• 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!

Shoot Looters

Should police shoot looters?

  • Total voters
    90
TurtleDude said:
if you place a limit on what actions you are willing to use to save yourself, when confronted by those who are not so limited, you will generally lose that confrontation.
Click to expand...

I am more concerned with protecting my loved ones. It is my duty. There is no limit, within my means, I can imagine that would keep me from that duty.

A wise man once told me, "Study long, study wrong." (Well, actually he was an unshaven drunk guy on a barstool wearing a Houston Astro ball cap. But he had an old '64 Mustang so that was wise enough for me.)
 
Cephus said:
You're denying responsibility left and right. If this person doesn't want a penalty, they shouldn't break the law at all. Now I'm not saying they ought to get shot, but the cause of their penalty, whatever it is, is their own action. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

No, Ceph, I'm not. I think they are gross, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...but that's the law, not vigilantism, not over zealous home owners with a hard on to put that range time to good use. If good people abandon law and order, how are they different from the looters? Self defense is one thing, but the notion that someone's gonna die because their house got looted is messed. Stand at the top of your stairs with your shotgun, but until they make a move on you, vs. your DVD player, keep em in your sights, but leave the safety on.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Fair enough and I respect that... I guess I have met too many low class scumbags, drug dealers, gang members, etc to agree that human life is more important than things like property. We need less of these people... not more. I also think there should be forced sterilization of these kinds of people... but that is another debate.
Click to expand...

lol...nice. Doubling down to bring eugenics into the conversation, are you? Nice...this thread tho...
 
The Mark said:
I don't think such issues are genetic, but rather environmental - you could argue that people in the environment they are in should not have children (no idea how you would enforce that constitutionally), but I think a better solution would be to improve that environment.
Click to expand...

You can ponder until you're blue in the face regarding environment and changes and whatever. It is a noble passing of time. At least, I would like to think it is. (Otherwise, I wasted a LOT of time.)

I am not beyond the exchange of ideas but I've just about pondered long enough. I think I about got it figured out now. It is what it is. I just had to accept it and find the bravery within myself to acknowledge it.

Everyone should come to their own conclusions on the current state of affairs based on their personal observations, experiences, study and instincts. That is not to say that we will all arrive at the same conclusions.

Once I got through the inner-conflict of trying to convince myself to stop believing my own eye's, (because it didn't suit my "peace, love and rock-n-roll" coolness,) learning to stand up to the political correctness of denying the obvious for sensitivity sakes and finally realizing that the Emperor really doesn't have any clothes, the smoke cleared and it started to make a lot more sense.

I know what I know. I'm not out to convince anyone that what I know is what it is. Like I said, we don't all arrive at the same place once the fog lifts.
 
The Mark said:
I don't think such issues are genetic, but rather environmental - you could argue that people in the environment they are in should not have children (no idea how you would enforce that constitutionally), but I think a better solution would be to improve that environment.
Click to expand...

That's considered racist.
 
Bodhisattva said:
shooting looters is not stringing up some innocent black person.

Great to see such mindless rhetoric though... :lol:
Click to expand...

Use your own mind... Issue is due process, the constitution, stuff like that vs extrajudicial death squad stuff... not everyone lynched was innocent.
 
OlNate said:
No, Ceph, I'm not. I think they are gross, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...but that's the law, not vigilantism, not over zealous home owners with a hard on to put that range time to good use. If good people abandon law and order, how are they different from the looters? Self defense is one thing, but the notion that someone's gonna die because their house got looted is messed. Stand at the top of your stairs with your shotgun, but until they make a move on you, vs. your DVD player, keep em in your sights, but leave the safety on.
Click to expand...

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I don't have an upstairs though.

If I'm in the back room, I will give them the courtesy of the loud pumping acton sound of throwing a load of buckshot up in the chamber of an Ithica .12 ga. pump. If they don't turn and run like a scalded dog, be damned if I'm going to keep my safety on.

BTW... I never take my shotgun to the range. That's what my S&W .40 cal's for. <wink>

I REFUSE to be a victim. If the P.O.S. is looting my neighbor's house, I'll call the cops. If they come by me, we're gonna party.
 
OlNate said:
lol...nice. Doubling down to bring eugenics into the conversation, are you? Nice...this thread tho...
Click to expand...

Whenever possible. I brought this up at Christmas dinner once, in fact.
 
Nickyjo said:
Use your own mind... Issue is due process, the constitution, stuff like that vs extrajudicial death squad stuff... not everyone lynched was innocent.
Click to expand...

Did you just tell me to use my own mind? :lol:
 
apdst said:
That's considered racist.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to explain further, because I have NO idea what you're on about.
 
Captain America said:
Hey, I resemble that remark!

I don't have an upstairs though.

If I'm in the back room, I will give them the courtesy of the loud pumping acton sound of throwing a load of buckshot up in the chamber of an Ithica .12 ga. pump. If they don't turn and run like a scalded dog, be damned if I'm going to keep my safety on.

