The Zionists are whining thread

Defending yourself from a criminal is akin to honor killings?? Nice job on moral equivalence Xequecal! What's next, you going to defend the kidnapping of school girls by Boko Haram because of school bussing in the US?

khalid_sl said:

Defending yourself from a criminal is akin to honor killings?? Nice job on moral equivalence Xequecal! What's next, you going to defend the kidnapping of school girls by Boko Haram because of school bussing in the US?

Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out that this type of thing is easily explained by cultural differences and doesn't automatically mean the Muslims are some kind of backwards heathens. In both cases, you're only minorly inconvenienced by the other party's action and in both cases it's OK to kill them for it. Neither culture seems to value human life inherently very much.

Xequecal_sl said:

No, I'm pointing out that this type of thing is easily explained by cultural differences and doesn't automatically mean the Muslims are some kind of backwards heathens. In both cases, you're only minorly inconvenienced by the other party's action and in both cases it's OK to kill them for it. Neither culture seems to value human life inherently very much.

Click to expand...

A few weeks ago I read
The Price of Honor

I think you would find it pretty informative. After reading that book, I find it hard to not be very offended by your equivalence here. Maybe I am too invested in the horror of it to have an objective opinion.

As long as you stay clear of the cartels and marauding NA corporations and don't mind being really poor, SA looks like a pretty decent place. Maybe not my first choice but if the options are Argentina or Iran then it's time to learn Portuguese.

Also time to learn if they speak that or if they speak Spanish.

Xequecal_sl said:

The other fallout has nothing to do with the legal system. Even in Muslim countries, honor killings mostly occur in the backwards rural areas and the relatively more progressive city populations also look down upon them. Also, honor killings are usually illegal, they just don't get prosecuted. In the US killing for minor theft is often legal.

You are absolutely allowed to kill people for absurdly minor crimes in the United States. You don't need to be in fear for your life or having your home be invaded. In Texas, for example, it is legal to use deadly force in response to third-degree criminal mischief, defined as the theft or destruction of property worth $50 or more.

https://www.texaslawshield.com/portal/texas-gun-law/



Note that it is also legal to use deadly force to protect the property of a third party or even public property. If you spot someone spraying graffiti it is perfectly legal to shoot them dead on the spot.

Click to expand...

There are quite a few Islamic nations that proscribe death for Kufr, apostasy. As well as homosexuality, and a host of other religious doctrine violations. A completely victimless action that doesn't even inconvenience anyone else, not even in the slightest. It's literally a death sentence for a thought/belief crime. Are you REALLY comparing that to someone breaking into your HOME; and you defending against them? I won't even get into the difference in time scale that "honor killings" and "castle doctrine" represent; which is to say, Castle Doctrine is only employable in that moment where someone has to make a reasonable judgement about the danger to his property, from a willful perpetrator, with LIMITED information on hand.

Castle Doctrine does not allow someone to sit, think and then follow the trespasser off the property to kill them--evenif they came in and raped their daughter, shot their wife and fucked their dog. TheMOMENTyou can be reasonable, and remove you and your possessions from further harm? You areNOTallowed to employ violence. That is the CORE of castle doctrine, it is a law designed around a moment when peoplecan't be truly reasonable, because the invasion of the home itself is considered a threat. We would never apply the same standards of civilized reasonablenessoutsidethat moment. Meanwhile, most honor killings are "ritual" based, and involve planning, and even discussion before hand. Very few happen under the circumstances we might consider "Manslaughter" (IE heat of the moment.) That difference in time? Is the big difference. We allow for someone to respond to an unreasonable situation with "base" instincts (Violence)--but wedo notallow that response outside that situation. Apostasy executions, homosexual executions, honor killings? Allow for people in a reasonable state of mind, to PLAN and execute violence in response to NON-violence.

The comparison is BEYOND absurd, Xeq--100%,absurd. In one case you're judging a law employed within a moment of fear, by hindsight (Oh you should have known that guy stalking around your home was only there to steal some cash!)--and in another case you're judging a form of violence that often allows for planning and rational thought to take place. When you add in the fact that90%(Easily) of Western populationsdo notemploy castle doctrine (It's literally a small, I believe 12, handful of states in the U.S.--ALONE); while the MAJORITY of Muslim populations have barbaric laws for apostasy, and other religious repressions, as WELL as rural violence, and you are making one of the biggest false equivalences I have ever seen on this board.

Xequecal_sl said:

Zimmerman wasacquitted.Thus, his killing was legal. The other fallout has nothing to do with the legal system. Even in Muslim countries, honor killings mostly occur in the backwards rural areas and the relatively more progressive city populations also look down upon them. Also, honor killings are usually illegal, they just don't get prosecuted. In the US killing for minor theft is often legal.

Click to expand...

The point Cad was making is that Zimmerman was only allowed to use lethal violence in response to what he perceived to be lethal violence. Because there was a belief he might have shot the kid for "just" theft, he had to stand trial. It was ONLY when he proved he was attacked, that he was allowed to defend himself. It wasn't enough that he was wounded, he had to PROVE the attack happened in a certain way. He was essentially just saying you idea that this is the "wild west" and people can shoot each other because someone took their wallet, is pure bullshit. You have to be threatened in a manner where youfear for your life.

The only exception to that is when someone breaks into your HOME. But, I assure you, if I am breaking into your car and about to drive off with it, on a public street and you roll up and blow me away--you're going to jail, even though I was commiting a host of crimes well in excess of "50 dollars". As long as I was not threatening YOU personally, you can't kill me. Again, the exception is in the home, but that's only because entering someone's home unlawfully is considered, in it's base form, a threatening action. (But ONLY in very few states, in PA, if you enter someone's home, and don't threaten the person, they WILL go to jail for murder if they shoot you.)

Where do you guys get this shit? I'm not talking about castle doctrine. You don't need to be in your home. You don't need to have your life or health threatened. You don't need to fear for your life. It is perfectly legal to waste someone who bails on paying the check or tries to drive off without paying for gas, at least in Texas. Read the link I posted. You absolutely can blow away someone breaking into your car with no warning. If he tears out your satellite navigation system and runs off with it, you can absolutely shoot him in the back. Hell, there was a recent case where a guy shot a hooker who was trying to leave with his money without fucking him and it was ruled justifiable homicide.

Criminal mischief does not involve a threat to anyone's life or health but killing for it is perfectly legal. You can even use deadly force to prevent damage topublicproperty, it is 100% legal to waste a teenager spraying graffiti or TPing a public park.

Xequecal_sl said:

Where do you guys get this shit? I'm not talking about castle doctrine. You don't need to be in your home. You don't need to have your life or health threatened. You don't need to fear for your life. It is perfectly legal to waste someone who bails on paying the check or tries to drive off without paying for gas, at least in Texas. Read the link I posted. You absolutely can blow away someone breaking into your car with no warning. If he tears out your satellite navigation system and runs off with it, you can absolutely shoot him in the back. Hell, there was a recent case where a guy shot a hooker who was trying to leave with his money without fucking him and it was ruled justifiable homicide.

Criminal mischief does not involve a threat to anyone's life or health but killing for it is perfectly legal. You can even use deadly force to prevent damage topublicproperty, it is 100% legal to waste a teenager spraying graffiti or TPing a public park.

Click to expand...

No, you can't. Read up on thisinvitee, social guest, licensee, or trespasser. People who don't understand the different levels of liability goto jail all the time. Not all law breaking applies equal amongst agents, Cad can explain it better. Your view of the law is just flat out incorrect. I don't have time to explain, I have work, but read up on the levels of liability (I'll explain from work, if I get a chance). I GUARANTEE if you shoot someone for driving away without paying for gas, you're going to jail (Because he was not trespassing on your property).

Edit: You even cut the rest of the quote off in your post; quote thewholething next time you snip out stuff to justify your stance.

Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another'strespassor other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theftduring the nighttimeif the actor believes that the propertycannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

There are tons of stipulations on deadly force. In your example, the shooting was only justified because it occurredat night--the "spirit" of the law was meant to protect peoplein their home, sleeping(Hence at night--it was probably written when businesses could not be open past dark). Some lawyer just twisted it for a modern day defense--and guess what? He got lucky with an insane jury (And used the typical bias against sex workers to his advantage.) There is a reason why this case made it to national news--because it was extremely unique and illustrated a law that's been twisted beyond it's intent. But really, the only time you can "kill" someone while they run, is at night and ONLY if you believe you'll be injured if you use less than deadly force.

Bring that to a jury, and 99 times out of 100, you go to jail. But hey, yes, you can play the odds--that's one of the weaknesses of the jury system. Are you seriously comparing that with codified executions for apostasy, or premeditated, ritualistic honor killings?REALLY?

Lithose_sl said:

No, you can't. Read up on thisinvitee, social guest, licensee, or trespasser. People who don't understand the different levels of liability goto jail all the time. Not all law breaking applies equal amongst agents, Cad can explain it better. Your view of the law is just flat out incorrect. I don't have time to explain, I have work, but read up on the levels of liability (I'll explain from work, if I get a chance). I GUARANTEE if you shoot someone for driving away without paying for gas, you're going to jail (Because he was not trespassing on your property).

Edit: You even cut the rest of the quote off in your post; quote thewholething next time you snip out stuff to justify your stance.

Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another'strespassor other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theftduring the nighttimeif the actor believes that the propertycannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

There are tons of stipulations on deadly force. In your example, the shooting was only justified because it occurredat night--the "spirit" of the law was meant to protect peoplein their home, sleeping(Hence at night--it was probably written when businesses could not be open past dark). Some lawyer just twisted it for a modern day defense--and guess what? He got lucky with an insane jury (And used the typical bias against sex workers to his advantage.) There is a reason why this case made it to national news--because it was extremely unique and illustrated a law that's been twisted beyond it's intent. But really, the only time you can "kill" someone while they run, is at night and ONLY if you believe you'll be injured if you use less than deadly force.

Bring that to a jury, and 99 times out of 100, you go to jail. But hey, yes, you can play the odds--that's one of the weaknesses of the jury system. Are you seriously comparing that with codified executions for apostasy, or premeditated, ritualistic honor killings?REALLY?

Click to expand...

Well, you posted the relevant part of the law, so I'll post the relevant part of the criminal mischief statute.

? 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.
(b) Except as provided by Subsections (f) and (h), an
offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if:
(A) the amount of pecuniary loss is less than
$50; or
(B) except as provided in Subdivision (3)(A) or
(3)(B), it causes substantial inconvenience to others;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the amount of pecuniary
loss is $50 or more but less than $500;

Click to expand...

This is where I got the $50 figure from. I hate to break this to you, but driving off without paying for gas qualifies under "causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience." The only restriction is it has to occur at night, whether the thief is an invitee, social guest, licensee, or trespasser is totally irrelevant. I'm also not sure why you underlined trespass, because "unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property" certainly covers stuff like graffiti, bailing on a check, or stealing a car/stealing shit out of a car. Also, "cannot be recovered by any other means" does not exclude shooting, once the guy gets away, your shit is gone. You have no other means to prevent the loss, "Call the police and hope they catch the guy" does not count. The part about use of force other than deadly force is an or statement, if you have no other means besides shooting the guy to prevent him from escaping with your stuff, you can shoot him, regardless of your risk of injury.

This is not difficult or confusing at all. Once the thief/vandal is stealing more than $50 from you or causing property damage to your property, someone else's property, or public property of more than $50 he's guilty of third degree criminal mischief and you're legally allowed to shoot him.

Is there a chance that you might get hit with the opposite of jury nullification and get convicted despite the fact that the law clearly says you're innocent? Sure. However, under our legal system, the jury is supposed to be the finder of fact, not law, and the only way they can convict someone who shot a running thief or a vandal is if they are so disgusted with you that they "determine" that the facts of what occurred were something else. I'm pretty sure you'd have decent grounds for appeal in that case, but that's something I'm not sure of and I'd have to ask an actual lawyer to chime in on.

Does Honor-Killing have a link to Islam? I never paid much attention to it, except the occasional article in the newspaper. As far as I thought the importance of family honor is wide spread in general backwards countries regardless of religion. Kinda the same as woman circumsision/mutilation.

Xequecal_sl said:

This is where I got the $50 figure from. I hate to break this to you, but driving off without paying for gas qualifies under "causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience." The only restriction is it has to occur at night, whether the thief is an invitee, social guest, licensee, or trespasser is totally irrelevant. I'm also not sure why you underlined trespass, because "unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property" certainly covers stuff like graffiti, bailing on a check, or stealing a car/stealing shit out of a car. Also, "cannot be recovered by any other means" does not exclude shooting, once the guy gets away, your shit is gone. You have no other means to prevent the loss, "Call the police and hope they catch the guy" does not count. The part about use of force other than deadly force is an or statement, if you have no other means besides shooting the guy to prevent him from escaping with your stuff, you can shoot him, regardless of your risk of injury.

This is not difficult or confusing at all. Once the thief/vandal is stealing more than $50 from you or causing property damage to your property, someone else's property, or public property of more than $50 he's guilty of third degree criminal mischief and you're legally allowed to shoot him.

Click to expand...

Reading up on it, itappearsthe law changed in 2007, and actually, this is completely unique to Texas (Kind of wild, but I'll admit I was unaware of it). But in essence, the law used to state it required the place to be "habitation"; which means any area that someone can sleep in (Business, Car or Home). In order to shoot someone for taking something, you had to trespass on their habitation and THEN steal something (Explainedhere.). This is why I was talking about invitees. An invitee can not trespass, as there is an implied invitation for economic gain--since he can't trespass, you can't shoot him. As far as I know, this is literally how it works in every other state, and according to a Time article--it seems to be the case that Texas (After Dark) is thesoleexception here. And this is all due to Rick Perry expanding the law in 07, supposedly. However, the requirements for "reasonable" recovery are different from jury to jury, it seems. Unless, there is some kind of case law that augments this (Which might be why the article above was different, or maybe it was from before 07), but you'd have to ask a lawyer that.

But regardless. You're talking about one state out of the entire western world. 27 Million people, out of more than a billion, live in an area that allows you to use deadly force, in the heat of the moment, to protect your property. The point about the heat of the moment still stands--even in Texas, you can't track someone down, and ritualistically hang them, or stone them, for stealing from you. Hell, you can't even do that if they raped your wife and shot your dog (Though, the state can kill them for you--so that's a moot point). The moment you can stop, and reasonably think, without the imminent threat of property loss of harm--you absolutely can not use violence. Even in Texas.

So how is that at all comparable to the execution of homosexuals? Or the execution of apostates? Are you really comparing thieves (ONLY in Texas), with people who don't want to believe in God, or who are born homosexual? Again, though, the vast majority, Western people's, live in nations where thievery can not be responded to with violence, even criminal trespass, into your home, violence can't be used (In what, 30 out of 50 states? And almost no countries in Europe). But by comparison, nearly every Muslim country has some degree of violent retribution (Whippings, all the way to death) for apostasy or homosexuality; while many rural communities (Which would be their Texas) have honor killings for not adhering to strict religious custom.

No matter how you chop it up, man. It's aradicalfalse equivalence. You're comparing true victimless crimes, being responded to with state sanctioned killings--to ACTUAL criminal acts against another person, being responded to in the heat of the moment with violence.

Well, I of course chose the standard in one of the most conservative areas. I don't think that's a stretch, because honor killings in the Muslim world are also generally confined to very conservative areas. The vast majority of honor killings occur in rural villages where the country's court system might not even be operating at all, honor killings definitely aren't kosher in the major cities. There's also a difference between actually functional governments like Iran, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia and shit like the Taliban. The former is definitely what we should be looking at for comparison here.

As far as comparable goes? Have you never stolen anything? Never committed any kind of petty crime? As a % of population, I'm pretty sure we've got more sub-$100 thieves than we have people guilty of the things people get honor killed for in Muslim countries, and the fact remains that Texas lets you kill such thieves. Also, I'm pretty convinced the only reason that we don't have Saudi Arabia-style punishments (branding, whipping, cutting off hands, etc) for even petty thievery in the most conservative areas is because the people don't trust the government not to fuck up administering such punishments, and you can't glue someone's hand back on after you've cut it off. It's certainly not borne out of a moral opposition to cutting off the hand of a shoplifter. The sheer, unbridledhatredthat US rural conservatives tend to direct at even petty thieves is honestly pretty disturbing. Once you have committed theft, you are forever a worthless, irredeemable individual in their eyes and they would prefer that you got shot while committing your crime, so they wouldn't have to pay to house you in a prison with their tax money.