I love these types of people - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

neilz0r · 06-19-2003, 07:36 PM

holy shit that is awesome
they should give that guy a fuckin medal or something, not punish him

denim · 06-19-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by butthead
My friend with special training and knowledge in law enforcement informs: "There is a felony murder rule which states that if an innocent party is injured or killed during the commission of certain felonies as a DIRECT RESULT of the crime or actions of the crimincal the death is considered murder. An example would be if during a carjacking, the carjacker drove away at the speed limit and accidently ran over a child who darted into the street after a ball. Had the carjacker not been involved in the commission of a felony and had he not otherwise been at fault, no crime would have been committed in running over the child. However, since he was involved in the commission of a specified felony, any innocent party who dies as a direct result of his actions (heart attacks from fear do not count) is considered to have been murdered under the felony murder rule. Injuries do not count in this case, only deaths. Injuries might be aggravating factors, but these must involve innocent parties."

So it's only killin' that counts, huh? Oh, well. Please ask your specialist if any of what he said is locale-dependant, and in what way. IANAL.

Quote:

You argued that this was self-defense or "right" and therfore not worth charging. I had explained how this is not true. Address these points.

I did. Ultimately, we don't agree, and I said that too.

Quote:

My friend also had this to say: "It was not self-defense. The moment the man pursued the robbers they were no longer a threat to him and he became the aggressor. This is not to say that he was wrong to do so, it's within his rights to pursue them to effect a lawful arrest, and he may use whatever force is reasonable to effect the arrest. However, in this situation it seems his use of force was probably unreasonable and he should be charged with a crime."

In Texas, for instance, you can pursue to reclaim stolen goods. Address that.

butthead · 06-19-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

So it's only killin' that counts, huh? Oh, well. Please ask your specialist if any of what he said is locale-dependant, and in what way. IANAL.

It is, though it's irrelevant to the situation. What is relevant is the self-defense claim, which is obviously not true. If you don't wish to accept this as fact or are unable to for various reasons, then there is no logical argument here.

Quote:

In Texas, for instance, you can pursue to reclaim stolen goods. Address that.

Intuitively I doubt this includes unreasonable force. Althought I must ask that you quit bringing up irrelevant points. This happened in Arizone, not Texas.

And if you are acknowledging he did pursue them, then you must also acknowledge that this was not self-defense. He was in no danger when he crushed their vehicle.

This wasn't self-defense. You can be in denial all you want, but as it stands you have no logical argument.

Until you come up with something that makes sense, I will not be replying.

cheerios · 06-19-2003, 09:58 PM

ok you two, remember we're all buddies, discussing an issue civilly. I appreciate the courtesy that you have used so far, but want to remind you to stick with it. thanks!

MacGnG · 06-19-2003, 10:04 PM

that worst part is that the guy driving the hummer will probably get charged for something, which is just ridiculous.

butthead · 06-19-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

that worst part is that the guy driving the hummer will probably get charged for something, which is just ridiculous.

If you would like to logically argue your opinion, considering the points already made, I would be happy to participate.

cheerios · 06-19-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGnG
that worst part is that the guy driving the hummer will probably get charged for something, which is just ridiculous.

Mac, hun, next time READ the discussion, so you'll know that's what we've been talking about for the last page and a half!

MacGnG · 06-19-2003, 11:07 PM

oh whatever, thats all i had to say anyway

but it's not the first time or the last that something like that has happend to a shop owner or someone's home

denim · 06-20-2003, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by butthead
What is relevant is the self-defense claim, which is obviously not true. If you don't wish to accept this as fact or are unable to for various reasons, then there is no logical argument here.

I already told you we were going in circles. And I reiterated it in my previous post.

I don't know the law in Arizona. Do you?

Quote:

Intuitively I doubt this includes unreasonable force.

You don't know Texas very well. What they consider "unreasonable force" is beyond anything a normal human can handle. They allow people to recover their property, they allow you to shoot tresspassers on sight (and on site), and I'm certain this particular event wouldn't be an issue there. But I can't speak for AZ.

Quote:

And if you are acknowledging he did pursue them, then you must also acknowledge that this was not self-defense. He was in no danger when he crushed their vehicle.

Nope. Danger has nothing to do with it. He was defending his property. Again, you're begging the question unless you know for a fact that AZ doesn't allow this.

bender · 06-20-2003, 01:50 PM

the heat of the moment and individual in the moment will dictate the actions taken.

butthead · 06-20-2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

He was defending his property. Again, you're begging the question unless you know for a fact that AZ doesn't allow this.

