ADVERTISEMENT

Thugs - Just PC rebranding.

Re: Thank God, Ted Nugent weighed in...

Ted pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Isn't it funny how people who speak the truth are always held in contempt by the weak and feeble minded
 
Re: Thank God, Ted Nugent weighed in...


That's pretty much the way it is.
 
Originally posted by Stevedangos:

You cant use deadly force to protect property.

if someone is stealing your car you can try to stop them, then if they start beating on you and you fear for your life and use deadly force good chance you wont be prosecuted.

If someone steals your car and are driving away in it and you shoot them, you are going to get convicted of second degree murder probably
Click to expand...
You cannot stop them but yet they can kill your child in the act? I think if we would rethink some of these laws and we would have less criminals killing innocent children, oh how quickly we forget the Innocent who have lost their lives to criminals.

Oh how this poor child must have suffered at the hands of a thug.



NDEPENDENCE, Mo. - A 6-year-old boy tangled in a seat belt outside of his mother's stolen car died Tuesday when he was dragged more than four miles down an interstate highway at high speed.
The boy was "hanging out of the side of the car bouncing" down Interstate 70 as horrified motorists honked their horns and flashed their lights at the fleeing vehicle, said Fred Byam, one of four men who helped capture the man suspected of stealing the Chevrolet Blazer.
Jake D. Robel, 6, of Blue Springs, was killed after he was dragged.
Four men finally surrounded the stolen vehicle after it left the highway and stopped at a stoplight on a busy Independence road.
One of the men got a rope from his car and tied the suspect's legs when he tried to run.
"He came flying around us, and we saw the kid hanging out the side of the car bouncing," Byam said.
"I was honking my horn and flashing my lights."
Brad Byam, Fred's brother, said, "He was doing probably 80 when he passed us."
The car was stolen when the boy's mother left it running while she ran into a shop to get a sandwich.




Police said that the suspect had pushed the boy from the car.
The Byam brothers pulled their truck in front of the stolen vehicle, and a car and another truck pulled up behind.
The suspect got out of the stolen vehicle and mumbled "something like 'I didn't do that,' " said Brad Byam.
The suspect then crashed the stolen vehicle into the Byam truck and backed into the car behind before trying to run on foot.
The men then wrestled him to the ground and waited for police to arrive.
Workers at the sandwich shop said the suspect had been hanging around and that they had become suspicious of him.
The suspect was in custody at the Independence Police Department.

Child killed while being dragged by his seat-belt.
 
Re: Thank God, Ted Nugent weighed in...


Originally posted by Stevedangos:
Ted pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Isn't it funny how people who speak the truth are always held in contempt by the weak and feeble minded
Click to expand...
I'd like to thank you for reminding me why I stopped posting on this board.

Lot of stupid people who don't realize just how stupid they are.

Peace be with all of you.
 
Originally posted by Bearcat-time:
Thanks for the info. I was thinking more along the lines of a business owner telling a would be criminal to stop or not to do a crime and the criminal threatening the owner, etc. Cleared that up.

This post was edited on 11/25 5:29 PM by Bearcat-time
Click to expand...
Self-defense applies in such a situation, as I suspect you would have guessed.
 
Duck, I agree 100%, Brown should be in jail,
Problem is, after robbing the store, he assaulted a police officer, fearing for his life, the officer shot him dead. Too bad Mike Brown's parents didn't teach him a little better. I'll bet Darren Wilson wishes the same thing. Lots of lives were ruined over this.
 
Originally posted by bullitpdq68:

Originally posted by Stevedangos:

You cant use deadly force to protect property.

if someone is stealing your car you can try to stop them, then if they start beating on you and you fear for your life and use deadly force good chance you wont be prosecuted.

If someone steals your car and are driving away in it and you shoot them, you are going to get convicted of second degree murder probably
Click to expand...
You cannot stop them but yet they can kill your child in the act? I think if we would rethink some of these laws and we would have less criminals killing innocent children, oh how quickly we forget the Innocent who have lost their lives to criminals.

Oh how this poor child must have suffered at the hands of a thug.



