Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/28/08 10:13 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

America needs to seriously overhaul it's laws.

The laws needed some fucking common sense.

If those kids were properly armed this never would've happened!

At 9/28/08 10:16 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If those kids were properly armed this never would've happened!

Well I do agree with that!

The kids shouldn't of been there in the first place but did the one diserve to die for it? Probably not. Then again, you have to tell tresspassers to leave before you kick their ass in Canada.

Killing another human being is never truly acceptable, even with an extreme case of self-defense. This murder doesn't come anywhere close to this extreme.

At 9/28/08 06:01 PM, johnnycancer wrote: Was he right to make the kid get on his knees and shoot him? No, of course not.

So, if the kid has any family members to bring a suit against the guy, they could get a host of different tort remedies, probably including punitive damages because there's a good argument that the guy acted out of malice - which means they could get pain and suffering damages, which are always huge.

The guy lives in a trailer. All the court could award would be half a case of Bud and a dozen expired Twinkies.

At 9/28/08 06:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

I say good riddance.
Also I just gained 50 asshole experience points.

Ah.

Well, next time I see you Jay Walking, I'll make sure to run you over.

Or next time I see you eating a food I don't like. I mean, that's not illegal, but as long as we all think it's fine to break the law in order to "teach lessons"...

At 9/28/08 07:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

The law is on this man's side, like it or not.

Subduing a person after a crime, and then executing them after subdoing them, is still illegal.

So let me get your logic straight; if I catch someone breaking into my house, crack them in the head and knock them out, stuff their body in my car, drive him to the woods, shoot him (while passed out) and leave him there to rot, that isn't illegal? If this guy saw the kid 20 years from the time of the robbery, on the street, and shot him to death, it would be legal?

You can use deadly force to protect your property. You can not execute someone in revenge for them previously having tried taking your shit.

Uh, yeah it does, it was private property and they had no business being there. That's breaking and entering, which, regardless of intent can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in the least and a felony in the most, carrying a minimum 3 year prison sentence if it's your third offense.

Yes. It can NOT, however, be punishable by execution. Especially when theres been no trial and you aren't in any sort of postion of authority.

While the article does not state whether or not the kids in question had broken in before, the fact that they broke in when he wasn't there and the fact they only took snack food indicates a prior experience with the homeowner and his habits, and could be used against them.

Which would be great to bring up in court; it isn't an excuse to do a revenge killing.

He was the victim of MULTIPLE break ins, of course there was some malice involved.
While I don't like the way he handled the situation, I am certainly not about to show sympathy for the punk kids involved with all this. Screw 'em.

Ah. So someone stole 2 twinkies, and therefor deserves to be dead.

Ironically, I can guarantee you've done something more illegal then this in the past.

At 9/29/08 12:05 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Ironically, I can guarantee you've done something more illegal then this in the past.

There's a good chance he's never done anything more immoral. Breaking, entering and stealing is pretty damn immoral; I'd think the only thing a regular person is likely to do that compares to it is adultery.

Furthermore we shouldn't be taking the dead kid's friend / the media's side of the story as the Gospel Truth anyway. Kid might've been lying about him getting them all in execution positions, sounds very suspicious.

At 9/28/08 11:58 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Or next time I see you eating a food I don't like. I mean, that's not illegal, but as long as we all think it's fine to break the law in order to "teach lessons"...

That example makes no sense. What the child did is illegal. He deserved to pay for his crime. Eating food you don't like isn't a crime.

So let me get your logic straight; if I catch someone breaking into my house, crack them in the head and knock them out, stuff their body in my car, drive him to the woods, shoot him (while passed out) and leave him there to rot, that isn't illegal?

That's a completely different circumstance which would be illegal.

If this guy saw the kid 20 years from the time of the robbery, on the street, and shot him to death, it would be legal?

Obviously not. Being on the street is not trespassing. Being inside the guy's trailer and stealing his belongings is trespassing.

Yes. It can NOT, however, be punishable by execution. Especially when theres been no trial and you aren't in any sort of postion of authority.

According to the news article the child lunged at the man. It's not like in that split second the guy could completely look over the situation and make sure none of them had weapons nor did he know if the child did knock him over, the other kids might have started beating him. He had every right to defend himself when he is attacked.

it isn't an excuse to do a revenge killing.

It's not a revenge killing. "Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun." It sounds like a self defense killing.

Ah. So someone stole 2 twinkies, and therefor deserves to be dead.

To quote my previous statement: It's not a revenge killing. "Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun." It sounds like a self defense killing.

Ironically, I can guarantee you've done something more illegal then this in the past.

No, I'm not a lowlife piece of shit. You, however, just admitted to being one.

At 9/28/08 11:18 PM, gradenator wrote: Killing another human being is never truly acceptable, even with an extreme case of self-defense.

