• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder relavent

Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder relavent


  • Total voters
    47
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

And yeah, I'd hate to be captain hindsight, but an alarm system is definitely a must.

We'd just moved in about a week before and were still in boxes. He must have watched us move in and saw what we had and waited for a good moment. He crawled in through an open transom window sometime before dawn and since the house was built on slab, the floors didn't creak so we didn't hear a thing. He took the usual stuff theives take...purse, stereo, video player. A week after that we had iron bars and gates put up on all the vulnerable windows and doors and never had to worry about getting burglerized again. I admit we were lucky and it could have been worse....he could have been a Charlie Manson fanatic.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Didn't say I was advocating it; pretty sure I specifically said we had a plan for him that included putting off marriage/family for another 4-5 years for him to get financially squared away.

However, I've known plenty of men who lacked a college education, and some who lacked a diploma, who managed to provide adequately for a family anyway. How? By sucking it up and doing the necessary. Not fun, but it can be done.

Is it ideal? No. But a lot of life turns out to be less than ideal, much of the time...

My old man was a graduate of the 8th grade.

Getting a degree and then working in the air conditioning isn't the only way to provide for your family's well being.

I think people sadly ignore the fact that there are many ways in which to provide for your family.

My old man starting his own house painting business. It was back breaking work but we managed and eventually moved up..... not that we were ever RICH... but my father was too proud to go on social programs.... not that they were as available as they are now anyways.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

And you cannot hold a 16-year-old legally responsible as an adult yet deny them all the privileges that we as adults have, such as voting, driving, drinking, marrying, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, you can. Why do people always say this? Tell me what HARM there is in treating 16 year olds as adults for the purposes of the criminal justice system while not giving them voting, drinking, and marriage privleges (because they can already drive you know..... hell 15 year olds in SC can drive without supervision).


Look at teen stats for driving, STDs, teen pregnancy rates, and other such things, they will show just how "responsible" most teens are in our current society.
All things MORE government can't help.

The only thing that can help this is good parenting.

What you are basically advocating if I am getting this right is because modern parenting has been a general FAIL to teach responsibility to teenagers, that we should treat them like babies longer because it will take them longer to figure it out on their own.

You are "subsidizing" parental apathy.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I hate the notion of trying as a minor or as an adult. You do the crime, you do the EQUAL time of anybody else.

two issues are being confused here ... if someone breaks into your house and you believe that your life and the life of your children are being threatened, you probably won't have time to check the guy's I.D., so if you have to shoot him, age is inconsequential ...

on the other hand, if a 12 year old commits a crime and a 30 year old commits the same crime, there absolutely should be a difference ... if we're going to treat them the same, then 12 year olds should be able to drive, serve in the military, buy cigarettes and liquor, etc. .... agreed?
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I noticed that some of the Treyvon Martin supporters keep bringing up the fact he was a kid and I know some people think it does matter that an assailant was a minor.So I thought I would ask the following question- Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,bank robber, attempted rapist/murder relevant? For example if a burglar is killed inside someone's home should the homeowner be in legal trouble if that burglar is a minor? If a bank robber is killed while trying to rob a bank and that bank robber is a minor should that concerned citizen or security guard be in legal trouble?

I think in general it should matter. However, I think thre should be some realistic grey area and discretion given in instances of an individual being in that 16 to 17 year old range. I think more often in such situations it could be understandably difficult to accurately determine age in the moment and that it should be given some lienency unless there is some reason to believe the individual knew the persons age.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

We'd just moved in about a week before and were still in boxes. He must have watched us move in and saw what we had and waited for a good moment. He crawled in through an open transom window sometime before dawn and since the house was built on slab, the floors didn't creak so we didn't hear a thing. He took the usual stuff theives take...purse, stereo, video player. A week after that we had iron bars and gates put up on all the vulnerable windows and doors and never had to worry about getting burglerized again. I admit we were lucky and it could have been worse....he could have been a Charlie Manson fanatic.