NDEPENDENCE, Mo. - A 6-year-old boy tangled in a seat belt outside of his mother's stolen car died Tuesday when he was dragged more than four miles down an interstate highway at high speed.
The boy was "hanging out of the side of the car bouncing" down Interstate 70 as horrified motorists honked their horns and flashed their lights at the fleeing vehicle, said Fred Byam, one of four men who helped capture the man suspected of stealing the Chevrolet Blazer.
Jake D. Robel, 6, of Blue Springs, was killed after he was dragged.
Four men finally surrounded the stolen vehicle after it left the highway and stopped at a stoplight on a busy Independence road.
One of the men got a rope from his car and tied the suspect's legs when he tried to run.
"He came flying around us, and we saw the kid hanging out the side of the car bouncing," Byam said.
"I was honking my horn and flashing my lights."
Brad Byam, Fred's brother, said, "He was doing probably 80 when he passed us."
The car was stolen when the boy's mother left it running while she ran into a shop to get a sandwich.




Police said that the suspect had pushed the boy from the car.
The Byam brothers pulled their truck in front of the stolen vehicle, and a car and another truck pulled up behind.
The suspect got out of the stolen vehicle and mumbled "something like 'I didn't do that,' " said Brad Byam.
The suspect then crashed the stolen vehicle into the Byam truck and backed into the car behind before trying to run on foot.
The men then wrestled him to the ground and waited for police to arrive.
Workers at the sandwich shop said the suspect had been hanging around and that they had become suspicious of him.
The suspect was in custody at the Independence Police Department.
Click to expand...
You missed Steve's point by a mile. Once someone's life is potentially at risk, lethal force can be used.

In general, protecting kids is given a large amount of leeway by prosecutors and juries.
 
Originally posted by Black&Gold82:
Find it repugnant all you want. Who gives a something if the business's were all closed? That somehow makes it right? Stealing and looting is something that I find morally repugnant. It's not like they were doing it to survive. They were Christmas shopping and destroying peoples livelihoods. They were putting people in danger.
Click to expand...
The law reflects a simple premise: Lives are more important that inanimate objects. That is basic human decency.

Looting is morally repugnant, but it's not as bad as killing someone.

Think of it in a criminal justice setting. we have the death penalty for one crime - murder. We don't execute robbers. We don't even execute rapists. Yet you are advocating for the extrajudicial killing of someone who may have only stolen a $1 candy bar?

You have a bizarre definition of putting lives in danger. The lives in danger from looting were only the lives of the looters.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:


Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Find it repugnant all you want. Who gives a something if the business's were all closed? That somehow makes it right? Stealing and looting is something that I find morally repugnant. It's not like they were doing it to survive. They were Christmas shopping and destroying peoples livelihoods. They were putting people in danger.
Click to expand...
The law reflects a simple premise: Lives are more important that inanimate objects. That is basic human decency.

Looting is morally repugnant, but it's not as bad as killing someone.

Think of it in a criminal justice setting. we have the death penalty for one crime - murder. We don't execute robbers. We don't even execute rapists. Yet you are advocating for the extrajudicial killing of someone who may have only stolen a $1 candy bar?

You have a bizarre definition of putting lives in danger. The lives in danger from looting were only the lives of the looters.
Click to expand...
First off, according to our local sheriffs office they don't have to be in the house anymore.

I don't find shooting looters repugnant at all. They made the choice. A looter's life is really not more important than anything to me. Well, maybe a rapist or murderer.

So, if this broke out across the country, you would be okay with them pretty much burning the country down because it's just property and can be replaced?

Bizarre definition? Firing 150 rounds in a neighborhood is not putting lives in danger? First responders dealing with burning vehicles and buildings did not put their lives in danger?

All you do is enable them when you have no response to their destruction. Please don't do that didn't seem to work.
 
Originally posted by Black&Gold82:
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:


Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Find it repugnant all you want. Who gives a something if the business's were all closed? That somehow makes it right? Stealing and looting is something that I find morally repugnant. It's not like they were doing it to survive. They were Christmas shopping and destroying peoples livelihoods. They were putting people in danger.
Click to expand...
The law reflects a simple premise: Lives are more important that inanimate objects. That is basic human decency.

Looting is morally repugnant, but it's not as bad as killing someone.

Think of it in a criminal justice setting. we have the death penalty for one crime - murder. We don't execute robbers. We don't even execute rapists. Yet you are advocating for the extrajudicial killing of someone who may have only stolen a $1 candy bar?

