Panic At Nabisco

Graham,
You are right, Mass. is weak, it's the laughing block of all the other states.
Example: juveniles, who commit crimes, why aren't there names published?
If you're old enough to do the crime.
We just had a case of a 14yr old pushing an elderly man off a dock in Falmouth, the guy's okay just some cuts, but that's not the point,
They arrest the kid, he get's his 1 phone call and he calls his friends to brag.
DO THEY PUBLISH HIS NAME?
OH NO NO NO, NOT IN MASS, IT'S BECAUSE HE'S A JUVENILE.
WHAT A FREAKEN JOKE

EXCELLENT point, Nomorehacks! Government in Mass. has simply become a revenue generating machine. The MA Congress is worried about casinos and cigarette tax. Where is the law to protect kids from child molesters? Where is the law to break up and arrest gang members? Where is the law that says if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to prison for a very long time? What the heck are they doing on Beacon Hill anyway? It seems like all they do is figure out more ways to take your money away from you. What separates them from the criminal robber is that they call it taxes and fees not robbery.

Chip, your "solution" is just more of the same; and we know how well THAT has worked.

I find it funny that you are so embarrassed to admit what you are: a liberal. You remind me of someone who peruses gay porn, cheats on his wife with a man, but then adamantly denies being homosexual. You can't have it both ways. You have expressed a far greater number of liberal views than conservative, thus, you're a liberal.

I've fired PLENTY of guns - probably more than you have - but never at another human being.

But this is talking AROUND the point, which is part & parcel of being a liberal.

The point is that the crime-rate would drop faster than a trucker's cash supply at the gas-station if we were allowed to treat criminals like...CRIMINALS. The threat of "breaking rocks in the hot sun" is only going to possibly make them think of a song by The Clash, but it won't break their stride in heading for their next target.
I would not be "mortgaging my soul" knowing that what I had done by shooting a criminal may have prevented him from going to another house and possibly killing an INNOCENT person. Call me "crazy" (or "someone who has been diagnosed with a major mental illness") all you please; I'm on the side of INNOCENT people in these cases.
Joe Horn may have prevented that burglar from "graduating" to murder. I hope for his sake he sleeps very soundly, because I think what he did is heroic.
But I know Chip, even though - yet again - you take another liberal position, you're "not a liberal." Even though the ACLU would be on YOUR side in this debate, that's just a co-inky-dink. Have it your way, bub.

I frankly do not care what label you put on ME. My OPINION has sense to it. Absolutley nowhere in either our Constitutional form of legal system, not in any Judeo-christian outlook, do we kill people for what they MIGHT do. To suggest that we create some proacitve death penalty for those who might commit crimes is both ludacrous and barbaric. It is also Un-American at its core, and as "UnGodly" as any you'll ever hear.

The issue here is not solved by citizens randomly inflicitng sa self imposed death penalty for possible future crimes, but instead by decent people petitioning our government for more strict, and sensible enforcement of the existing laws.

If that makes me a liberal, then I guess I'm proudly liberal. But I will say this, the decision to take a human life is the single most life altering decision a person can make. That's why there are 2 psychological casualties for each physical casualty amounst active combat veterans.

Now, if we are talking about "allowing THE VICTIM to protect himself", as opposed to his property, using deadly force, I'm on board. The use of deadly force in situation of imminent life threat is a no brainer. I'm just not prepared to shoot a person cause he's stealin' my Sony...

AND, more importantly, I'm willing to, and have consistently both lobbying my legislators and in the ballot box, take the long hard road to societal protection.

We are still, and from my perspective proudly, a society of laws and not of men. It's the main thing that separates us from the likes of Pol Pot or Hugo Chavez to name a couple.

"AND, more importantly, I'm willing to, and have consistently both lobbying my legislators and in the ballot box, take the long hard road to societal protection."

Chip,

Look, I don't mean to sound like a Harry Harda**. I appreciate the intentions of what you're saying. But I just think that you're a little too unrealistically idealistic for the climate of the world today.
You have to realize that we are all potentially the cornered animal. You could be subject to the mercy of the judicial system within the next week (which I certainly hope you are not) and find the scales tipped in the favor of the criminal.
I just think that so long as a guy like Joe Horn still has to be sifted through the judicial system - more times than not - the scale should be tipped in HIS favor; not the criminal's.

No David....Jesus died for forgiveness...not justice...forgiveness.

I don't really know how this man was any better a person than the intruder. He sounds like a renegade who decided to take the law into his own hands. Actually, he went beyond the law and killed someone when it may not have been necessary. He could have aimed the gun and told the intruder to drop on the floor and put his hands behind his head. He had already called police, so knew they were on their way. If the intruder lunged toward him, or had a weapon, then he could claim self-defense. None of this happened. This shooter wanted revenge for someone trying to steal from him. He sounds just as dangerous to me.

Graham, one thing you missed with your post. Mr. Horn was NOT defending HIS property. It was his neighbor's house being robbed. That's what started the whole debate over his actions. Texas law at the time had recently been changed to allow people who LEGALLY own guns to protect their own property with deadly force (the "castle doctrine" Mr. Horn refers to in his 911 call), but it didn't say anything about someone else's property.

And for the record, I wish a lot more neighbors were at least a little more like Mr. Horn, minus all the violence. He apparently didn't know these neighbors very well, but still tried to protect them from this theft all the same. If more neighbors actually looked out for each other, there wouldn't be as big of a problem with sex offenders and drug dealers as there is today.