Heh–I misread you at first to say that it doesn’t allow for anything but that kind of thinking.
You do realize that it is possible for someone to be the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of another crime? Neither one precludes the other.
Tis the season…
Sure. Shitbags victimize each other pretty routinely. On the other hand, if little Billy decides to rob the local Shop n’ Bag and the guy behind the counter shoots Billy, the only thing Billy is the victim of is his own criminality.
Do you consider this positive news?
If Billy gets shot in the back as he leaves, whatever your ugly and simplistic ideology proclaims, you’re factually incorrect.
If Billy gets shot in the back it eliminates the likelihood that he will rob and maybe kill someone in the future. I’d hate to have it on my conscience that a robber I chose to let escape went on to kill someone else in a subsequent robbery.
Billy wouldn’t have been shot at all if he hadn’t tried his hand at robbing, would he? That dirty, back-shooting varmint of a shopkeeper didn’t seek Billy out, did he? Billy set the chain of events in motion. What is it with you and this need to minimize the responsibility shitbags bear for their acts, anyway?
That is so fucked up. You can justify any violent murder if you pretend to be able to see into the future. “I did society a favor, he might grow up to be a terrorist!” You are not the judge, jury or executioner. Your vigilantism is more dangerous than a small time burglar any day, because it says you have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. Your action is no less criminal than that of the robber you pretend to abhor.
You’re behaving in almost exactly the non-Bricker mode here, unwilling or unable to separate what’s legally okay from what’s morally okay.
But set aside your factual incorrectness about the legality of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. Look at the moral issue. Are you really unable to see how the following two statements can be simultaneously held true?
A. Billy is morally responsible for his acts robbing a store, and should face consequences for them…
B. Murder is not the appropriate consequences for these acts, and someone who murders Billy for them should face consequences for that murder.
Edit: as an addendum, I don’t know why you’ve got that predilection for writing me PMs and calling me Princess, but it’s kind of creepy.
What’s fucked up is your inability to differentiate between some random murder based on perceived psychic ability vs. killing someone who’s already threatened people’s lives in order to obtain a paltry sum of money.
I didn’t say it was legal for Hezekiah ( that’s our shopkeeper’s name) to shoot Billy in the back. I didn’t say it was morally right, either. I never even had Hezekiah shoot him in the back at all. That all came from you.
You know what, though? If Billy had tried to rob Ace the meth dealer down on the corner, no matter what part of his anatomy Ace shot him in and no matter what legal penalties Ace might face for the shooting, I would still say little Billy died because he wanted to rob somebody. Billy wanting to be a big, bad, desperado led to his death. Whether the fellow who shot him is in compliance with the law is a separate issue. Hezekiah and/or Ace being wrong doesn’t make Billy innocent or right.
For the record - I’m opposed to shooting people who present no threat and our current system of justice agrees with this. Sometimes threats are shot in the back, and sometimes fleeing people are still a threat. It’s a case by case evaluation.
In other news, Mesquite man shot after attacking his grandfather
I suspect drugs were involved in some way.
You want to kill someone who hasn’t killed anyone, because you think he might kill someone, someday. That is fucked up.
Well, first of all I don’t want to kill anybody. What I am saying is that such a shooting would be justified, for the reasons I’ve already explained.
This, I think belongs in the realm of positive gun news:
Meet the Gun-Loving Lifelong Member of the NRA Who Just Submitted His Resignation
Nevada state legislator, congressional candidate and gun lover John Oceguera has had enough of NRA recalcitrance.
May we see more responsible gun owners taking matters into their own hands WRT LaPierre and the crazies.
Thanks, I just shared that article on facebook, for the benefit of my cousin and her throwback husband. If they haven’t blocked me already, this will probably do it.
Homeowner apprehends burglars:
In other news, Burglary suspect shot by woman in St. Louis
The idea that someone breaking in is just there for stuff doesn’t seem to be one to bet your life on.
Even if that were true, he’d be no more than following the lead set by people from the anti-gun side. They’re all about punishing gun owners for things that they might do or crimes that might be committed with guns they own(ed).