Millionaire who fought off a knife-wielding burglar is jailed (while the intruder is

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

*lmfao*

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. Gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it...

[zerademark]

Originally Posted by JCC

So would tying him down and ****** him. What do we run on, zerademark? You were probably too busy running your illegal Yu-Gi-Oh card racket to pay attention in biology class, so I'll tell you now: we run on our legs. If you want to stop someone from running away from you, and you are hellbent on using a metal pole to hit them, where would it logically follow to strike them?

Hint: not their fucking skull.

I did not say it was orthodox or even justified. Analize my post: I was wondering about the nullification of the burglars jailtime, and commenting on the onorthodox methode of containing him by the home owners. If you had your head out of your ass you would have realized that and remembered me saying I used to play that game. Even if I played that game at this very same moment it wouldn't be relevant to this article and discussion.

Second part: if you have a metal pole in your hand and a running intruder on your yard, what would the first thing be that hits your mind?

A) I must keep that sonofabitch here for when the police arrives!
B) I must keep that sonofabitch here for when the police arrives but without inflicting him any harm at all and especially not beat him at the head with this metal pole in my hand.

Truth is, its easy to discuss here on a forum on whats good and bad to do in life and in difficult situations, but when where out there in the real world our behaviors might not correspond to our carefully planned movements we speak out in here. Possible we won't be able to think clearly enough to decide whats right and wrong. We have an article here giving facts about what happened, but the emotional factors aren't apparant here.

So think about that, will ya Mr JCC?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by zerademark

I did not say it was orthodox or even justified. Analize my post: I was wondering about the nullification of the burglars jailtime,

No, you weren't. You included a rhetorical question at the end that basically just said "I don't understand". The bulk of your post was about the way that they beat the offender, which is what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by zerademark

and commenting on the onorthodox methode of containing him by the home owners.

'onorthodox' is a pretty liberal description.

Originally Posted by zerademark

If you had your head out of your ass you would have realized that and remembered me saying I used to play that game. Even if I played that game at this very same moment it wouldn't be relevant to this article and discussion.

Look bro, I don't want any trouble, my cards are in my back pocket, just take them.

Originally Posted by zerademark

Second part: if you have a metal pole in your hand and a running intruder on your yard, what would the first thing be that hits your mind?

A) I must keep that sonofabitch here for when the police arrives!
B) I must keep that sonofabitch here for when the police arrives but without inflicting him any harm at all and especially not beat him at the head with this metal pole in my hand.

I like how you've presented this as an enormous moral struggle to contend with while trying to decide how to contain the burglar. "Oh me oh my, how can I possibly contain this burglar and exercise the self-restraint necessary not to knock him to the floor, call my family around and beat him to the point of a fractured skull with various weapons?" Camus should've written an essay about that shit.

Originally Posted by zerademark

Truth is, its easy to discuss here on a forum on whats good and bad to do in life and in difficult situations, but when where out there in the real world our behaviors might not correspond to our carefully planned movements we speak out in here. Possible we won't be able to think clearly enough to decide whats right and wrong. We have an article here giving facts about what happened, but the emotional factors aren't apparant here.

So think about that, will ya Mr JCC?

I thought about it and it was stupid.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Jesus, reasonable force, dead man, reasonable force.

Guns aren't here so you can extend your phallus in the eyes of your peers.

If a guy has a knife in his hand, you pull a gun out, and he takes a step forward and swings, pop him one in the shoulder, one in each knee. Do what you need to make sure he's not swinging that thing at you.

If he sees your gun and beats a hasty retreat, your gun did its job, it prevented you from harm.

[zerademark]

Jesus, reasonable force, dead man, reasonable force.

Guns aren't here so you can extend your phallus in the eyes of your peers.

If a guy has a knife in his hand, you pull a gun out, and he takes a step forward and swings, pop him one in the shoulder, one in each knee. Do what you need to make sure he's not swinging that thing at you.

If he sees your gun and beats a hasty retreat, your gun did its job, it prevented you from harm.

Now this is a vivid explanation.

BTW, my retorical question wasn't retorical at all. I am suprised the burglar didnt get any jailtime. I don't believe his injuries are any reason to nulify his time.

[Still Jack]

Just so you know, I don't take your opinion seriously. You likened selling collectible cards to illegal racing.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by zerademark

Now this is a vivid explanation.

BTW, my retorical question wasn't retorical at all. I am suprised the burglar didnt get any jailtime. I don't believe his injuries are any reason to nulify his time.

Beaten senseless with a pipe is pretty bad. You ever been hit in the head with a pipe? It fucking sucks.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Methadrine

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. Gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it...

Well Clint...what are you going to do about it, get your buddy John Denver to do a Kamikaze run with his glider?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Beaten senseless with a pipe is pretty bad. You ever been hit in the head with a pipe? It fucking sucks.

Depends on the type of "pipe" and "hits to the head" you're talking about.

[Alan]

That's true. Someone tell me just how much violence happened there.
Here in Juarez I know that if someone threatened my family and I got free and I got the chance of incapacitating them, I wouldn't hesitate in making that decision. The possibility of killing them would be as real to me as their possibility of killing me.
The argument of being able to beat someone senseless simply for being in one's property is fucking stupid, and Deadman, you actually believe it isn't. But that is not the real issue here. The other side is just as stupid, blaming a man for beating someone who threatened to kill him. You make the robber sound like a cowardly kid who regretted his decision to rob a house and was three feet away from reaching the street before they ganged up on him.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Alan

That's true. Someone tell me just how much violence happened there.