He wasn't defending his property. He crushed their vehicle. No where in the article is it mentioned that the owner went for his money or ever recovered it. What it does state, is that he crushed their vehicle after the robbers left the scene. Given the FACTS PRESENTED, you are left with enough to make up an argument (given you have the ability).

If you really "have nothing", I recommend you adopt the more rational opinion or at least cease bringing up irrelevant information and creating false information.

denim · 06-23-2003, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by butthead
He wasn't defending his property. He crushed their vehicle. No where in the article is it mentioned that the owner went for his money or ever recovered it. What it does state, is that he crushed their vehicle after the robbers left the scene. Given the FACTS PRESENTED, you are left with enough to make up an argument (given you have the ability).

Opinion, yours.

Quote:

If you really "have nothing", I recommend you adopt the more rational opinion or at least cease bringing up irrelevant information and creating false information.

So answer the question: what is AZ law's position on this?

mtsgsd · 06-23-2003, 07:52 AM

I really believe that we as a nation have taken the touchy feely philosophy too far.

These guys knew they were breaking the law. They assaulted the man for money (note assault, we don't know of battery was involved but that would be worse). They did not show any compassion or regard for this person's rights or health. Why the fuck should they be shown any different?

There's a farmer in Britain who shot a burglar after having been robbed several times. Guess who went to prison as the danger to society? Now that he's up for parole, it's being argued that burglars have a right to be protected from this maniac and that he should remain in jail. Is this where we're headed?

Sheep are never going to be able to live with lions. Not unless they have the means to kick the living shit out of any lion that tries to mess with them regardless of how they were raised as cubs etc. etc. . Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

denim · 06-23-2003, 10:54 AM

And if they can kick the shit out of a lion, they're not sheep.

butthead · 06-23-2003, 04:50 PM

Heh, forget it.

butthead · 06-23-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Opinion, yours.

No, actually, the chain of events are factual. Re-read the article.

Quote:

So answer the question: what is AZ law's position on this?

From http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00404.htm:

Quote:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

Quote:

I really believe that we as a nation have taken the touchy feely philosophy too far.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "touchy feely", but if you're referring to attempting to retain justice, I must disagree.

Quote:

Why the fuck should they be shown any different?

Because it is their constitutional right to due process, not vigilante justice. (If vigilante justice fits the crime then they shouldn't be charged by the courts at all, if you're going to go that route).

Quote:

There's a farmer in Britain who shot a burglar after having been robbed several times. Guess who went to prison as the danger to society? Now that he's up for parole, it's being argued that burglars have a right to be protected from this maniac and that he should remain in jail. Is this where we're headed?

Straw-man fallacy. On top of that, these are different circumstances.

Also, irrelevant to the charging and punishment of the suspects or the owner.

denim · 06-24-2003, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by butthead
No, actually, the chain of events are factual. Re-read the article.

I have it on my wall.

Quote:

From http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00404.htm:

Well, that's pretty clear. IMHO, it's wrong-headed, but it's clear.

butthead · 06-24-2003, 11:37 AM

So where does that leave your points?

raeanna74 · 06-25-2003, 07:04 AM

They way things work you are only allowed to protect yourself not your stuff with force. If someone robs you and is walking out of the house and you shoot him you are at fault for using excessive force. If that ever happens make sure they fall so they are facing in and shoot to kill. If you only injure them they can still sue you for damages for using excessive force if they can prove that your physical well being wasn't in danger. It's pathetic I know.

I think this guy gave those crooks what they deserved. I'm worried that he'll end up fighting this in court for a long time. Truely I hope those guys die in that if they survive I wouldn't be surprised if they sued him. I hope he gets off on this. It will set a precedent that will allow us to actually protect our stuff as well as ourselves. Go hummers!

Mango · 06-25-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alterEGO
Prretty funny but i dont agree with any charges on the guy he protected his own stuff nothing wrong with that i just feel sorry for the robbers.

He was not protecting his stuff. They were already gone with his stuff and posed no further threat to him or his "stuff." He endangered himself and other drivers probably in a rage to get revenge on the thieves. I would hope that chages are laid. Would you be pissed if no charges are laid and more people start doing this and eventually one carves up your lawn as he crashes while trying to get he bad guys. Or even worse smokes a 10 yo kid on his bike and kills or cripples him.

Throw the book at the fucker. Vigilantes have no place in society.

