Hopkins student kills intruder with samurai sword, police say
A Johns Hopkins University student armed with a samurai sword killed a man who broke into the garage of his off-campus residence early Tuesday, a Baltimore police spokesman said.
According to preliminary reports, a resident of the 300 block of E. University Parkway called police about a suspicious person, department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. An off-duty officer responded about 1:20 a.m. to the area with university security, according to Guglielmi. They heard shouts and screams from a neighboring house and found the suspected burglar suffering from a nearly severed hand and laceration to his upper body, he said.
The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. Based on the initial investigation, the student killed the man with only one strike of the sword, according to Guglielmi. The medical examiner will make the final determination, he said.
The student told police that he heard a commotion in the house and went downstairs armed with the sword, Guglielmi said. He saw the side door to the garage had been pried open and found a man inside, who lunged at the student. There was no indication that the suspected burglar was armed, however, according to Guglielmi.
Burglars had already stolen two laptops and a Sony PlayStation from the student's home Monday, Guglielmi said.
Dennis O'Shea, a spokesman for Johns Hopkins, said all four residents of the house are undergraduate students at the university. Police had released three of the roommates by Tuesday afternoon. The student who wielded the sword remained in custody while investigators worked to corroborate his story with evidence and witness statements. Police have not released the name of the residents, but department sources identified the detained student as John Pontolillo, 20, of Wall, N.J.
The city state's attorney's office will determine whether to press charges, Guglielmi said.
Police have also not released the name of the suspected burglar, but a department source identified the man as Donald D. Rice, 49, of the 600 block of E. 26th St. in Baltimore. He had 29 prior convictions for crimes such as breaking and entering, according to Guglielmi, and had been released Saturday from the Baltimore County Detention Center after he was arrested by county police in August 2008 for stealing a car in Baltimore. Rice was found guilty in December on one count of unauthorized removal of property, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Michael Hughes of the 3400 block of University Place, about a block away from the scene, said he was working at his home when he heard screams shortly after 1 a.m.
"I could hear the fear in the voice, and I could tell someone was scared," said Hughes, 43, who works for Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Hughes said he called police and could hear sirens as he was on the phone. He walked over to the crime scene shortly after.
"The body was near the garage. And I watched them carry the sword out. The whole thing was surreal and totally bizarre," Hughes said.
By Tuesday afternoon, two pools of blood remained on the ground a few feet away from the door to the garage, which is not connected to the home. A door to a wooden fence surrounding the back yard was broken, allowing the scene to be viewed from the sidewalk.
The three-story house has five bedrooms and two bathrooms, according to Diego Ardila, a junior at Hopkins. Ardila said he lived in the house during the summer and was a roommate of two of the people that currently live there.
Ardila, 19, said one of the roommates owned a samurai sword and generally kept it in his room. Ardila described the student as somewhat outgoing, although they did not speak frequently.
"He kept the sword on top of his cabinet," Ardila said.
Five people lived at the house during the summer, according to Ardila, who now lives a few blocks away.
"You don't expect to hear that someone you know killed a guy with a samurai sword. From what little I know of him, he wasn't some guy going out to kill," Ardila said.
Guglielmi said it is legal to possess a sword in Baltimore, and "individuals have a right to defend their person and their property." But the police spokesman said he was not in a position to comment on whether it was appropriate to use a sword, baseball bat or other means of defense.
Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
If you live in civilized regions, and Louisiana, you can.
I think Brazil's new RPPs (rocket propelled piranhas) are just the thing in this circumstance.
Hm. Not sure the burglar deserved to die, but still, it'd be quite easy to kill someone, even if you're aiming just to wound. I have a couple myself... you know how *sharp* they make them? O_O
If you break into someone's house to try and steal their stuff, you deserve to die.
Not in the "this crime deserves execution" way, but in the "gee, this gun is jammed, I'm going to look down the barrel to see what the problem is" way.
The victim isn't responsible to make sure that you're unarmed and not a threat to them if you're unable/unwilling to surrender fast enough and have not been incapacitated/severely disabled prior. (Not that it's relevant anyway if the guy is trying to jump on someone carrying a katana.)
Minnesota is that way too. It used to be in this state you literally had to wait until they were in your house or physically attacking you. Now, as long as they are on your property and you feel threatened by them you can shoot to kill.
It could get complicated if the person were just lost or wanting to ask a favor of you but for most people human nature is pretty good at knowing the difference between threat and good intentions. Most people who are looking to cause trouble or do harm give off that persona and don't always intend to use a weapon or might not necessarily be brandishing one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If his story checks out he will be set free. Had it been illegal to have the sword he'd get a felony weapon possession charge but I'd have to say that due to the circumstances if the DA and officer in charge of the investigation have any sense they'll let the kid go.
Does anyone really believe if you catch someone in your house...they become your property. Seriously if i find someone that broke into my house and was still there or sleeping and woke up, i would really try to not kill him with my spiked samurai club and just keep them as a pet in my basement....seriously...
Quick joke
What does the man in fire's basement eat for breakfast?
The same thing as the day before, the ex girlfireind in the dryer!
HAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...i need help
Fateweaver wrote:Minnesota is that way too. It used to be in this state you literally had to wait until they were in your house or physically attacking you. Now, as long as they are on your property and you feel threatened by them you can shoot to kill.
It could get complicated if the person were just lost or wanting to ask a favor of you but for most people human nature is pretty good at knowing the difference between threat and good intentions. Most people who are looking to cause trouble or do harm give off that persona and don't always intend to use a weapon or might not necessarily be brandishing one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Minnesota is that way too. It used to be in this state you literally had to wait until they were in your house or physically attacking you. Now, as long as they are on your property and you feel threatened by them you can shoot to kill.
It could get complicated if the person were just lost or wanting to ask a favor of you but for most people human nature is pretty good at knowing the difference between threat and good intentions. Most people who are looking to cause trouble or do harm give off that persona and don't always intend to use a weapon or might not necessarily be brandishing one.
If his story checks out he will be set free. Had it been illegal to have the sword he'd get a felony weapon possession charge but I'd have to say that due to the circumstances if the DA and officer in charge of the investigation have any sense they'll let the kid go.
Texas has the additional wrinkle that any woman can claim the "he needed killin your honor" defense. At least that is what my wife keeps telling me...
In Louisiana they have the gator defense, which can be viewed variously as "I thought he was a gator coming to eat me" or inversely "in Louisiana, if you don't eat me I am going to eat you." Never ask what is in that tasty gumbo you just ate. You don't want to know.
In Mn if it wasn't arranged ahead of time someones property becomes yours so by RAW if someones gf wanders into your house and gets "left" their after 30 days she is yours. Hehe.
Now to convince Angelina Jolie to stay at my house for 30 days.
I'm with everyone else here. If someone is putting me or my loved ones at risk, frankly, feth 'em. If I can safely incapacitate them without killing them I would, or if they try to run away, I obviously wouldn't go after them to kill them.
But if someone breaks into my house and I discover them and they come at me, I'd want the law to protect me if I killed them.
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
We'll ask you what your definition of decent is after your house is invaded. Until you experience just how exposed, vulnerable, and violated it makes a person feel, don't comment on it. Seriously.
Probably... Yea I also think that you shouldn't be charged if you kill someone if they break in as you could get killed trying to stop them but you could have just hit them with something heavy but it might have killed them. If it was me I would have done the same thing (Gone in with a weapon and just aimed for the chest/head)
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
i wounder how quickly your mind would change if someone broke into your house???
Nurglitch wrote:A "samurai sword"... feh. Betcha is was a shinken.
Your use of correct terms based on more than passing knowledge will avail you nought young skywalker! I'm surprised the reporter managed to spell "samurai" correctly. never trust a reporter on real facts. The extent of their knowledge base in articles like this is usually quite shocking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
M_Stress wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
No read the details .
Ok, Let's do that...
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
tell ya what.
I'll post my next target on the window of my house. You post your statement above. Lets see which one has to test the theory first. I'm betting...you.
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
i wounder how quickly your mind would change if someone broke into your house???
He's from Canada.
That kind of thing just isn't done.
Canadians are just too polite for that kind of thing.
Why, I hear they even apologize when they bump into furniture.
LunaHound wrote:Its not fair .... if people break in into another person's property , the property owner should be legally allowed to do anything to insure their own safety.
Including killing the intruder ( because honestly can anyone really afford to double check what weapon the intruder might have )
Now that I have re-read your post, I still think my post is relevant.
Giving the right to kill a thief or intruder is... not decent.
i wounder how quickly your mind would change if someone broke into your house???
He's from Canada.
That kind of thing just isn't done.
Canadians are just too polite for that kind of thing.
Why, I hear they even apologize when they bump into furniture.
They are very polite, even when they are kicking your a . But I know many a Canadian who's no willy wonka, but they will say "sorry" after. I'd proffer a good bat or highstick is more likely the weapon of choice though.
frgsinwntr wrote: Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist
by Peter Hobart, Esq.
Introduction
Anthony Ervin was a career criminal. He was arrested eight times on assorted robbery, weapons, and assault charges between 1987 and 1996. On October 8, 1996, he acosted Courtney Beswick, a blind man who must have seemed like an easy target. After Ervin’s demands for money were repeatedly refused, he attacked Beswick. Beswick, a long time practitioner of martial arts, threw his assailant over his shoulder, onto the pavement. The fall broke Ervin’s neck, and he subsequently died.
Having survived this terrifying ordeal, Beswick still faced the possibility of criminal and civil charges. In this case, however, the police and estate of the deceased decided not to file charges against Beswick, since he clearly acted in self-defense.
But this outcome is hardly the rule in the United States. In fact, a recent law review article indicates that a disturbing trend toward targeting martial arts practitioners is emerging in the field of tort law.
With this in mind, it seems that the modern martial artist must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the applicable law if he ever hopes, or fears, that his training may be called upon outside the dôjô.
In an effort to provide some practical answers, this article will address the national majority position, and any substantial minority positions regarding criminal and civil liability with respect to the use of force in defense of self, defense of others, and defense of property. Pennsylvania law, where relevant, will also be examined. The majority position reflects the practice of most states, and is increasingly consistent with the Model Penal Code (MPC). Pennsylvania law regarding these issues is largely based on the MPC.