And why is that, may I ask? Is this based on some preconceived notion that every human being is inherently good at heart, and worth saving? Where were these kid's parents at that they weren't involved in more constructive after-school activities, instead of raiding people's homes for junk food (probably multiple times)?

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I don't think we lost a cancer cure here. There's one less future gas station attendant in the world, and I'll be able to move one car length further up in my commute to work.

At 9/29/08 12:05 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Subduing a person after a crime, and then executing them after subdoing them, is still illegal.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I implied that folks like yourself are going to have to fight a very difficult uphill battle to get this appealed or overturned in Texas.

So someone stole 2 twinkies, and therefor deserves to be dead.

Are you kidding? I'd kill you for a klondike bar!

let's see who gets the reference

Ironically, I can guarantee you've done something more illegal then this in the past.

Besides the point and an off topic personal attack in a vain attempt to destroy my credibility with a baseless moral relativist argument, but true. However I will say that I never rummaged through a dude's house for snacks, much less a house that I somehow conveniently knew he wasn't IN when I broke in and was therefore a perfect target for said break in, possibly on multiple occasions.

At 9/29/08 12:18 AM, cHunter wrote: To quote my previous statement: It's not a revenge killing. "Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun." It sounds like a self defense killing.

Care to explain how he shoot someone in the back when they "lung" at you.

I feel bad. Oh well, what can you do now eh?

At 9/29/08 12:34 AM, LordJaric wrote: Care to explain how he shoot someone in the back when they "lung" at you.

I have absolutely no idea. I do, however, know that a jury would not overlook that fact when they were deciding the verdict so obviously he had a statement on why it worked out that way.

At 9/28/08 11:58 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Or next time I see you eating a food I don't like. I mean, that's not illegal, but as long as we all think it's fine to break the law in order to "teach lessons"...

He wasn't breaking the law.

And new law: if I put a sign on my door that reads "if you try to steal shit from my house, I own you. I own you and I will kill you."

At 9/28/08 10:13 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: So you can execute a 13 year old for stealing a couple twinkies..

Todays twinkies or cookies is equivalent to yesteryears apple on a tree.. I'm sure there's a health message for teens in this unfortunate happening.

At 9/29/08 12:18 AM, cHunter wrote:

That example makes no sense. What the child did is illegal. He deserved to pay for his crime. Eating food you don't like isn't a crime.

The crime does not provide for civillians executing criminals; therefor, THE LAW IS IRELEVENT TO ANYTHING.

If someone supports vigilantism (sp?) then that's fine, me and them have alternate viewpoints, but no one agrees on anything. However, do understand that the entire concept of vigilantism is breaking the law to enforce morality.

That's a completely different circumstance which would be illegal.

No, actually, it's not. Executing someone who is unable to defend themself, after you have already detained them, is illegally. It doesn't matter if they have been detained for a few minutes, like this case, or a few hours, like my case. Both cases involve EXECUTING SOMEONE FOR REVENGE.

Obviously not. Being on the street is not trespassing. Being inside the guy's trailer and stealing his belongings is trespassing.

Yet if he had not ordered them on their knees, they already would have left. We are dealing with how far a guy can go to punish someone for a past crime. How long is that window? In this case, he executed someone minutes, possibly an hour or so, after he detained them. When is the exact time after a crime is done being in progress that you can no longer get revenge for it?

According to the news article the child lunged at the man.

No, according to the article, the man lied and said the kid lunged. Let's look at the logic; a guy has a shotgun to you, you think he's going to kill you. WHY would ANYONES response be to TURN AROUND, and lunge BACKWARDS at the guy?

Explain this. Who turns around and lunges backwards at someone? Hmm?

And assuming you DID lunge backwards at someone; how do you do this while on your knees? Did he knee-hop backwards?

It's not like in that split second the guy could completely look over the situation and make sure none of them had weapons nor did he know if the child did knock him over, the other kids might have started beating him. He had every right to defend himself when he is attacked.

Yes. He doesn't, however, have a right to execute someone, from behind, after they are detained.

He also doesn't have the right to shoot the other kids unless they move the dead kid's body (no one seems to be mentioning that part)

It's not a revenge killing. "Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun." It sounds like a self defense killing.

Right. Except the kid was on his knees begging for mercy.

And the guy had already beaten the shit out of them.

And he shot the kid IN THE BACK.

And he then threatened to kill the other kids unless they moved his body.

Soooo... what, by not moving the first kids body, would those other kids be "threatening" him too?

To quote my previous statement: It's not a revenge killing. "Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun." It sounds like a self defense killing.

Yes, if you make believe a situation in which the kid wasn't on his knees and shot from behind after begging for his life.

No, I'm not a lowlife piece of shit. You, however, just admitted to being one.