One of my neighbors got robbed by the people they hired to remodel their pool. Like two weeks after the job was finished, they pulled a huge semi into their garage in broad daylight and wiped the entire place clean. No one reported it to the police because they knew that they were having remodeling done and didn't think twice about it. Luckily, they did have insurance to cover the losses, but the buglers faced no charges since they couldn't "prove" it.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

two issues are being confused here ... if someone breaks into your house and you believe that your life and the life of your children are being threatened, you probably won't have time to check the guy's I.D., so if you have to shoot him, age is inconsequential ...

on the other hand, if a 12 year old commits a crime and a 30 year old commits the same crime, there absolutely should be a difference ... if we're going to treat them the same, then 12 year olds should be able to drive, serve in the military, buy cigarettes and liquor, etc. .... agreed?

No not agreed. But if a 12 year old murders someone, lock them up for life.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I've asked before why they don't have more options for guns with non-lethal ammunition and tazers can be lethal - just rarely are. Something strong enough to definitely stop someone in their tracks, yet not kill them? It's a really great idea that always should be more explored.

However, then I have to think of episodes of Cops that I've seen where they have tased a man MULTIPLE times, yet he still keeps getting up and coming at them, so I guess non-lethal methods may not always be effective, depending on WHO you are dealing with.

Shows like COPS will show extreme situations for the drama of it. There is no such thing as perfect-stop non-lethal ammo (and even lethal ammo doesn't necessarily stop someone - why police tend to shoot someone so many times).

What I am writing about is a balance between self defense and avoiding accidental injuries, shooting where not necessary and a few other considerations. I would not be agreeable, for example, to being loaded ONLY with non-lethal ammo. Rather, my view is that it only takes a fraction of a second to just fire again - with the 2nd and after ammo being then lethal. The odds of that fraction of a second making a different is very slight - but the result of that slight risk is avoiding of a fatal accidental, wrongful or unnecessary fatal gun death - and those are not rare despite all good efforts to avoid it.

For example, if a kid did someone come across one of those firearm (yes, we do keep them secure but things can happen) and shot himself or a friend with the rubber bullet, it all but certain that kid wouldn't fire again. If in the middle of the night an intruder is shot in a fast impulse shot - and it some guest, kid, or someone else we REALLY would NOT want to kill, again that rubber bullet or bean bag allows a second evaluation of the situation. As examples.

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc shots could be done as fast a person pulls the trigger. If a criminal already has a gun leveled at you or is running at you with a knife, even then the 1/1oth second it takes to pull the trigger again likely won't change anything - you're probably going to be shot or stabbed either way.

In my opinion, the first shot being non-lethal makes it easier to fire, as you don't have to - in that first instant - be certain you need to lethally shoot the other person. If the first round is deadly, you have to.

Not to just ramble on, to use an example of the police...
Departments have different attitudes in a fairly common situation. There is a fairly stressed person in a yard holding a handgun. Not pointing it at anyone yet and mostly seeming the person is going to suicide himself or do a suicide-by-cop. Some departments take an attitude of taking cover and trying to talk him out of it - while prepared to shoot to kill if he points his gun towards the officers. Other departments will take the attitude to demand he drops the gun and if he doesn't drop it they shoot him (to kill). Still other departments will have an officer open up on him with a 12 gauge loaded with bean bags hoping t cause him to drop the gun and if so then just tackle him. However, they still have maintained the lethal option. When the situation calls for it, I think that a good decision.

All decisions, of course, involve risks and the odds. We tend to have so many kids, guests and even people staying over that we felt that we need to take that extra precaution. If a person lived alone maybe it not necessary.

As extreme example I've posted before, although this annoys some people, one time a few years ago my wife drove off a group of protestors who were literally trying to break into the house (a long, odd story), for which she rushed out with her Saiga 12 gauge with it's 30 shell "Zombie" canister pulmetting them fast as she could with bean-bag loads while shouting "go away! go away!" Between the booms of the shotgun and people acting like they had been shot, they were all convinced she was killing everyone and even the first call to 911 by one of them was "she's killing everyone!" They didn't just stop trying to break in, they ran like hell to get away from the crazy little woman with the big shotgun.

Lest she sound crazy, she did have her 38 special in her belt, and in that situation she could have been using lethal rounds (I won't explain to keep this short), but what a person MAY do and MUST do aren't always the same. She correctly calculated she could drive them off before they actually got inside the house we had then - and then everything would escalate radically. They were tying to get and forcibly take a teenager who had legally been placed in our care and she did NOT want to go with them - terrified of it. My wife the only other person at our home. She would have used lethal force to stop that if it had come to it - but really, really didn't want to - and those people were just working themselves up into a mob-mentality situation that was dangerous escalated. She got ahead of the curve. And in a sense literally showed them where this was leading to if they did get in the house or to that teenager.

While a crazy incident, it does make a point. Someone is in your house or trying to break in. You don't know who or why. That person doesn't have a weapon or you don't know what the person is up to - only you know it no good - and there's some distance. And demand to stop, get out etc does not result in the person leaving or ceasing. Do you REALLY want to kill that 15 year old or two 14 year olds - who very well maybe could overwhelm you and even take your gun and use it on you? Do you really WANT to wait until the person breaks in? Wait until they decide whether or not to attack you? But your only option is to kill that person?

You may not feel you are certain that is necessary. If you shot that person - then all the noise and shock-effect of the gun shot - or shoot thru the glass of the door or window of the person trying to break in - with a rubber bullet or bean bag that person now is made to realize the reality that you are armed and will shoot. Any rational person would then flee. If not, then you know for certain you must shoot lethally. YET, if lethal shots instead were needed from the start? Just keep pulling the trigger. You still have the lethal force. I can think of few real-situations where that 1/10th second makes the difference, and accidental or unnecessary death potential isn't acceptable if avoidable.

It is unfortunate better non-lethal force options are not available, and unfortunately because the PERFECT and certainly non-lethal systems cannot be designed without leaving civil liabilities. So unfortunately it is safer legally to shot to kill someone (by police or civilians) than to use a non-lethal system that 1 in 10,000 times is lethal or causes permanent injury anyway. For example, both a net-gun and glue-gun was developed. The net-gun could rapidly fire a nylon net with tiny nylon barbs which would then lock the net(s) around the person. The glue-gun basically fires a sticky film around the person.

Neither are lethal. BUT, of course, someone then could trip and fall hitting their head or on something sharp. And non-police may have used them wrongly or when they shouldn't. In that first scenario the police and manufacturer is sued. It the latter the manufacturer is sued because their non-lethal weapon was lethal in that rare instance. Yet in those instances it may have been legal to shot lethally - plus it is very difficult for someone who has been shot and killed to sue.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

One of my neighbors got robbed by the people they hired to remodel their pool. Like two weeks after the job was finished, they pulled a huge semi into their garage in broad daylight and wiped the entire place clean. No one reported it to the police because they knew that they were having remodeling done and didn't think twice about it. Luckily, they did have insurance to cover the losses, but the buglers faced no charges since they couldn't "prove" it.

Technically that is a burglary and theft, but not "robbery." Robbery is face-to-face.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I think I gave a bit of the wrong impression by saying shoot first and asking questions later. That's a bit extreme, and I suppose it depends, but I would definitely have a gun out and would attempt to either scare him off if he was trying to get in, or hold him there until the cops arrived if he has already broken in and entered.

It is rare that the person will wait for the cops to arrive. Might for a bit, but nearly always will bolt and run - or attack you. As the person is waiting, he is thinking about going to jail and nearly always will run or attack, rather than just wait for the police. It is VERY danger to try to hold someone on location - particularly if just one of you - until the police arrive.

Plus your right to self defense and castle doctrine etc can become more difficult. For example, if you did convince him to lay face down but after a couple of minutes waiting he starts to jump up and towards you - or just up and you don't know why, are you going to shoot down at him in the back? And then the investigation concludes he was headed towards a door and was only 15? So you shot a 15 year old in the back while he was trying to leave - as his punishment for not agreeing to wait for the police? That won't fly in some states.

