The Glade 4.0

That Byron Smith case just goes further towards the point I was trying to make. It's not the heat-of-the-moment shooting when the burglar's intentions are unknown that we should be appalled by, it's the horrifying attitude these shooters tend to have towards their targets. It's pretty clear that in both this case and the Byron Smith case that the shooters didn't even see their targets as human anymore. They're so poisoned by stupid moralizer bullshit that apparently, anyone who commits any kind of moral violation, even a minor one, no longer counts as a human being with rights. These people are thieves, which means they're basically cockroaches to be squashed at the first available opportunity. I don't need to bother the police on Thanksgiving, I mean it wasn't two people I just shot, I'm just taking out the trash. Just come on over whenever it's convenient for you and scrape it off my floor, I've got time.

Anyone who's ever committed any kind of minor crime should be horrified by this attitude, what if one of these people finds out about it? Now they're looking at you at some kind of subhuman nothing, and looking for an excuse to rub you out, because they think they're going to make the country a better place by doing so. These are the kind of people that hate the idea of prison at all, only suffering its existence because they don't trust the government to dish out Saudi Arabian-style justice. Because they'd be fine with **** like cutting off hands for shoplifting and execution of all felons, they just don't trust the government not to target the innocent. So we have to have prisons, but in their mind, everyone should have a gun and make an effort to kill any kind of criminal whenever they can, to keep them out of prison so we don't have to pay to feed and shelter the cockroaches.

As opposed to the way you are looking at the gun owners...

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncon ... n-Laws.htm

Given the woman's statement that the garage door was intentionally left open, how can a claim that force was necessary be believed, since they didn't think closing the door was necessary?

Eh, I believe what goes around comes around. If the guy intentionally went out of his way to kill the kid, he'll get his someday.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I never made any kind of statement about gun owners in general. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of gun owners would hesitate to shoot a garage hopping teenager, and even if they did fire, they would feel horrible about it afterwards.

Actually, the moral toxicity is coming from you, Xequecal.

Why don't people have the right to defend their homes? More to the point, how many times does someone's property have to be vandalized before it should be discouraged?

LadyKate:

My argument is entirely based on logic and morality. I honestly don't care what the law says on this point, because the law will invariably be wrong.

A person either has the right to defend their home, person, and property, or they do not. If they have that right, then the government must show extraordinary circumstances to justify abrogating it for the benefit or on behalf of a burglar. If they don't have that right, then don't pretend they do.

Do you not find it problematic that you're defending a kid who illegally entered someone's property and stole something, because you don't like the idea a minor got shot while being spectacularly stupid and criminal? Burglary, incidentally, does not required forced entry. Breaking and Entering is almost always a separate charge from the burglary and the theft.

_________________

I didn't think you held to the belief that rights were either absolute or non-existent, Khross.

Rights are absolute, or they are not rights, RangerDave.

I make a distinction between rights and moral privileges. I make a distinction between rights and other things considered rights by those who don't share my moral, political, or philosophical views. I am quite open to a very long philosophical discussion on the nature of rights.

And, for what its worth, Mr. Kaarma should likely find himself abreast of Montana's little used man-trapping statute; which probably makes this a cut and dried case.

Legally speaking, I think Mr. Kaarma should be brought before a jury and appropriately charged. I think the jury should be allowed to nullify those charges if they see fit. I think the jury should be briefed on jury nullification and their responsibilities completely, and not just as DOJ doctrine supports.

That said ...

If Mr. Kaarma has the right to secure his home against burglars, then he didn't murder the kid. If he doesn't have that right, then perhaps he did. I simply take issue with characterizing this as a murder and further using morality to divorce criminal actions from their consequences.

Mr. Kaarma is probably an over-eager douchenozzle. Mr. Kaarma almost assuredly broke two or three Montanta laws and maybe a federal statute or two in the process. And those laws should be enforced, because we all know my stance on law enforcement -- only laws that can be universally and evenly enforced should be laws.

But I take issue with using the burglar's age, exchange student status, and the "triviality" of the theft as a reason to take issue with Mr. Kaarma's actions. I also take issue with absolving the local law enforcement of any culpability in the situation. Idiots will do what idiots do, but if it takes a shooting to get the point across to the police, then the police need some retraining.

I have lived the last 30 years in college towns. I'm certainly no stranger to the stupid **** college kids do; I'm no stranger to the spectacularly stupid **** exchange students can get into in the US. Actions should have consequences beyond don't do that again, particularly burglary.

Mr. Kaarma should have done his due diligence and detained the kid under threat of force until law enforcement arrived. But Mr. Kaarma is a moron. Of course, I don't have too much sympathy for the kid, because causal relationships need to be pretty clear to work as a deterrent, which goes back to what I told Xequecal earlier:

If you teach your kids that doing spectacularly stupid things can result in irreversible consequences, they tend not to do spectacularly stupid ****. And, if someone your kids knows suffers those consequences for doing something spectacularly stupid, they tend to remember those consequences and correct their own behavior.

_________________

Really, you can stop with the histrionics and amature psychoanalysis. There's nothing to be "horrified" at in any of these cases. Amazed, maybe, at the stupidity of someone who thinks "not bothering the cops on Thanksgiving" is a good idea, or the failure to understand the limits of self defense. In all of these cases, these people were repeated victims of serious crimes and were getting no help at all from the government.

There are no "minor" offenses involved anywhere here. Breaking into people's buildings, and stealing from them is a serious offense.. even if it's just teenagers "garage hopping". the fact that teenagers think it's no big deal is meaningless; teenagers are notorious for adjusting the facts in their mind to justify doing what they want.

Theft of anything at all, even without the breaking and entering elements if almost always at least the highest form of misdemeanor there is; 1 step below a felony. Entering people's buildings is almost always a felony; it isn't the same at all as cutting across someone's lawn - it's almost always a felony and CAN be as serious a crime as rape or some kinds of murder depending on the circumstances.

Quit being horrified at people shooting criminals. That is not a bad thing. Your entire post consists of it being bad just "because". Why should anyone be horrified at this other than just emotional reaction to "zomg someone got shot!"?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Look, everyone is going to die some day. If criminals die faster than the rest of us, while in the act of serious criminal behavior, I'm not particularly concerned. It's possibly a good thing too. It should also be your right to defend your home against intruders. This is a right that has existed since the dawn of time, and it should be respected by the state.

The problem isn't shooting or booby-trapping criminals who break into your home. The problem is why they are doing this in the first place.

The prosecutor is making the claim that a trap was set and baited. That is what prosecutors do - push the scenario that characterizes the person in the most negative light possible. They do this because we have an adversarial system and prosecutors tend to be arrogant assholes second only to the DA.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Did he have a sign outside that said, "I HAVE BEER IN THE FRIDGE IN MY GARAGE! THIS WAY ------>"?

Curious how this is conceived as baiting. How is a potential thief to know the contents of the garage and/or fridge?

_________________

DE, you know I love you, bud, but I stopped reading you post exactly here.

You know why.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mon ... story.html

This guy was convicted of murder, and it was pretty much exactly how I said it was. He was deliberately setting a lethal trap for would be burglars.