Thread: Live Free or Die, huh?

I keep seeing "Live Free or Die Hard" when I see the title of this thread.

He's seeing things folks, you read it here first...

But no i mean, again i would think the only distinction we have is what circumstances force is acceptable to use, not even upon whom we're using it on and where or when. We're not a million miles apart on this...

It's incredible how much race plays into this stuff.

It was only a few years ago that a black man out in the suburbs sat on his porch with his gun to confront a group of unarmed white minors, one of which he killed, and the liberal community went wild about him having a right to protect his family and home. They went so wild the governor later pardoned the man who spent virtually no time in jail. Now the liberal consensus is Mr. Fleming was wrong to fire into the ground while a man was burglarizing his home?

In New England Fleming will probably end up doing more time than the guy burglarizing his home and the man who shot an unarmed minor combined!

Originally Posted by Wagner

Now the liberal consensus is Mr. Fleming was wrong to fire into the ground while a man was burglarizing his home?

Where and when was this "liberal consensus" reached? At the "2012 Liberal Caucus On Mr. Fleming"? Was it on CSPAN? Was the consensus a large majority or did it just barely have enough liberals voting on Mr. Fleming being wrong? Is there anywhere I can read the minutes of the meeting where they reached this consensus? Do liberals convene to get a consensus on every minor issue, or do they just pick a couple minor issues a year and make a weekend out of deciding their view on them? I'm just curious, because the fact that the tens of millions of liberals in this country can all form the same opinion on an event most of them haven't even heard of is amazing. They must have some serious coordination abilities.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Think of it another way though...say the burglar escapes from your property and the police can't catch him and he thinks its an easy area to target...what happens when the next week or month, when he targets your neighbor or property down the road where there's defenseless old grandmother, or children or young(er) folks living and they can't defend themselves or get hurt or get killed by the same person...doesn't that prick your conscience, as well? Or what if it wad the other way round and he fled your neighbor's property and you could have stopped it...if he comes back for your place and hurts one of your family/friends/loved one, can you live with that?

Now granted, i'm not even sure what the laws are in France and to what extent you could do what to defend yourself, but you know what, when the law is on your side why look that gifthorse in the mouth?

So according to your train of thought. I should just shoot every stranger I see in town in the off chance that they might one day, some time in the future hurt someone I know. Should I have shot and killed that j-walker the other day because I had to hit my breaks and my wife that was following me could have rear ended me and got hurt.

Did you read what i wrote or are you replying to the wrong post?

Originally Posted by Traveler

Did you read what i wrote or are you replying to the wrong post?

I read what you wrote.

Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
Think of it another way though...say the burglar escapes from your property and the police can't catch him and he thinks its an easy area to target...what happens when the next week or month, when he targets your neighbor or property down the road where there's defenseless old grandmother, or children or young(er) folks living and they can't defend themselves or get hurt or get killed by the same person...doesn't that prick your conscience, as well? Or what if it wad the other way round and he fled your neighbor's property and you could have stopped it...if he comes back for your place and hurts one of your family/friends/loved one, can you live with that?

You're basically calling for a preemptive killing because of something someone might do next week, or next year, or in ten years...

Whilst in the act of committing a crime in which i think the use of deadly force is justified, to start with! The issue of recidivism is secondary and combined with behavioral patterns and current criminality. Not just random pre-emption.

You did indeed read my post, just such a shame you understood absolutely none of it.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Whilst in the act of committing a crime in which i think the use of deadly force is justified, to start with! The issue of recidivism is secondary and combined with behavioral patterns and current criminality. Not just random pre-emption.

You did indeed read my post, just such a shame you understood absolutely none of it.

I understood it completely, you're playing the "What IF" game which means absolutely nothing.

Or what if it wad the other way round and he fled your neighbor's property and you could have stopped it...if he comes back for your place and hurts one of your family/friends/loved one, can you live with that?

I have no problem with the man shooting into the ground, I would not have had a problem if the burglar had been killed if he had attacked the man. So now where are we. I doubt there will be any charges filed and the burglar is going to jail for several years, but...but what if he comes out and continues his life of crime and next time he kills someone, should we just keep him in jail for life just to be sure he can't do it again?

Perhaps you could put it into the context of the discussion i was actually having with Adrien about moral consciense and whether you could live with yourself or the memories, if you would be so kind? Maybe then you would realize we weren't even addressing anything to do with legality in that particular part of the conversation, but rather ethics and morals.

Ethics and morals are as varied as there are people, what I might see as ethical and moral you may not. I live in a very small area, the town square is 10 miles away. Our ethics and morals are different then those in large cities.

In cases we are discussing you have to look at the laws in play and not so much ethics and morals.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

There's a lot more details in this article from a local paper. Not only didn't he call the police for a very extended period of time, there were apparently neighbors nearby who had congregated outside to watch him hunt for the burglar:

Farmington homeowner doesn't regret firing gun: Though he might take different approach to stopping burglar in future

So what? One is not obligated to simply call the cops and let the bad guy do whatever he wants.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

It's a town of 6000. I doubt it took them long at all to show up.

A town that small may take longer. You've probably only got one cop shop in town with maybe 3 officers on duty at any given moment.