The author regrets the ubiquity of the terms "reasonable" and "generally" in this article — that these terms are essential merely reflects the complexity, and often the vagueness, of the law.
Case law varies widely among jurisdictions, and is constantly modifying and reinterpreting the rules of law. In an effort to provide some concrete conclusions, a lsit of relatively unqualified guidelines is provided at the end.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Self-defense, non-lethal force:
Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.
In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.
The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.
‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.
The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.
Self-defense, lethal force:
The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.
The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.
One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.
U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.
Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.
Third parties:
The right to defense of others turns largely on the reasonableness of the belief that the victim deserved assistance. A minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer be a member of the victim’s family, or the victim’s superior or employee. Similarly, a minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer’s belief be correct, reasoning that the rescuer ‘merely steps into the victim’s shoes’, while the majority requires only that it be reasonable. Pennsylvania law imposes no such restrictions. It does, however, require the additional showing that the rescuer believed that his intervention was necessary, and that the rescuer retreats if the victim would be required to do so.
If in the course of intentionally defending himself or another, a defendant recklessly or negligently injures or kills a third person, self-defense will not bar liability, but it will reduce the gravity of the charge from an intentional crime to a reckless or negligent crime.
Defense of Property:
In Pennsylvania, and a majority of jurisdictions, a victim has the right to use non-deadly force in defense of his dwelling when, and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry or attack upon his dwelling. Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein. The rationale for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of inhabitants to be secure in their homes, rather than the right to defend property, as can be demonstrated by the law regarding defense of uninhabited property.
Non-deadly force may be used merely to defend one’s property from imminent, unlawful interference. Force may not be used if some other, reasonable means would have the same effect.. The only exception to the immediacy requirement is that force may be used to regain wrongfully taken property after the taking (i.e. no longer a prevention of immediate interference) if the victim uses such force in ‘immediate pursuit’. The legal rationale for this exception is, of course, that the interference continues as long as the aggressor retains control of the property.
Deadly force may never be used in defense of uninhabited property. The popular misconception with respect to this law emanates from confusion over situations where the right to defend property and the right to defend persons therein overlap. Pennsylvania allows the use of reasonable, non-lethal force in the protection of property and notes that such a defense of property will not be regarded as ‘provoking’ an attack on the defender’s person. Pennsylvania allows the use of force necessary to eject a trespasser, short of inflicting serious bodily injury. If the defendant reasonably believes that the trespasser intended to commit a felony, then serious bodily injury is justified. When two people claim ownership over a piece of personal property, Pennsylvania law provides that force may not be used to prevent one from taking it.
Use of force to prevent crime:
A citizen has a privilege to use non-deadly force which reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony, riot or other serious breach of the peace, and some states (such as California) have extended this privilege to the prevention of any crime. Deadly force may be used only to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony, involving a risk of human life. A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime. A private citizen may also use deadly force to effect an arrest, provided the alleged criminal is actually guilty. Here, a reasonable belief is not enough.
Pennsylvania phrases this provision differently. A private citizen is justified in using the same amount of force as if he were directed to prevent the crime by a peace officer, except that lethal force may not be used unless the defendant reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another. At the direction of a peace officer, a private citizen need not retreat from making a lawful arrest, and may use any force he believes necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.
CIVIL LIABILITY
In a civil case, it is the victim (or his estate) bringing the action. While there are many similarities to a criminal charge, it is important to understand that the civil plaintiff must only prove his case ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’. This is a much lighter burden than the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. The principal tort actions which a victim who defends himself might face, include battery, assault and wrongful death.
Battery and assault:
In virtually every jurisdiction (including Pennsylvania), to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the aggressor made harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person, that the aggressor intended to bring about such contact, and that the aggressor’s actions in fact caused the contact. While harmful contact is easily determined from the specifics of the situation, offensive contact is judged by the objective, ‘reasonable person standard’. As a prominent Philadelphia law professor explains, "tapping a person on the shoulder is not reasonably ‘offensive’ whereas, tapping someone ‘considerably lower’ would be." ‘Plaintiff’s person’ means in general anything connected to the plaintiff’s body. This would include a hat, a cup in plaintiff’s hand, and on a recent bar exam, even the car in which the plaintiff was sitting! Thus, snatching a book from a person might well constitute a battery.
The causation requirement can also be deceptive. Not only would a thrown projectile which strikes the plaintiff constitute a battery, but ducking to avoid such a projectile, and hitting one’s head would also be actionable. Moreover, no actual damage need occur to bring an action for battery. The offensiveness of a non-harmful contact will support an award of nominal damages.
Assault, briefly, is the creation of a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, in the victim. Simple fear is not enough. The aggressor must have a present apparent ability to bring about such contact. In other words, the victim must actually expect to be struck or touched. Conversely, the fact that the victim was not in the least bit afraid does not bar recovery. Thus, a professional boxer may successfully sue a weakling for assault, even though there was no actual danger of being hurt.
Words are generally not enough to support an action for assault, but words coupled with some act may be. For example, shaking one’s fist and threatening with words might well constitute assault. Similarly, a conditional threat such as ‘your money or your life’ is also sufficient to support a charge of assault. Like battery, no actual damage need result.
Wrongful death and survivor acts:
Although traditionally any tort action abated at the death of the victim or the perpetrator, most states have now enacted ‘survival acts’ for wrongful death (it is from this old common law rule that the concept of escaping liability by killing, rather than injuring a victim, derived). Now the estate of the deceased may bring an action against the killer for all damages which occurred between the commission of the tort, and death (e.g. pain and suffering).
Further, every state has now enacted a statute providing for a civil remedy for wrongful death. Here, the a designated representative sues for the pecuniary injury to the next of kin (lost wages, lost companionship). While the wrongful death action is quite complicated, the critical aspect for present purposes is that the same defenses against the plaintiff apply as if the victim himself were suing.
Self-defense in tort law:
While the principles of self-defense at tort law are similar to those at criminal law, the mode of analysis, and areas of emphasis differ. In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the potential injury. Since only reasonable ground are required, a genuine mistake with respect to the attack will still support the right to self-defense. Once the attack or tort has ended, so does the right to self-defense. Retaliation is never permitted.
As at criminal law, there is generally no duty to retreat, and deadly force may be used to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Even in the minority jurisdictions which require retreat (like Pennsylvania), there is an exception to the requirement if the victim is in his home. Although the attacker has no right to self defense, if the attack is non-deadly, and the victim responds with deadly force, the aggressor may defend himself with deadly force.
Third parties:
Under tort principles, a victim who accidentally injures a third-party in the course of defending himself is also protected from suit by that third party. A majority of jurisdictions also allow the defense of victims only if the victims themselves have a right to self-defense. Thus, if the rescuer makes a mistake regarding the victim’s right to self-defense, he too will be liable. However, there is a strong modern trend toward protecting rescuers from suit if their wrongful assistance of a victim is based on a reasonable mistake (Pennsylvania tort law allows for a reasonable mistake). The rescuer may use as much force as the victim could have used in self-defense.
Defense of property:
In the defense of property, a request to desist prior to the use of force is required, unless it would be futile or dangerous. There is almost never a right to self defense when the ‘intruder’ in fact has a right to be on the property. Thus, it is unwise to attack a supposed intruder without ascertaining his identity first! A significant exception occurs when the ‘intruder’ contributes to the ambiguity regarding his identity or purpose.
As at criminal law, there is a right to use force in the recovery of stolen property, as long as the victim is in ‘hot pursuit’ of the taker. Also as under the criminal standard, deadly force may never be used simply to defend property. Finally, the right to trespass for necessity supersedes the right to self-defense. Thus, a home-owner is not privileged to use force to turn away those who need refuge from an emergency.
Prevention of crime:
Since the right to use force is limited to the prevention of the commission of a tort in civil actions, one who subdues an attacker and then continues to use force to hold him until the police arrive, must be aware that he has moved over from a tort privilege, to the privilege of arrest under criminal law.
Martial arts teachers’ liability:
Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent. There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents. First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct. Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.
Second, an instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with ‘an extremely dangerous instrumentality’. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases. However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...." The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is clear.
Finally, an instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction. Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community. Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.
CONCLUSION
The law, and the facts underlying a cause of action are rarely clear-cut. Statutes and case law vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lawyers are skilled at recasting the facts in their client’s best interest. Juries are given broad discretion with respect to determining guilt or innocence, and may feel the need to compensate an injured party regardless of fault. And even if a defendant successfully raises one of the defenses discussed above, litigation is costly both in terms of time and money.
It would be foolish to try to rely on a general understanding of the legal principles at work in these situations, in order to engage in behavior which falls just within the realm of legality. Rather, the wise martial artist will attempt to avoid any hint of liability or criminal conduct. The following general principles may be of value in this endeavor.
• Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.
• If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.
• Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require ‘taking the first hit’, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).
• Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.
• Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.
• Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.
• When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.
• Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky.
• As an instructor, you are both morally and legally responsible for the actions of your students, both inside and out of the dojo.
As an instructor, you should know the law at least to the extent of whether your state is in the majority or the minority with respect to the issues raised above. If you do not have a lawyer or law student in your dojo, any law school library will have a copy of: Your State Statutes Annotated (i.e., Texas Statutes Annotated). Simply look in the index under the headings listed in this paper for the applicable law.
DISCLAIMER: This analysis is not intended as a comprehensive statement of the law, or a legal opinion. It represents a general overview of the law, accurate to the best of my knowledge, at the time of publication. It is not intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon as a defense to any criminal or civil charges or complaints.
Peter Hobart is a prosecuting attorney. Currently a member of the Itten Dôjô, Mr. Hobart has trained for many years and is a licensed instructor of Santo Niten Ichi Ryû kenjutsu and kempo, and holds black-belt rank in aikijutsu. He can be reached via e-mail addressed to “kishido@ccis.com.”
{highlander}
"..A body that, at this time, has no name."
{/highlander}
The state of maryland has a castle law meaning that the fool that enters your home without invitation or warrant does so at their own risk.
I respect that some might think its 'unfair' to have the authority in ones' one home to defend their home to the death. I personally think its unfair that one could encounter a burglar in their home and be required to retreat rather than to defend their home and property.
I wish having that right wasn't necessary, but Baltimore is a rough town.
Son, don't practice law
Its called self defense and defined via statute or common law depending on state.
.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:I dunno, Fraz - we could just send the Hanson brothers up there and show 'em how it's done...
No they'd get eaten alive. Half the guys I work with are former Hockey players. Now in a gunfight its a different story of course...
Can you quote the Texas self defense law for me and reference?
I'm fairly sure its the same there as what I qouted
The Self Defense Laws Of Texas
frgsinwntr wrote:
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
Defense of Another Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."
Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Protection of the Property of Others
"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."
"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
Reasonable Belief
"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."
"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."
Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost
"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."
"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."
Self Defense Definitions
"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."
"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."
"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."
Yup says the same thing....
in fact I am pretty sure each state is unified in this fact.... unless someone can show me the laws otherwise?
No the states are not unified. Please do a better search on that one. As an aside the states are pretty much not unified on anything.
You stated murder. Thats not correct on the limited facts of the matter.
Under statute exterminating an intruder in your home is considered self defense if conditions are met, mostly that of the intruder being in your home. Some states, via statute or case law will presume the defendant did indeed act in self defense, others will require sufficient evidence that the terms are met.
frgsinwntr wrote:unless your life is threatened, it is murder.
yep, it is murder I said it.
1: the attorney referenced is from PA, and not recognized by the BAR in MD.
2:there's a disclaimer you seemed to miss: "...It is not intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon..."
3: See my other post on MD's Castle Laws.
4: The way I see it it was Karma catching up with him (29 convictions in 49 years!) at the kindest. Social triage seems more like it.
Frazzled wrote:No the states are not unified. Please do a better search on that one. As an aside the states are pretty much not unified on anything.
You stated murder. Thats not correct on the limited facts of the matter.
Under statute exterminating an intruder in your home is considered self defense if conditions are met, mostly that of the intruder being in your home. Some states, via statute or case law will presume the defendant did indeed act in self defense, others will require sufficient evidence that the terms are met.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
Appears to me in Tx he would have been justified. The guy was trying to burglarize his residence and then when the kid confronted him he lunged at the kid requiring him to use deadly force. It says further down the danger need not even be real, just feeling as if he was in immediate danger allowed him the use of deadly force according to that above article.
I'm sure using a sword in defense would result in death but maybe the kid was only trying to wound the guy to scare him off. If someone is lunging at you and you swipe with sword or knife or machete you may not necessarily be able to check your swing, and if someone came after me because I caught them in the act you damn right it gives me the right to use deadly force. I'm sure in this case the intruder was not coming after the kid to talk to him or ask him if he could please put the sword away. The guy was caught, if he valued his safety and life he should have ran away, not toward the guy with the sword.
Self-defense is a common law doctrine that has been addressed by Maryland courts on
numerous occasions. Included in the doctrine of self-defense is a duty to retreat, that is, a
duty by the individual claiming self-defense to retreat and escape the danger if it was in
his power to do so and was consistent with maintaining his safety. See Sydnor, 365 Md.
at 216, 776 A.2d at 675. In order to succeed on a claim of self-defense, the accused must
have: (1) not been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; (2) had reasonable grounds to
believe that he/she was in apparent imminent or immediate danger of losing his/her own
life or incurring serious bodily harm from his/her assailant or potential assailant;
(3) actually believed at the time that he/she faced this type of danger; and (4) not used
more force than the situation demanded. See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140
(2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).
not sure you read my post... but thats the EXACT thing I posted....
Actually its NOT. Your laws that are quoted date back to 1973, whereas the laws I posted are much more recent, 2007, and therefore more relevant to the debate at hand.
Fateweaver wrote:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
Appears to me in Tx he would have been justified. The guy was trying to burglarize his residence and the kid used deadly force. It says further down the danger need not even be real, just feeling as if he was in immediate danger allowed him the use of deadly force according to that above article.
Good catch! I didn't see this... of course... its up to the judge if he could have protected the property by other means or not...
Thats just the night time statute. I or JohnnyH, if I invited him over for some range time, could empty a clip into said intruder if they enter my residence at any time of day. THATS the Castle Doctrine and relevant to this.
not sure you read my post... but thats the EXACT thing I posted....
Actually its NOT. Your laws that are quoted date back to 1973, whereas the laws I posted are much more recent, 2007, and therefore more relevant to the debate at hand.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats just the night time statute. I or JohnnyH, if I invited him over for some range time, could empty a clip into said intruder if they enter my residence at any time of day. THATS the Castle Doctrine and relevant to this.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.
It's hard to say what most burglars attempt to do when caught. If someone breaks into your residence in the middle of night (or day as it is B&E no matter what time it is) and lets say they crawl into your bedroom window and end up within 10 feet of you. If they come at you you won't have time to retreat or think "Gee, he is lunging at me. Is he going to hurt me seriously or kill me or just try to scare me?" You don't have time to think about the consequences. Thinking about what MAY happen a week later in court will most likely end up with you dead or dying or hospitalized.
