In the news today

[XanBcoo]

Cold-blooded man, though I agree with you on conservative values and laws governing justice and making the world a safer place.

It's the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?source=...951961ff9ba31d

Bah, don't quote the first part of my post and skip the second part about how there are consequences and that every effort must be made to avoid lethal force if the situation allows for it.

First article, they left his house, that's already past the point where he could have justified it. The second article...that's just Texas, of course they'll acquit the guy.

Oh, I wasn't so much replying to you as I was mocking Castle Law in general. Responding to anything less than a life-threatening situation in self-defense using deadly force is ridiculous.

I'm happy there are systems in place to allow for self-defense. I am disgusted by the vigilantism and blood lust it stirs up in trigger-happy rednecks.

[Animeniax]

It's the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?source=...951961ff9ba31d

Definitely "tough on crime" doesn't work as a system of social control to prevent deviance, but what I'm primarily concerned with is protecting me and mine, and if laws allow that, then I'm all for them.

I don't think its cool to be trespassing. What does it say about the law when people are fully aware of it, yet break it anyway?

In all seriousness, though, imagine yourself in that old guy's position. Say you see a bunch of guys sneaking around stealing your friend's personal stuff. You call the authorities, but it's very likely that by the time they arrive, the thieves will be long gone. What do you do? If your answer is "sit and wait," then I'm going to have to accuse you of either being naive in thinking everything will pan out just fine, or being a coward because confrontation is scary.

Also keep in mind the revolving door nature of crime and punishment. Even if the two burglars were arrested, they'd most likely be out within a couple of years under plea bargain or for some other bs reason (jail overcrowding). I wouldn't want to risk them coming back for revenge or just to burglarize our homes again.

[XanBcoo]

Lol, and XanBcoo, the forum's bleeding-heart liberal, makes a b-line into the conversation. This is why Texas has the lowest reports of burglary in the country. Meanwhile in other states, a thief can trip and hurt himself in an attempt to break into your house and then SUE you for damages.

I don't think it's cool to murder people for trespassing.

Look at my heart.

It's bleeding.

[Assertn]

I don't think it's cool to murder people for trespassing.

I don't think its cool to be trespassing. What does it say about the law when people are fully aware of it, yet break it anyway?

In all seriousness, though, imagine yourself in that old guy's position. Say you see a bunch of guys sneaking around stealing your friend's personal stuff. You call the authorities, but it's very likely that by the time they arrive, the thieves will be long gone. What do you do? If your answer is "sit and wait," then I'm going to have to accuse you of either being naive in thinking everything will pan out just fine, or being a coward because confrontation is scary.

So let's say you decide to confront them. Now you're in a situation where either:
A) the suspects surrender
B) the suspects flee
C) the suspects attack

Sure, surrender would be ideal, but you don't know what's going on through their heads. You don't even know what they're carrying or what they're capable of. Unless you're going out there with a weapon, I highly doubt they'll surrender, so you need to be in a position of power before you can even challenge them. Now you have a weapon, and the targets might also have weapons, and now the situation escalades.

This is basically exactly what happened as far as the story narrated. The old guy didn't sound like he was Yosemite Sam waiting for the chance to shoot up some varmints. He was in a state of panic and knew he had to do something. He found himself in a dangerous position and reacted the way he felt he needed to in order to dissolve the conflict. Sure, he could've just shot them in the legs, but I wasn't there, so I'm not going to make that call.

Honestly, I think its really easy for any of us to just sit here in our warm comfy rooms sipping on chai tea lattes and argue that justice always prevails and that the system will keep us safe. Meanwhile we watch on as 15 year old girls get raped, or allow our planes full of passengers to be hijacked just because a couple guys brought box-cutters onboard, all because we're not "certified law enforcers." I think it's awesome to see a community look out for one another, and it was brave of someone to risk their life to protect someone else's possessions, and its arrogant to believe that if you suddenly found yourself in a similar position, you would be able to handle the situation like any upstanding saturday-morning cartoon superhero.

[Pandadice]

Wait a minute, I can't shoot them after they're off my property? .. well it's a good thing I didn't report the last two guys I killed.

