^ that is what i am trying to say

Quote :

"what do you know about this guy except that he was caught stealing some farm equipment? That simple fact alone is enough to justify his death? Did he deserve to be punished? Of course!"

what i do know about this guy is that if he were not on that man's property stealing he would never have been hit by the car. If he would have been at home or at work making an honest living, he wouldn't have been in the position to get hit by that car in front of that guys house. No I don't think that he should have been punished with death, but those were the consequences of his actions.

Quote :

"wouldnt it be ironic if you were murdered or paralysed."

yes if i were a low life stealing peoples shit, then it would be ironic.

11/11/2007 1:57:08 PM

Quote :

"So are you a Christian or not?"

Ooh, goody, I get to play with this argument. Being a Christian doesn't stop you from killing someone!
6th Commandment: "Thou Shalt not Kill," originally, but in recent years has been rendered "Thou Shalt not Murder," or "Thou Shalt not Kill Unjustly." It entirely depends on what you define as "Murder" or "Unjustly." There is a definite argument that can be made that this was a just killing.
So don't hide behind religion for why it's wrong to kill people. "God said so" is no more a well-adjusted way of defining your morality than blind acceptance of what your parents tell you. (And, frankly, the two often go hand in hand.) Even Maslow would define that as pre-conventional, or child-like moral reasoning.
Find a better argument.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 2:36 AM. Reason : .]

11/12/2007 2:33:27 AM

^Strawman.

He wasn't asking if the dude who did the killing in the article was a Christian.

He asked if the dude (eyedrb) delighting in the death was a Christian.




And I don't think McDanger was attempting to use religion as a reason to not murder. Don't know why you would think that...

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 2:58 AM. Reason : ...]

11/12/2007 2:56:09 AM

The question of if people here are Christians or not is in regards to their attitudes.

Three main Christian values are compassion, forgiveness, and respect for human life. This thread is severely lacking in all three, so the question is: how do the so-called Christians here reconcile their feelings toward this killing in regard to their religious beliefs.

I have to say, though, that even if all the people on the first page who seemed to take pleasure in this guy dying and their only problem was the amount of money that was spent trying to keep him alive call themselves Christians, i'm not surprised at all. The large majority of the people I know who are atheists or non-Christian exhibit these 3 particular values in their daily lives much more so than self proclaimed Christians. In fact, I mostly see these virtues in Christians in compassion for corrupt businessmen and politicians, forgiveness for child raping priests, and respect for life of 1 week old fetuses, but not often anywhere else.

11/12/2007 7:51:57 AM

Ive made my point pretty clear I think.

To ask what someone's religious preference is in this thread is grasping for straws.

So bridget, back to the subject matter, do you feel the owner should get charged?

11/12/2007 8:34:20 AM

i think he should be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Even charged and acquitted, or convicted but with no fine or punishment.

you simply cannot kill someone, no matter what the circumstances (outside of a military situation) and not expect any consequences. A manslaughter charge (or accidental manslaughter or a self defense claim or whatever) would relieve the man from serving time or paying a big fine or something. But the fact remains - he (the driver) willingly and voluntarily started a course of action that directly led to another man's death. I know lots of you will say "no, the thief started that course of action," but that is irrelevant. You can't just walk away from killing another person and not expect to face the law at some point.

11/12/2007 9:04:57 AM

hopefully you all read that he hit the car, and the car he hit pinned the guy against the fence.

he didnt directly pin the guy with his own car.

11/12/2007 9:07:59 AM

Quote :

"Ive made my point pretty clear I think. To ask what someone's religious preference is in this thread is grasping for straws. "

Is it really? Notice you continue to dodge the simple question.

If I were to guess, you're probably a Christian who's clueless about Christ.

Edit: Although you could have just baited me into guessing that, so who knows.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

11/12/2007 9:58:21 AM

Didn't the old testament preach "eye 4 an eye"

if i catch you trying to take off with $10,000 worth of my property than i have the right to use force to stop you. I do not believe the guy was intentionally trying to kill the burgler. It was a mere consequence from the means he used to keep the guy from escaping. Kinda like how the airport security staff that apprehended that woman did not expect her to stranggle herself in the handcuffs.

