Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 76

Thread: "No, no, no, no, please!"

  1. #31
    This just goes to show Lewk likes jerking off to his sick murder-fantasies but doesn't want to do what really needs to be done, which is to deter future crime and stop future criminals by strangling shoplifting kids to death.

    But I don't think we should use his own son as an example in an attempt to make things more real for him. Lewk has no sense of compassion or justice, and he's extremely good at ignoring the problems with his views. At best, he'd dodge any hypotheticals involving his own son. At worst, he'd be okay with someone killing his son on a psychotic suspicion of shoplifting candy. Can you imagine how incredibly disturbing that would be? Do we really want to do that to ourselves?

    This is a "man" who thinks "Lewkowski's Razor" is sufficient for sentencing a man to death without trial. Don't expect too much from him. This sick murder-fetish is Lewk's braindead way of dealing with the constant discomfort of knowing he's a little bit too wrong, a little bit too little in the know, a little bit too outside civilised society. We all need our psychological defenses.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #32
    I think you liberals are just pussy footing around the obvious conclusion from all this, which is that everyone needs to kill everyone else in order to prevent crime of any description taking place ever again.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  3. #33
    So that’s the going price for taking an innocent life?

    $500 and a year’s probation?


    In January, Rodrigo Diaz, his girlfriend and two others pulled into a Gwinnett driveway to pick up a friend to go skating. Unknown to them, it turned out to be the wrong driveway, the driveway of Phillip Sailors.


    Sailors came out of his home armed with a .22 pistol. He fired a warning shot, and then, as Diaz tried frantically to drive away, Sailors fired the next shot into Diaz’s head, killing the 22-year-old Georgia Tech student who had immigrated here from Colombia.


    When Lilburn police officers arrived, they arrested Diaz’ girlfriend and the other two survivors in the car, handcuffed them and held them overnight.


    On Monday, the case was resolved when the 70-year-old Sailors pleaded guilty to the much lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. As part of the plea deal cut by Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter, Sailors was charged a $500 fine and given a year’s probation, an outcome that the Diaz family supported.


    “There is no point for him to be in lifetime in prison,” Diaz’ brother David said . “What we get from that? Nothing. Like my dad said, we don’t hold any grudge.” (The Diaz family had earlier negotiated a settlement in civil case filed against Sailors and his insurance company.)


    I admire the forgiveness demonstrated by the Diaz family, but I cannot say that I entirely share it. As David Diaz noted, putting an elderly Vietnam veteran such as Sailors into prison for the rest of his life does no one any good, but a small fine and probation sends a dangerous message of its own. It minimizes the gravity of what occurred and contributes to the sense that Sailors did nothing all that wrong, and that others in similar situation can act in a similar manner.


    I’m sorry: You do not have the right to shoot someone who pulls into your driveway by mistake. If you pull a gun on someone and use it in a recklessly fatal manner, shooting and killing an innocent person as they attempt to flee your property, as the police reports allege Sailors did, you should not get off pretty much scot-free. Using a gun on someone is serious, serious business.


    Furthermore, your own misguided fear is no justification and no excuse for ending the life of another human being. As an adult, you are responsible for how you handle that fear and how you act upon it. When you choose to pick up a firearm, you become responsible for the consequences, and when you make a series of conscious decisions that end with you taking the life of an innocent person, you should face the consequences.


    For the mistake of pulling into the wrong driveway, Rodrigo Diaz paid with his life. For the mistake of shooting Diaz and taking his life, Phillip Sailors paid a $500 fine.


    That’s not justice.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  4. #34
    boinnngggg
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Latino in a car in a someone's driveway. If that's not criminal then I don't know what is. Good thing too they threw his girlfriend in jail for being in a car with a murder victim.
    Congratulations America

  6. #36
    Don't you just love the fact, that Latino isn't considered 'white' in the US, we should do that with our Latinos as well.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  7. #37
    Actually, Latino is considered an ethnicity, not a race. All the affirmative action questionnaires have separate "white Hispanic" and "non-white Hispanic" categories (e.g. Cubans tend to self-identify as white, while Dominicans do not).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #38
    And outside the ivory tower?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  9. #39
    Those are the designations on all government-related and corporate forms...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #40
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  11. #41
    This looks like the Montana equivalent to first degree murder. Punishment is death (not that it will ever get that far).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #42
    Dangerous precedent here. What happens if the next gun owner decides not to shoot thieves in their home? One outcome is the homeowner could die... but also the negative impact on society of the thief living even if all he takes is the homeowner's stuff.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Dangerous precedent here. What happens if the next gun owner decides not to shoot thieves in their home? One outcome is the homeowner could die... but also the negative impact on society of the thief living even if all he takes is the homeowner's stuff.
    Arguably a better way to reduce theft is not leaving your door open with a purse behind to try and lure​ burglars.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    ......the negative impact on society of the thief living even if all he takes is the homeowner's stuff.
    Yeah, who needs a legal or judicial system anyway? We don't need 911 or police as first responders.....we don't even lawyers or judges as arbiters. We don't even need or jails or prisons. All that requires public dollars, and taxes are theft!

    All anyone needs is a gun! That makes everyone police, prosecutor, judge, and jury all-in-one. Justice bundled! Fry 'em!

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Dangerous precedent here. What happens if the next gun owner decides not to shoot thieves in their home? One outcome is the homeowner could die... but also the negative impact on society of the thief living even if all he takes is the homeowner's stuff.
    See, the difference between you and, well, pretty much everyone else is that we all think it's not a negative impact for someone who only commits a minor crime to stay alive. Even Iranian ayatollahs only insist that thieves lose their hands.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Yeah, who needs a legal or judicial system anyway? We don't need 911 or police as first responders.....we don't even lawyers or judges as arbiters. We don't even need or jails or prisons. All that requires public dollars, and taxes are theft!