You DO have a right to deadly force for self defense. You do NOT have a right to use deadly force to hold someone for the police in most jurisdictions. A decisive legal distinction. Even cops usually can't shoot someone for fleeing.

In my opinion, if you are alone unless you are tough-as-hell and the other person obviously a wimp, or there are enough of you there to assuredly be able to restrain him, don't try to hold him. Just tell him to leave. If you can't hold him for the police WITH CERTAINTY without using deadly force, don't try to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Umm...maybe clear up something for me. Which if any of those things were Martin doing?
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I'm not sure if I agree with that. In fact, I don't, unless the 29 year old is very out of shape. I was a 98 lb weakling at 17. I was very fit at 29.


As for the boys he recommends to stay away from weightlifting till the age of 18 and up to 5 kg weights till the age of 21. "It affects their posture, flexibility and growth," said Dr Fauzdar.


Doctors caution teens from taking to weightlifting - Times Of India


WARNING
TeensHealth.org notes that bodybuilding, lifting heavy weights and powerlifting are not appropriate for teens and young boys because they put too much strain on developing muscles, joints and bones and carry a high risk of injury. According to MayoClinic.com, boys shouldn't do more than single sets of 12 to 15 repetitions of any weightlifting exercise, even with light weights.


What Age Can Boys Start Lifting Weights? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Try telling that to any kid in athletics of any kid. Teens don't listen to that stuff. On average, someone at 29 will be stronger than someone 18. Zimmerman probably is stronger in terms of lifting strength than Martin was. But Martin was faster. Regardless, it appears Martin got in the first and a devastating blow. Slam someone in the nose and they are not just startled but also likely going down and even fairly blinded. 98 lb weaklings do win against much bigger, stronger and "tougher" men. Fights aren't like in movies and generally not like school-yard fights either.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I think in general it should matter. However, I think thre should be some realistic grey area and discretion given in instances of an individual being in that 16 to 17 year old range. I think more often in such situations it could be understandably difficult to accurately determine age in the moment and that it should be given some lienency unless there is some reason to believe the individual knew the persons age.

There aren't many crimes where I see any distinction between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, particularly if a violent crime. Nor do I see any physical competency difference.

The law presumes that by age 18 a person has reached a minimal adult frame of mine. However, generally allows the prospect a person reached it at a younger age.

I ALWAYS think it grotesquely false PR propaganda to refer to TM as "a child" at age 17. Reuters even refers to him as "a young child." Even the law does not use that term. It uses "minor" as legal terminology only. Hell, we all are someone's child no matter what age we are. I see nothing about TM indicating he was living or acting like "a child" in his life.

Of all the anti-GZers who refer to TM as a "child," NONE EVER did so about 17 year olds before this case. In fact, many doing so on other threads advocate lowering the age for consent for sex, while concerning TM they insist he was "a child."

If so, then his step-father should have been prosecuted for child abuse for leaving his his "child" to wander around the street.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Umm...maybe clear up something for me. Which if any of those things were Martin doing?


Oh, let me clear up an apparent confusion you have. Martin wasn't on trial.

GZ says Martin was feloniously assaulting him, but the bottom line is we don't know with certainty what Martin was doing nor what he was doing when GZ first saw him either. Not knowing means just that. It doesn't mean Martin was not involved in criminal activity or planning to do so. It means we don't know. Since Martin wasn't on trial, it doesn't matter.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

No not agreed. But if a 12 year old murders someone, lock them up for life.

there's a reason we don't let them drive, or serve in the military, or drink liquor when they're 12 ....
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

there's a reason we don't let them drive, or serve in the military, or drink liquor when they're 12 ....

Right, because they need restrictions. But that has zero to do with punishment for crimes.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Right, because they need restrictions. But that has zero to do with punishment for crimes.

you seem to be missing the point ... When you're 12 you lack maturity, and that needs to be taken it account ... but your position is a very familiar one, that is, "Look at what a badass I am! I'm even in favor of sending a 12 year old to prison for life."

