Man defends property against 'illegal' thieves....

[Jenksismyhero]

Being stupid, committing a non-lethal, non-violent crime (and being brown!) means you've given up your right to life, I guess.

 

why bring race into this? these types of things happen all the time, and they get reported. it's about the act, not the people involved.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

These things seem to be reported more frequently when it involves illegal brown people. Kinda the opposite effect of the media's attention on missing/murdered pretty white girls vs. missing/murdered anyone else.

[mr_genius]

Just a hunch:

 

This isn't as much of a story if it's two white guys.

 

2 white guys get shot robbing an old man wouldn't be a story. But oh nononononooooo. Can't shoot an illegal robbing an old man. that is racsim.

[StrangeSox]

No, it's just stupid. Oh, and illegal. Certainly a worse crime than theft. So is it cart blanche on the old guy now?

 

I don't know that race played in role in the old guy's decision, but I certainly think it plays a role in the reaction. If it didn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned.

[mr_genius]

why bring race into this? these types of things happen all the time, and they get reported. it's about the act, not the people involved.

 

of course, but the media ignores that stuff. an illegal got shot robbing an old man! RACISM MUST BE THE CAUSE OMG OMG

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, race has zero to do with the shooting, as does the legal/illegal status, because the shooter couldn't possibly know they were illegal. The fact that they are illegal aliens simply means that they should be charged, documented, jailed, then shipped out.

 

[StrangeSox]

Again, race has zero to do with the shooting, as does the legal/illegal status, because the shooter couldn't possibly know they were illegal. The fact that they are illegal aliens simply means that they should be charged, documented, jailed, then shipped out.

I would tend to agree that it didn't motivate the shooting, but it certainly motivates the reactions. The article wouldn't make an issue of it otherwise. Others in this thread wouldn't use it in their justification of the shooting. I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that race/immigrant status plays some role on how people view this issue. You don't need to be a KKK member to have race impact your judgments.

[Jenksismyhero]

I would tend to agree that it didn't motivate the shooting, but it certainly motivates the reactions. The article wouldn't make an issue of it otherwise. Others in this thread wouldn't use it in their justification of the shooting. I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that race/immigrant status plays some role on how people view this issue. You don't need to be a KKK member to have race impact your judgments.

 

This is bulls***. Just last week the chicagobreakingnews.com website had 2 stories about OLD black men shooting YOUNG black intruders. I think if anything it's the weak, defenseless old man taking on young criminals in an old school way. THAT's the catch to the story.

 

 

[Iwritecode]

The story says he saw them from his window, yelled at them, and fired as they fled. Then later he's quoted as saying they tried to run him over. Seems there are some inconsistencies in his story, so I tend to be skeptical of his claim that they tried to run him over. Needs further investigation. And I doubt the cops would have asked for all those charges if their investigation led them to believe he really was being threatened.

 

The guy had gunshot wounds in his face, so that would lead me to believe the man with the gun was in front of the truck at some point in time.

[NorthSideSox72]

The guy had gunshot wounds in his face, so that would lead me to believe the man with the gun was in front of the truck at some point in time.

Not at all. Passenger in the truck, right? I'd assume he was probably looking at the man yelling and then shooting at him, that only makes sense. Besides, even if he's facing forward, still can get shot in the face. You'd need a medical examiner to give you more information as to the trajectory of the bullet.

 

[Y2HH]

Not at all. Passenger in the truck, right? I'd assume he was probably looking at the man yelling and then shooting at him, that only makes sense. Besides, even if he's facing forward, still can get shot in the face. You'd need a medical examiner to give you more information as to the trajectory of the bullet.

 

Objection, your honor.

 

You cannot assume in a case like this, and that's the point. From the beginning, aside from my "I wish he hadn't missed comment", which was more innocent than people took it, I made mention that things are not adding up and facts are missing, and we all need to get more information before coming to conclusions one way or another, which is what's going on now, and even I'm guilty of it to an extent (other than the fact they actually admitted to the theft).

 

And I didn't wish death upon a member of this board, I wished death on some pieces of trash nobody here knows...which is no different, IMO, than wishing death on terrorist members or leaders, or even Hitler, for that matter. And if that's a rule of this board, I didn't know it. I did know, however, that wishing bad upon others present wasn't accepted, and it's not something I did.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

Objection, your honor.

 

You cannot assume in a case like this, and that's the point. From the beginning, aside from my "I wish he hadn't missed comment", which was more innocent than people took it, I made mention that things are not adding up and facts are missing, and we all need to get more information before coming to conclusions one way or another, which is what's going on now, and even I'm guilty of it to an extent (other than the fact they actually admitted to the theft).

 

And I didn't wish death upon a member of this board, I wished death on some pieces of trash nobody here knows...which is no different, IMO, than wishing death on terrorist members or leaders, or even Hitler, for that matter. And if that's a rule of this board, I didn't know it. I did know, however, that wishing bad upon others present wasn't accepted, and it's not something I did.

1. You missed the point. Someone said he got shot in the face, therefore the shooter must have been in front of the trick. I pointed out, no, there are other possibilities, very logical ones, such as the one I presented.

 

2. You posted in the RULES thread at the top of the forum saying you agreed to them. Note in those rules that its not about just other posters, its about anyone in the public eye. Ignorance of the rules, especially when you specifically said you read them, is not an excuse for breaking them.

 

[Y2HH]

1. You missed the point. Someone said he got shot in the face, therefore the shooter must have been in front of the trick. I pointed out, no, there are other possibilities, very logical ones, such as the one I presented.

 

2. You posted in the RULES thread at the top of the forum saying you agreed to them. Note in those rules that its not about just other posters, its about anyone in the public eye. Ignorance of the rules, especially when you specifically said you read them, is not an excuse for breaking them.

 

Then I disagree with that part of the rules and will stop posting in the buster...because, IMO, it's a rule that just goes too far. Not being able to wish ill will upon anyone in the public eye?! Really?! Way over the line of needless suppression of free speech.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then I disagree with that part of the rules and will stop posting in the buster...because, IMO, it's a rule that just goes too far. Not being able to wish ill will upon anyone in the public eye?! Really?! Way over the line of needless suppression of free speech.

To be clear, "ill" isn't failing to get elected, or being arrested, etc. Its physical harm or illness, as the word connotates.

 

But hey, if you don't like it, feel free to leave.

 

[GoodAsGould]

Oh, goodness, you are rich.

 

To be fair you were being just as close minded as him just on the opposite fence. I think some charges need to be brought up to the guy but having someone steal from you and almost run you over I can understand shooting at them, dont think a victim deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

[Soxy]

To be fair you were being just as close minded as him just on the opposite fence. I think some charges need to be brought up to the guy but having someone steal from you and almost run you over I can understand shooting at them, dont think a victim deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

How so? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Because I don't think anyone is subhuman or deserves death I am closed minded?

[Iwritecode]

Not at all. Passenger in the truck, right? I'd assume he was probably looking at the man yelling and then shooting at him, that only makes sense. Besides, even if he's facing forward, still can get shot in the face. You'd need a medical examiner to give you more information as to the trajectory of the bullet.

 

It would also match with the guy saying he was almost run over.

 

Just a guess though.

[EvilMonkey]

1. You missed the point. Someone said he got shot in the face, therefore the shooter must have been in front of the trick. I pointed out, no, there are other possibilities, very logical ones, such as the one I presented.

No, you didn't. You said "I'd assume he was probably...", not something like "He could have been loking backwards..." The way your statement reads it is as if you are declaring your belief that he WAS looking backwards, not your belief that he COULD HAVE BEEN looking backwards. I get what you mean, I can just see how it can be read wrong.

 

As for statements made all around, if they interviewed the old guy right after it happened, of course he could have said contradictory things. You tell me you could watch your stuff get stolen, almost ran over and shoot someone and not have adrenalin running thru your system that just kills your train of thought. IF the thieves tried to run him over, he was every bit justified in shooting the bastards over it. A car is a deadly weapon. I can 'understand' the DA trying to press some kind of charges, but the extreme ones he going for, and NOT charging the criminals, I hope that changes. As it stands, that is just wrong.

[Balta1701]

Alpha, that's a monstrously long Sig...any chance that could be shortened somehow?

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha, that's a monstrously long Sig...any chance that could be shortened somehow?

Yeah, I didn't think the pic weas that big until I saw it last night. Too lazy to shrink it, just took that one down for now. I like the Algore line anyway, so made that bigger instead! No pun intended.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, I didn't think the pic weas that big until I saw it last night. Too lazy to shrink it, just took that one down for now. I like the Algore line anyway, so made that bigger instead! No pun intended.

Gracias!

[lostfan]

These things seem to be reported more frequently when it involves illegal brown people. Kinda the opposite effect of the media's attention on missing/murdered pretty white girls vs. missing/murdered anyone else.

Thank you for giving me another excuse to post this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

[StrangeSox]

This is bulls***. Just last week the chicagobreakingnews.com website had 2 stories about OLD black men shooting YOUNG black intruders. I think if anything it's the weak, defenseless old man taking on young criminals in an old school way. THAT's the catch to the story.

 

Read the article. then read Y's first post. That they're illegal brown people was used as justification.

[mr_genius]

Thank you for giving me another excuse to post this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

 

[Texsox]

He looked out his window and saw thieves stealing his trailer. At that moment he decided that trailer was worth risking his life to keep. He grabbed his gun, left his house, to confront the thieves. At that point we have three people locked in a potentially deadly battle over a trailer. Once the thieves started driving they were either fleeing the gun wielding owner, or they decided the trailer was worth killing over. (this is one hell of a trailer).

 

Society, with their laws, has already decided that trailer was not worth dying over. Without even knowing anything about that trailer, or any trinket for that matter, the laws were stacked against the owner. Society did not want anyone dead in this matter and has enacted laws to keep that from happening. Maybe we could change the law to you can kill anyone you believe is stealing your stuff, we'll sort out the bodies and penalties later.