80 yr old man shoots woman burglar after pregnant plea

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I can condone a death penalty for a rapist, a child molester, or a murder depending on degree and details but it's absolute nonsense to think the American justice system can handle that responsibility when we throw in assaults or robberies. There's no possible way to guarantee every single time the right decision will be made, so there's no way in hell death should be the automatic punishment in this type of system.

This doesnt even count other cases. What if some guys are celebrating and they drink and end up scrapping? Do we execute the guy who started it and ruin his family's future over it? There's far too many technicalities to just say "Assault? Die!"

You condone it for rapists, molesters, etc, but against it for assaults and robbers because of false convictions, but what about false convictions for the rapists, etc..

I condone death if there is criminal intent on the assault... Your example- no, not death, there was no real criminal intent..
With the preggers lady and guy, they had criminal intent, and assaulted an 80 yr old.. They should die

[-Kev-]

Embezzlement or fraud with people's savings or taxpayer money should be death.. White collar or not, you are purposely screwing someone over.. Look at the employees at Enron, or the people that invest their life savings in Ponzi schemes.. These people should be put to death.. Just because the crime committed isn't a face to face crime, doesn't lessen the impact on a victim.. The Wall Street crooks are just as bad as the rapists and killers IMO

To your 2nd point, yes unjustly convicted people would probably be put to death, so there needs to be indisputable DNA or photographic evidence, etc..
It's not a perfect process and probably never will be, any system will be flawed in someway, but our current system really does nothing to deter crime..
Most but not all of the wrongly convicted people were convicted before DNA evidence was really perfected.. It's people from years ago.. Not so much the last 5-10 years as the scientific methods have improved..

Embezzlement, money laundering, fraud, identity theft, etc. are all terrible crimes of course. But the thing with embezzlement is that no one is going in to your home and shooting you up for your money. It's not armed robbery. They are hurting you financially, probably with cyber crime, another white collar crime.

Unfortunately white collar crime offenders get significantly less years in prison than armed robbers, while stealing significantly more money than the armed robbers did. They should get the same.

[-The Glove-]

I agree with Piggy on this one...they've already fled his house...they're running away through an alley where she's shot twice in the back. You have a right to protect your home, but you don't get to blast people in the back twice who no longer pose a threat to you or your property.

This reminds me of that pharmacist, I believe, that had a robber lay faced-down in his store and shot him in the back.

[-The Glove-]

I can condone a death penalty for a rapist, a child molester, or a murder depending on degree and details but it's absolute nonsense to think the American justice system can handle that responsibility when we throw in assaults or robberies. There's no possible way to guarantee every single time the right decision will be made, so there's no way in hell death should be the automatic punishment in this type of system.

This doesnt even count other cases. What if some guys are celebrating and they drink and end up scrapping? Do we execute the guy who started it and ruin his family's future over it? There's far too many technicalities to just say "Assault? Die!"

No. That would be manslaughter, not murder

[Dixie Normis]

In this case, the perpetrators completely deserved it. No controversy here

[The Noose]

I agree with Piggy on this one...they've already fled his house...they're running away through an alley where she's shot twice in the back. You have a right to protect your home, but you don't get to blast people in the back twice who no longer pose a threat to you or your property.

This reminds me of that pharmacist, I believe, that had a robber lay faced-down in his store and shot him in the back.

But a police officer is trained to deal with crime. This old faaka had been robbed a couple of times previously, just been assaulted and was probably not in the right frame of mind.

[Russian Crushin]

Good,, if you break into someones house, then it should be automatic death penalty..

I think for every major crime like rape, murder, assault, robbery, embezzlement, etc,, should be automatic death

How about being a con artist?

[Bushbaby]

I agree with Piggy on this one...they've already fled his house...they're running away through an alley where she's shot twice in the back. You have a right to protect your home, but you don't get to blast people in the back twice who no longer pose a threat to you or your property.

This reminds me of that pharmacist, I believe, that had a robber lay faced-down in his store and shot him in the back.

None of what you posted resemble piggy's point though. He brought cops into this discussion and actually tried to compare a trained officer to an 80 yo civilian victim, (until he whipped out the dirty harry).

[-jose-]

If a cop had shot someone in the back as they ran away then every single one of you would be calling for him to get the death penalty.

oh please piggy

this is a complete different situation here, you are comparing an officer driving around in his patrol car that gets a call to go stop a robbery to a 80 year old man watching TV in his living room in his castle in his safe place minding his own business that turns around and sees these two individuals in his home so he grabs his firearm to protect what's his to protect his life, of course he wasn't in his right state of mind this two mother****ers are in his house I don't think anybody will be in the right state of mind no matter if you're 80 years old or 30 you gotta act quick or your life could depend on it

now think about this if this old man didn't have a firearm then what do you think would of happen, the one that got away probably would have beat the old man down and the pregnant lady stomped on him while he laid on the floor as they rob the house and probably killed him but since he shot one of the scum bags in the back then he's the bad guy lol he's still living because he's had a firearm he would've been dead if he didn't

[New England]

Embezzlement, money laundering, fraud, identity theft, etc. are all terrible crimes of course. But the thing with embezzlement is that no one is going in to your home and shooting you up for your money. It's not armed robbery. They are hurting you financially, probably with cyber crime, another white collar crime.

Unfortunately white collar crime offenders get significantly less years in prison than armed robbers, while stealing significantly more money than the armed robbers did. They should get the same.

armed robbers threaten to kill you. the language used in the law is that they put you in fear. embezzlement doesn't do that, even if it's more likely to be responsible for more money being stolen.

there's really no comparing the two. one is a violent crime, and the other is not. both are forms of stealing, one involves threat of injury or death.