[Carnage]

Not complicated: You break into a home, you pay the consequences.

[Pandadice]

I'm sorry, my last post wasn't fully expressed. My point was that these people don't need to "face the consequences," these people simply need help. So a desperate crack addict breaks in to your house to steal your TV so they can get their next fix. They don't need to be shoot and killed, they need to be rehabilitated and given the ability to straighten their life out (uhg. I hate the sound of that phrase. it makes me sound like I'm some superior human who has the right to judge other people's life choices...). You might say "so what, it's just some insane crack addict who doesn't contribute anything to society anyways," and I'd say so the person made some bad calls when they were younger. You could very well have done the same wrong yet easy to make choices had you been in their shoes. Don't try to act like because you come from a privileged upper-middle class (or even high class) family you're a better human than they are.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.

[XanBcoo]

So a desperate crack addict breaks in to your house to steal your TV so they can get their next fix. They don't need to be shoot and killed, they need to be rehabilitated and given the ability to straighten their life out (uhg. I hate the sound of that phrase. it makes me sound like I'm some superior human who has the right to judge other people's life choices...). You might say "so what, it's just some insane crack addict who doesn't contribute anything to society anyways," and I'd say so the person made some bad calls when they were younger.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.

Hey man, better put some gauze on that heart.

It's bleeding.

Edit for real response: In a world where someone can morally justify American soldiers murdering civilians in Iraq, shooting a kid in the back for stealing your Twinkies is a perfectly reasonable solution. I mean, you weren't there, so no questions asked. Fire away.

However, Ryll and Animeniax are absolutely right about jail. Go through some links from the search I posted. Our criminal justice system doesn't work.

Not complicated: You break into a home, you pay the consequences.

*puts on batman mask*
*shoots teenager in the face*

Sure, surrender would be ideal, but you don't know what's going on through their heads. You don't even know what they're carrying or what they're capable of. Unless you're going out there with a weapon, I highly doubt they'll surrender, so you need to be in a position of power before you can even challenge them. Now you have a weapon, and the targets might also have weapons, and now the situation escalades.

Then don't escalate the situation? I don't see what you're trying to convince me of with that example. If you recognize the danger in going into a confrontation where someone will almost certainly wind up dead, you should be smart enough to choose the less drastic option. If I had to decide between letting my tv get stolen or inciting a firefight I would be ok with the former. It has nothing to do with naivete or cowardice and everything to do with not murdering another human being or risking getting killed myself:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

[Carnage]

*puts on batman mask*
*shoots teenager in the face*

Actually I am curious, does anyone have a statistic on how many of the break-ins in the United States are pulled off by teenagers?

[XanBcoo]

Actually I am curious, does anyone have a statistic on how many of the break-ins in the United States are pulled off by teenagers?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html

Haven't had a chance to poke through it yet, but the fbi has a list of crime statistics from 2009.

[Carnage]

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html

Haven't had a chance to poke through it yet, but the fbi has a list of crime statistics from 2009.

Thanks, I took a look through it and found one for 2009 broken down by age groups:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_38.html

1/3rd of burglaries are by people younger than 18, I'm actually surprised.

In suburban areas, its 1/4th. Still a much larger number than I would think.

[Animeniax]

You could very well have done the same wrong yet easy to make choices had you been in their shoes. Don't try to act like because you come from a privileged upper-middle class (or even high class) family you're a better human than they are.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.

You'd better not be talking to me with this post. I'm not white, upper-middle class, or privileged, but I do not make the bad choices whether or not I've been in their shoes. There are always opportunities to improve your situation, but some are illegal. The difference is in the choices you make to improve your situation (even if that's just getting your next fix), but some decisions will get you killed by someone like me who does things the legal and right way to improve his situation.

I agree with your stance on drug addicts, they should be strapped down and left to rot while their own addiction drives them crazy and eats at their bodies. I've long supported using the mentally handicapped and prison populations for science (in the interest of greater good for all humans). Btw, you should know that calling them "retarded" is offensive.

[enkoujin]

I agree with your stance on drug addicts, they should be strapped down and left to rot while their own addiction drives them crazy and eats at their bodies. I've long supported using the mentally handicapped and prison populations for science (in the interest of greater good for all humans). Btw, you should know that calling them "retarded" is offensive.

