TresCrows-
<font color=blue>Even bad people can change and we are not to judge the value of a life.</font color=blue>
That's a very nice opinion, and you may believe you are taking the proverbial "moral high ground," but suffice to say the law (in Texas that is) does not agree with your pacifist belief. And I quote.....
<font color=green>§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.</font color=green>
So, again, opinion flies in the face of fact, and law. You may not like the law, you may even disagree with it, that's fine, but the law states that you, in Texas at least, do indeed have “the right” to make judgement regarding the use of lethal force in protection of property.
Is Texas the "Wild West?" If we are using your standards for "civilization," perhaps. So be it - I'd rather live in a state that puts VICTIMS RIGHTS at a higher priority than a criminal's "RIGHTS." ‘Course just because the law says you can use such force, it doesn’t mean that you must. If you choose not to - hey, that’s fine too - but don’t espouse a bunch of nonsense about nobody having the “right.”
Oh, as far as "bad people changing" -- you obviously have not dealt much with the criminal element. While just about anything is possible, the recidivism rate is very high - e.g. most "bad people" don't change their ways.
<font color=blue> saw a recent case on Fox</font color=blue>
Oh boy... If it was on TV it MUST true and the whole story must have been presented.../w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif
<font color=blue>So she did and won--100,000 dollars. She said she never wanted anything but for them to split the bill--4,000 dollars.</font color=blue>
/w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif Hmmmmm... so if she ONLY wanted $4,000, why did she sue for $100,000??? Why didn't she sue for $4,000 + lawyer fees??? Yea, she sounds credible to me. /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif Don't know anything about the case, but it sure smells like a case "lawsuit lottery" to me. I mean, her lawsuit is in direct opposition to her statement.
<font color=blue>The setting of traps though you guys are on your own.</font color=blue>
Never saw anyone above encourage setting of any type of lethal trap. Saw some comments to the effect of saying that they didn't have a big problem with it and some don't have much sympathy for folks breaking the law who get hurt while doing it - but never saw anybody advocating stringing razor wire in camouflage in order to maliciously hurt/kill anyone.
I find it pretty interesting how you use religion as well. Sorry, I don't think you are the orifice for "The Almighty," so I'll pretty much ignore your "religiously inspired" judgement on everyone who believes differently than you.
Wroughtn Harv -
<font color=blue>It is so easy to make it a black and white situation. Bad kid willingly tresspasses and gets what he deserved. But he sounds like one of us that wasn't lucky. </font color=blue>
Maybe - Maybe not...
(a) We don’t know if he was trespassing or not for sure (although it sure is starting to smell that way) - I’m not a trespasser, are you? Nope, he may (or may not) be anything like me.
(b) A “blurp” in a newspaper from associates hardly makes this kid a saint. Those are very nice words from the school administrator & employers. Did you expect differently? How often do people speak badly about the dead? Funny about how only the “good” things are spoken about the deceased, even if they were rotten to the core. It’s interesting how death colors one’s opinion. You also left out the other part of the article that said, <font color=red>”Ernest knew the area and led the pair of snowmobiles toward the cable in an apparent effort to go around it.”</font color=red> Hmmmm. Maybe it was a “one time lapse in judgement,” maybe this kid wasn’t as good a kid as you seem to imply.
I agree that it is probably not a “black and white” situation - but I haven’t seen that opinion coming from those advocating property rights - quite the opposite. I also find it interesting how everyone seems to be jumping on the “poor innocent kid, tragic event” bandwagon when they know virtually nothing about the incident and nothing at all about the kid involved. Depends on what one classifies as a “tragedy” I suppose. Kindof like the word "hero" - you do the slightest thing, you're classified as a "hero." I think it belittles those who are genuine heros. Kidof like that pilot a few years back who got shot down in Bosnia. Hmm, all he managed to do was get shot down and evade capture until picked up - and then later filed a lawsuit aginst the folks who made the film "Behind Enemy Lines" because he said it was based on him and he deserved a portion of the money. Yea, a "real" hero indeed..../w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif
Maybe this kid was a great person and “salt of the earth” - but, maybe, just maybe he wasn’t. Yes, the “rush to judgement” continues I’m afraid (along with the advocating of how “everyone’s a victim” and people should not be held responsible for their actions).
