Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2005 20:52:19 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
>
>>>>Yes, you are, asshole.
>>>
>>>Piffle.
>>
>>No. You ARE saying that the immigratino status of the victim has some
>>bearing on the degree of culpability of the shooter. You are blaming
>>the victim because of his immigration status.
>>
>>And yes, you are an asshole.
>
>
> You are a churl.
Not in the least.
>
>
>>>> ANY mention of the person's
>>>>immigration status is irrelevant as to what the shooter
>>>>did wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are *you* saying that had he stayed home where he
>>>>>belonged he would have been injured in this manner anyway?
>>>>
>>>>Stop blaming the victim. The shooter did wrong,
>>>>period.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying any different. I didn't *blame* the victim.
>>
>>You ARE blaming the victim when you say he wouldn't have been there if
>>he weren't an illegal alien. SOME person who was NOT an illegal alien
>>might just as well have been there.
>
>
> Yes, but HE wouldn't. He placed himself in a risky
> situation and things went rather badly for him.
No, he didn't. He was walking along somewhere with
some other people.
The immigration status of the victim is wholly
irrelevant to determining liability in this. The
"hunter" negligently fired his gun, killing another person.
> I'll bet
> his friends and relatives now wish he'd obeyed U.S. law and
> not snuck into the U.S.
No, I can guarantee you that they wish the shooter had
been responsible. The shooter is solely responsible
for this bad outcome.
>
>>>However,
>>>when one puts ones self in a dangerous situation (and he evidently
>>
>>did
>>
>>>- dark and on another's property) bad things may happen.
>>
>>It's not at all clear he wasn't supposed to be on the property. He
>>might well have been an employee there. The story doesn't say what he
>>and the other "immigrants" were doing there. It ALSO doesn't say that
>>they were in the act of coming over the border.
>
>
> Then you don't know, either.
You may not assume that he was coming across the
border. However, that .witted hosebag 'Sue' seems
to be assuming that.
>>>> The shooting victim's immigration status is
>>>>completely irrelevant to the wrongness of the shooter's
>>>>action.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That's BULLSHIT,
>>>>>>you asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ooh, ooh. You have demeaned yourself by name calling.
>>>>
>>>>No, I haven't. I have demeaned you, you asshole, for
>>>>trying to exonerate the shooter by saying something
>>>>about the victim.
>>>
>>>Now, I'll admit to being a bitch, but I take umbrage with you calling
>>>me an asshole.
>>
>>Too bad. You ARE an asshole.
>
>
> tsk, tsk... very poor showing there.
No.
>>>I'm not trying to exonerate the shooter. I retracted my original
>>>statement.
>>
>>You're still invalidly trying to get the victim's immigration status
>>into the middle of this, when it has no bearing at all.
>
>
> The header says "Rancher and Farmer get Sued by Illegal
> Immigrants," so it must have some bearing.
That "header" is the composition of an immigrant-hating
asshole. The first sentence of the story he cites
(without attribution, of course) begins "The family of
an undocumented immigrant has filed an $8 million
wrongful-death lawsuit..." That is the only mention of
the victim's immigration status.
The victim's immigration status is wholly irrelevant in
terms of whether or not the shooter acted negligently
and criminally. I think there is no doubt he acted
negligently, and he probably acted criminally as well.
The failure of the district attorney so far to bring
charges is disgraceful.
>>>>ANYONE could have been out there. There is no
>>>>suggestion that the victim was in the process of
>>>>sneaking over the border at the time he was shot. He
>>>>was already over the border, and was just out going
>>>>about his business.
>>>
>>>His *illegal* business. Do you think that crossing the border is
>>
>>like
>>
>>>playing Red Rover - once you're across the line you're home free?
>>
>>I think that he has every right to expect he will not be shot.
>
>
> Really?
Yes. You asshole.
> I wouldn't expect to sneak into Mexico and stand NO
> chance of getting shot for my troubles. Why should the
> reverse be so for him?
If a Mexican border guard were to try to apprehend you
AS you crossed the border, and you were to try to
escape or resist arrest, then you might expect to be
shot. If, however, you sneaked across and were simply
strolling the streets of Tijuana, then your reasonable
expectation is that you would not be shot by some
Mexican citizen acting negligently.
>
> This whole bunch of baloney reminds me of the old joke about
> the fellow who goes to his doctor and complains of pain when
> he does this - raises his arm too high. The doc says,
> "Don't do that." Illegal aliens don't want to get shot by
> ranchers and farmers? Fine - don't sneak into the U.S.
No. That constitutes blaming the victim. With respect
to the shooter, the victim did not behave negligently. |