You have a bizarre definition of putting lives in danger. The lives in danger from looting were only the lives of the looters.
Click to expand...
First off, according to our local sheriffs office they don't have to be in the house anymore.

I don't find shooting looters repugnant at all. They made the choice. A looter's life is really not more important than anything to me. Well, maybe a rapist or murderer.

So, if this broke out across the country, you would be okay with them pretty much burning the country down because it's just property and can be replaced?

Bizarre definition? Firing 150 rounds in a neighborhood is not putting lives in danger? First responders dealing with burning vehicles and buildings did not put their lives in danger?

All you do is enable them when you have no response to their destruction. Please don't do that didn't seem to work.
Click to expand...
Enabling has led the culture to what it is. Life isn't butterflies and unicorns. If you're crap, you need to be told. And then shown how to fix it. Then it's on you.

I don't think there's an answer due to certain groups feeling like they're owed something for nothing and any attempt discuss change is met with labels (racist/Anti-semite, etc).

My guess is there will be no burning or looting in Bates County. Coincidence I'm sure.
 
I don't know the specifics of what your sheriff said so I can't really comment on them. I wasn't being specific to Missouri, I was being specific to what the Castle Doctrine has historically implied.

The expansion of things like Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are generally bad policy, but that's an issue for another day. The gun nuts win again in US politics.

___________________________________________

You act like the only choices for the police are to do nothing or shoot people on sight. If only there were a common sense, middle of the road position that would could advocate for, like bringing in extra troops and then actually dispatching them immediately to problem sites. This is what the authorities should be doing.

Shooting a gun is different than looting. You know I agree with you there. But, the police have to have some reasonable suspicion that someone is actually the shooter before they open fire on them. The vast majority of the people who looted were unarmed.

You are asking the police to massacre people for committing a crime for which the average person wouldn't even spend time in jail.

You need to acknowledge that even criminals are US citizens subject to the protections of the Constitution. Why is it that conservatives only like to whine about liberty and freedom from government intervention when it suits them?

Criminals deserve to pay for their crimes, but the punishment must be proportionate with the crime that was committed.


This post was edited on 11/26 10:38 AM by Neutron Monster
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
I don't know the specifics of what your sheriff said so I can't really comment on them. I wasn't being specific to Missouri, I was being specific to what the Castle Doctrine has historically implied.

The expansion of things like Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are generally bad policy, but that's an issue for another day. The gun nuts win again in US politics.

___________________________________________

You act like the only choices for the police are to do nothing or shoot people on sight. If only there were a common sense, middle of the road position that would could advocate for, like bringing in extra troops and then actually dispatching them immediately to problem sites. This is what the authorities should be doing.

Shooting a gun is different than looting. You know I agree with you there. But, the police have to have some reasonable suspicion that someone is actually the shooter before they open fire on them. The vast majority of the people who looted were unarmed.

You are asking the police to massacre people for committing a crime for which the average person wouldn't even spend time in jail.

You need to acknowledge that even criminals are US citizens subject to the protections of the Constitution. Why is it that conservatives only like to whine about liberty and freedom from government intervention when it suits them?

Criminals deserve to pay for their crimes, but the punishment must be proportionate with the crime that was committed.



This post was edited on 11/26 10:38 AM by Neutron Monster
Click to expand...
That's what you don't get. It doesn't have to be government intervention. That's something the community and business owners should be allowed to take care of.
By the way, 2 looters rammed a cop car and then led police on a high speed chase. They finally crashed on a water hydrant. They had stuff from the dollar tree in there car. So they risked the officers lives and other civilian lives for $10 worth of crap. But that is not putting anybody at risk?
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Yes, because there's nothing worth looting in Bates County.
Click to expand...
Yeah there's plenty you just gotta know what to look for.

No 20 inch rims, hair extensions or air jordans.

Real valuables.

That and they'd end up in bad shape if they tried.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
Yes, because there's nothing worth looting in Bates County.
Click to expand...
No Rumor it's because you will get a gun barrel shoved up your rear end and emptied. We don't ask people that are robbing us or burning our house to "please stop because we understand your feelings".
Are there areas that need the trash taken out? Sure, and we are working on that.
 
You don't need to kill anyone to stop the looting!!!! A couple well placed shots in the butt and all the other THUGS will disband rapidly.....that's what THUGS do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back