    All anyone needs is a gun! That makes everyone police, prosecutor, judge, and jury all-in-one. Justice bundled! Fry 'em!
    Here's a tip - don't rob people's homes and you won't have an issue.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    See, the difference between you and, well, pretty much everyone else is that we all think it's not a negative impact for someone who only commits a minor crime to stay alive. Even Iranian ayatollahs only insist that thieves lose their hands.
    Being able to defend your property isn't judicial punishment for a crime in any event. Fewer home invasions will take place if homeowners have carte blanche to defend themselves and their property with any means they choose to.

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Arguably a better way to reduce theft is not leaving your door open with a purse behind to try and lure​ burglars.
    The homeowner had already been robbed before. Just how much should they put up with especially when police don't seem to be doing anything to stop it? Granted the police are often handcuffed by the stupid anti-entrapment laws some places have but in the end what should the homeowner have to do? Suffer attack after attack on his property?

    Question for everyone - you know Beware of Dog signs yes? If an intruder invades a home and then is killed by a dog should the homeowner be liable? If they aren't can we create "Beware of Gun" signs too?

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Question for everyone - you know Beware of Dog signs yes? If an intruder invades a home and then is killed by a dog should the homeowner be liable? If they aren't can we create "Beware of Gun" signs too?
    Depends. If you're using the Insurance Industry as best arbiter or adjudicator ---- you could be making a huge mistake when talking about principle vs liability.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Being able to defend your property isn't judicial punishment for a crime in any event. Fewer home invasions will take place if homeowners have carte blanche to defend themselves and their property with any means they choose to.
    He wasn't defending his property. It was premeditated, Lewk. Defense is something done in the moment, he set things up days beforehand because he wanted to kill a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The homeowner had already been robbed before. Just how much should they put up with especially when police don't seem to be doing anything to stop it? Granted the police are often handcuffed by the stupid anti-entrapment laws some places have but in the end what should the homeowner have to do? Suffer attack after attack on his property?

    Question for everyone - you know Beware of Dog signs yes? If an intruder invades a home and then is killed by a dog should the homeowner be liable? If they aren't can we create "Beware of Gun" signs too?
    Hell yes and with even better reason, because dogs are agents (not high-thinking ones but capable of their own decisions and independent action) and they can and do get free, they can and do maul people who haven't even engaged in what you would think is a capital crime. Training your dog to kill means necessarily includes training it to go after prey (because they're not capable of a true distinction) and kids are always easy prey.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #51
    So let me get this straight. Burglar robs home. Dog defends home. You think burglars should be able to sue the homeowner for damages the dog did to them?

  22. #52
    If you train a dog to kill and that dog kills someone who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime then your dog should be shot and you should probably share his fate. But if we're not doing that type of thing then you should go to prison.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  23. #53
    What if someone with no previous convictions invades the home of a violent criminal? Who should shoot who in this scenario?
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    If you train a dog to kill and that dog kills someone who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime then your dog should be shot and you should probably share his fate. But if we're not doing that type of thing then you should go to prison.
    So an armed criminal enters your home. Hasn't committed a capital crime yet. Your dog attacks the criminal - dog should be killed? The fuck is wrong with you.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    What if someone with no previous convictions invades the home of a violent criminal? Who should shoot who in this scenario?
    Odds are against it but if they both die shooting each other it would probably be best.

    I also find 'no previous convictions' a funny test considering most crimes don't lead to even an arrest.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So an armed criminal enters your home.
    I like this oh so quiet bit of escalation. Who said anything about armed? When was someone ever armed in any of the prior scenarios, or the real-life premeditated murder you so approve of, besides the guy you think didn't commit any crime?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I also find 'no previous convictions' a funny test considering most crimes don't lead to even an arrest.
    It's their first time breaking and entering.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I like this oh so quiet bit of escalation. Who said anything about armed? When was someone ever armed in any of the prior scenarios, or the real-life premeditated murder you so approve of, besides the guy you think didn't commit any crime?
    For one I was responding to aimless whose only qualifier was "who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime." For two why should the home owner have to first check to make sure the person who has invaded his home for arms before defending himself? We are also talking about dogs in this specific instance. I find it atrocious that there are people on the board who think a burglar getting bit by a dog somehow creates any liability for the homeowner.

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's their first time breaking and entering.
    Don't break into other people's homes. I still support the death of those who do pull that type of shit weather it is the first or fiftieth time. And my comment is really talking about the fact that people who are convicted are rarely people who just did it one time. It is a lifestyle - for example this thug. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FXew7LhcfM

    Out on bond for robbery... goes and robs another story and is the probable culprit for two other robberies. And the mom is whining about how a good Samaritan and all around fantastic citizen shot her 'baby.'

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    For one I was responding to aimless whose only qualifier was "who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime." For two why should the home owner have to first check to make sure the person who has invaded his home for arms before defending himself? We are also talking about dogs in this specific instance. I find it atrocious that there are people on the board who think a burglar getting bit by a dog somehow creates any liability for the homeowner.
    And there's a equally quiet de-escalation of the purported act we don't like. No one said "bit by a dog" your standard was killed by a guard dog.

    When you're staking a position, you have unarmed teens with no criminal record or even suspicion of criminal behavior who are killed for on trespass by people with guns or by their dogs but when we rebut suddenly you claim you're talking about armed hardened criminals with a long convicted track-record of murderous intent merely getting bit by a local dog who may or may not have a connection to the home-owner. Come back sometime when you're willing to be honest for more than two posts in a row, Lewk.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •