For all its faults, the US Justice System sometimes gets it right!

[Lewkowski]

https://wgntv.com/2019/08/13/high-sp...rnee-homicide/

"CHICAGO — Five teens have been charged with murder after a 14-year-old boy was shot and killed following an attempted auto theft and high-speed chase from rural Lake County to Chicago.

Authorities said it started around 1 a.m. Tuesday with an attempted auto theft in the small town of Old Mill Creek. A 75-year-old homeowner called police to report the crime in progress. The homeowner also opened fire on the group of individuals — adults and juveniles — who were attempting to steal his vehicle.

The group fled the scene in a black Lexus SUV that was stolen over the weekend, police said. The offenders stopped near Route 132 and Hunt Club Road in Gurnee and dropped off a 14-year-old, who had a gunshot wound to his head area, and another man. A Gurnee police officer, who was in the area investigating an unrelated crash, began first aid on the 14-year-old and called for an ambulance."

Step 1: Try to steal a car.
Step 2: Forget that self-defense is an American right
Step 3: Have one of your accomplices die from the elderly homeowner defending himself
Step 4: YOU get charged with MURDER.

God Bless America. Hopefully these teens get some some life sentences!

[Loki]

Sorry to ruin your mood, but giving a life sentence to a minor is unconstitutional (according to the Supreme Court).

[Lewkowski]

Sorry to ruin your mood, but giving a life sentence to a minor is unconstitutional (according to the Supreme Court).

That was a 5-4 ruling, we'll see what happens in the future. In the interim one of the thieves is 18. And I couldn't find a quick answer, is it a life sentence w/o the possibility of parole or all life sentences? It is a minor but important difference.

[Hazir]

Lewkowski, you really think that life in prison is the only way to deal with theft?

[EyeKhan]

Lewkowski, you really think that life in prison is the only way to deal with theft?

I think he would prefer the thieves all got death. It's the Christian thing to do, after all.

As for the case at hand, based on the limited information in the article, the old man apparently discovered the teens stealing his car and opened fire on them. That isn't self defense, nor is death the penalty for car theft. In the spirit of "people ought to refrain from killing each other unless it's actually necessary," I would say *actual* justice would see the old man being charged at least with manslaughter, along with the 18 year old car thief. A human life is worth much more than a car, even a Lexus, and given the old man's life did not appear to be threatened, there is no just reason for him to kill the car thieves.

Now, if the kids had car-jacked him, or threatened to kill or injure him, and/or he had no safe place to retreat, that's a different story. But I don't get any hint of those circumstances from reading the quoted article. And even though the kid was breaking the law, and even though its a stupid thing to do all around and he definitely knew better, death for car theft is *not* justice.

[Being]

This thread is another red flag. Someone please confiscate Lewk's guns.

[Lewkowski]

I think he would prefer the thieves all got death. It's the Christian thing to do, after all.

As for the case at hand, based on the limited information in the article, the old man apparently discovered the teens stealing his car and opened fire on them. That isn't self defense, nor is death the penalty for car theft. In the spirit of "people ought to refrain from killing each other unless it's actually necessary," I would say *actual* justice would see the old man being charged at least with manslaughter, along with the 18 year old car thief. A human life is worth much more than a car, even a Lexus, and given the old man's life did not appear to be threatened, there is no just reason for him to kill the car thieves.

Now, if the kids had car-jacked him, or threatened to kill or injure him, and/or he had no safe place to retreat, that's a different story. But I don't get any hint of those circumstances from reading the quoted article. And even though the kid was breaking the law, and even though its a stupid thing to do all around and he definitely knew better, death for car theft is *not* justice.

1. A man has a right to defend his property.
2. According to the homeowner the teens approached him after he confronted them. They sought to do him harm after coming on his property, this is self defense. Chicago is a liberal city, if it wasn't clear cut self-defense they would have tried to arrest him.

[EyeKhan]

1. A man has a right to defend his property.

It is not remotely reasonable to value property over a human life.

2. According to the homeowner the teens approached him after he confronted them. They sought to do him harm after coming on his property, this is self defense.

If that's true, then fair enough.

[RandBlade]

It is not remotely reasonable to value property over a human life.

If you're a scumbag who tries to trash other people's lives, I think it is reasonable to value my property over your life. Especially when my property has my wife and children in it too.

[Flixy]

I'm still baffled that an accomplice dying is felony murder. It is a legal killing after all. If a bystander dies, I understand, but in these cases?

[Timbuk2]

I'm still baffled that an accomplice dying is felony murder. It is a legal killing after all. If a bystander dies, I understand, but in these cases?

It's just more 'deterrent' that doesn't work.

[RandBlade]

I'm still baffled that an accomplice dying is felony murder. It is a legal killing after all. If a bystander dies, I understand, but in these cases?

Its a death caused due to a felony. Had they not commited the felony, he would still be alive.

[Flixy]

Its a death caused due to a felony. Had they not commited the felony, he would still be alive.

I know how it works, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. It's not like they committed worse crimes than if the guy had missed.

Plus in this case you encourage criminals to try to kill the victim, if you're going down for murder anyway, that way you have a better chance to get away with it. Surely that's not the intention.

[Lewkowski]

I know how it works, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. It's not like they committed worse crimes than if the guy had missed.

