Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[The Fool]

The scenario I wrote above actually happened to me a couple years ago when my wife was pregnant with our twins.

When the homeless man smacked my son in the chest, I took a step toward him. If he had made another single, solitary aggressive move, twitch, or statement, I would have killed him instantly on the spot. I guess the look in my eye said as much since he immediately apologized and ran across the street.

luke....take a tablet and have a sit down......."killed him on the spot"?...sigh.

 

[Earthborn]

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

Well, there are. But it only involves criminals who are out of their right mind.

Which may be fairly obvious because no one in their right mind would ever become a criminal anyway.

 

[Ralph]

luke....take a tablet and have a sit down......."killed him on the spot"?...sigh.

Parents can be funny like that. For some strange reason they tend to feel a bit threatened when a drunken,shirtless, stranger comes out of the dark and strikes their child when they didn't hand over the cash on demand....

 

[shanek]

You conveniently forgot burglary, which was the crime in question:

No, it wasn't. Burglary is taking from a structure; robbery is taking from a person. So with burglary you don't have the possibility of the structure firing back; only a person can do that. That's what we were talking about.

(I also didn't include arson and other crimes for the same reason.)

In fact, it makes perfect sense that there would be more burglaries, since the criminals are going to switch to crimes that don't involve the possibility of getting their head blown off.

 

[The Fool]

Parents can be funny like that. For some strange reason they tend to feel a bit threatened when a drunken,shirtless, stranger comes out of the dark and strikes their child when they didn't hand over the cash on demand....

I am parent myself....there is a difference between "tend to feel a bit threatened" and "kill them on the spot" If you think that "tend to feel a bit threatened" should be an acceptable reason for "kill them on the spot" then you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles increasing you childrens safety. You are simply increasing the likelyhood that they will, one day, be killed by someone who tended to "feel a bit threatened".

Maybe if Luke spent some time with people who deal with homeless alcoholics on a daily basis he would get a better perspective and drop the chest thumping.

 

[The Fool]

Parents can be funny like that. For some strange reason they tend to feel a bit threatened when a drunken,shirtless, stranger comes out of the dark and strikes their child when they didn't hand over the cash on demand....

I am parent myself....there is a difference between "tend to feel a bit threatened" and "kill them on the spot" If you think that "tend to feel a bit threatened" should be an acceptable reason for "kill them on the spot" then you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles increasing you childrens safety. You are simply increasing the likelyhood that they will, one day, be killed by someone who tended to "feel a bit threatened".

Maybe if Luke spent some time with people who deal with homeless alcoholics on a daily basis he would get a better perspective and drop the chest thumping.

 

[President Bush]

You are waiting at a light rail station with your 14 year old son and pregnant wife. It is around 9 p.m. and you and your family have just come from the baseball stadium after the game. It is just you and your son and your pregnant wife alone on the street.

A barechested man in a highly inebriated state approaches. He appears to be in excellent physical condition, but homeless. He steps into close quarters with your family and asks for money in a somewhat demanding voice. You decline. He refuses to go away. He turns to your 14 year old son and asks him if he has any money. Your son replies he does not. The homeless man snarls and slaps your son in the chest and tells your 14 year old son to get a job!

What do you do?

Kind of suddenly try to get my hair colored, and dance up and down in a miniskirt or do something, you know, show that I've got a lot of jazz out there and drop a bunch of one-liners like how Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor while it's the other way around. They never vote for us. Or how people are not homeless if they're sleeping in the streets of their hometown.

 

[Bjorn]

No, it wasn't.

Your own words were exactly like this:

One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi

Do you happen to have a definition of burglary handy? If not, I can help you out:

Breaking into a building illegally, especially in order to steal.

 

[crimresearch]

Entering with the intent to commit a crime.

As in an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.


In many jurisdictions, reaching in through an open window and punching an occupant adds a charge of burglary, because all of the elements have been satisfied.

But none of that is relevant to Shanek, who will no doubt make up his own personal definition of burglary, and demand that everyone else, including the courts, use it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I will.

You conveniently forgot burglary, which was the crime in question:

Per 100,000 in Mississippi - 1035.6
Per 100,000 nationwide - 740.5

Both numbers from 2003. How come you forgot?

He didn't. This is just another example of how shanek fakes with data.

 

[Ian Osborne]

From this...

no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them

To this...

it makes perfect sense that there would be more burglaries, since the criminals are going to switch to crimes that don't involve the possibility of getting their head blown off.

Please make up your mind, Shane...

 

[LW]

Well how to react in a situation like this obviously depends on how good you are in a fight. If he had chosen to fight, and you couldn't beat him then you would have significantly increased the risk to your family. Perhaps you believe that you could have beaten and if your assessment was reasonable then your behaviour might be reasonable.

I may be misremembering things, but I seem to remember that Luke has told that he was in the army for 20 years. If I had to make a bet on a fight between an intoxicated homless guy and an ex-soldier, I wouldn't put my money on the drunken side.

 

[Kerberos]

I may be misremembering things, but I seem to remember that Luke has told that he was in the army for 20 years. If I had to make a bet on a fight between an intoxicated homless guy and an ex-soldier, I wouldn't put my money on the drunken side.

You're right, Luke was in the Army which not doubt would give him an advantage in a fight compared to a lazy bastard like myself. So it seems likely that he could have beaten the homeless guy, but I have no way of knowing for certain, which is why I made the statement conditional.

 

[Suddenly]

From this...

(no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi,because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them)




To this...

(it makes perfect sense that there would be more burglaries, since the criminals are going to switch to crimes that don't involve the possibility of getting their head blown off. )



Please make up your mind, Shane...

Actually, I think if you add in a single proviso, it makes sense.

Change the above to "no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, unless they were really sure nobody was home because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them."

Then the whole thing makes perfect sense, and would in fact result in a higher burglary rate and a smaller robbery rate...

 

[shanek]

Your own words were exactly like this:

No, it didn't. You only quoted the first half of the sentence. Apparently you love dishonestly taking statements out of context more than actually arguing the points.

Answer straight: How is an armed person going to shoot a burglar who breaks into their home when they're not there?

 

[shanek]

Please make up your mind, Shane...

It is made up. It should be perfectly obvious that the first statement refers to the fact that there would be someone home at the time, otherwise there'd be no one to shoot the intruder.

But you people don't want to think, do you? You only want to play around with the semantics of the statements so you can have an excuse for believing the things you do in the face of opposing evidence.

 

[shanek]

Actually, I think if you add in a single proviso, it makes sense.

The proviso should be obvious from the last part of the sentence. Which is obviously why Bjorn dishonestly left it out.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It is made up. It should be perfectly obvious that the first statement refers to the fact that there would be someone home at the time, otherwise there'd be no one to shoot the intruder.

Is that scraping sound I hear the goalposts being moved?

Shane, your statement was clear and unambiguous. You said, "no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them". No qualifiers, no ambiguity, no semantics, just a clear claim which you then contradicted when you said, "it makes perfect sense that there would be more burglaries, since the criminals are going to switch to crimes that don't involve the possibility of getting their head blown off". No amount of spin will get you out of this one.

 

[Bjorn]

No, it didn't. You only quoted the first half of the sentence. Apparently you love dishonestly taking statements out of context more than actually arguing the points.

Of all the silly answers .... Here is the full sentence:

One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this

I pointed out that Mississippi in fact has more burglaries per capita than the rest of the country, and that you seemingly forgot that little detail when you posted statistics.

Please, now show us how your first statement about how nobody in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi is not about burglary?

 

[Bjorn]

I guess homeowners in Mississippi have a neon sign outside showing "home" or "not home"?