BTW, are you in favor of the death penalty? If you are, would you favor putting the 12-year-old to death?
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

you seem to be missing the point ... When you're 12 you lack maturity, and that needs to be taken it account ... but your position is a very familiar one, that is, "Look at what a badass I am! I'm even in favor of sending a 12 year old to prison for life."

BTW, are you in favor of the death penalty? If you are, would you favor putting the 12-year-old to death?

Yes I would. If the 12 year old intentionally killed someone, absolutely.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Yes I would. If the 12 year old intentionally killed someone, absolutely.

How about an 8 year old? Death?
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Oh, let me clear up an apparent confusion you have. Martin wasn't on trial.

GZ says Martin was feloniously assaulting him, but the bottom line is we don't know with certainty what Martin was doing nor what he was doing when GZ first saw him either. Not knowing means just that. It doesn't mean Martin was not involved in criminal activity or planning to do so. It means we don't know. Since Martin wasn't on trial, it doesn't matter.

Where exactly did you get any of that
The OP

I noticed that some of the Treyvon Martin supporters keep bringing up the fact he was a kid and I know some people think it does matter that an assailant was a minor.So I thought I would ask the following question- Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,bank robber, attempted rapist/murder relevant? For example if a burglar is killed inside someone's home should the homeowner be in legal trouble if that burglar is a minor? If a bank robber is killed while trying to rob a bank and that bank robber is a minor should that concerned citizen or security guard be in legal trouble?

You haven't cleared up anything. He stated that when someone is committing a crime and someone shoots them does it matter their age. Martin wasn't robbing a bank, he was a rapist/murderer, he wasn't burglarizing a home.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

How about an 8 year old? Death?

I don't care of the age, if you can prove that they intentionally and deliberately killed someone, I would support life in prison and/or death penalty. Period.
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

I don't care of the age, if you can prove that they intentionally and deliberately killed someone, I would support life in prison and/or death penalty. Period.
so if an 8-year old intended to kill someone, that's enough for you? She or he is old enough to make a sound decision to be fried for ... I have to say DT, you're a bit scary, but I'm so glad that you're on the other team ...
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Yes I would. If the 12 year old intentionally killed someone, absolutely.

So you are just pro-birth...not pro-life..
 
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

Where exactly did you get any of that
The OP



You haven't cleared up anything. He stated that when someone is committing a crime and someone shoots them does it matter their age. Martin wasn't robbing a bank, he was a rapist/murderer, he wasn't burglarizing a home.

The relevance to the GZ case is that it did not have to be shown TM was committing a crime.

However, GZ's claim is that TM was violently assaulting him, thus putting TM into the category of "assailant," which is one of the "crimes" of the OP poll. The Defense did not have to prove TM was an assailant as TM was not on trial. Rather, the government had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that GZ's actions were criminal within the definition of law.

Because of the injuries to GZ, clearly he was assaulting TM, BUT TM may have had legal reason to do so. We'll never know. Without a doubt, GZ "assaulted" TM when he shot TM and without down GZ killed TM in that assault. However, the government could not prove - nor had the means to do so - that GZ assaulted/killed TM outside the allowances of the formal written laws.

The purpose of the OP poll in relation to the GZ case is does it matter whether TM was 17 or 18 in terms of the right of GZ to use deadly force. I do not think it matters whether TM was 17 or 18.


This may seem to not make sense, but does if you think about it. It is NOT legal to assault or kill someone. It is only illegal to illegally assault or illegally kill someone. Thus, in MY opinion, if instead TM had gotten hold of GZ's gun and killed GZ? For the evidence - and lack of it too - I'd vote not guilty on him too.

Personally, both quickly got over both their heads and both went looking for trouble when they didn't have to. GZ didn't have to try to see where TM was going and TM certainly did not need to double back and approach GZ. In my opinion, both walked into this, it became a violent conflict between them step by step, so however it turned out is just how it turned out. Whichever one of them died, I would not have found the other criminally guilty.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is the age of a dead burglar,assailant,armed robber, attempted rapist/murder rela

So you are just pro-birth...not pro-life..

it's not unusual for anti-abortion folks to care about the life of the pre-born and not the born ...
 
Back
Top Bottom