Intruders have 2 choices. Attack the defender or flee. If they flee and they HAVE NOT managed to take anything than to shoot them in the back of the head or cut them open could be construed as murder as than you became the aggressor and did not give the intruder ample time to escape. If he/she attacks the defender they have just given up all rights to be able to walk away from that confrontation as odds are they intend to seriously hurt or even kill the defender.
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.
if thats true... then in your case you WOULD have legal grounds for this.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
You do realize that this law leaves it completely up to the defender to decide. There doesn't even have to be an example of deadly force, the defender just has to believe it. So yes, you can use deadly force on someone even if they haven't exampled deadly force or something of that nature, so long as you believe they could use it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
The running theme is a perceived threat. In Baltimore there is *no reason* to expect someone breaking into your house isn't there to harm you.
There might be Hello Kitty burglars out by your exit in NJ, but Baltimore does not screw around. With a murder rate comfortably over 5.4 TIMES the US national average one can hardly expect the person coming in to take the Xbox isn't going to pose a threat to life and limb.
It's hard to say what most burglars attempt to do when caught. If someone breaks into your residence in the middle of night (or day as it is B&E no matter what time it is) and lets say they crawl into your bedroom window and end up within 10 feet of you. If they come at you you won't have time to retreat or think "Gee, he is lunging at me. Is he going to hurt me seriously or kill me or just try to scare me?" You don't have time to think about the consequences. Thinking about what MAY happen a week later in court will most likely end up with you dead or dying or hospitalized.
Intruders have 2 choices. Attack the defender or flee. If they flee and they HAVE NOT managed to take anything than to shoot them in the back of the head or cut them open could be construed as murder as than you became the aggressor and did not give the intruder ample time to escape. If he/she attacks the defender they have just given up all rights to be able to walk away from that confrontation as odds are they intend to seriously hurt or even kill the defender.
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
if the issue was cut and dry, there would be no reason to legislate it
I agree, it is a very Gray area... but if you can prove that you were threatened you can use deadly force... for example... the guy heard "cries of fear" coming from who? does this sound like someone jumping at you?
but yea, if they come at you... think southpark... they're coming right for us! OR... like ALL of these cases... they were threatened
dogma wrote:...There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you....
What reason would a person have to empathize with their attacker? Good fortune for "Not so poor Joe" did not compel "Burglar(mugger) Steve" to do anything to him. People have a choice to resort to theft and violence or not.
I'm just generalizing here but I'd be willing to bet most burglars are repeat offenders and so will not ever learn either way or stealing for later trade (or purchase if trying to steal cash) drugs and other harmful substances (spray paint, glues, etc..the poor mans drug) and most likely they are probably tripping on something at the time and need to steal so when they need the fix again they have something to buy/barter with.
I'm not psychotic but if someone broke into my home and I felt in danger of my life and I killed them I honestly don't think I'd regret it. That person violated my house, made me feel vulnerable and took away my right to have a peaceful, danger free existance, even if for just a few minutes.
Before I moved in with my bro into his house he had problems with his shop getting broken into several times in a span of the same amount of time. Had I been here when it happened those same idiots would either not be breathing or walking funny, just would have depended on how vindictive I felt. Blowing off ones kneecap I imagine would make it hard for that person to burglarize a house or garage or shop in the future.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
You do realize that this law leaves it completely up to the defender to decide. There doesn't even have to be an example of deadly force, the defender just has to believe it. So yes, you can use deadly force on someone even if they haven't exampled deadly force or something of that nature, so long as you believe they could use it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
no... it really doesn't. It leaves it up to the judge... and you need to be able to justify WHY you felt deadly force was necessary.
You're missing all the parts where the laws talk about aggressive criminals.
Tell you what... why don't you call your local police dept and check what they say. Ask them. Obviously we could both make things up on the internet.... but talking to several of my police officer friends... they all say the same thing I am...
AAAAND here is a lawyer (obiously from NJ)
Automatically Appended Next Post: another lawyer talks about the legality of self defense killing.
If the student is prosecuted, it will be the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of attack, and struck willfully with the intention to cause serious harm. That's not going to be too easy. The case would rest on forensic evidence.
The jury would probably take about 30 seconds to deliver a Not Guilty verdict.
Are swords protected under the right to bear arms? They are weapons, after all.
Oldgrue wrote:
What reason would a person have to empathize with their attacker? Good fortune for "Not so poor Joe" did not compel "Burglar(mugger) Steve" to do anything to him.
It has nothing to do with circumstances of the victim, but the circumstances of the attacker.
Oldgrue wrote:
People have a choice to resort to theft and violence or not.
If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.
Kilkrazy wrote:If the student is prosecuted, it will be the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of attack, and struck willfully with the intention to cause serious harm. That's not going to be too easy. The case would rest on forensic evidence.
The jury would probably take about 30 seconds to deliver a Not Guilty verdict.
Are swords protected under the right to bear arms? They are weapons, after all.
Most likely you are right, but I would assume it is a lot harder, and would take a jury a lot longer than 30 seconds.
I wont post the entire document but here is the bullet point authorizing use of deadly force in defending ones property.
Deadly Force:
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, [Bold]or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.[/Bold]
Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein.
So I don't see how it wouldn't qualify under that at any rate.
Even if it technically falls under criminal law the odds are that the State will choose not to press charges. Just "breaking" the law isn't a guarantee of a trial or punishment. DA's have authority to determine what to pursue or not.
We keep getting this laymen argument about the law as if it were the same as morality when the law is not the same thing as morality.
Especially when we all know the law is the same thing as Judge Dredd.
Fateweaver wrote:I wont post the entire document but here is the bullet point authorizing use of deadly force in defending ones property.
Deadly Force:
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, [Bold]or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.[/Bold]
According to Mn laws all the aggressor has to do is enter your house/castle/whatever you sleep in. They don't even have to threaten me or my brother. Just breaking into my house is enough justification for putting a round in their forehead.
Front yard/garage/shop is the exception to the law in Mn (and I imagine everywhere else) but in this kids case he stated the guy came after/lunged at him. Self-defense clearly and most juries I would hope would see that and let him go back to a normal (well, somewhat normal) life.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Frog's original quote on self-defense said:
Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein.
So I don't see how it wouldn't qualify under that at any rate.
the definition of violent.
was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?
this is why it wouldn't fall under that.
Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.
Regardless of your stance on the role of personal defense of property the fact that half of the posts in this thread state how "Awesome" it is a man was killed with a sword shows just how animalistic and debased humans are.
Views on the right to self defense in the home can be a gray area. Thinking its great that someone cut someone up badly enough to kill them is pretty cut and dry.
frgsinwntr wrote:
no... it really doesn't. It leaves it up to the judge... and you need to be able to justify WHY you felt deadly force was necessary.
You're missing all the parts where the laws talk about aggressive criminals.
Tell you what... why don't you call your local police dept and check what they say. Ask them. Obviously we could both make things up on the internet.... but talking to several of my police officer friends... they all say the same thing I am...
AAAAND here is a lawyer (obiously from NJ)
That is why I also added this section of the law which does not require that feeling. Here it is again in case you missed it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Again, the guy is in NJ.
A useless legal source in BALTIMORE MD. As they (rightfully so IMHO ) skewered a man in BALTIMORE MD, their residence in NJ is irrelevant. They are subject to MD law, despite the self importance of a state whose finest landmarks are the Turnpike and Trenton.
Looks like a job for MD law...but I could be confused about NJ and jurisdiction. I don't have cop friends.
Fateweaver wrote:According to Mn laws all the aggressor has to do is enter your house/castle/whatever you sleep in. They don't even have to threaten me or my brother. Just breaking into my house is enough justification for putting a round in their forehead.
Front yard/garage/shop is the exception to the law in Mn (and I imagine everywhere else) but in this kids case he stated the guy came after/lunged at him. Self-defense clearly and most juries I would hope would see that and let him go back to a normal (well, somewhat normal) life.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.
from page 1 in your document.
It is NOT justified there. you would need to reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.
stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force
I think what some people need to realize is armed burglary break ins VERY often involves in death even if the
victims cooperate /defenseless / and even if they are 70 years old .
In Canada we dont have as much crime as USA no. But when we do have crimes ,
its brutal and unnecessary ( aka old people having their homes broken into and then murdered for some money )
Now if you guys want to walk up to the intruder and ask " hi , i would like to know if you are armed or not .
this way i know how to choose my next actions , would you please cooperate? "
Please by all means go for it. We need less people that mistaken pro-criminal right as human decency spreading the gene pool.
Now my question is , in a situation whether a split second decision can determine the difference between
you dying , or the intruder dying. Why would i have to risk and give up my right to stay alive just to *confirm if the intruder
count as a deadly threat . Especially when they ARE the ones breaking in ?
Oldgrue wrote:Again, the guy is in NJ.
A useless legal source in BALTIMORE MD. As they (rightfully so IMHO ) skewered a man in BALTIMORE MD, their residence in NJ is irrelevant. They are subject to MD law, despite the self importance of a state whose finest landmarks are the Turnpike and Trenton.
Looks like a job for MD law...but I could be confused about NJ and jurisdiction. I don't have cop friends.
see my post above.
if what he was stealing was less than $500, then it is 4th degree and NOT an excuse for use of deadly force since it is NOT a felony
I think you misunderstand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.
what felony was being committed?
"Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug use/sales, grand theft, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and rape.
"Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English)."
the definition of violent.
was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?
this is why it wouldn't fall under that.
Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.
He lunged at the student, according to the report. That should be sufficient for reasonable belief of an attack on his person, considering it's already established that the person in question is a felon in the midst of committing a crime.
Obviously if the student was lying, and the burglar was trying to back off when the student gutted him things would be different, but that seems unlikely.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
I think you misunderstand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.
what felony was being committed?
"Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug use/sales, grand theft, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and rape.
"Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English)."
the definition of violent.
was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?
this is why it wouldn't fall under that.
Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.
He lunged at the student, according to the report. That should be sufficient for reasonable belief of an attack on his person, considering it's already established that the person in question is a felon in the midst of committing a crime.
Obviously if the student was lying, and the burglar was trying to back off when the student gutted him things would be different, but that seems unlikely.
agreed... but the student's case is in question.
if i shot someone in my home, and then said... "he lunged at me"... then would this be justified self defense? how would you know I was not lieing?