Quote :

"you simply cannot kill someone, no matter what the circumstances (outside of a military situation) and not expect any consequences."

So if a manned armed with a knife entered your home in the middle of the night you would not be willing to use deadly force to stop him in order to protect your family. You my friend are weak and would have had your genes naturally selected off by random marauding barbarians back in the 1100's. When the bandits came to your house instead of laying down the sword you would have picked up the bible, started reading verses before they chop off your head, meanwhile your wife is being raped and children thrown out the 2nd story window.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 10:10 AM. Reason : a]

11/12/2007 10:06:18 AM

KARMA

11/12/2007 10:06:20 AM

Good post Hur. I think he was trying to detain him and shit happened. People are acting like this was a court order or something. And some of us arent upset with a criminal being off the streets and off the dole. With all the deaths in the world, this one is pretty far down the list on ones I would be concerned about.

McDanger, I believe there was a thief on the cross as well.

Edit: You give me too much credit if you think Im clever enough to bait you into anything.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

11/12/2007 10:43:41 AM

it would have been a different story if the guy used his own car to pin the thief.

its not the same as using his car to push another car to "blockade" the thief. unfortunately he was killed.

11/12/2007 10:58:24 AM

Quote :

"you simply cannot kill someone, no matter what the circumstances (outside of a military situation)"

Haha you made me lol.

Quote :

"Better than staying at home, isn't this, sir? Eh? I mean, at home, if you kill someone, they arrest you. Here, they give you a gun and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers, sir. Now, at home, they'd hang me! Here, they'll give me a fucking medal, sir!"

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason : Bloody good fun, sir, isn't it? ]

11/12/2007 10:59:45 AM

Quote :

"So if a manned armed with a knife entered your home in the middle of the night you would not be willing to use deadly force to stop him in order to protect your family."

when did i say anything like that? i'd kill the guy as fast as possible. But i wouldn't be surprised, though, to be brought up on manslaughter charges. I would fully expect, though, to be let off with no punishment based on self-defense principles. but that would be up for the court to decide, or for investigators to decide to have the charges dropped.
I'm just saying, if you kill someone, no matter the circumstances, I would expect charges to be brought against you. Notice I'm staying charges, not convictions.

and please, please don't bring "eye for and eye" shit into this. If you read the "eye for an eye" proverb, you'll see it is referring to a very specific situation. Exodus 20:22-25

Quote :

"22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

i mean, if you want to start quoting the bible, just turn the page and start reading Exodus 22. It is very clear about how you are to defend your property (for the sake of modern times, let's just substitute "farm equipment" for "cattle" or "sheep")

Quote :

" 1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. 4 "If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—he must pay back double. "

like Christians do with the rest of the bible, you have several conflicting versus to choose from - just pick the one that makes you sleep better at night, i suppose. In Exodus 22:2, it is clear that if a man kills another who is in the process of theft, he is not guilty. However, verse 22:3 qualifies that statement and says that if it happens "after sunrise", then he is guilty. If we use the Bible to prosecute this man, I guess we'd better find out what time of day this incident occurred! Of course, if the guy had gotten away, according to Exodus 22:4, he would simply have to return the equipment, then pay back the equivalent worth of the equipment.

11/12/2007 11:01:07 AM

^ I dont understand your arguement. Who is suggesting we use the bible to prosecute the dead man?

11/12/2007 11:49:00 AM

HUR was using "eye for an eye" as an excuse/justification/rationale.

I was extending it, by questioning why "eye for an eye" is used so often by Christians when 1) it is not even quoted correctly or in full and almost never applied in the right situations, and 2) virtually nothing else from that chapter is ever quoted as being rules/laws we should live by.

11/12/2007 11:58:00 AM

Quote :

"he (the driver) willingly and voluntarily started a course of action that directly led to another man's death."

he didn't willingly get his foot stuck, it was an accident...lol

11/12/2007 11:59:51 AM

^^ oh ok, agentlion. I wasnt sure where you were getting that.