Coincidentally, I am reading a book about Henrietta Lacks. Up until the 1970's, physician-scientists did perform human experimentation such as injecting viruses and causes of diseases into prison inmates and volunteers often without consent for the "good of science".

As for mentally handicapped people, I am in a conundrum with what to do with or treat them because their situations conflict my morals.

I can't really go into details with my opinions on social issues, but to fix most issues in society, there should be more focus on preventing devastating situation x with preventitive measures y - e.g., revamp the educational system to reinforce the value of education through borderline indoctrination, which will lessen the rates of crime.

I mean, seriously, the reason why we have shitty kids today who indulge in debauchery and all this crime is because some parents couldn't raise their children properly. Because of this, you, your neighbour and your bretheren are the ones who have to pay for the product of someone's unplanned or terrible child-raising techniques. This is something that doesn't sit quite well with me.

You don't have to be rich or poor (though it helps) to raise children the right way - you just have to have to instill plain old discipline and good morals into them through the use of moderate child physical punishment.

I can't really say much, since I'm not an expert on social issues, but my suggest is that the government should enforce mandatory parenting classes for those expecting their first born children so we have less crime going on.

Furthermore, I agree with using guns to kill people who tresspass on your property. If someone you don't want is on your property and is doing (most often) some bad shit in your house, you have the right to protect your own property.

[Animeniax]

I mean, seriously, the reason why we have shitty kids today who indulge in debauchery and all this crime is because some parents couldn't raise their children properly. Because of this, you, your neighbour and your bretheren are the ones who have to pay for the product of someone's unplanned or terrible child-raising techniques. This is something that doesn't sit quite well with me.

You don't have to be rich or poor (though it helps) to raise children the right way - you just have to have to instill plain old discipline and good morals into them through the use of moderate child physical punishment.

I agree with you on all points. Republicans like to say that other peoples' kids are those peoples' problems, they shouldn't be a burden on everyone else. But if you don't take care of those kids, they will become criminals and cause more trouble for the good people. So in raising up the lowly to succeed, we help society as a whole. I'm not a Democrat, but I do agree with that line of thinking. Improve the conditions for the worst of society, and that improves the condition of all of humanity.

I also think we need to go back to physical punishment of children, ie paddling at schools and belt lashings at home. Timeouts do not work.

[Kraco]

I also think we need to go back to physical punishment of children, ie paddling at schools and belt lashings at home. Timeouts do not work.

Forbidding physical punishments is fucked up. It's exactly the kind of thinking that has no practical basis, only theoretical. Also the kind of thinking that seems so saintly it might get you a few votes from voters who don't anymore or yet have kids of the significant age. But I don't know how a politician proposing removing the ban would fare in the next elections.

[Ryllharu]

Coincidentally, I am reading a book about Henrietta Lacks. Up until the 1970's, physician-scientists did perform human experimentation such as injecting viruses and causes of diseases into prison inmates and volunteers often without consent for the "good of science".

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

[Animeniax]

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

I've wondered about the uproar over the Tuskegee syphillis experiment, particularly the issue people have with not informing the subjects or providing the cure when it became available. If the guys didn't know about the treatment anyway, what's wrong with not telling them? People need to educate themselves, not wait for others to tell them what's what.

[enkoujin]

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

The book (Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot) about Henrietta Lacks discussed other medical events like the Tuskgee syphilis experiment and Southam's [other] experiments - I never said that Henrietta Lacks was the subject of unfair human experimentation.

I apologize for any misunderstandings you may have had, Ryllharu.

If the guys didn't know about the treatment anyway, what's wrong with not telling them? People need to educate themselves, not wait for others to tell them what's what.

From what I've read in the book, some of the inmates from the Ohio pentitary volunteered to be medical lab rats. They hoped that by being experiments, they could redeem themselves from the crimes they've done. I wonder why we don't have criminals with such nobleness in this day and age.

[UChessmaster]

4 year old girl gets sued for negligence

Only in America.

[Kraco]

Only in America.

They'll soon start to sue animals as well, like they did in medieval Europe.