Plus in this case you encourage criminals to try to kill the victim, if you're going down for murder anyway, that way you have a better chance to get away with it. Surely that's not the intention.

Most criminals don't go into an altercation thinking that one of their number is going to die so the logic doesn't hold up.

[Flixy]

Most criminals don't go into an altercation thinking that one of their number is going to die so the logic doesn't hold up.

In that case as a deterrent it also doesn't hold up.

[LittleFuzzy]

I know how it works, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. It's not like they committed worse crimes than if the guy had missed.

Plus in this case you encourage criminals to try to kill the victim, if you're going down for murder anyway, that way you have a better chance to get away with it. Surely that's not the intention.

And Lewk will actually applaud this but it also provides a perverse incentive to use lethal force AGAINST anyone committing a crime, no matter how non-violent, to increase their potential sentences.

[Hazir]

And Lewk will actually applaud this but it also provides a perverse incentive to use lethal force AGAINST anyone committing a crime, no matter how non-violent, to increase their potential sentences.

Despite this probably being true, it's actually not a very convincing argument; because it already works for violent crimes like rape and sex with children.

[Loki]

Incidentally, are you allowed to say America has many faults, Lewk? Shouldn't you be keeping America great?

[Lewkowski]

Incidentally, are you allowed to say America has many faults, Lewk? Shouldn't you be keeping America great?

America has many faults including ridiculous laws against things like drugs and gambling and a ridiculous amount of regulation.

[RandBlade]

Three years from the robbery from the woman sounds appropriate, two years is nowhere near long enough for rape.

[Loki]

Another America-hater.

[RandBlade]

I don't value my property more than my life.

[Steely Glint]

I don't value my property more than my life.

[EyeKhan]

I don't value my property more than my life.

It doesn't have greater value than someone else's life either, even if that life is a poor, idiot, minority teenager.

*Shrug*

You choose to break into somebodies home why should your life be worth more than the home you've broken into? It was your choice to do that. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

Anyone in their own home should have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. Anyone who chose to break into a home did so of their own free will. I won't celebrate a death of a burglar, but nor would I celebrate a robbery.

The straw man again. These kids were taking an automobile from outside some old dude's house. They were not in his home - it was a car theft, not a burglary. Lewk says they threatened the old man before he opened fire on them, and maybe they did. But if they did not, and the US Justice system tacitly approves of his killing the teen, then the System got it wrong.

[Lewkowski]

The straw man again. These kids were taking an automobile from outside some old dude's house. They were not in his home - it was a car theft, not a burglary. Lewk says they threatened the old man before he opened fire on them, and maybe they did. But if they did not, and the US Justice system tacitly approves of his killing the teen, then the System got it wrong.

Just remember murder charges are actually being filed.

[EyeKhan]

Just remember murder charges are actually being filed.

And?

[Aimless]

Just... don't

[RandBlade]

*Shrug*

You choose to break into somebodies home why should your life be worth more than the home you've broken into? It was your choice to do that. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

Anyone in their own home should have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. Anyone who chose to break into a home did so of their own free will. I won't celebrate a death of a burglar, but nor would I celebrate a robbery.

[Aimless]

*Shrug*

You choose to break into somebodies home why should your life be worth more than the home you've broken into? It was your choice to do that.

This is just fucking asinine, as much so as it is abhorrent. You present it as if it were a logical proposition, but it's just a couple of dumb statements strung together with no logical connection.

Breaking into someone's home does not logically reduce the value of a human life to something less than the value of a home. In addition, anyone who says they believe otherwise, as you are doing here, has no credibility when they claim to be against capital punishment (although, to be fair, I've never believed your opposition to that was anything more than a fig leaf, entirely contingent on what you believed you could get away with saying).

You can buy and sell your home; do you believe you should be allowed to buy and sell a burglar? Or just trade a home for a human being who tried to burgle someone? You can destroy your home; do you believe you should be allowed to destroy a burglar? For what reason? What philosophical reasoning underpins your determination that burglary reduces the value of a human life to something less than the value of the decrepit hole of wretchedness and moral turpitude that you call a home? None. Your position is arbitrary, morally suspect, and, hilariously, you've formulated it in much the same way as a puffed-up hateful kipper might have. How utterly fucking sad.

[RandBlade]

I'm against capital punishment because the arrested is secure and could be kept safely behind bars for the rest of their life instead and if a mistake is made we can release someone behind bars but we can't bring someone back from the dead.

A potentially deadly burglar who has broken into your home is neither secure nor safely behind bars. If they were the burglary wouldn't be happening.

My philosophical reasoning is that someone's home should be their castle, the ultimate safe space. If you break into that then the home owner has every right to defend themselves and that includes their possessions they have worked for and sacrificed for and not just their own lives. My philosophical reasoning is that my sympathies are with the victim and not the offender. My philosophical reasoning is that in the heat of a burglary you have no clue or time to think about what your ATTACKER may be doing and you get a split second potentially to react and could die if you react wrong.

I would rather criminals didn't die while conducting their crimes, but then I'd also rather crime didn't occur.

PS have you ever been subject to a burglary with an armed intruder? I have.

I oppose capital punishment for the same reason I'd oppose a home owner chasing down and shooting a burglar after they have left the home.