re: U.S. missionary killed by tribe on remote Indian island

[neeemu]

Defend themselves? Now you think "shoot strangers on sight" is defending yourself? You lot are a bit beyond strange. The tribe would have had no idea about this person. What religion or nationality he was had no bearing on their decision to murder him. It's really indefensible.

It's not murder if the laws of THEIR island don't say it is. The only people who commited an offence were the fisherman and the lad who died.

[sometimewoodworker]

Defend themselves? Now you think "shoot strangers on sight" is defending yourself? You lot are a bit beyond strange. The tribe would have had no idea about this person. What religion or nationality he was had no bearing on their decision to murder him. It's really indefensible.

Please prove that it was murder. He was killed after ignoring warnings, going to a place he had no right to go to.

[tamada]

Defend themselves? Now you think "shoot strangers on sight" is defending yourself? You lot are a bit beyond strange. The tribe would have had no idea about this person. What religion or nationality he was had no bearing on their decision to murder him. It's really indefensible.

The American homeowner who shot dead an unknown, lost and stressed out young Scottish oil field worker through his closed front door on Memorial Drive in Houston was also defending himself apparently. More of a case of shooting a stranger not on sight in that regard.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/s ... 98645.html

[Udon Map]

Please prove that it was murder. He was killed after ignoring warnings, going to a place he had no right to go to.

It's obviously a very complex situation; so there are no simple answers. But a death for trespassing does seem bit harsh to me.

[Doodoo]

Harsh
Then look at deaths where if you trespass into my domain then I have the right to kill the person
Example You tell me

[Doodoo]

Sorry here is a bit more info on where you can defend your home to the point of killing someone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[Stantheman]

Here we go bringing in our culture, whether it's use of weapons to protect your home or something else. To many look at this from western/modern culture which does not apply. The individual did not care that he might wipe out a primitive people with some possible disease, he only cared about what he thought was correct. They had every right to do what they did and owe no forgiveness or should receive any.
As for the Giggly one, yes I am defending them for what was done, but also think the people who took him there need to be punished, not for his death but for their breaking the no contact law.

[GT93]

The islanders, probably way too often, kill each other, treat women appallingly and have sex with children. Killing a dingbat and highly irresponsible missionary won't be the only deplorable act happening on the island this year.

[mech_401]

I daresay , if I saw you on the beach gt93 I probably
would have let a few arrows fly trolling the
islanders , trying to raise their ire. they read here

[Giggle]

This is good. The pacifist panty-waists who whine and piss and moan when admitted terrorists are killed on a battlefield are defending a tribe of cavemen for killing a person visiting an island with no ill intention and bringing gifts.

Your logic has more holes in it than a hunk of Swiss cheese.

[Udon Map]

Sorry here is a bit more info on where you can defend your home to the point of killing someone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

I'm quite familiar with stand-your-ground laws. But from your Wikipedia link, this:

... they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death.

It's not just a question of your right to shoot any trespasser on your property. You must reasonably believe that the trespasser poses an imminent and immediate thread of serious bodily harm and/or death.

So was reasonable for them to believe that the guy landing on the beach posed an "imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death"? I don't have the answer, but reasonable people may disagree on that one.

[stattointhailand]

Thus far I ve not seen any evidence, to show that he was a "missionary". To the best of my knowledge before you could become a "missionary" you would need to be selected and trained for the "mission" you were doing by your church........... this kid was no more a missionary than any of the lunatic gun totting kids who attack innocent schoolchildren because they have some deranged belief or another .......... the only difference was that his ammunition was germs and not bullets

The Indian govt has made several attempts to make "friendly contact" over the last 50 odd years the last being in 1991 when it was decided that the tribe wanted to be left alone, and that their wishes had to be accepted by the rest of the world

[GT93]

Why?

And why should the islanders not be subjected to the laws of India?

[stattointhailand]

Why?

And why should the islanders not be subjected to the laws of India?

Probably coz none of them would have the slightest idea What or Where India was, and as none of them speak the language it would be a bit of a problem explaining the laws to them, or in fact, what a LAW is

Bit like an alien ship turning up and telling the people of Earth that an inter stellar highway was being built so their life was being terminated

[sometimewoodworker]

It's not just a question of your right to shoot any trespasser on your property. You must reasonably believe that the trespasser poses an imminent and immediate thread of serious bodily harm and/or death.
foil
So was reasonable for them to believe that the guy landing on the beach posed an "imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death"? I don't have the answer, but reasonable people may disagree on that one.

That is a legal requirement in some states of the US. As such is irrelevant in most of the world. Not many other countries are quite as tolerant of killing as the USA

If he were in the US It might be relevant.

[Giggle]

It is illegal and immoral to kill unarmed civilians. Yes, I remember the well-worn refrain. Seems the tune has now changed among the hypocrites.

[Udon Map]

It's not just a question of your right to shoot any trespasser on your property. You must reasonably believe that the trespasser poses an imminent and immediate thread of serious bodily harm and/or death.

So was reasonable for them to believe that the guy landing on the beach posed an "imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death"? I don't have the answer, but reasonable people may disagree on that one.

That is a legal requirement in some states of the US. As such is irrelevant in most of the world. Not many other countries are quite as tolerant of killing as the USA

If he were in the US It might be relevant.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was responding to Doodoo's citing stand-your-ground laws above.

[stattointhailand]

It is illegal and immoral to kill unarmed civilians. Yes, I remember the well-worn refrain. Seems the tune has now changed among the hypocrites.

Unless you work for the American Police Dept?

[marjamlew]

It is illegal and immoral to kill unarmed civilians. Yes, I remember the well-worn refrain. Seems the tune has now changed among the hypocrites.

Unless you work for the American Police Dept?

It's so refreshing to see a yank showing such concern for the death of an unarmed civilian. I thought it was a sport in the states.

[pipoz4444]

It is illegal and immoral to kill unarmed civilians.

Say Who

The Guys who own the Island or the Guy that wanted to step on to it

pipoz4444