Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104726921

This is an article about this guy from Oklahoma.  He shotoverkilled dead a thief and is being charged for murder.

What do you folks think?

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

I wholly support the "Make My Day Law" and the "Stand Your Ground Law".

And yea... it is excessive... but, I cannot fault the man.  I support him either way.

Albeit, on the other side of the spectrum, the dumb kid(s) may or may not have a good reason to flash a gun about trying to stick-up a Pharmecy... and a life had ended.  But, what good would that life have been in the end if he was already robbing stores with a gun?

Sure, he might have been a decent person, but, this was a risk he was willing to take.  Go against the common law... armed.  Expect someone out there to shoot back without prejudice or mercy.  That is the way it should be.

And to end this post...  Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again.  >.>

[inaluct]

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

Totally unacceptable. This could be someone walking into your office, and you think that he looks dangerous, so you kill him. Because you feel threatened.

If the intruder had to have a gun or a lethal weapon before you murdered him, I'd be okay with that. "Feeling threatened" is not an acceptable reason to kill someone, however. The law needs to be revised. Someone who busts down your door screaming "YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE GRRRR " is probably asking to get shot, but that doesn't mean the law needs to be so retardedly broad.

Typical fucking Oklahomans. I wish I could kill them all.

[Sowelu]

He took the guy down.  That's all he had the right to do.  Stopped him.

THEN he took it too far.

When someone goes from "defending themself" to "wrath", that person needs to be put away.  There's a distinct moral difference, a distinct societal and legal one too.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to kill freely.  Sometimes, defending yourself or others means killing someone--it can't be helped.  But once that kid was on the ground, he was done defending people.  He had no rights whatsoever to do harm--except when necessary in defense.

It would be hard to make first-degree murder stick, but second-degree, most certainly.  It was a heat-of-the-moment thing, but it WAS murder.

[LegoLord]

The make my day laws are highly controversial.  I doubt he'll win.  The reason for the laws being controversial is the high possibility, especially at night, of mistaking just about anyone for an intruder.  About once or twice a year, I think we're getting robbed, but it turns out it's one of my parents going to the kitchen to get a drink when I happened to be waking up in the middle of the night.

[Org]

I agree with Inaluct. He should have disarmed him, or threatened the intruder with his gun/frightened him away. Not kill him.

[Zai]

Y'know, I was just thinking about this type of thing the other day. =o

If someone's stealing your stuff (or is about to), you have the right to fight back. But what that guy did went too far. He shouldn't have shot the kid again when he was unconscious on the floor already. I agree with Sowelu. He went from self defense to wrathful murder.

[Zangi]

Typical fucking Oklahomans. I wish I could kill them all.

Your paint brush is pretty broad, but still isn't big enough to actually 'fix' things your way.  Considering the fact that I'm not an Oklahoman.  >.>
And I'm sure there are people in Oklahoma against the "Make My Day Law" and the "Stand Your Ground Law"...

@Org: One of the intruders were armed with a gun.  Picture it, some kid with a gun, who probably never went into a situation like that, pointing a gun at someone.  He sees that someone taking a gun out and point it back at him, telling him to go away/whatever.  Thats a lot of time, especially with a nervous finger on a trigger.  It may twitch the wrong way.  Not to mention the fact that he is a dumb kid with a gun.  He may or may not be stupid enough to think of the situation like an old western movie and/or shoot-em up video game...

Vs an old retired army veteran.  Military back then were probably not trained to deal with stupid civilians pointing guns at you...  Default assumption, enemy combatant...?  Or so I would believe...  Shoot first and you won't be shot back at... >.>

I do agree that putting 5 bullets into him after he was down... is excessive... but, I support it.  Why?
The kid had what was coming to him.  Its a nice little message.  Don't steal.  You can die for... what? 100-500 bucks in a cash register?  Is it worth it?

Back to: The gunman "forfeited his life."

(There are more articles on this floating around... so google em or something if you want to know more of the situation...)

[LegoLord]

You can die for... what? 100-500 bucks in a cash register?  Is it worth it?

. . .

You get the death penalty for murder or attempted murder, nothing less.  Not implication-that-he-might-pull-the-trigger-if-you-don't-do-as-asked.  Armed robbery doesn't even get you the death penalty.  You actually have to carry out the attempt to kill.  That's more than just pointing the gun.  To be frank, I find that statement of yours somewhat frightening.

[Zangi]

You can die for... what? 100-500 bucks in a cash register?  Is it worth it?

. . .

You get the death penalty for murder or attempted murder, nothing less.  Not implication-that-he-might-pull-the-trigger-if-you-don't-do-as-asked.  Armed robbery doesn't even get you the death penalty.  You actually have to carry out the attempt to kill.  That's more than just pointing the gun.  To be frank, I find that statement of yours somewhat frightening.

>.>  Yea, I suppose my opinion on this matter is frightening.  There are probably others with the same opinion.  The article in the first post even pointed out a caller saying that the druggist guy should've shot the kid in the head...

Fear not, as much... I can easily contradict my own opinion with another opinion later.  In a sense of thinking...
I think I already did when it comes to Somalian pirates...

I suppose I have far less tolerance for fellow citizens...  their actions in effect... reflect upon what is wrong with the nation... 
Fix yourself before you can say anything of others...

It helps that I don't know these people or don't care about them. >.>

Either way, what with the current economy.  Can't be helped.  But, it should be stomped out without mercy...  fear for life with effectively fatal counter-measures could be an... effective deterrent...

[LegoLord]

And then we'd effectively be a big brother state.  I mean, we already have the Patriot Act.  Death penalty for stealing is worse than some most fifth century punishments.  There is no moral justification.  Death penalty for murder causes enough controversy, because it "contradicts the 2 wrongs don't make a right" hypothesis.  Death for stealing would just be excessive.

[inaluct]

Totally agreed. Zangi, you're living in some sort of fantasy world. People like you make me sick, etc.

[Muz]

Dwarves do it, I don't see why we shouldn't.

Oh wait, it gets annoying when the dwarves do. Well, there's always liberty in America and the right to bear arms. You have to let them use those arms every now and then, especially when the bill is named after a trigger happy guy in a movie.

That sounded more sarcastic than I intended

[Org]

Because if people are killed to deter others, many will die for something they should be jailed for.
And that is not right. Zangi, you are messed up. WOrld doesn't work that way. People would rebel, and win. Hopefully.

[Zangi]

Cutting of a hand or arm then?  I believe that was implemented sometime ago... in some places...
That is if they get away with it and get caught later...

My opinion relates more to an on-site/occurring now kind of thing with a common citizen being able to protect one's property with deadly force...

EDIT:

@inaluct:
>.> At least I can tell the difference.  I do like my fantasy world very much thank you.
Wishful thinking if you will.  I know its not happening now and I know it is unlikely it will ever happen in America.  Changes like that... to be accepted and what-not... takes more then wishful thinking and fantasy.

[Org]

Pay the person back if it is  theft. Murder is different.