He was left with permanent brain damage and was attacked so hard the cricket bat was broken into three pieces. Because of the damage done he wasn't fit to stand trial and therefore was not punished for the burglary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ts/8413787.stm

Here in Juarez I know that if someone threatened my family and I got free and I got the chance of incapacitating them, I wouldn't hesitate in making that decision. The possibility of killing them would be as real to me as their possibility of killing me.

When they are fleeing, have their backs to you, and there's three of you who are armed? Then its about revenge, not defense.

The other side is just as stupid, blaming a man for beating someone who threatened to kill him. You make the robber sound like a cowardly kid who regretted his decision to rob a house and was three feet away from reaching the street before they ganged up on him.

He was fleeing and was chased and gained up on, that fact isn't contested in any of the reports. I get not wanting the criminal to get away, but beating them severely?

[Alan]

Oh no wonder! Nevermind. I didn't read that. I agree with the principle Deadman is defending, but that principle plays in no part in this event. If he's defending this it's just his obsession with private property over human life.
He says it 'depends on of "pipe" and "hits to the head"' we're talking about, and that's valid. But we DO know what 'pipe' and 'hits to the head' we're talking about. That's just inexcusable.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

That's true. Someone tell me just how much violence happened there.
Here in Juarez I know that if someone threatened my family and I got free and I got the chance of incapacitating them, I wouldn't hesitate in making that decision. The possibility of killing them would be as real to me as their possibility of killing me.
The argument of being able to beat someone senseless simply for being in one's property is fucking stupid, and Deadman, you actually believe it isn't. But that is not the real issue here. The other side is just as stupid, blaming a man for beating someone who threatened to kill him. You make the robber sound like a cowardly kid who regretted his decision to rob a house and was three feet away from reaching the street before they ganged up on him.

If you really want to know/care what my stance on the subject is...

I feel that if someone is/has (As in right there still on the property) threatened your life or that of a family member (A real threat not just talk but if someone is actively trying to carry out that threat) you should do whatever is needed to stop the attacker.

[Ben Lahnger]

Deadman, in your previous posts and in railing against the ruling that is the subject of this thread, you advocated doing more than that. And that's where you and the law disagree.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Deadman, in your previous posts and in railing against the ruling that is the subject of this thread, you advocated doing more than that. And that's where you and the law disagree.

They did stop the attacker,I feel that the homeowner shouldn't be thrown in prison for doing the right thing,the report also stated that the family had just returned home from religious services,these folks weren't looking for trouble,the bunch that attacked them damn sure was.

Otherwise they wouldn't have shown up on the homeowners property,to threaten them with bodily harm/death.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

If you really want to know/care what my stance on the subject is...

I feel that if someone is/has (As in right there still on the property) threatened your life or that of a family member (A real threat not just talk but if someone is actively trying to carry out that threat) you should do whatever is needed to stop the attacker.

If he's leaving then he's already stopped.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

If you really want to know/care what my stance on the subject is...

I feel that if someone is/has (As in right there still on the property) threatened your life or that of a family member (A real threat not just talk but if someone is actively trying to carry out that threat) you should do whatever is needed to stop the attacker.

See what I mean? The principle you're defending is valid, but why the fuck are you talking of such a principle when it has nothing to do with this situation?
Yeah, if someone's life is threatened, then he should do whatever is needed to stop the attacker.
They didn't do "whatever is needed" to stop the attacker. Like everyone correctly pointed out, they broke a fucking bat against his head. That wasn't what is necessary. That was violence for violence's sake.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by JCC

If he's leaving then he's already stopped.

If he's leaving he is still in motion,when he was laid out in the garden he was stopped.

[Saya]

There's something mind numbingly entertaining about trying to debate with hicks.

[JCC]

Fuck this argument, I don't even know why I'm still wasting time on your clueless fat ass when I could just be sending you my shit in the post.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Deadman, in your previous posts and in railing against the ruling that is the subject of this thread, you advocated doing more than that. And that's where you and the law disagree.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

They did stop the attacker,I feel that the homeowner shouldn't be thrown in prison for doing the right thing,the report also stated that the family had just returned home from religious services,these folks weren't looking for trouble,the bunch that attacked them damn sure was.

Nobody but you, including the court and the law, think that what force was used was necessary to "stop them". You may "feel" whatever you like about the situation, but you are disagreeing with the law.

Nobody believes the amount of force used was necessary to stop the attacker ... the attacker was stopped and more force was applied. Excessive force. Criminal force. So the only person who perpetrated violence in this situation went to jail because the beating continued well beyond what was necessary to stop the original criminal. That makes the assault by the homeowner a crime punishable by a jail sentence. The law says so. The judge says so. Nearly everyone here says so. But you disagree. So you disagree with the law.

But this has been pointed out very eloquently and clearly to you in this thread before. You disagree with the law. Just own that. Work to get the law changed if you can (heaven help us all) but understand that this is the law at the moment.

And if you choose to disobey the law as it stands now, you risk 2 things. You will probably go to jail yourself. And you set the standard that people can pick and choose which laws they wish to obey. If so, there goes your right to private property.

[the-nihilist]

When I'm called off, I got a sawed off- squeeze the trigger, 'till bodies are hauled off! You too boy if ya fuck wit me, the police are gonna have to come and get me off yo ass! That's how I'm goin' out! Fo' tha punk mothafucka's that's showin' out!

[Despanan]

Guy is no longer in jail

[Alan]

I bet you a sixpack no one's gonna care. This was never about that guy on either side.

[Saya]

I'm just glad it was a reduced sentence and not a total turnover, otherwise it could set a precedent for whenever anyone wants to chase down and beat a burglar after the danger is gone.