I've been pointing out that there was no valid basis for a self defense argument. Put another way, the three guys had no actual basis for believing that they were being threatened with deadly force.
That's also apparently what happened here, based on the information we have available.
Sorry, not buying the vigilante argument. Which do you think is more likely - that the burglar was caught breaking in to what had to be the world's largest car sales lot if he tried to get away (off the property) and couldn't because a bunch of owners were staking out the property every night in the outside chance that someone may come by to steal a car someday...or that they were caught unaware that a meth-induced scumbag tried to commit grand theft auto carrying multiple knives he would have no qualms about using if he had to?Originally Posted by AdamT
Actually, scratch that - I'm sure you think you know which one is more likely.
These men should have been given a medal for creating a world with one less leech who preys on those who actually contribute to society.
Last edited by Psychoclown; 08-30-11 at 01:11 PM.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
As for the actual case, we don't really have to guess. The defendants told the police that they were going to shoot anyone who they caught stealing a week before they shot the guy.
So you are saying these shop owners are on the run from the law? The police know who the shop owners are and where they live and work, they have a confession that one of the shop owners shot the scumbag, they evidence they shot the scumbag as well as motive. These men did not escape anything and they are not on the run. Do you know why they were not charged with murder even though there is evidence,confession and motive they shot the scumbag? It is because they did not murder anyone because murder is the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation). This definition does not have **** to do with your comparison of law abiding shop owners defending their property to gang banging scumbags shooting each other.It is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property. Since it is legal to those things it is not murder. Maybe if this was some scumbag sympathizing country like the UK where illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and property then it would be illegal to use lethal force to defend yourself,others and your property.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Rehash of thread
there are NO murders in this story
Criminal law sided with the owners
Civil outcome sided with the family in part.
Vast MAJORITY AGREES with the criminal law
VAST MAJORITY DISAGREES with the civil "out come"
all except ONE person thinks that there is a little girl with out a father and its MORE the store owners fault than the drug addicted thief who broke into private property while high and armed and got himself shot LMAO
As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.