Uh yeah. You shouldn't have to worry about defending your home. When someone breaks the sanctity of it you have every right to defend your property rights. It is absolutely absurd to suggest anything otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Printable View
Uh yeah. You shouldn't have to worry about defending your home. When someone breaks the sanctity of it you have every right to defend your property rights. It is absolutely absurd to suggest anything otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Um, government subsidies for colleges have plummeted in the last several decades. Most 4-year schools are getting perhaps 10% of their funding from the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I never understood the rationality that just because something's funding has gone done that the work is done. Should be zilch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And let's not even get started on Student Loans...
And when someone breaches the sanctity of your body....why can't you extend the same "property rights"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It should be zilch until the state legislators start complaining about rising tuition or the number of international students. Then the state suddenly wants to have a say in how the college is run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
As usual, you're conflating two unrelated things. First, people have the right to defend themselves, whether against robbery or rape. Second, a claim that one was robbed or raped does not and should not lead to guilt without due process.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Well, since student loans come from tax-payer funds, it makes sense to scrutinize the public policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm not defending university tribunals. Take that up with Lewk. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes if someone tries to rape you, feel free to defend yourself. I've got no idea where you get the idea that I wouldn't support that. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
See Fuzzy's post. He did a better job of exposing the paradox of your principles. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There is no paradox. If you or your property are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You do not have the right to falsely accuse someone. And a school should not be complicit in ruining someone's life because you had a grudge.
Defending yourself != going to a school administrator (21 months later) and saying you were raped. If you don't get that you are even less intelligent than I imagined.
Better to shoot the bastards, right? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The appeal to intelligence doesn't work so well when you post like an idiot. :bored:Quote:
Defending yourself != going to a school administrator (21 months later) and saying you were raped. If you don't get that you are even less intelligent than I imagined.
Except the majority of the impromptu executions Lewk applauds here aren't self-defense. They're entrapment, like the guy who baited the exchange student, or they're chasing people down. That's not self-defense, it's not even "castle doctrine." You understood the difference in the car-chase thread, I don't see why you're unclear on it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I didn't support Lewk in the entrapment case either.
'Entrapment' LOL! If I ever heard of a crap excuse for criminal behavior...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Bottom line that example the criminal entered into someone else's property with the intent to steal *just like he had done several times prior.*
Good to know that you're a mind reader who knows people's intentions. Better yet, you're a mind reader who knows how a jury and a judge would determine someone's intentions. Why don't you put some candy at the entrance of your garage and then shoot the first 5-year-old that steps through the door.
It is telling you'll use an absurd example instead of what actually happened. a teenager who had repeatedly stolen already entered into the garage for the sole purpose of stealing some more. That's what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A) The guy had no way of knowing that it was a thief.
B) The guy was never in danger. He created the whole situation. This is like inviting someone into your house just to shoot them and claim castle doctrine.
He didn't invite the guy over. The guy entered into the garage in order to steal. Come on don't be dense Loki - you know and I know the guy was thief. Your real argument is that you don't think people should be able to shoot thieves and/or that thievery shouldn't be met with death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Come on man, you and I both know that those college guys raped those girls and deserve whatever punishment they get
I feel like you're just trolling now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Why? It's the same standard of evidence and burden of proof, the same lack of ability for the accused to defend themselves against the allegations. The ones whose deaths you regularly cheer actually get less of that last, they're executed without any chance to defend themselves at all, their side of the story silenced before anyone ever gets a chance to hear it. You never seem to grasp that when you cheer someone's death on here, you are almost invariably reaching your conclusions based solely on the word of the person or people who carried out an extra-judicial execution. And you routinely object to even the basic judicial processes which would investigate and weigh whether that testimony had any validity at all, much less sufficient to justify killing another person. You're only for the rule of law when it would defend people like you in situations you might end up in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Dear kettle ,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Your blackness is indeed most remarkable.
Kind regards,
Pot
You say that as though it is absurd. If little Lewk ever takes gum from the grocery store should he be met with death? This isn't a violent robbery with the threat of physical violence, it certainly does not warrant death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Except that wasn't what prosecutors were claiming. No one thought the guy asked the teenager to come over for milk and cookies. The prosecutors stated exactly what happened. He left some stuff out to be stolen and then attacked when the guy came in to steal his property. The difference is one camp things 'entrapment' and premeditated self defense with the intent to kill should be illegal. Others don't. Completely different than what is going on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
To be fair, that fuckhead was sentenced to like a thousand years in jail for breaking the law. However, I believe Fuzzy was thinking not only of that case but also of the other cases that have featured in the media over the past year or so, esp. the ones involving black men being killed by cops.
"Premeditated self defense", ehehehe
No, the prosecutors did not state exactly what happened. The prosecutors don't know exactly what happened, they can't know exactly what happened. The guy who shot the kid made certain of that. The prosecutors can only guess what happened which is one of the reasons they came down so hard on the premeditated trap. There was no possible claim of self-defense there. Lethal force may be justified in defense of one's body and life, Lewk, it is not justified in defense of property. Property is less important than a life, including the life of a possible criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
"premeditated self defense"? you mean, clairvoyance?Quote:
premeditated self defense
Actually several states have passed legislation allowing you to defend your property. Only liberals who want to be subservient to the government advocate for punishing the victims of the criminal class. If someone tries to take your stuff you have ever right to defend your stuff. In what world do you have LESS right to your property than the person stealing from it. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws are great. They frankly don't go far enough (which is why this guy got prosecuted) and I feel bad that he is in prison but let's never forget the world is a far better place now that the thief is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You don't have less right to your property than a thief does. However, the importance of your right to your property pales in comparison to the thief's right to his life, not to mention everyone's right to live in a society governed by law rather than by your sick fetishes and whims. You believe that thieves have no right to life; that they have, through their actions, forfeited the most basic--and, indeed, inalienable--right a human can have. You are obv kinda wrong :o the murderer who shot that kid has obv forfeited the right to be free though.
Just saying, you know, if anyone in this thread wanted to do some kind of ][ear style confession of being nothing but a troll for the past decade now would be as good a time as any.
Just putting that out there.