I've cheated on a girlfriend before, I'd say that is rather shittier then stealing some food.

At 9/28/08 08:55 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/28/08 08:21 PM, fli wrote: Proteas, there is such a thing as using discretion.

I said I didn't like the way he handled the situation, did I not?

I didn't read that part. I thought you were agreeing on what that guy did.
As many know, I don't care about guns. I want restriction and comprehensive laws where it can go to sane people... extended waiting "cooling off" periods... and criminal background checks.

It' not going to happen, and so I just raise a white flag and say, "Yes, it's your right."
But it still does not give anyone any right to get trigger happy.

Just a small question... Do you people who think that killing a 13 year old boy for stealing candy think that abortion is immoral?

"Hey! You can't abort that child! Wait till he's 13 then execute him!"

Because I notice that the more conservative part of the US are usually rabid protesters against abortion, yet they hold on to their right to use excessive lethal force if someone should knock on the door at the wrong time. Then again, maybe it is the survival of the fittest in practice.

Baaah, hate that you can't edit posts here.... anyways

If you know you haven't done anything wrong, yet the police raid your house based on wrong information. Are you allowed to shoot them in Texas?

At 9/29/08 03:38 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Baaah, hate that you can't edit posts here.... anyways

If you know you haven't done anything wrong, yet the police raid your house based on wrong information. Are you allowed to shoot them in Texas?

No. Castle Doctrine.

At 9/29/08 12:26 AM, Proteas wrote:
And why is that, may I ask?

Because it degrades the character of the attacker.

And it isn't just. Doing harm is never just.

At 9/29/08 02:40 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: stuff

All of your responses consider the child to have been executed so I will address them all at the same time.

Both the 13-year-old's aunt and his 16-year-old friend testified against the man. Obviously, unless the guy had a damn good argument of why the situation worked out the way it did, he'd be in jail right now. Since he's not I feel it's safe to assume that something did happen and he had every right to defend himself. The jury would obviously try to reason out why the child was shot in the back, so if they still gave him a not innocent verdict I think he's not guilty of murder, rather it was self defense.

I've cheated on a girlfriend before, I'd say that is rather shittier then stealing some food.

Like I said, lowlife. ^_^

The law is not to be used as a standard for morals. And it should not be argued as such.

It makes you look ignorant.

To all you people defending this crazy asshole who shot the kid: if the young burglar had been caught by the police instead, should he have been executed by the state of Texas as a punishment for his crime? If not, then why allow this nutjob to do it?

Because he has a right to defend his property!

We should all have our own nuclear warheads.

Well shit if I can go to Texas and kill kids because they do something stupid even if I already have them detained why would I stop there I should walk around Texas killing anyone I think may at some point commit a crime against me. I mean eventually they would break into my home and thenI would get to shoot them then right? so why not just shoot everyone now?

At 9/29/08 02:40 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The crime does not provide for civillians executing criminals; therefor, THE LAW IS IRELEVENT TO ANYTHING.

Irelevent? Your belief or lack thereof does not invalidate the law.

At 9/29/08 08:10 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Because it degrades the character of the attacker.

The "attacker" as call him is a 63 year old first-generation Mexican immigrant, living in a trailer in a Texas border town and is the victim of multiple past break-ins. I hate to break this to you, but it doesn't sound to me like this guy had a lot going for him or much to be proud about, he probably had to scrape together and fight like hell to get to where he is now. You could easily argue the he snapped and went temporarily insane, and juries eat that kind of stuff up.

Compare that story to some punk teenagers breakin and entering just to get some snack food.

And it isn't just. Doing harm is never just.

In your next post you mentioned how the law should not be used as a standard for morals, yet the entire body of your argument is to use your own morality to view what is right and good under the law. How does that work?

At 9/29/08 10:04 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If not, then why allow this nutjob to do it?

So by your logic, if the state is allowed to execute someone for a particular crime, then I can forgo giving the assailant a proper trial and blow their brains out myself if I so choose?

Justice and morals are two completely different things.

Justice is used to apply a set of reasonable laws, while morals are used to form a set of reasonable virtues.

Or something like that.

You of course have to take into account the interpretation of virtue when you are interpreting the law, but not the other way around, because a law is a sort of blanket statement, whereas virtues are unique to the individual.

And when did I use my own morality to say anything, other than foolishly illustrate a sort of literary bias of course.

At 9/29/08 11:26 AM, Proteas wrote: So by your logic, if the state is allowed to execute someone for a particular crime, then I can forgo giving the assailant a proper trial and blow their brains out myself if I so choose?

I was referring to the arguments that "you mustn't get away with crime" or "he should have known he had it coming when he broke into the house".

If that's true, and the consequences were acceptable and proportionate to the crime, then clearly the state should execute every single burglar from now on.