequences. Unfortunately, our laws also lack that clarity.
Those Minnesota laws seem to have stopped at his front door and now she can’t sue him.
He'll wish she had lived to sue him after a few years in that cell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.