Murderer Uses Google Earth to Target Victim

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]Kahless01[/nom]part of this is kinda englands fault. they have such strict gun control that criminals know you dont have a weapon and dont worry about getting on in their ass when they break into your house. i can almost guarantee that texas has one of the lowest per capita home burglary rates since its legal to shoot a mf dead when he enters your house here.[/citation]
You know that does make sense. The only problem is that many things that 'make sense' are actually completely wrong. Like tougher sentences on criminals reducing crime rates. Like having guns making less crime.

http/www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

I couldn't find rates specifically on home burglary but this still illustrates the point. Deterrents (tougher sentences, death penalties or home owners with guns) for the most part do not reduce crime.

Its funny how countries with more lax penalties tend to have lower crime. Also interesting to note that as penalties become harsher crime tends to increase. Should we implement laws that 'make sense' and make us 'feel' better, or should we implement laws that actually work. I'm sick of the conservative BS that throwing people in jail is good for society. Sometimes you have to look at what works and not what's 'fair' and 'just'.

 

[Zingam]

So? Is Google Earth guilty or not? Should Google go on trial or not?

 

[pozaks]

Google Earth should be executed.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]pozaks[/nom]Google Earth should be executed.[/citation]
In the face.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]You know that does make sense. The only problem is that many things that 'make sense' are actually completely wrong. Like tougher sentences on criminals reducing crime rates. Like having guns making less crime.http/www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.htmlI couldn't find rates specifically on home burglary but this still illustrates the point. Deterrents (tougher sentences, death penalties or home owners with guns) for the most part do not reduce crime.Its funny how countries with more lax penalties tend to have lower crime. Also interesting to note that as penalties become harsher crime tends to increase. Should we implement laws that 'make sense' and make us 'feel' better, or should we implement laws that actually work. I'm sick of the conservative BS that throwing people in jail is good for society. Sometimes you have to look at what works and not what's 'fair' and 'just'.[/citation]

Its the other way around... As crime rise, people tend to ask for tougher sentences. I sure doesnt really bring the crime rate down. But it depends who your throwing in jail. If you act like the dumb Americans and jail people for low level drugs like weed and traffic violations it sure wont help your crime rates/prison bills. But for rapes and murder the sentences do help a little.

Anyway the best thing is home defense. It cost next to nothing to get a burglar off the streets. A 25 box of 12g 3inch deer slugs cost 10-15$ where I live.

 

[ithurtswhenipee]

[citation][nom]santfu[/nom]By "there" i assume you mean the UK, and thankfully no, we don't have the death penalty. The murderer is clearly F*&cked up, and he is now in prison. This crime is clearly involving alot of problems that our society has to deal with. Sadly, executing him will not solve any of them.Capital punishment is remarkably ineffective, in fact, the countries with the highest murder rates all have capital punishment. I'm not saying one causes the other, but clearly, one is not preventing the other either.[/citation]

Its not about preventing future murders. Its about not spending tax dollars on providing 35+ years of expensive housing,food,medical care,education etc. for people that have no right to live among us. How many murderers have been re-rehabilitated? These are disturbed individuals that are a lost cause. Put them out of their misery and save millions of dollars per inmate.

 

[igot1forya]

[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]what a creep,but how did he find out that an 84 year old woman lived there from google earth?[/citation]
Good no only captures your homes images but also collects your WiFi information and specifically states on Google Earth the following "Old lady detected - Would you like to map your home-invasion?" Google thinks of everything!

 

[yao]

the only mistake he made was to call a cab as exit strategy

 

[Riktoven]

Liberals...you guys crack me up. Every time a death penalty debate arises, one of two arguments is used to attack it. The first, is that it is not an effective deterrent. The second, is that killing is wrong.

Neither of these arguments carries any weight.

The Death Penalty is not about punishing the offender. I'd reather be dead than locked in a 5' x 6' cell for the rest of my life. It's about acknowledging that the individual's crimes are beyond forgiveness, and that it simply is not worth the expenditure of resources to even try and keep that piece of human filth alive. Why waste money/food/time on someone you'd just assume never existed?

The second argument, that the death penalty is immoral, is even more misguided than the first. It is based on the falacy that all killing is evil. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If all killing were evil, police wouldn't carry guns, and humans wouldn't eat meat. Like it or not, there are some people in this world that just need killin'.

Add to that the fact that we are talking about the UK here. We fought a long bloody war against these nitwits to get away from the assanine way they do things. Things like ban law abiding people from owning guns (knowing full well criminals, who by definition don't obey laws, would ignore such a ban) to defend themselves from this kind of thing.

For God's sake, this is the same country that tried to ban fire extinquishers in London high rise apartments because they were concerned with someone being hurt trying to tackle a fire too big for them. If you want to argue against the death penalty, don't use the backward British as your shining example of a capital punishment free utopia. Anyone who's been there knows better.

Everyone who is against the death penalty

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]Its the other way around... As crime rise, people tend to ask for tougher sentences. I sure doesnt really bring the crime rate down. But it depends who your throwing in jail. If you act like the dumb Americans and jail people for low level drugs like weed and traffic violations it sure wont help your crime rates/prison bills. But for rapes and murder the sentences do help a little.Anyway the best thing is home defense. It cost next to nothing to get a burglar off the streets. A 25 box of 12g 3inch deer slugs cost 10-15$ where I live.[/citation]
Ok, I agree with you about drug crimes etc being stupid to put people away for. There are many murderers who have been rehabilitated though. They're not the Charlie Manson types of course; they're the people who murdered our of impulse (e.g. walking in on your wife/husband with another man/woman) and have no priors.

As for saving money, in the US it currently costs more money to execute somebody than to keep them in jail for life. You could get around this by executing shortly after the trial, but then you risk the 1% chance of executing somebody falsely (which is why it takes so long now for appeals etc). So if you're willing to have a couple hundred innocent people get killed by the government every year then sure it is cheaper. Even besides this point the death penalty basically tells people that its ok to kill people as long as they're bad people. So morally its completely wrong too.

As for 'home defense', guns in the home statistically cause more problems for the home owner than for potential criminals. Unless you keep a gun in sight it has no deterrent value (and having it in sight actually causes more break in as criminals want guns) and if you don't keep it easily accessible and loaded (which is REALLY dumb to do) its also useless as a defensive weapon.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for people being allowed to have guns. I just don't want people to think that they solve more problems than they cause.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]Riktoven[/nom]Liberals...you guys crack me up. Every time a death penalty debate arises, one of two arguments is used to attack it. The first, is that it is not an effective deterrent. The second, is that killing is wrong.[/citation]
1) You don't even mention how it IS an effective deterrent. Please provide SOME kind of statistic not just 'it makes sense' logic that has no backup in the real world.

2) What is the reason behind killing a criminal? Its not to save money (it costs more than imprisonment), it must be to prevent them from hurting more people. But when they're in prison they aren't hurting more people. So then killing has no real value other than providing people with a sense of 'justice' which serves no real purpose. If you're worried about people that will reoffend getting out of prison, that's what parole boards are for. Why do you think Charles Manson is still in prison? The parole board won't let him out even though he's served his time.

 

[Riktoven]

1.) Learn to read. I specifically said it's not a deterrent. It was never itended to be. It's merely for closure.

2.) Again, you're an idiot. You keep quoting stats about it costing more to kill someone than lock them up forever. That may be true in some dumbass societies (most especially the US) where lawyers, judges, jurors, county clerks, etc, etc. are paid for the DECADES that the appeals process drags on for. However, to those of us with a little common sense, it's painfully obvious that a $0.10 bullet to the back of the head is cheaper than decades of food, lawyers, and bleeding heart morons such as yourself.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]Riktoven[/nom]1.) Learn to read. I specifically said it's not a deterrent. It was never itended to be. It's merely for closure.2.) Again, you're an idiot. You keep quoting stats about it costing more to kill someone than lock them up forever. That may be true in some dumbass societies (most especially the US) where lawyers, judges, jurors, county clerks, etc, etc. are paid for the DECADES that the appeals process drags on for. However, to those of us with a little common sense, it's painfully obvious that a $0.10 bullet to the back of the head is cheaper than decades of food, lawyers, and bleeding heart morons such as yourself.[/citation]
Ok so

1) You want the government to kill people to make you feel better? I personally value human life more than that. And out of all of the arguments I've ever read about this topic, you're the first one to say that it has no deterrent value AND that we should still do it.

2) As I mentioned before:

As for saving money, in the US it currently costs more money to execute somebody than to keep them in jail for life. You could get around this by executing shortly after the trial, but then you risk the 1% chance of executing somebody falsely (which is why it takes so long now for appeals etc). So if you're willing to have a couple hundred innocent people get killed by the government every year then sure it is cheaper.

 

[Guest]

"Liberals..."

To quote Sly... -"I don't know, thanks?"

The evil liberals, champions of human rights and freedoms, are out to get us. Call ze police!

*sigh*

You're right that killing isn't immoral per see, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that it depends on the context. Arguing in favor of killing a person out of convenience or for what that person might possibly do in the future isn't remotely comparable to killing in self defense or for food.

As for your argument about rather dying than spending your life in a cell, I'm sure you'd be allowed to argue the case for yourself once you're in that situation but you'd probably do well not to presume speaking for every human being on the planet.

As for being a liberal I prefer the term 'bleeding heart liberal' myself. You may thank me for it later too, I'm certain you'll get the opportunity.

As a humorous aside I'll offer the dictionary.com definition of 'liberal' for review.

--- quote follows ---

–adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14.
a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15.
( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

 

[potatolord]

Rather hilariously, the countries that employ the death penalty in the way many of the (US, I'm guessing) posters here are requesting are ones that the US views as intolerant, repressive and backward.

I'm not especially anti the death penalty. It's just that it is rather difficult to say sorry for wrongful conviction to a corpse.

 

[LLJones]

The problem is that although he probably walked past the the target, he was then able to use google to scope it out. I think this is where the problem lays. As someone is able to look at your house from all angles and online, it removes the ability for police to ask the very pertinent but now useless question "did you see any unusual or suspicious persons or vehicles around?".

People generally won't remember seeing a person or vehicle once, but 2 or 3 times sure. Is this the case every time?, no, but google does allow the person to check out many more places from all kinds of angles without arousing any kind of suspicion.

The police were still able to capture him, but they now have one less tool to work with. Google should have limited their pictures to businesses only. It is not very often that I look for a personal address, but business addresses all the time. Also, if you get lost in residential area, turning around does not pose nearly the problem, unlike downtown whatever city.

And yes google can be used to target a business, but after hours the place is locked tight and usually incorporates an alarm system.

I used to think gated communities were useless ideals of the paranoid, but I will have to revisit that idea.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

How bout just plain old a life sentence?

 

[Guest]

"How bout just plain old a life sentence?"

He did get served with a life sentence, he's merely not eligible for parole until he's served 34 years.

"He has been ordered to serve at least 34 years of a life sentence before being considered for release."

 

[JohnnyLucky]

seems to be just a variation of "casing a joint".

 

[elcentral]

damn ive been using avg all this time so meny hours wasted.