BTW... I never take my shotgun to the range. That's what my S&W .40 cal's for. <wink>

I REFUSE to be a victim. If the P.O.S. is looting my neighbor's house, I'll call the cops. If they come by me, we're gonna party.
Click to expand...

Hey, man, don't get me wrong, if it comes down to defending yourself from imminent harm, I got not problem with that ... though I sometimes question the safety of using a gun indoors with family in the same building, I think there's a lot of potential for trouble... But left with no other choice, you've got to do what you've got to do. But being stolen from isn't necessarily imminent danger to you...and I wonder how many looters are committed to grabbing that DVD player enough not to book if you told them to get lost with shotty of S&W in hand...hehe
 
Bodhisattva said:
Looters should be shot on sight... shouldn't they?

I think this would be a great deterrent to lawlessness and the destruction of communities...
Click to expand...

You advance a policy of extreme lawlessness and then suggest that it would be "a great deterrent to lawlessness".

Do you have the slightest conception, even an inkling of what "rule of law" means?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The constitution limits state actors, private citizens are not affected by the constitution unless acting on state orders. This is well established.

You don't need to call a jury in order to use force at the time a crime is being committed
Click to expand...

Nor do you have a right to act as a judge jury and executoner just because you think a crime is occurring. All citizens are entitled to a fair trial not being shot at by some random person because they feel like it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
About as good as your grasp on grammar...
Click to expand...

Absolutely pathetic and predictable. Start a thread with an idiotic opinion and then back it with even more stupid claim about the constitution and then disrespect any who point it out and follow that with these feeble attempts to ignore that you have to back your claim up. But you will not becauise you cannot. All you can do is make these sort of comments in the hope i will give up and stop pointing out that your an inept debator who makes **** up.

I know i am wasting my time here to ask you to back your claim. But i will throw it in your face again just to make it clear how ridiculous your arguments are.
Bodhisattva said:
Shooting people is upheld by the Constitution in many circumstanes.
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
Nor do you have a right to act as a judge jury and executoner just because you think a crime is occurring. All citizens are entitled to a fair trial not being shot at by some random person because they feel like it.
Click to expand...

Platitudes, platitudes
 
Can you shoot looters if they loot shooters? :D


Or maybe if they boot scooters.... or toot hooters.... sorry I been drinking a little...
 
camlok said:
You advance a policy of extreme lawlessness and then suggest that it would be "a great deterrent to lawlessness".

Do you have the slightest conception, even an inkling of what "rule of law" means?
Click to expand...

The shooters would be cops and military after laws were made making the shootings legal but that is too much for you to figure out on you own i guess...
 
soylentgreen said:
Absolutely pathetic and predictable. Start a thread with an idiotic opinion and then back it with even more stupid claim about the constitution and then disrespect any who point it out and follow that with these feeble attempts to ignore that you have to back your claim up. But you will not becauise you cannot. All you can do is make these sort of comments in the hope i will give up and stop pointing out that your an inept debator who makes **** up.

I know i am wasting my time here to ask you to back your claim. But i will throw it in your face again just to make it clear how ridiculous your arguments are.
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time but not for the reasons you think... the Constitution means all and any laws or treaties that those under the jurisdiction of the United States are subject to. Just easier to say what i said initially. i have more to say...
 
soylentgreen said:
Nor do you have a right to act as a judge jury and executoner just because you think a crime is occurring. All citizens are entitled to a fair trial not being shot at by some random person because they feel like it.
Click to expand...

Wrong . Showing how little you know about law.
 
Goshin said:
Can you shoot looters if they loot shooters? :D


Or maybe if they boot scooters.... or toot hooters.... sorry I been drinking a little...
Click to expand...

Only a little? .... Sounds more like a lot. :2razz:
 
soylentgreen said:
And another who cannot back what they claim. It really is pathetic how many americans are so clueless about there own constitution.
Click to expand...

The constitution doesnt restrict non state actors, that is clearly true and you've shown ignorance of this very fact
 
Aristaeus said:
I don't know, it depends on the circumstances.

Let me ask you a question. If a mother with a young baby who had lost everything took some formula milk from a store to feed her hungry baby, would you shoot her for looting as the OP wants?
Click to expand...

The problem is...you know that is unrealistic. You see these animals stealing everything except work boots. Obviously I would have sympathy on someone trying to survive. I would even take them in. But you know deep down that that is the minimum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Serenity said:
Settle down tough guy. The chances of me coming to your house ever for any reason are NIL so save your "I'm going to shoot you" stories for your buddies who might be dumb enough to be impressed.
Click to expand...

I think you fail to understand the problem. I live in Florida. Ive seen the disaster photos. I would help someone in need. But that isn't what's going on. The scumbags break into homes trying to steal things because they think it is ok. You won't answer the question. So I'm guessing you are unwilling to defend your family. I hope you have someone stronger protecting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
The shooters would be cops and military after laws were made making the shootings legal but that is too much for you to figure out on you own i guess...
Click to expand...

You keep illustrating in huge incremental leaps that you have no concept of the rule of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom