Originally posted by RedefinedDiva

What's the difference between killing someone outside trying to steal your car as compared to someone in your home? NOTHING. Why? Because you are still killing.

NO it is not at all the same thing. It is the difference between shooting someone to save a thing and shooting to save your life. If you don't see the difference between a life and a material posession then I can't begin to explain it to you.


In either case, you still have to ask for forgiveness from the Lord. That's personal between that man and God.

Well when you kill someone else it is also between that man and the family of the deceased, the friends of the deceased, and anyone that that person's life ever touched. It also becomes a matter of law.

What right does the murderer have to take this man's life? Yes he was stealing a car, but that does not give you or any of us the right to say that his life was not worth more than a CAR. The only person who can say that that man's life was worth less than yours and mine is God, and I am not comfortable having anybody on the street feeling that they are capable of making that distinction in his place.

What would you be saying if in shooting at the thief he had hit a passer-by? It is essentially the same situation. Who can judge between the life of the passer-by and the life of the thief? One was an innocent, but life is life. Only God can judge between them.

Of all the people in here that say that they would not have shot at the man, who has actually been a victim of crime? If you have been , why would you have reacted differently than this man?

I have been a victim of a number of crimes, lol. I was born and raised in NYC! I have been stalked, and my house has been robbed TWICE. Would I wish DEATH on any of those people? NO! I am not equipped to judge whether they deserve to die for wanting my tv. I would want them in JAIL. I would want them to suffer JUSTICE as mandated by our court system, not by the subjective morality of the man on the street.

I would also want my stuff back, lol.

The difference is you're fighting for your right to live, not drive. Murder is wrong true enough, but if you think you're about to be murdered you protect yourself and children. Self defense and intentional murder are different. I fail to see the correlation in the value of a life and the value of a depreciated car. I know I would have reacted differently because maybe I'm a rare breed, but I don't value or have an obsessive behavior about a vehicle as much others. I'm thankful to have a car, but I don't hold worship services in it's honor. Let me miss a few payments and it's no longer mine anyway. But hey look on the bright side, if you win the shootout, you can sell the car and use that money for bail or your retainer. Hopefully the resale or fair market value of your car is high because I've heard those legal fees ain't no joke. You won't need any more transportation to work because after the charge, you'll be fired anyway. Wrong choices in the eyes of the law can get quite expensive.

As I've stated previously, I've seen the effects of a violent crime. My sister was beaten and left for dead in North Memphis. My cousin was stabbed to death in her apartment in Bartlett. It was a home invasion. Neither case was solved due to lack of evidence. No one has literally put a gun to my head, or stolen my car, but I've felt what crime can do nonetheless. Can you say you know what it feels like to be robbed of something that doesn't have a price tag? If attempted theft of property equals murder, what does attempted theft of life equal? Does living have an equivalent or does property rule over all?

Yes, I can. Unlike having my house burglarized like LovelyIvy has, I have been the victim of armed robbery/attempted murder. Was my life worth a material item? HELL NO! However, tell that to the fool that robbed and tried to kill me! I just thank God that I am alive to be able to type on this forum. Have I also lost something that doesn't have a price tag? HELL YES! Try having nightmares about a gun clicking at your head. Or how about being terrified of people coming close to you. There is more to it, but I will keep those matters to myself.

With that being said, I will not try to further explain my reasons for agreeing with what happened My opinion will never change for reasons that I feel comfortable with. My opinion has been continuously taken out of context, however, it's cool. I will not attempt to correct the points that were misunderstood. It's not even a issue for me anymore. Obviously, everyone has their own view of how they would have handled the situation. I respect everyone's points and opinions. :)

Was my life worth a material item? HELL NO!

Thank you. I've been stating this all along.

I just thank God that I am alive to be able to type on this forum.

He's worthy to be praised and I'm glad God spared your life.

Have I also lost something that doesn't have a price tag? HELL YES! Try having nightmares about a gun clicking at your head. Or how about being terrified of people coming close to you. There is more to it, but I will keep those matters to myself.

I'm sorry that you've gone through that and thank God you're alive. In your situation your life was in danger, so if you killed the man it would have been self defense. He tried to rob your LIFE, the PROPERTY was a secondary issue. Do you see where we are going here? LIFE is PRIMARY. PROPERTY is SECONDARY or of lesser importance...not of equivalent value. A car theft resulting in death of the criminal without you being in imminent danger is intentional murder. An attempted theft of your life resulting in the perpetrator's death is a justifiable homicide. An attempted parked car theft and being a victim of an armed robbery/ attempted murder are NOT comparable to one another not in the least bit. I don't think there is anyone in this world that could give a logical comparison of equivalence. You've further proven what I've been saying all along. Your LIFE value is more important than a depreciated car value. Your life's circumstances and the mere fact you're here to participate in this dialogue makes you an authority and a living witness to this testimony of life.

With that being said, I will not try to further explain my reasons for agreeing with what happened. My opinion will never change for reasons that I feel comfortable with. My opinion has been continuously taken out of context, however, it's cool. Obviously, everyone has their own view of how they would have handled the situation. I respect everyone's points and opinions. :)

I tried to quote you to refrain from taking your opinions out of context, but if you feel I did this unjustly then I do apologize. But as I've stated previously, I may not agree with your opinions, but I respect your right to have, give, and stick with one. :)

WOW!
 

I certainly understand how we get fed up with being the victim time and time again. However, it still shocks me how those who claim to be Christians and walk in the footsteps of Christ have so little reverance for human life. This MURDER was WRONG! Human life is more improtant than material posessions in any situation. By taking this man's life you make a permanent decision w/o even knowing all of the facts/circumstances or giving him the benefit of the doubt. Yet, it does not matter what we really feel is justified or what we "claim" we would do if we were in that situation. The bottomline is w/o a doubt this man will be prosecuted. If you murder someone for trying to steal your parked car from the front of your house you will be prosecuted. I don't think it is worth it for any of us to lose our entire life b/c we overreacted.

Re: WOW!
 

Now, you know you can open up a HUGE can of worms with that sentence. So, we better not got there.

A lot of things shock me, too from those who claim to be Christians, walking in HIS foosteps and it has nothing to do with or is not limited to killing someone, either. ;)

what about this situation?
 

what do people think about this situation? I saw this posted on another forum...


http://www.keithboykin.com/

The Strange Case of Cory Maye
Picture this. You're a black man asleep in bed at home in Mississippi. It's the night after Christmas 2001, and no one else is in the house but your 18-month-old daughter. You hear a loud thud and suddenly the sound of feet stomping on the floor outside your bedroom door. You grab your gun. A white man bursts into your bedroom with a gun. You shoot first. He dies. Is this self-defense or murder? :confused:

Let me add a few facts in favor of the prosecution. The white man lying on your bedroom floor is a police officer. Moreover, he's the son of the police chief. :eek: And his fellow officers say he identified himself as he was conducting a lawful warranted search of the apartment for drugs. Police say they found traces of drugs in the apartment.

But here are the facts in favor of the defendant. Even if the police officer did identify himself, the defendant was asleep and never heard it. The warrant the police used did not list Cory Maye as a suspect but instead listed a different suspect in a different apartment in the building. There were no drugs found in Maye's apartment that day, although the police later changed their story to claim that they found traces of drugs. The defendant had no prior criminal record. :confused: As a black man in Mississippi, he feared for his life and the life of his young daughter. Yet the defendant was convicted of murder by a mostly white jury and sentenced to death. The defendant, Cory Maye, now sits on death row. :mad:

....to find out more -- you can contact the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP at (601) 353-6906 or you can contact the Region V NAACP offices in Atlanta at (404) 688-8868 to talk about the national office response and how you can join in the struggle.

Re: what about this situation?
 

From the limited info in this post, the verdict is bogus. Yet another reason that the DP should be removed in all states. He is on death row, probably, b/c the guy was a cop. States often have increased penalties when they are killed. Of course, other factors may have come into play - race, the idiosyncracies of the members of the jury, including the power dynamic in the jury room (which I have seen firsthand), etc.

Further, if the warrant was not for his apt. then the cop was completely out of line for coming into his apt. That doesn't mean that the cop should be killed but it's just another example of problems in our justice system - just like in any other system.

If MS does have a separate offense of killing a cop, I wonder if the state even provides self-defense as a defense to the offense. Even still, whether he was using self-defense may be questionable if he didn't even wait to see if the person was really acting with an intent to inflict bodily harm on him. Further, SD only gives the right to use the force coming at you - so not deadly force if the person isn't threatening deadly force or serious bodily harm (so you can't shoot someone who is coming at you with an open hand to slap you for instance). Still, on general principles of life and fairness, it seems like you ought to be able to shoot if someone's in your house and still coming .... It doesn't make sense to me.

Removing the fact that he was a cop, this definitely doesn't seem like the type of facts that should lead to a death sentence. Adding in the cop factor, MS probably has some kind of increased penalties for that and that's probably partly why. Anyone of us could have made this same mistake.

Re: Re: Justifiable by what?
 

Because neither burglary nor car theft is a capital crime, people should not be permitted to kill those who commit them. However, if some fool is attempting to break into MY home, you can bet I WILL shoot him dead BEFORE he gains entry, as is lawful under Louisiana law (LA R.S. 14:20). If its my car he is after, then the severity of my reaction will depend upon the circumstances, including my car's proximity to me and my house.

For the record:
Justifiable Homicide in Louisiana
LA R.S. 14:20

A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1.

Texas is such a unique place.....:p

I admit, I would have no problem shooting someone who tried to mess with me or my property. Although I would probably shoot to maim, and go for the knees.

As for homey in Miss.....That's why I can't live in the South.:(

In Florida this would not be justifiable. Threat of force must equal threat of force. You cannot use deadly force to protect property. If the people were attempting to break into his home it would be a different story because different standards apply to the home. However, because his life was not in danger he had no right to use deadly force.