Thats what I like about you lion, I might not agree with your opinion but you will explain it and not resort to name calling as a defense. Have to respect that.

Im not sure why religion got brought into this to begin with, other than Im sure the thief was "on his way to church" im sure.

11/12/2007 1:18:11 PM

I'd say this guy is lucky if he doesn't get charged. A 65 year old in Rocky Mount got 5 years for manslaughter after he shot someone who wrestled with him for the cash box at his produce stand.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : s]

11/12/2007 2:14:38 PM

^ this is the problem w/ our society. If DeWayne had to be concerned about taking a 9mm bullet in the ass while trying to steal Johnny's wallet out of his back pocket; i am sure he would think twice as hard before resorting to crime.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 2:36 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2007 2:33:35 PM

^
"The two families gathered inside the courtroom Friday where a judge agreed to free 66-year-old Moore on bond."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2026528/

11/12/2007 2:38:13 PM

Quote :

""I enjoyed reading this too. What I didn't enjoy is the wasted money in airlifting this guy to hospital.""

11/12/2007 2:42:41 PM

^^^I truly believe in the saying "an armed society is a polite society." I'll agree with you on that one.

Quote :

"like Christians do with the rest of the bible, you have several conflicting versus to choose from - just pick the one that makes you sleep better at night, i suppose. "

That's exactly my point from above. You can find stuff in the bible that you can use to justify anything. So religion should be taken out of the question of morality. Not just the question about killing people, but about all questions of morality. People should be able to find their own inner moral drivings that have nothing to do with an imaginary watchful eye and wagging finger telling them "No."
But, since people can't, then you should be able to find your own inner morality from the imaginary 9mm barrel being stuck in your face and trigger finger telling you "No." so see above.

11/12/2007 3:08:19 PM

Quote :

"The two families gathered inside the courtroom Friday where a judge agreed to free 66-year-old Moore on bond."

Don't confuse it though; he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years. He is only out on bond while waiting for his appeal. It's odd that they would let him out while waiting for the appeal, but it's not an indicator that he will be released indefinitely. Presumably he will have to serve the 5 years unless he wins the appeal.

Quote :

"In October, a jury convicted Moore of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to more than five years in prison. Moore's attorneys filed an appeal, and Judge Frank Brown set a $75,000 bond allowing him to go home until the next hearing."

11/12/2007 3:19:29 PM

Quote :

"He don’t need a bond. He needs to rot in jail,” said Dorothy Boddie, Harris’ grandmother. “My grandson is dead at 15, 16 years old, and [Moore’s] still walking around.”"

Maybe grandma should taught her grandson about respecting other peoples property and to not steal shit.

11/12/2007 3:23:59 PM

^yep it all goes back to responsiblity. Of course the grandmother's brain doesnt register any responsiblity on the part of her grandson. Which is par for the course these days.

11/12/2007 3:48:48 PM

Quote :

"HUR: Didn't the old testament preach "eye 4 an eye""

Why do Christians use the Old Testament?

Supposedly, the whole point of Jesus coming was to negate most of that shit and get people on board with the New Testament jive.

Quote :

"furikuchan: That's exactly my point from above. You can find stuff in the bible that you can use to justify anything. So religion should be taken out of the question of morality. Not just the question about killing people, but about all questions of morality."

But Christians often use religion to support their sense of right and wrong. So religion/morality are tied together when dealing with them.

Quote :

"furikuchan: People should be able to find their own inner moral drivings that have nothing to do with an imaginary watchful eye and wagging finger telling them "No." But, since people can't, then you should be able to find your own inner morality from the imaginary 9mm barrel being stuck in your face and trigger finger telling you "No." so see above."

I don't think an imaginary gun is any better than an imaginary eye in the sky. In fact, they're the exact same thing.

11/12/2007 4:00:23 PM

Quote :

"^yep it all goes back to responsiblity. Of course the grandmother's brain doesnt register any responsiblity on the part of her grandson. Which is par for the course these days."

yeah she was probably on welfare and through shear ignorance rationalized the theft as the "white man owing" her family the money b.c of slavery 200years ago

11/12/2007 4:40:08 PM

So what's the deal with vandalism? If you wake up to some kids rolling your house and putting shaving cream on your freshly painted car, is it acceptable to open fire on them? Keep in mind that kids can do $1,000 of damage in a short period of time.

Anyway, I ask y'all this cause it doesn't seem like you support these killings because of the crime or the damage they inflicted. It seems like you support the killings because of the "type" of person who got killed.

I have to assume that nobody in this thread has ever broken the law, including acts of vandalism. And that if you did vanadalize somebody's home, you did so with the knowledge that you may take a shotgun blast to the back as you were trying to run away.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : sss]

11/12/2007 5:07:53 PM

Don't fuck with people's shit. Your argument counter is kinda flawed by i will bite your bait.
Vandalism can encompass a lot of shit and varying degrees of severity. If some kids were going to vandalize my house w/ a can of gasoline and matches aka arson and torch my 200k investment. Your damn well right i am getting the shotgun out.

Even if it was just shaving cream and TP I'd be sure as hell to confront the perpetrators depending on the level of risk. Just like with the guy this thread is originally about in the following confrontation an accident may happen with one of the delinquents getting seriously injured or killed. Maybe after confronting the vandals one gets violent and in the ensuing struggle he trips; busts his head on a rock and dies.

btw i have heard of people getting shot at while performing these "harmless" pranks.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 5:28 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2007 5:20:41 PM

wow how did this thread turn into a religious debate?

you're a career criminal...you regularly infuriate people by stealing their shit...you live that life and you'll eventually get yours...especially if you rip off the same person again and again and then he catches you...honestly if it had been somebody different they might've shot and killed both guys...this guy however seemed genuinely compassionate about the dead guy...I think maybe he intentionally hit him with his car but only wanted to injure but not kill him...but thats just speculation

I'd just like to reiterate when I made the 2nd post in this thread which was "read about this earlier today...i enjoyed reading it" that the story I read did NOT mention that the guy had died...and I think MOST people in here who enjoyed the story weren't necessarily some kind of blood thirsty sickos, but simply people who realize 90% of thieves never get caught and this guy actually got some justice

11/12/2007 5:31:25 PM

Criminal endeavors are inherently risky--some criminals don't make it out alive. Those are the breaks.

Haven't you ever heard that crime doesn't pay? Sometimes not only doesn't it pay, it costs--everything.

11/12/2007 5:40:35 PM

^^^It's not really an "argument counter" or whatever. I haven't really been arguing with anyone. I'm just tryna figure out how far y'all want to take this "I'll protect my property by lethal force" bit.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM. Reason : sss]

11/12/2007 5:42:19 PM

I'm more confused about how anybody interpreted this as a religious debate.

I was simply curious how many Christians here are thrilled over or indifferent to somebody's death. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

11/12/2007 5:45:28 PM

^^ It depends on what state you live in. At one time--and this still may be the case--one could shoot a person stealing property in Texas. Sounds like good law to me.

^ Why only Christians, Captain Logic?

11/12/2007 6:01:21 PM

Well, Christians are clearly committed to the opposite position. This, of course, depends on whether or not you understand anything at all about Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels.

11/12/2007 6:04:16 PM

^ Yeah, I thought you were headed down the old Christian-bashing path. You're quite familiar with the route, aren't you?

So, it's impossible for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on to be "thrilled over or indifferent to somebody's death"? Are they, too, not "clearly committed to the opposite position"? Why the obsessive focus on Christians alone?

11/12/2007 6:18:00 PM

Baring any real argument, you start sounding like TreeTwista. Hint, that isn't a good thing.

11/12/2007 6:20:34 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I thought you were headed down the old Christian-bashing path. You're quite familiar with the route, aren't you? "

Well actually, I'd have no problem with actual Christians. Fake-Christian-bashing? Sure, I'm all about it.

Quote :

"So, it's impossible for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on to be "thrilled over or indifferent to somebody's death"? Are they, too, not "clearly committed to the opposite position"? Why the obsessive focus on Christians alone?"

