Vigilante or Helpful Citizen?

William Haskins · May 11, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
I'm not posting again until Mr. Haskins gets rid of that hideous avatar. I almost said that over a month ago about Haggis' and THAT awful avatar, but I refrained. And miraculously, it was changed into a red-eyed puppy. Awful but tolerable.

Now I'm done. And I suspect permanently, except for the edit. It would be almost impossible for Mr. Haskins to give this particularly revolting avatar up, given the pressure to keep it by my all too vocal adversaries, the fission in our politics and - let's see, how do put this diplomatically - ah, I know. . . our personality confict.

i would never let the "fission in our politics" or our "personality conflict", much less a silly avatar, keep you from posting.

you're a national treasure.

robeiae · May 11, 2009

William Haskins said:
you're a national treasure.

I'm not posting again until you take that back.

Cyia · May 11, 2009

If everyone on this thread refuses to post again until someone _______, I think we might have a spontaneous choreographed flounce.

dgiharris · May 11, 2009

rugcat said:
There is a huge difference between someone trying to prevent a crime and someone trying to apprehend a suspect after the crime is committed.

As I said, you can shoot someone kicking in the door to your house, attempting to enter. You cannot chase them down the street afterwards and shoot them as they try to get away. I'm not familiar with the law in all fifty states, but I think that distinction is almost universal.

I agree. However, there is also a criteria in which one is justified in using deadly force.

There are cases where someone was breaking into a home, was shot, and the homeowner STILL went to trial.

But my point is that just because a crime is being committed doesn't necessarily justify deadly force. Some states have strict criteria for when you can use deadly force and in the more narrowed viewed states it is only when your life is in direct 'imminent' danger.

Mel...

Bird of Prey · May 11, 2009

William Haskins said:
i would never let the "fission in our politics" or our "personality conflict", much less a silly avatar, keep you from posting.

you're a national treasure.

Thank you.

Contemplative · May 11, 2009

Vigilantism is very bad. This isn't vigilantism by any means. I think the man did the right thing, and I applaud him. I don't know of any law he broke by stopping the fleeing driver.

I'm not sure cases like this offset the cases where gun control could have saved lives; it's anecdotal evidence either way.

I do support castle doctrine, at least as far as people who have broken into sealed private buildings are concerned. (I'm not as eager to defend a farmer's right to shoot kids playing in his field; that's a bit different from home invasion, after all -- especially when talking about an acreage.) Conventional liberal wisdom is deeply tainted by moral relativism on this topic IMO. I would have no problem with gun laws that allow ownership of a gun as long as it stays on the individual's property and no one is employed on the property.

James81 · May 11, 2009

robeiae said:
I'm not posting again until you take that back.

For every post you refuse to make, I'm going to make three.

Bird of Prey · May 11, 2009

Contemplative said:
Vigilantism is very bad. This isn't vigilantism by any means. I think the man did the right thing, and I applaud him. I don't know of any law he broke by stopping the fleeing driver.

I'm not sure cases like this offset the cases where gun control could have saved lives; it's anecdotal evidence either way.

I do support castle doctrine, at least as far as people who have broken into sealed private buildings are concerned. (I'm not as eager to defend a farmer's right to shoot kids playing in his field; that's a bit different from home invasion, after all -- especially when talking about an acreage.) Conventional liberal wisdom is deeply tainted by moral relativism on this topic IMO. I would have no problem with gun laws that allow ownership of a gun as long as it stays on the individual's property and no one is employed on the property.

I'm all for gun ownership, but not brandishing a gun at a hit and run criminal. He would have been better off getting a license plate number.

The deed was done. What he did wasn't preventative. If he had been defending somebody, I'd be inclined to commend his actions.

Vigilante or Helpful Citizen?

William Haskins

poet

robeiae

Touch and go

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member

Contemplative

AW Addict

James81

Great Scott Member

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member