Originally posted by Surtur
It's okay man, after all the times you've whined about others not using words properly I'd wanna cover up your silliness with the word execution too.But just to reiterate: this was not an execution.
For someone who said he wasn't upset over my correct use of the word 'execution', as words can and do have more than one meaning and usage, you sure do keep bitching and moaning about it.
Originally posted by Robtard
For someone who said he wasn't upset over my correct use of the word 'execution', you sure do keep bitching and moaning about it.
What I was saying is that you were upset over being called out on not using it properly.
Also, by your logic this would mean whenever you have said similar things about the usage of words it would mean you were upset by those. I look forward to which excuse you'll use for why it is different lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, feel the same, no one here has said the shooter needs to be punished or that he was in the wrong.
He wasn't in the wrong because he made it out alive though. If he had gotten himself and all his family murdered because he tried to gun down invaders, it'd be more of an argument.
I know there is some sensible macho people who get hurt by this kind of logic, but as a general rule, the best way to avoid danger is to flee when confronted with unknown odds. No general would willingly jump into a battle where he has no idea what he's going to face. Of course, if you have your wife and children in the bedrooms and you estimate that fleeing without being noticed is not happening, you weight your odds, but if you have the chance to flee it should be high on your list of priorities.
The essence of safety is avoiding potential damage.
Originally posted by Bentley
He wasn't in the wrong because he made it out alive though. If he had gotten himself and all his family murdered because he tried to gun down invaders, it'd be more of an argument.I know there is some sensible macho people who get hurt by this kind of logic, but as a general rule, the best way to avoid danger is to flee when confronted with unknown odds. No general would willingly jump into a battle where he has no idea what he's going to face. Of course, if you have your wife and children in the bedrooms and you estimate that fleeing without being noticed is not happening, you weight your odds, but if you have the chance to flee it should be high on your list of priorities.
The essence of safety is avoiding potential damage.
Sure, as noted, it's unfortunate he decided to execute three invaders, as it's unfortunate those three people decided to invade. But the shooter wasn't in the wrong, even if in hindsight he should have chosen a different path. Like calling 911 and yelling into the house that the cops are on the way and that he has an assault rifle, which likely would have made these three kids flee.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, feel the same, no one here has said the shooter needs to be punished or that he was in the wrong. Some people just like to force arguments where they don't exist.
For me this became a different discussion halfway through the thread. In the OP this was asked:
"Was he wrong? Was he right? Do you agree with the Oklahoma law and the DA's decision?".
This was about this specific situation and also if people agreed with the law and the decision. A discussion about if it is wrong to kill people you know mean you no harm is different IMO. That also would seem like something with an obvious answer that doesn't need a debate: of course it's wrong to kill for no good reason.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I feel sorry for the kid that was forced to kill the armed intruders in self-defense.
Yep, he has to live with this for the rest of his life. He also potentially is going to have to deal with the families of those who perpetrated this crime.
I know he was cleared of charges, but I have heard of similar cases where the person was cleared of killing an intruder, but the family of the criminals were still able to try to sue them at a later point. Which even if they do not win that lawsuit..that still consumes time and money from the guy they tried to rob.
Originally posted by Kurk
The civil lawsuits are a pain in the ass as is the sheer publicity you get to follow you around forever. As an aspiring business person, I can't afford to soil my image. This why I'd recommend for myself and anyone else in this situation to seek other options if possible
Yes, and even for people who don't need to worry about publicity..it is still expensive to defend yourself.
This is why I feel we really need a law that says that anyone who brings a frivolous lawsuit against someone has to pay all of that persons legal expenses if they lose.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's also possible the families genuinely had no clue these teens were capable of this. Which if that is the case I feel bad for them as well, they will spend the rest of their lives wondering why they didn't see the signs and wondering if they did something wrong in raising them.
Hopefully they will turn out to be good people and not try and cash in on their relatives crimminal activity.
Pretty much gets it right...
Originally posted by SurturSome states like North Dakota have passed such laws allowing motorists to be immune from both civil suits and criminal charges if they "accidentally" run-over a protester blocking a high-way. Great strike against the BLM idiots.
Yes, and even for people who don't need to worry about publicity..it is still expensive to defend yourself.This is why I feel we really need a law that says that anyone who brings a frivolous lawsuit against someone has to pay all of that persons legal expenses if they lose.