This. The moment you decide to commit a crime, you pretty much should forfeit all your rights.

Edit: Ugh, I hate being the first post in the page. I don't want to draw attention to my post T.T

I don't know where all you guys are coming off saying that as soon as you commit a crime you should lose all your rights: Have you ever downloaded/torrented a song/file/movie without paying for it? Chances are you're a criminal. You should forfeit your rights over this. -- Kinda ludicrous, but it's a crime as well, so we can apply the same train of thought to it. There's no reason for us to take away the rights of criminals, they should be entitled to a fair trial, and if convicted they should retain those rights still, otherwise we have a standard of law which is incompatible with the sentiments expressed in our constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And from our Declaration of Independance:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ."

How can Justice be established if we take away the rights of our citizens; how does our law reflect the unalienable Rights if some people are denied them?

The only difference should be they have to serve a punishment, and let the punishment fit the crime.

Idk, I just feel there's just something different about a man who breaks into a home, violating property/privacy, stealing irreplaceable material possessions, and also with the intention of killing/seriously injuring any witness.

I believe it's different than breaking a law that's been arbitrarily put into place.

You're being very vague.

In what way? I'm saying there's a difference between crimes that were established by a country, and crimes that are defined based on natural human instincts.

A country is naturally comprised of citizens, who are people with natural instincts as you say. We want to be secure in our persons and homes, and not have to worry about other people arbitrarily deciding that we are to be victims of whatever it is they want. One theory is such: that we form a Social Contract in which we give up some of our "natural freedoms" to replace a "state of nature" by the order of law. In essence, what I'm trying to say is that crimes are established by a government yes, but the government consists of people who have the 'natural human instincts' you were talking about, who then defines the crimes based on what is necessary for them to be secure and happy.

It sounds like the guy was pissed that his stuff was already jacked before. I don't usually approve of vigilante justice, but I find myself making an exception in this case.

Also, God bless the "Make My Day" Law here in Colorado.

I don't think illegally downloading music, games, movies, and the like are based on a law "arbitrarily put in place." I feel like law-makers equate it to walking into your local Best Buy and stealing CDs or DVDs. Obviously it's a different media, but the idea is still the same. And theft has been illegal for a long, long time.


When a person is a convicted criminal, they do lose all their rights. When they are released, they gain some back. There have been many cases of people going to prison, learning their lesson, and becoming better citizens after. Do those people deserve to have their rights removed when they assimilate into society again because of a past mistake that they have to spend the rest of their lives repenting for? Of course there are the people who don't know better and end up as repeat offenders, but I don't think that putting both sets of people together and stripping all of them of their rights can be justified in any way.

I meant immediately after you commit a crime. You, a murderer, can't go "oh, that policeman didn't treat me right, I'm going to sue his ass!" or some other bs like that. Nobody should be sued on behalf of a criminal. I was mainly targeting the family of the thief.

Wow I can't believe some people say the college guy should be pressed with manslaughter charges. He had every right to bear a katana, and he had every right to use it on that burglar. Case closed.

"Couldn't he have chosen a better weapon?"

Oh, I'll just bring this rake to attack this intruder who probably is wielding a firearm and could blow my brains out at any moment.
Pft no. The college dude prepared himself with the best weapon available. Which are you more intimidated, a baseball bat or a katana? Intimidation is one step to getting a burglar out of your house, not necessarily coming with the intent to kill.

And to those who say his weapon is too excessive...
"OH HE SHOULD'VE GOTTEN THE SHOVEL!"
"NO THAT'S TOO EXCESSIVE A BASEBALL BAT WOULD DO!"
"NO THAT'S TOO EXCESSIVE A RAKE WOULD DO!"
"NO THAT'S TOO EXCESSIVE SOME POTS AND PANS SHOULD DO!"
Whatever

Not only that, it's dark and some random intruder lunges at you with who knows what. What are you going to do with that katana?

No really, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
"Umm I would try to disarm him uh..."

Yeah, try to disarm him as he starts bashing your slow thinking brain against the pavement.

Not only that, but John got rid of a burglar that just kept robbing peoples stuff unrelentingly. If it wasn't for him that loser would probably be out on the streets again robbing people, how would you feel if that burglar got released and started robbing your shit tonight?

Why give a college kid a manslaughter charge that will probably ruin the rest of his life, just for defending his property and even indirectly getting rid of a pesky robber that would have probably got released once again and start robbing people again?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 23 2009, 6:26 pm by Vrael. Reason: you aren't the be-all-and-end-all

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Ok, fair enough. However, I still think that the more lethal the weapon you choose, the more likely you are to escalate a situation, especially if the other person is also armed.

or, you can be stupid like society wants you to be and kindly stand there and tell the robber, go ahead, feel free to take my stuff. i'm not allowed to stop you because that would be "excessive force".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 23 2009, 10:31 am by darksnow.

Darksnow stop being extreme, Will is right in what he is saying. If the student hadn't brought a sword, who knows, it could of just been a quick tuffle and the man fleeing. If you had a school yard fight, it stops when the other is knocked out, however, if one person pulls out a knife it's now life or death.

Don't fight fire with fire.

you're comparing someone who has been convicted 29 times and has broken into your house a school yard fight?
thats a little extreme =O

Isn't that what insurance is there for?

well would the college student get insurance on his house? hes probably only going to be there for like, 3 years

Hmm, in his case maybe he wouldn't have insurance, at least for the house. It's possible that he would have had insurance on his own possessions though.

To be honest, if it was a choice between a stand-off with an armed burglar, or retreating to claim the losses on insurance, I'd probably choose the latter. I would rather not put myself in a situation where life is at stake, primarily because I'm more likely to be injured or killed if I choose to fight. If the robber is coming with the intention of perpetrating violence then I think it's a different matter.

What happens if you're robbed at gunpoint and you give him the money, and he turns around and starts walking away, and then you pull out a knife and kill the robber?

Criminals need to be punished. I think that people who are being robbed or whatever have full rights to do whatever they want to the criminal, short of torture. Though, maybe even torture is excusable if it can be proven that the criminal in question deserved it by killing someone dear to the torturer in question. Not extreme torture, but just a bit.

Spartan criminal policies such as my suggestion would greatly reduce the crime rate and reduce state spending on keeping people in jail. Win-win.