This thief got fucked up

[Nick]

I worked construction for 2 years full time and all of my high school years so I know where you're coming from. You're not going to get laid off a job if your tools get stolen.

I just don't think it's any citizen's right to play judge, jury and executioner.

The fact of the matter is that no one knows the whole story other than what you're going to hear from someone who just beat a man to death so I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. What we have here is someone who got aggravated that someone was robbing him and he lost his cool. If it was a black guy who didn't have a job outside of his car who handed out the beating would everyone feel the same way?

I'll be the first to say that anyone who steals from someone else can choke on a foot long, broken glass, dogshit sandwich but they don't deserve to die for trying to break into someone's truck.

Self-preservation is probably the best and only motivation that all people will/could understand. If an unlawful act (even one as simple as theft) were an immediate cause for justifiable homicide, people would not be so quick to commit such an act. If this were the case, the "victim" may have considered that stealing a productive citizens means for income wasn't worth the the possibility of losing his life over. Maybe then he would've walked to the nearest mcdonalds and asked for a job! Self-preservation is a primal instinct (one of the last we still possess) that maybe we should use to invoke a certain type of reasoning that comes with it to prevent such things. Of course, we would have to stop inserting religious moral "such as, god is the only true judge" into law. Religion and law do not have any place mixing with each other. This country was founded with the right of freedom of religion. Coincidentally, some people aren't christian, live in the U.S, have no desire to follow christian law"obviously, considering the trigger to this convo"... Knowing that, check your history facts, this country wasn't actually founded on a christian foundation. Nor was it founded solely or majority by christians.... check into the founding fathers and deism, you may be surprised....

[0 GT 2]

Self-preservation is probably the best and only motivation that all people will/could understand. If an unlawful act (even one as simple as theft) were an immediate cause for justifiable homicide, people would not be so quick to commit such an act. If this were the case, the "victim" may have considered that stealing a productive citizens means for income wasn't worth the the possibility of losing his life over. Maybe then he would've walked to the nearest mcdonalds and asked for a job! Self-preservation is a primal instinct (one of the last we still possess) that maybe we should use to invoke a certain type of reasoning that comes with it to prevent such things. Of course, we would have to stop inserting religious moral "such as, god is the only true judge" into law. Religion and law do not have any place mixing with each other. This country was founded with the right of freedom of religion. Coincidentally, some people aren't christian, live in the U.S, have no desire to follow christian law"obviously, considering the trigger to this convo"... Knowing that, check your history facts, this country wasn't actually founded on a christian foundation. Nor was it founded solely or majority by christians.... check into the founding fathers and deism, you may be surprised....

Anyone will agree that if you increase the punishment for theft to murder crime will go down. If you got thrown in jail for going 5 over the speed limit people would slow poke around town everywhere. My main problem with is by setting the punishment at death you're saying that a human life is worth a hammer or a stereo. The punishment has to fit the crime or there is no justice. Sharia Law is widely accepted as the harshest in the world and their penalty for theft isn't even death.

It's ridiculous that there is even an argument on this website, or anywhere for that matter where people try to justify a murder over a theft. I don't know if it's a part of the lying about income, IQ, dick size, internet badass mentality or what. I also don't know why you jumped straight to religion in your response to my post since I said nothing about it in this thread.

And you're talking to a US History minor, I know plenty about the Founding Fathers. It's just that talking about them now is irrelevant since the 10th Amendment has made this a state issue.

I don't know all the in's and out's of the case but by looking at the bare facts I think it's going to be tough for him to not come away with some kind of charge. This may end up being a mark against the Castle Doctrine at the end of the day.

[Cooter]

a hammer or a stereo is worth more than a waste of oxygen's life...

[Misfire]

......occupational hazard.

[BlackSnake]

I guess shooting a thief is better in the legal eyes than a beating?

[Cooter]

I guess shooting a thief is better in the legal eyes than a beating?

correct

[CJ]

If I caught the bitch that stole my stereo, I would probably have beaten him to death also. No compassion for worthless human debris.

[CJ]

The punishment has to fit the crime or there is no justice. Sharia Law is widely accepted as the harshest in the world and their penalty for theft isn't even death.

Penalty for theft isn't death. However, it can be. If you break into MY house, penalty for theft will be death. If you break into my neighbors house, it may be 10 years and out in 3. One cannot interpret intent when your own life is on the line, which is why discretion is given. You want to cite the founding fathers, however you fail to think through your own suggestion. We don't even know what happened here. Maybe these guys approached him and he turned around fearing for his life and imprisonment and brandished a blade, or maybe he attacked one of them, had a weapon, etc. The truth is, if some thieves and burglars don't get shot, beaten, and maimed - more will find the occupation worth the risk.

[Captain Crawfish]

theyll probably get jail time for killing him even if he was a sorry ass POS.

[SSMAN]

every profession has its hazards.

god bless.

This!

He took a beating and died. It was his choice to be a thief.

I think they should be rewarded for a job well done.

[0 GT 2]

Penalty for theft isn't death. However, it can be. If you break into MY house, penalty for theft will be death. If you break into my neighbors house, it may be 10 years and out in 3. One cannot interpret intent when your own life is on the line, which is why discretion is given. You want to cite the founding fathers, however you fail to think through your own suggestion. We don't even know what happened here. Maybe these guys approached him and he turned around fearing for his life and imprisonment and brandished a blade, or maybe he attacked one of them, had a weapon, etc. The truth is, if some thieves and burglars don't get shot, beaten, and maimed - more will find the occupation worth the risk.

When it comes to law and the interpretation of it you have to have the facts stay the same when you make parallels. I am all for protecting my house with lethal force and if a robber has the balls to try to rob someone while they're in the truck I think lethal force is a reasonable there too, but that's not the case here. Someone broke the law by trying to steal from someone else's truck when no one was there, which is chicken shit but as I said before: outside of the truck, 4 on one, killing the person just doesn't seem reasonable.

I know my view on this is in the minority here so I'm fine with stating my peace and leaving it be.