Except in The Searchers.John Wayne wouldn't shoot someone in the back.
That was different. He was a Commanche. Doesn't really count as a person...Except in The Searchers.
No, he shot Futterman in the back too when he was sneaking up on Martin.That was different. He was a Commanche. Doesn't really count as a person...
Two dead scumbag thieves.
Why are we having a cry in our thongs session over these two wastes of air?
Makes me wish I lived in Texas.
Exactly. The article even said that the guy bestowed the death penalty for burglary. The Supreme court just said that that was too severe for raping a child.The problem as someone stated earlier is the lack of due process. In the act of vigilante justice the shooter not only exacts a punishment significantly more extreme than law already calls for but removes the chance that they are actually innocent.
.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.htmlThe Texas Supreme Court, showing continued deference to religious practice, on Friday tossed out a $188,000 judgment against members of a Pentecostal church who restrained a teenager they feared had come under demonic influence.
Laura Schubert claimed that rough handling during the hours-long 1996 incident involving the "laying on of hands" and intensive prayer left her disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder.
Jurors agreed, finding that Schubert, then 17, was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by a pastor, youth minister and members of Pleasant Glade Assembly of God church in suburban Fort Worth.
However, the state Supreme Court dismissed Schubert's case in a 6-3 ruling, saying her lawsuit violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections on religious expression the latest in a string of decisions limiting judicial oversight of religious institutions and practice.
Wrote Jefferson: "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."
Schubert's case began after she collapsed during a Sunday worship service. Several church members, alert for signs of nefarious activity after a youth reported seeing a demon on church grounds, escorted her into a classroom to pray for her safety.
Schubert testified that she was pinned to the floor for three hours while she screamed, flailed and begged to be freed.
Texas reminds me of some kind of Saudi province or something with weird medieval laws.
For example, in Texas your church can lock you up and exorcize demons from your body. That was posted in the recent "anti-pro every a$$hole can has a gun thread", but for some reason it was overlooked there. (I guess author didn't follow N8 copy paste procedure):
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.html
Yup...that's exactly where I'd wanna be again...Article said:Even so, three days later she returned to the Colleyville church, where the experience was repeated.
Me thinks the two incidents might not be completely related...Article said:She received carpet burns, bruises and injuries to her wrists and back.
So, can you shoot someone to prevent them from stealing YOUR stuff? The Supreme Court has now limited the death penalty to murderers. Anyone else (rapists, burglars, robbers, etc) is not eligible for the death penalty. By your definition, you'd have to say that the only time when you can use a gun would be when you're in imminent, MORTAL danger. You wouldn't be able to kill someone to prevent a burglary, robbery, rape, assault, etc.The problem as someone stated earlier is the lack of due process. In the act of vigilante justice the shooter not only exacts a punishment significantly more extreme than law already calls for but removes the chance that they are actually innocent.
not sure how to define robbery but I'll just say it is someone taking something from your person. In the case of rape and assault you should be able to defend yourself as you are at risk of bodily harm, there is no way to predetermine if that harm is deadly or not so you should be able to defend yourself. In the case of robbery the thief pretty much has to threaten you or overpower you to steal so yes again you should be able to defend yourself.So, can you shoot someone to prevent them from stealing YOUR stuff? The Supreme Court has now limited the death penalty to murderers. Anyone else (rapists, burglars, robbers, etc) is not eligible for the death penalty. By your definition, you'd have to say that the only time when you can use a gun would be when you're in imminent, MORTAL danger. You wouldn't be able to kill someone to prevent a burglary, robbery, rape, assault, etc.
Not advocating one way or another on this case, but just asking for clarity on your position...
Tell me you have never dreamed about some double D's with a sucking chest wound?Well she could be hot....you never shoot a hottie....
I'm more of an "ass man".......Tell me you have never dreamed about some double D's with a sucking chest wound?
*grabs a tissue... thinks again... puts tissue down. pulls off sock.*Tell me you have never dreamed about some double D's with a sucking chest wound?
no they wouldn't. they would have gotten away only to do it again. you play the game of burglary, you take a hot chance of getting dead if you break into the wrong house. not that i'm agreeing with the texas law, but....it's not like these guys were beneficial members of society.And we all know that if he had listened to that dispatcher from central casting and stayed in his house, those two hood rats would be doing long stretches in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. ...
not any more they're not anyway...unless they're fertilizer. I can't imagine Rampaging Roy wouldn't have shot even them if they'd donated a kidney each......it's not like these guys were beneficial members of society.
good point.not any more they're not anyway...unless they're fertilizer. I can't imagine Rampaging Roy wouldn't have shot even them if they'd donated a kidney each.
Funny thing about this....I'm sure Cowboy Jim would be all up in arms about the second ammendment "Because it's in the constitution, y'al!!"... However he COMPLETELY ignored other stuff that is in the very same constitution he holds so dear.......and come to think of it, it was stuff that is so important to the fabric of american society that it was included in the initial release and NOT in an ammendment!!!no they wouldn't. they would have gotten away only to do it again. you play the game of burglary, you take a hot chance of getting dead if you break into the wrong house. not that i'm agreeing with the texas law, but....it's not like these guys were beneficial members of society.