Druggist in OKC is convicted of murder

[DeusExMachina]

Is killing anyone ever "right"? Regardless of the reason how can anyone justify it? Cause of laws? Cause god said so? Cause we're at war? Those are just words, beliefs, convictions.

It should never be okay to kill someone, but sometimes it has to be done.

Osama was "unarmed".......so. This POS in OK was trying to rob someone, who knows if they would have taken everyone in back and executed them. Is that the same "murder" as shooting a robber who just threatened your life. We're splitting hairs here over who was the biggest POS, the dead guy has my vote.

This should happen more often.

Wow, that post was bipolar!

There's a big, thick line between being a law-abiding citizen and defending yourself, and executing someone in cold blood. This is most definitely the latter.

We have a system of laws and whether or not you agree with all, none or some of them, they exist. It's what separates us from animals.

Shooting an unarmed and unconscious person, criminal or not, throws society out the window. He may have deserved it. He may have not. It is not the "guy with the gun"'s decision. I fully support using guns to defend your life, but that was not defense. That was a firing squad.

Cases like this make being a gun owner and a self-defense advocate harder every day. There are people who decide they are the hand of God when holding a firearm. Those people should stay very far away from them.

[Scanker19]

But why does it throw society out the window? Cause someone says so? Laws exist because we make them.

What would a lawless society be?

The post is bipolar because who are we to say who should be killed? Who are we to say who shouldn't? The law? cause that works 69% of the time every time. Our judicial system is flawed and will always be flawed.

Killing in war is okay though? Why cause some guy said so? Be it a president, a king or a terrorist leader who the fuck are they to "okay" the killing of another human.

My point is regardless of who you are, where you come from, what laws we apply killing is never ok, but necessary. What I believe separates us from animals is how we apply that logic of how we select who dies and who lives, that decision making process could be in laws, rules, actions, or no actions.

The argument is the same that people apply to prisons. They always say "you judge a society on how they treat their inmates". It doesn't say its a bad society if they treat them bad, or a good society treats them bad. Its open ended as is the death question.

I do not have these answers, that's the fun part of being alive.

Its late and I've been cleaning guns for a few hours so the fumes are starting to get to me.

[Irving]

Can we stop comparing this to war and Osama? It is a completely different thing.

[DeusExMachina]

But why does it throw society out the window? Cause someone says so? Laws exist because we make them.

What would a lawless society be?

The post is bipolar because who are we to say who should be killed? Who are we to say who shouldn't? The law? cause that works 69% of the time every time. Our judicial system is flawed and will always be flawed.

Killing in war is okay though? Why cause some guy said so? Be it a president, a king or a terrorist leader who the fuck are they to "okay" the killing of another human.

My point is regardless of who you are, where you come from, what laws we apply killing is never ok, but necessary. What I believe separates us from animals is how we apply that logic of how we select who dies and who lives, that decision making process could be in laws, rules, actions, or no actions.

The argument is the same that people apply to prisons. They always say "you judge a society on how they treat their inmates". It doesn't say its a bad society if they treat them bad, or a good society treats them bad. Its open ended as is the death question.

I do not have these answers, that's the fun part of being alive.

Its late and I've been cleaning guns for a few hours so the fumes are starting to get to me.

A lawless society would be shooting a guy in cold blood and having no one to answer to for it.

My point was, even though a system is flawed does not mean we can decide to do away with it at a whim. What if the druggist was a child molester, would it be OK that the robber shot him to death?

War is "OK" because it is two armed combatants shooting at eachother. There are things like the Geneva Convention, the UN, etc. to try and keep things "civil". Remember, there are things called "war crimes".

So you believe stopping a threat and then executing the former-threat is a necessary killing? Think long and hard before you answer that.

Things are never so black and white to callously make the decision to take another human's life without due process.

Remember, shoot to stop the threat. Not shoot to kill. Shoot to kill will put you away for a long, long time.

[Scanker19]

A lawless society would be shooting a guy in cold blood and having no one to answer to for it.

A lawless society would be a perfect soceity. There would be no reason to have laws. i.e. computer fraud laws didn't exist in the 1920's.

What if the druggist was a child molester, would it be OK that the robber shot him to death?

Yeah.

War is "OK" because it is two armed combatants shooting at eachother. There are things like the Geneva Convention, the UN, etc. to try and keep things "civil". Remember, there are things called "war crimes".

It's only "ok" for those who don't fight such as the leaders who send people to die.

So you believe stopping a threat and then executing the former-threat is a necessary killing? Think long and hard before you answer that.

Depends normally I'd say yes but it would have to depend on the situation, but it is no more my choice than it is a jury of your peers. I know law says it is but I'm talking that universal plain of thinking.

Things are never so black and white to callously make the decision take another human's life without due process.

You are 99% right.

Remember, shoot to stop the threat. Not shoot to kill. Shoot to kill will put you away for a long, long time.

I would argue they are one in the same. If you are shooting to wound you're not in that much imminent danger.

[Irving]

No one said that you shoot to wound. That isn't a concept.

[DeusExMachina]

I never said shoot to wound. I said shoot to stop a threat. Shooting to kill makes you look like a murderer.

Which I guess is OK for a lot of you guys in this thread...

I'm honestly surprised at the complete disregard for legal ramifications some of you have. And I know some of you with those opinions also carry. Shocked is probably a better word than surprised.

But of course, I'm just going to attribute a lot of it to "yeah, that guy should have been killed! As long as I wasn't pulling the trigger..."

[clublights]

Deus has pretty much said everything I would say here .. but I have one more thing to add.... And I'm gunna pick on jordan since he was the last one talk about it in this way


The way jordan says he " just needed killin" is EXACTLY why and HOW the anti-gunnies not only try to take away our guns, but manage to keep things like constitutional carry away from us.... since they say that is HOW you and I will act. This is how they said we would act when we got Concealed Carry ...

very dangerous position for folks of our ilk to take in my humble opinion ...

[Byte Stryke]

I think we can all agree here that this is a prime example of why you must practice with your firearm and increase your proficiency with it as to not require the other 5 rounds to save your life and protect your family.

2 should do it.

[arz]

said this on another board and I still stand by it:

enter a store pointing a weapon at the owner/employee, they have teh right to cook you over a spit and eat you as far as I'm concerned.