Explain to me why my attitude is wrong.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have no problem shooting this person. I would probably try to just wound him, but I doubt I would really feel to bad about him dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you lose your house and IRA to him as a result of his civil suit you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a post about the morality of shooting a fleeing armed robber in the back. Whether it is legal has nothing to do with it. I am talking strictly on moral principles. Obviously I am not willing to go to jail to save 15 dollars and some pride.

[BCPVP]

Egads, I'm agreeing with weatherman!

You're a vigilante if you take it upon yourself to dispense the death sentence to someone for theft. C'mon! "I feared for my life, officer" is not going to work because you have little if anything to fear from someone running away from you carrying the money he just stole. If he comes back (also assuming he's armed), then blast away because now you can reasonably fear for your life. But your life is not at risk from a fleeing man.

Plus consider what happens if you miss. Now the robber might continue to flee or he might fire back after finding some cover and your shootout could get other people killed, all because you took it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I'm all for killing someone who is in the process of robbing/raping/attempting to kill you, but not for shooting at someone who is in the process of fleeing.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a post about the morality of shooting a fleeing armed robber in the back.

[/ QUOTE ]
This should be obvious and the fact that some people have no problem with shooting a fleeing criminal for petty theft is quite disturbing. How can anyone claim the moral high ground when arguing that this man should be shot?

[BluffTHIS!]

That's why I said earlier that it logically follows that they would also agree that execution was an appropriate sentence for armed robbery.

[BCPVP]

We also might as well throw the concept of due process out the window.
Why have trials when we can just find the bastard and shoot him?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Execution is an appropriate sentence for armed robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we not have harsher penalties for property theft than for life theft (murder) ?

I hear you when you equate life with property (Life = $$$), which means having the death penalty for both murderers and armed robbers -- but would this send a strong enough capitalist message ?? I doubt it.

Where would we be without property?? Most probably dead. I mean, I hear all the time "I'd be dead without my toaster!", "My father will kill me if I scratch the car!", etc.

So, I suggest, BE TOUGHER ON ARMED ROBBERY : Death penalty for murder; two weeks in MMMMMM's apartment for armed robbery.

[Darryl_P]

I am in 100% agreement with you on this one, but I was debating whether or not to post it since there is really not much point in debating it with bleeding-hearted libs who'd rather see my ass in jail for protecting my own kind (or even thinking there is such a thing as my own kind), than to see crack-addicted armed thugs get the rap.

The intelligent, highly-educated reasoning says that their unpleasant behavior is really our fault, see, because we had more opportunites than they had as children. Since we were luckier, we should feel sorry for them because we don't deserve to have any unfair advantages. If we don't do that, then we're bad people and a threat to society ourselves. Do you get it now?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We also might as well throw the concept of due process out the window.
Why have trials when we can just find the bastard and shoot him?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
HOUSTON, Texas (AP), November 21, 2005 -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure. CNN Report

[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in 100% agreement with you on this one, but I was debating whether or not to post it since there is really not much point in debating it with bleeding-hearted libs who'd rather see my ass in jail for protecting my own kind (or even thinking there is such a thing as my own kind), than to see crack-addicted armed thugs get the rap.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then debate with me as I think most here can vouch that I am not a bleeding-heart liberal.
In this example, the shooting of the criminal is not done out of protection of yourself. The criminal is running away. Shooting him in this case would be almost purely out of vengeance and has no place in a society that considers due process a right. And there's no mention of this robber "beating the rap". That's what a police force and district attorney are for.

[ QUOTE ]
The intelligent, highly-educated reasoning says that their unpleasant behavior is really our fault, see, because we had more opportunites than they had as children. Since we were luckier, we should feel sorry for them because we don't deserve to have any unfair advantages. If we don't do that, then we're bad people and a threat to society ourselves. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Please, spare us. I, for one, will certainly not argue that you shouldn't shoot the robber because he may have had a bad childhood. I argue that you have no right to kill someone for stealing who is in the process of running away and to do so is a gross violation of their right to due process (yes, even crack-addled criminals have rights).

Do you get it now?

[Girchuck]

You get a street rep for shooting people in the back.
You have to move far away, because the next thug who robs your store will shoot you first instead of getting it in the back.