I can, but hé, a human live is here worth more then a car. :o

I think the fundamental issue here is the following question:

If a person is in the act of unlawfully violating another person's rights - be they the right to life, liberty or property - should the person committing the crime have the reasonable expectation that their own rights to life, liberty or property should still be respected by the person they are victimizing?

In my view, the answer is generally no. Tarjak apparently feels differently.

This was never a debate in my view. I made a comment, which was disagreed with. Largely by trying to put words into my mouth which has continued in the above post.

How I feel, Capt. Haplo, is that a human life is worth more than property, regardless of how it is led. Death for theft, is indeed a heavy sentence.

My comments were never about the legality, or otherwise, of the situation, only on the subject of whether its a good thing to be cheering on someone who chooses to kill someone for what that person did.

@ Wolferz, you've disappeared into the realm of speculation. Another speculation could be a prior "business" relationship between the two protagonists which went sour, leading to the death of one of them, the only witness being the other. So what? We can speculate ad nauseam. But it leads us nowhere.

Just as the incessant circular argument leads back to the point of origin.:salute:

Ultimately, we can only agree to disagree because nobody can force you to be right.:O: The man shot and killed a worthless horse thief in the act of stealing his horse. The Sheriff brought him before the judge and jury and he was acquitted of any wrong doing in the protection of his property. Justice was served because it was the thief who chose to become a victim. He wasn't murdered in cold blood. If it rankles your sensibilities, well, we can't help you there.
I for one have no sympathy for self inflicted injury. The thief should have known better and stuck with the old shoe leather express. Maybe these criminals will finally get the message that their behavior won't be tolerated any longer and a life of crime can be hazardous to their health. Whatever it takes to give them pause and think twice is OK in my book.:hmmm:

Fill your boots if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Neither parties actions are cause for celebration. :Kaleun_Goofy:

Given that hasn't happened throughout the length of human history, I have doubts that message will ever get through.

This dimension is a free will zone. If there are those who freely choose to put their mortal existence on the line in order to get something for nothing, who am I to stop them from making the choice? If they choose to steal my property, then I choose to stop them with force and I'll walk away with a big smile on my face but, I won't be throwing a party to celebrate it.:-?

Tarjak, in this I can partially agree with you. The thing is you put the burden on the victim - holding Mr. Gerlach responsible for the death of Mr. Kaluza-Graham. I instead put the responsibility on Mr. Kaluza-Graham himself, because it was HIS decision to act in a way that was not only unlawful, but placed his own life in danger in the commission of the crime.

When you choose to disregard someone else's rights, you have no right to complain when they violate yours. So while a human life is worth more than property, if you place yours in jeopardy to take someone else's property and you get killed - its your own fault.

Every way you look at it, Mr. Gerlach is responsible for his actions no-one else can be. It was his choice to use deadly force. So yes I do hold him responsible for his actions. What the other bloke did may have influenced his actions, however Mr. Gerlach remains responsible.

His choice to pull a gun, his choice to pull the trigger. No amount of justification or lawyering can change that.

And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense.

Again you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. Try reading what I wrote and interpret it literally without your own extremist spin.

Self defense and lethal force are two different things. I've defended myself loads of times, but I've never killed anyone. And I never want to kill someone. Killing someone is one of the most disgusting acts you can commit. Sometimes it's necessary, but it's still a terrible thing.

And Neal? No offense intended, but saying 'Good shot!' When someone has killed a fellow human being, even in defense of their property, is congratulating someone for killing a Human being, who had friends, family, and people he loved. I'm not making excuses for his actions, but he was still a Human being, and deserves respect.

Wolferz I wouldn't say that the thief's life was worthless. Every life, no matter who it's led, has worth. As people go, the car thief wasn't that bad. As far as I know, he wasn't a murderer, rapist, or anything else that could land him the death sentence if he'd lived long enough to face a court consisting of more one man with good aim and a gun. And as far as I know, WHY the man turned to a life of crime is unknown. He could've been doing it for his family for all we know. Again, I'm not making excuses. But it's no less improbable than your whole 'guy goes crazy and ends up hitting a car with a Mum and kids in it' theory. In fact, it's more probable. But I guess we can blame whoever's running the economy for all the desperate people turning to crime. Actually, what's the point of an economic system like the one we have? But that's something for another thread.

But as you said, we can only agree to disagree. We'll have to, or eventually we're all going to be banned after we snap from arguing with each other :D. And plus, I want to be part of that country I suggested you make in your 'Too much Alice Cooper' thread :salute: We just have to realise that some of us have different sensibilities and viewpoints on life due to our unique life experiences. I don't harbor any hard feeling against anyone I've disagreed with in this thread.

Good night everybody. I hope this thread is dead when I wake up tomorrow morning. Or at least a bit calmer. :salute:

So after all that text your condoning death as well :)

I've been watching this thread carefully and IMO the main contributors have done themselves no harm or disservice...a failure to agree in an adult like and sensible way is to the credit of them.

I suppose its a matter of perspective. I would call this .....
And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense...
extremely infantile, not adult at all as there is simply no logic in it.

Tarjak...

You stated that it is your view that if a man chooses to pull a trigger - he is responsible for the death of the person he shoots. Your next statement was that there is no amount of justification that absolves him of that responsibility.

That isn't putting words in your mouth... it is what you stated. You tell me to interpret it literally - I did exactly that. When you say no amount of justification - I take you at your word. When you say the responsible party is the one who kills - I take you at your word. Thus - literal interpretation means that when someone takes the life of another with a firearm, there can be no justification that absolves them of the responsibility of taking that life.

Your words. Literally....

And you still can't stop with the insults can you? Kind of funny that you keep that up after complaining that you were insulted... LOL

I see your problem there Haplo, it's English, you are mixing your articles.

Try this .
Tarjak doesn't like that cat
that cat has 4 legs
tarjak hates chairs
they have 4 legs.