• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

Oleg said:
laughing dog said:
That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.
Click to expand...
He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. Play stupid games, . . .
Click to expand...
He was leaving. His back was turned. The shooter was not in immediate danger. The claim of self defense is ludicrous.
 
laughing dog said:
Oleg said:
laughing dog said:
That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.
Click to expand...
He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. Play stupid games, . . .
Click to expand...
He was leaving. His back was turned. The shooter was not in immediate danger. The claim of self defense is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
We don't know he was leaving. He might have been but at time in question he's in the room waving his gun around. Yes, the shot is in the back--that is not illegal. The guy with the gun waited until he had unobserved time to draw his gun.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Oleg said:
laughing dog said:
That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.
Click to expand...
He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. Play stupid games, . . .
Click to expand...
He was leaving. His back was turned. The shooter was not in immediate danger. The claim of self defense is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
We don't know he was leaving. He might have been but at time in question he's in the room waving his gun around. Yes, the shot is in the back--that is not illegal. The guy with the gun waited until he had unobserved time to draw his gun.
Click to expand...
Let's see. He circles around at least once. He is heading toward the door. Looks like he is leaving.

The target's back was to the shooter. The shooter was not in danger when he took his shot. Sorry, that is not self-defense.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Oleg said:
laughing dog said:
That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.
Click to expand...
He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. Play stupid games, . . .
Click to expand...
He was leaving. His back was turned. The shooter was not in immediate danger. The claim of self defense is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
We don't know he was leaving. He might have been but at time in question he's in the room waving his gun around. Yes, the shot is in the back--that is not illegal. The guy with the gun waited until he had unobserved time to draw his gun.
Click to expand...
Let's see. He circles around at least once. He is heading toward the door. Looks like he is leaving.

The target's back was to the shooter. The shooter was not in danger when he took his shot. Sorry, that is not self-defense.
Click to expand...
He should have waited to see what he would do. If he turned, shoot.
 
laughing dog said:
Let's see. He circles around at least once. He is heading toward the door. Looks like he is leaving.

The target's back was to the shooter. The shooter was not in danger when he took his shot. Sorry, that is not self-defense.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, actually. It was night, and in Texas you are allowed to use deadly force to recover stolen property at night.

The robber chose the wrong place to rob. I guess he should have robbed a place in LA or Philly or Manhattan. Little chance of getting shot, and a criminal-friendly DA too, so he would not see that much time either.
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
Let's see. He circles around at least once. He is heading toward the door. Looks like he is leaving.

The target's back was to the shooter. The shooter was not in danger when he took his shot. Sorry, that is not self-defense.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, actually.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in terms of Texas law, but it does matter in terms of morality. It was not self-defense.

In my view, killing someone over money or property is morally disgusting.
 
robnisch said:
He should have waited to see what he would do. If he turned, shoot.
Click to expand...
Self-defense extends to others. If someone is threatened with lethal force, a third party may use lethal force to protect that person. And this robber was threatening everyone in the restaurant.
 
I don't see the cops having any problems with a guy emptying his clip into that perp. The cops themselves would have done the same.
 
Oleg said:
robnisch said:
He should have waited to see what he would do. If he turned, shoot.
Click to expand...
Self-defense extends to others. If someone is threatened with lethal force, a third party may use lethal force to protect that person. And this robber was threatening everyone in the restaurant.
Click to expand...
"Self-defense" does not extend to others by definition (hint: the term "self" says it all). Really, this is not rocket science. If you think this shooting was morally acceptable, that is your privilege. But it was not self-defense in any reasonable shape or form.

We do not have any audio, but the video clearly indicates the robber was moving towards the exit. Which suggests to those who are neither visibly nor reason impaired that the robber was not a threat.
 
laughing dog said:
Perhaps not in terms of Texas law, but it does matter in terms of morality. It was not self-defense.
Click to expand...
Legally, he should be in the clear. Glad we agree on that.
Morally, this wasn't a case of somebody running away after stealing something from a store. Or even a fake hooker driving away with defrauded client's money.

This guy threatened the patrons of that taqueria with deadly force in order to steal their property. That should affect the moral calculus here.

In my view, killing someone over money or property is morally disgusting.
Click to expand...
In your view, what do you think of threatening people with deadly force in order to steal their stuff? Also morally disgusting, or not so much?
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
Perhaps not in terms of Texas law, but it does matter in terms of morality. It was not self-defense.
Click to expand...
Legally, he should be in the clear. Glad we agree on that.
Morally, this wasn't a case of somebody running away after stealing something from a store. Or even a fake hooker driving away with defrauded client's money.

This guy threatened the patrons of that taqueria with deadly force in order to steal their property. That should affect the moral calculus here.
Click to expand...
Not in my opinion.

In your view, what do you think of threatening people with deadly force in order to steal their stuff? Also morally disgusting, or not so much?
Click to expand...
see post 1732
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oleg said:
laughing dog said:
"Self-defense" does not extend to others by definition (hint: the term "self" says it all).
Click to expand...
I didn’t make it up.

Right of self-defense - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger.[2] Generally, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they have the right of self-defense.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That is a legal definition which is not a moral nor logical one.
 
I guess I'll repeat myself yet again and point out all these "good guy with a gun" examples are still valid if the good guy was equipped with a lever action .30-30 or a Mossberg 500. Semi-autos with bump stocks (as they are now legal again) should never be in civilian hands.
 
Derec said:
Legally, he should be in the clear.
Click to expand...
No, legally he either is or is not. Should doesn't apply to questions of law; If the law says that it's legal to own slaves, or to round up and gas people the government doesn't like, or any other reprehensible and morally repugnant thing, then that's what is legal. Whether it should be legal isn't something that the courts or the police have any control over.

If Texas law says that it's legal to shoot a fleeing person dead, in order to recover stolen property from him, then he's in the clear.

And Texas law is morally deficient. But that's not a major shock.
 
whnt.com

Family of man killed in deputy-involved shooting says authorities responded to wrong house

The Madison County Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that a sheriff’s deputy was involved in a fatal shooting early Friday morning while responding to a domestic violence call.
whnt.com whnt.com
HAZEL GREEN, Ala. (WHNT) – The Madison County Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that a sheriff’s deputy was involved in a fatal shooting early Friday morning while responding to a domestic violence call.

Authorities say officers responded to a domestic violence call with shots fired in the area in the 200 block of Dixon Road. Deputies made contact with a man at the scene who they said was armed.

The Madison County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that Ray Dean King, 50, was fatally shot during that encounter. Deputies recovered King’s weapon at the scene.

News 19 spoke with family members, who say deputies responded to the wrong house.

The family members say the incident began with a female family member, involved in a domestic dispute outside a nearby address.
Click to expand...
So the cops go to the wrong house, make noise outside. Guy goes outside to investigate the noise and gets blasted by the cops.

You’d almost think owning a gun doesn’t make you safer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom