Justice - this is how it should be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV7AZfllTGs
Yeah, maybe you’re right, maybe I am misguided, maybe they should just be allowed to rob people and take what they want. Then again, like I said before, what if he didnt have a gun and he challenged them what would the outcome have been, would they still have tried to run away or beaten the old guy probabl to death in cold blood before robbing him and maybe his wife too. I supose that would be okay would it. As for the dispassionate comentary, yeah your probably right there again, we should all have more compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves who feel the need to break into our homes and take what we have worked hard to achieve without our permission.shando
great link! brasseye rocks!!! the drugs one was quality! clarkey cat! i don’t want my arms to go all blooty!! and don’t get me started on sir alan of partridgeshire! :hehe:
on a more serious note. i’m finding the fact that a member of our majesties constabulary condoning someone being shot IN THE BACK slightly disturbing. jean charles de menezes anyone? i’m no loony liberal by any means but an eye for an eye and we’d all be blind. seeeen?
See what you mean there, but understandably Mr Menendez wasn’t climbing out your back window with your plasma telly and dvd player. Don’t see it as comparable in any way.
shando
when someones dead, they can’t answer no questions my friend.
did they have his tv and dvd player then? maybe i should watch the clip again. if anyone owns a gun, they should at least know how to aim the 'kin thing. i would’ve gone for the legs myself. but there again, i would’ve had a crossbow
+1
awwww they deserved every pellet!..end of!.
nah you’re right. but he was carrying a shite load of explosives wasn’t he?
you follow?
I couldn’t premeditatedly kill someone whilst giving a running commentary on the phone to the emergency services, but I would let my dog out at them and she would do it (without the phone call bit) if they tried to burgle us.
Exactly, not comparable at all is it.
shando
:pinch:
Why do Americans need to defend themselves from each other with all this artillery in the first place 
I heard of a similar case. Apparently the telephone transcript went something like this:
‘Hi, is that the police?’
‘Yeah’
‘There are a couple of guys in my garden and I thought I’d give you a call’
‘Okay, do you want us to come and arrest them?’
‘Well they’re standing in my garden at the moment…hang on a minute (short pause, noises off)…Its okay don’t bother they moved a bit so I shot them in the back.’
‘Oh right. Thanks for calling, have a nice day’
Totally aside from the absolutely massive difference between A) using a gun to defend yourself from an active threat (which I believe would have been acceptable) and B) shooting a man in the back, you mean?
Well, I personally believe there’s a middle ground that’s being ignored. “Letting someone walk off with everything you own” and “murdering them on sight”, therefore, are the two extremes of the scale, rather than the only two alternatives! You’re essentially saying that he made a choice between the two - and I consider that misguided.
That being said, even if they were the only two alternatives; that is, if I had to murder someone in order to protect a television - I couldn’t do it. And I still think anybody’s a dangerous lunatic if they can.
How would you know that stealing your telly is their only itention though? What if they decide to violate a member of your family? Kinda changes things.
shando
Yeah, it does. In that case I’m fairly sure I’d do exactly the same thing as you would. I don’t think I’d even feel much remorse.
I fear we’ve strayed from the current case study, though, and invented our own crime! In the case in the news at the moment the two men weren’t an active threat when he shot them. Even if they had been previously (for instance while entering the house, possibly armed, or when first surprised in the act of whatever it was they were doing), when he killed them they were not; he did so in cold blood.
I guess a part of it is some sort of vaguely British feeling I get that shooting someone should be more gravely undertaken than this. One shouldn’t say “bang” over the phone as one pulls the trigger, for instance. I know it makes no sense and isn’t really relevant, but this aspect of the whole business gets to me, somehow!
The ‘boom boom’ thing is probably called depersonalisation or something in psychospeak. The guy was playing cowboys in his head.
Yes you’re right about digressing. Although it’s only an assumption, those 2 guys probably only ran when he pulled the shotgun on them, I dare say if he didn’t have one they would have done him over. The way I see it though is that okay, agreeing that they got what they deserved may appear a bit extreme, only a bit mind, but if they hadn’t been out to rob him and break the law in the first place they woudn’t have been shot. Thems the breaks in Texas.
shando
Quite right too when protecting your family and I doubt there are many on here who would disagree but it’s not a question of judging by different standards - what your friend did is just not the same thing as going outside your property and shooting two people deliberately in the back.
Love it 
Import 125 is right - this guy did not sound scared on the phone and in fear of his life - he sounded ANGRY and PSYCHOTIC - not the best type of person to be in charge of a pump action shotgun don’t you think?
Let’s face it chaps - we’ve all been there - e.g. got angry either on the road or down the pub after a few pints e.t.c. - at best we check ourselves and defuse the situation - at worst we give the finger/shout/make threats - if it’s really got out of control there is a punch up - LUCKILY - we don’t live in a country/state like America/Texas where people routinely arm themselves with PUMP ACTION SHOTGUNS - IF WE DID SOME OF US WOULD NOT BE AROUND TO POST ON THIS FORUM (check U.S. gun death statistics).