Reese · 06-25-2003, 08:18 AM

Although what he did was wrong, If everyone stopped being a fucking victim and stood up to the criminals you'd have a few less people but you'd have alot less criminals. people are too fucking scared to get hurt/die. Grow some fucking balls! Work as a fucking team and get shit done!

You can see I'm in a very bad mood right now...

Destrox · 06-25-2003, 08:32 AM

If anything, charge the guy with wreckless driving, and endangerment to bystanders.

Harming the criminals on the otherhand, should be overlooked.

Police today are to soft, everything they do has to be ok'd first, and cannot hurt thier public look.

If they would only do what is right, and not whats for the better of thier political view.

denim · 06-25-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mango
He was not protecting his stuff.

Your opinion only.

denim · 06-25-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by butthead
So where does that leave your points?

Okay, I'll answer you: doesn't say anything to my points. It says that the laws in AZ are wrong-headed, that the guy did the right thing, that the thieves should die, and that you're beating a dead horse. Enough already.

06-19-2003, 07:36 PM	#41 (permalink)
neilz0r Tilted Location: Nova Scotia, Canada	holy shit that is awesome they should give that guy a fuckin medal or something, not punish him __________________ Beware the fury of a patient man...

06-20-2003, 01:50 PM	#50 (permalink)
bender Addict Location: around the corner	the heat of the moment and individual in the moment will dictate the actions taken. Last edited by bender; 10-21-2003 at 01:57 PM..

06-23-2003, 04:50 PM	#55 (permalink)
butthead Loser Location: SF Bay Area, CA	Heh, forget it. Last edited by butthead; 06-23-2003 at 04:53 PM..

06-25-2003, 07:04 AM	#59 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	They way things work you are only allowed to protect yourself not your stuff with force. If someone robs you and is walking out of the house and you shoot him you are at fault for using excessive force. If that ever happens make sure they fall so they are facing in and shoot to kill. If you only injure them they can still sue you for damages for using excessive force if they can prove that your physical well being wasn't in danger. It's pathetic I know. I think this guy gave those crooks what they deserved. I'm worried that he'll end up fighting this in court for a long time. Truely I hope those guys die in that if they survive I wouldn't be surprised if they sued him. I hope he gets off on this. It will set a precedent that will allow us to actually protect our stuff as well as ourselves. Go hummers! __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

06-25-2003, 08:18 AM	#61 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	Although what he did was wrong, If everyone stopped being a fucking victim and stood up to the criminals you'd have a few less people but you'd have alot less criminals. people are too fucking scared to get hurt/die. Grow some fucking balls! Work as a fucking team and get shit done! You can see I'm in a very bad mood right now... __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

06-19-2003, 09:58 PM	#44 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	ok you two, remember we're all buddies, discussing an issue civilly. I appreciate the courtesy that you have used so far, but want to remind you to stick with it. thanks!

06-19-2003, 10:04 PM	#45 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	that worst part is that the guy driving the hummer will probably get charged for something, which is just ridiculous.

06-19-2003, 11:07 PM	#48 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	oh whatever, thats all i had to say anyway but it's not the first time or the last that something like that has happend to a shop owner or someone's home

06-23-2003, 07:52 AM	#53 (permalink)
mtsgsd Addict Location: Wisconsin, USA	I really believe that we as a nation have taken the touchy feely philosophy too far. These guys knew they were breaking the law. They assaulted the man for money (note assault, we don't know of battery was involved but that would be worse). They did not show any compassion or regard for this person's rights or health. Why the fuck should they be shown any different? There's a farmer in Britain who shot a burglar after having been robbed several times. Guess who went to prison as the danger to society? Now that he's up for parole, it's being argued that burglars have a right to be protected from this maniac and that he should remain in jail. Is this where we're headed? Sheep are never going to be able to live with lions. Not unless they have the means to kick the living shit out of any lion that tries to mess with them regardless of how they were raised as cubs etc. etc. . Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

06-23-2003, 10:54 AM	#54 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	And if they can kick the shit out of a lion, they're not sheep.

06-24-2003, 11:37 AM	#58 (permalink)
butthead Loser Location: SF Bay Area, CA	So where does that leave your points?

06-25-2003, 08:32 AM	#62 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	If anything, charge the guy with wreckless driving, and endangerment to bystanders. Harming the criminals on the otherhand, should be overlooked. Police today are to soft, everything they do has to be ok'd first, and cannot hurt thier public look. If they would only do what is right, and not whats for the better of thier political view. __________________ You bore me.... next.