Yes, it was in Gardenia about ten years ago and since he was in a sidewalk with the walk signal and carrying a white cane, the driver was sentenced to manslaughter.:)

I read only Jeff's first post.

It continues to disturb me that anything remotely connected to liberals is a dirty word. The article chose, among other things, to use the term "clintonian" in the worst possible context. And I think it is more than ironic that "libera" would be considered a bad thing among people who value personal freedoms and liberties. Clearly, there has been a traitorous twisting of those terms.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I come from a small logging town in Idaho where the life of a burglar would be counted in days or weeks, but not months or years. If you sneak into somebody's house in my home town, and you get noticed, you will probably be killed. And that is the way it should be.

Amusingly, and perhaps of interest to some here, a state Senator from my home town once suggested a local county ordinance that would have required all area homes to have a firearm, and ammunition for that fireart. Most do, anyway. Clearly, that's amusing. What is even more interesting about it is the reaction you people are likely to have and what that says about the value you place on freedom. You see, nitwits are likely to think that is good legislation. Those of us who value freedom think it's a good suggestion, and bad legislation.

Supe:

1). Clintonian refers to the actions of Bill Clinton (I assume they aren't talking about Hilary), not liberals in general. I'm sure there are a lot of liberals out there who are embarrassed by the actions of Bill Clinton, just like there are conservatives who are embarrassed by the actions of GWB.

2). If you are concerned about how liberals are viewed, perhaps you should start with our own poster child for liberalism right here on the board who defends this kind of stuff and considers anyone who might think different a "Bushie". Obviously from the postings of yourself, Kach and Dottore there are plenty of liberal folks out there who agree this kind of stuff is pretty out there.

Clintonian pain refers to feeling empathy for the victim. It's not related to actions of Billy or anything liberal.

I defend a jury's right to convict a man for shooting another man in the back, while the other man is running away.

That you believe in your mind it is "liberal" to defend the jury system, and to punish those who shoot others in the back, is a sad commentary on the state of "conservatism" in America.

Bored now.

http://www.heyrick.co.uk/willow/ep3_09/wish15.jpeg

Which is why it's not a liberal debate in the classic sense at all.

Shooting a guy in the back and leaving him on your lawn to die will get you put away in the USA. The rest of the story is for any of the Brits here to explain, I'm as curious about this as the O.J. outcome.

Who had a hard heart? The guy who wrote the 10 Commandments?

I love Texas.

Steve, I think you might missunderstand Christ's teachings. Nowhere does he ask that we give in to burglars, robbers, or other criminals. He asks that we forgive them if they amend their ways and leave their life of crime. He actually implores his disciples to be wary in their travels, ready to defend themselves if need be.

Are you familiar with the garden of Gethsemane? Roman soldiers came there to sieze Christ after Judas betrayed Him. Peter was with Him, and in an attempt to defend Him against the Roman soldiers, wound up cutting off one of their ears with his sword. (An unlicensed sword, no doubt.) ;) You can bet your a$$ he wasn't aiming for the ear, either.

These people armed themselves as a matter of course. Peter did not have to run and get his sword, he did not have to call the police; he was responsible for his own defense. They lived in dangerous times, with violent criminals on the loose. Much like today.

I think Christ would be appalled at how we treat criminals today. Our understanding and forgiveness is expected, by some, to precede their reform. It just does not work that way; it cannot work that way. The truly criminal element among us has taken every advantage of that expectation for far too long. Give up that life of crime, make an honest effort to better themselves, seek help, and the good people of this world - Christians or not - will welcome and help them. At least I hope they would; I think we all hope for that. Continue an unappologetic life of crime, and society should drop the hammer on them, with Chritians help in swinging it. With Christ's blessings on their actions.

The rest of the story is even more interesting. Christ healed the soldier's ear and told Peter to check himself. He said He could call down legions of angels to wipe out the Romans at any time. That was some real restraint.

There's the dilemma. The conservatives in this thread are for emptying the clip into the burglars. The liberals are for punishing the homeowner for shooting the burglar in the back. It's too bad Solomon doesn't own a 911.

The laws and rules of the old testament which are far more in number than 10 would not have been needed if the people of that time complied with God's teaching to love Him and their neighbor as themselves. Failing to be able to do that, having a hard heart, necessitates the common laws of non-Christ centered secular society.


Jeff, I think I do understand Christ's teachings. Only God can take life. And our love should have no precursors as you suggest.

Not in Texas and believe not in Arizona either. Someone comes into your property or house they are fair game. If you feel threatened you may defend yourself as you see fit.

This man had been robbed before and the police had done nothing about it. Again he was robbed and felt threatened once more and shot to defend himself.

Someday hopefully England and some of our states will return to their senses but its going to take a lot of robberies, injuries and probably murders to occur before people realize that the path they are on now is not the right one.

I've known about the case for years, including every detail down to the tiniest sliver. The burglar(s) got less than what they deserved. Tony Martin is a victim of state abuse, period.

There were no mitigating circumstances.

This sort of abuse by government is the primary reason the various states are passing the "Castle Doctrine" laws.

You're saying no laws would be needed if we could love our God and our neighbor as we love ourselves? Gotcha. I agree.

The next sentence has me stumped, though. Do you mean that people who believe in Christ need no common laws but everyone else does? I'm trying to imagine a hard hearted true Buddhist.

You show both great understanding in your first paragraph and great missunderstanding in your second. I really do not want to belabor the point. Suffice to say that in the heat of the moment, love has nothing to do with it. Anyone CAN take a life; God is, granted, the only one who SHOULD take a life. In this sinful world, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a life from an evil man that is bent on harm.

Back on track, Pat nails it right on the head. For those of you that have not heard the term "Castle Doctrine", it refers to man's innate right to defend his "castle". Home, property, loved ones, etc., from criminal attack. Too many home owners in our own country have been prosecuted for defending themselves in their homes. There are actually several states and/or municipalities (Pat, can you help me with this one - I'm not sure which ones) that require, by law, that a home owner make every reasonable attempt to avoid confrontation with an intruder in their home. Right up to the point of leaving that home, if possible, while the intruder is in it. How insane. How insane that we have reached the point where a law correcting that situation is needed.

Thankfully, not in Arizona...anymore.

Lock 'n' load!!

so if an unarmed person comes into your home, you come down the stairs with your Glock, he runs out of the house and you drop him with 5 shots in the back at 25' on the street in front of your house, you guys think that is ok?

Just want to figure out the parameters here...

Yes.

Do you think because you scared him off that he will never try it again? Maybe come better prepared next time? Choose a victim less able to defend herself? He chose the circumstances, not you. He brought the fight to you. Harsh judgement, yes. The best way to avoid others judging you this harshly is to avoid this sort of behavior.

Then the "libs" and the "conservatives" have no disagreement.

Why the two of you believe that shooting a man in the back as he runs through your yard to get away constitutes "defending yourself" is a mystery to me.

Like you, I firmly believe that one has an absolute right to defend themselves, their family, and their property from criminal attack.

Shooting a man in the back as he is running away from you is not defending yourself, it is murder.