How many Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists post here?

11/12/2007 6:22:00 PM

^^^ Because there's not a lot of Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhist posting in this thread.

And, depending on the weather, you might not get everyone to agree that Muslims don't like killing.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ^ i'm 5 seconds too late ]

11/12/2007 6:22:05 PM

^^ All Christians are "fake," according to you, right? Or at least the deity they believe in is fake, right?

11/12/2007 6:41:21 PM

no. "fake" Christians are people who call themselves Christians, but fail to live by, preach, and/or exhibit learning from Christ's teachings.

11/12/2007 6:45:31 PM

Quote :

"So what's the deal with vandalism? If you wake up to some kids rolling your house and putting shaving cream on your freshly painted car, is it acceptable to open fire on them? Keep in mind that kids can do $1,000 of damage in a short period of time. "

Sometimes I wonder why not. I personaly wouldn't, but I have to wonder why it shouldn't be ok for someone to. At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that if you weren't comitting the crime in the first place, you wouldn't be getting shot at. And yes, there were properties in the town I grew up in that you didn't think about vandalizing because you would get your ass shot.

11/12/2007 7:41:35 PM

Quote :

"I don't think an imaginary gun is any better than an imaginary eye in the sky. In fact, they're the exact same thing."

But the gun isn't nessecarily imaginary. HUR was suggesting that these happy crappy gun control laws that protect criminals be repealed so that more criminals will get shot. If you can imagine that this individual is going to pull out a gun and shoot you, whether he actually has a gun or not, you won't do shit to him. But there do have to be a few real people who will pull out guns and shoot you for the imaginary gun to exist in the minds of the possible criminals.

11/12/2007 8:12:57 PM

Quote :

"^^ All Christians are "fake," according to you, right? Or at least the deity they believe in is fake, right?"

Quote :

"no. "fake" Christians are people who call themselves Christians, but fail to live by, preach, and/or exhibit learning from Christ's teachings."

agentlion pretty much covered this base for me, that's pretty much what I'd say.

11/12/2007 8:33:16 PM

Quote :

"HUR was suggesting that these happy crappy gun control laws that protect criminals be repealed so that more criminals will get shot. If you can imagine that this individual is going to pull out a gun and shoot you, whether he actually has a gun or not, you won't do shit to him. But there do have to be a few real people who will pull out guns and shoot you for the imaginary gun to exist in the minds of the possible criminals."

WTF r u talking about. Bottom line if you are stealing peoples shit or threatening their well being than you do not have to worry about getting shot. Whether or not the guy will be prosecuted is a different story. Personally, i feel if people were allowed to take the law into their owned hands there would be a lot less crime. However, you still have to prove that you had justification to you deadly force. A jury would then decide, with the judge in charge of punishment; whether you were to extreme.

11/12/2007 9:34:32 PM

if you are committing a felony, and something bad happens to you (you get shot), i honestly cant really give a fuck because you put yourself in that situation

i really have a problem giving criminals rights while they are committing a crime

11/12/2007 11:09:58 PM

^^Apologies for putting words into your mouth, then.

11/13/2007 2:46:01 AM

This thread is remakably, unintentionally, stupid on a number of levels.

Anyway from a legal standpoint, deadly force is generally not legal under North Carolina law for the protection of property except under this circumstance:

Quote :

"§ 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence. (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section. (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)"

It is a weird quirk in NC law. Once they're inside the house you have the duty to retreat insofar as it is possible and cannot use deadly force unless you feel in mortal danger or, for women, in danger of sexual assault. However, if they were in the process of breaking in (as these guys were) with intent to commit a felony then it is legal.

The part in section (a) about terminating unlawful entry once it is progress would seem to give you a green light for shooting a burglar but it can be harder to prove once they've crossed the threshold of your home.

Moral or not? That is a different issue.

[Edited on November 13, 2007 at 6:26 AM. Reason : clarification]

11/13/2007 6:23:53 AM

---------------->

11/13/2007 8:27:44 AM