What if the student invited him in and then attacked? remember, there is no other wittness, only the one person that called in and said he heard "cries of fear"...
I'm not about to jump on the band wagon and say the guy was right to kill.
there are a lot of things that could have happened.
Fateweaver wrote: It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
QFT. The internet, and wacky situations can be dehumanizing, but the inherent toll to killing, regardless of the situation, is the death of a person. Whether you believe it was right or not, it's not simply some sort of sport.
Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English).
So, in the state of MN just by Breaking into someones house, with intent to steal or cause bodily injury, is a FELONY and so eludes to the fact that in Mn you can use deadly force to prevent a felony (in this case someone breaking into your home) with no crime on the part of the actor actually being committed.
Lets face it, who breaks into someone house to just enjoy the A/C or watch some porn on cable? 99.9% of burglaries committed are committed with intent to steal or cause harm to someone.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
:p I'm not jumping on!
I just know its worth getting all the facts...
forensic evidence will show if the guy even broke in or not... and I kinda hope in a few years we see this story again and the evidence shows the guy was invited in and murdered for sport by some crazy student... so I can gloat that calling for the death of someone is usually not a good thing.
But then... i don't want to gloat about ANYONE dieing....
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?
AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER
Fateweaver wrote:Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English).
So, in the state of MN just by Breaking into someones house, with intent to steal or cause bodily injury, is a FELONY and so eludes to the fact that in Mn you can use deadly force to prevent a felony (in this case someone breaking into your home) with no crime on the part of the actor actually being committed.
Lets face it, who breaks into someone house to just enjoy the A/C or watch some porn on cable? 99.9% of burglaries committed are committed with intent to steal or cause harm to someone.
from the link you sent, it is only a felony of there are $500 in damage to the property, and the burglarly was of a felony status.
From another site:
[quote =frgsinwntr]
Minnesota Burglary Laws & Penalties
Burglary First Degree
First degree burglary is a serious felony offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $35,000 in fines. You may be charged with this offense if you enter a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime, commit a crime, and
a) The building is a dwelling and another person is inside at the time, and
b) The burglar possesses a dangerous weapon or explosive, or
c) The burglar assaults a person within the building.
If the building is an occupied dwelling (home) you will serve at least 6 months in prison for the offense.
Burglary Second Degree
Second degree burglary is another serious felony with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and fines reaching $20,000. You may be charged with this offense and found guilty if you enter a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, commit a crime, and
a) The building is a dwelling, or
b) The building contains a bank or similar business, and entry is made with force, or
c) The building contains a pharmacy or similar business and entry is made with force.
Burglary Third Degree
Third degree burglary is still a felony and only slightly less serious than 1st and 2nd degree. If you face this charge you may serve up to 5 years in prison and pay fines up to $10,000. If you enter a building without consent and intend to commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, and then commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, you could be charged with this crime.
Burglary Fourth Degree
Fourth degree burglary is punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000 in fines. You may be charged with this offense if you enter a building without consent and with intentions of committing a misdemeanor, and then commit a misdemeanor other than stealing.
I'm not sure you read those, breaking an entering is NOT a felony according to what I am reading here...
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?
AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER
You're jumping in and saying that the man who is dead, was actually robbing the guy... I pose you the question, what if he wasn't?
You don't have to incopacitate them, you can just tell them the police are on the way. YOU NEVER HAVE TO CONFRONT ANYONE!
but please... don't yell i'm trying to be civil and use documents/quotes and attack arguments... with out emotion.
AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Because killing is inherently wrong by the modern understanding of the social contract, and the idea that property is more valuable than life is questionable at best. Also, don't use the size script to prove your point. We all read it the first time, it's not like we can't read the tiny letters. Instead of using big type, try understanding opposing arguments.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Words of wisdom.
It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.
Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?
AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER
This......
When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.
wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.
Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
@shuma no . You are specifically ignoring why i said we dont have the luxury to go easy on the intruder .
Unless of course you are psychic and know how the intruder will behave / act .
You are assuming every break ins the intruder will steal thing and leave.
What about the ones that gets murdered in their sleep ?
Again why must the victim risk that?
Why should the intruder have the upper hand to choose when they are the one that disregard the law
to break in other's house ?
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.
wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.
Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.
friended for being reasonable and allowing doubt before sentencing.
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
Fateweaver wrote:When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.
I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.
wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.
Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.
Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.
wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.
Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.
Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.
I like the way you think , factoring in the realistic possibilities instead of the "lawyer" talk some rather throw around.
Let me borrow your scenario and change it alittle.
What if there are more than just 1 intruder ? suddenly the option gets even less now right?
LunaHound wrote:
And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
ummm.. huh?
I am saying we don't know the motive.
I am saying we don't know if he attacked or not
I am saying when self defense allows for killing
I am not sure you're reading what I post, or are simply assuming I am saying something wrong because I think we can't jump to murder being legit
Are you saying that we anyone that kills someone in their house is innocent?
Are you saying that if someone breaks in you should shoot them?
Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.
Both a statement of an intent to maintain life, and a realistic plan of action. All done with regular size text and logic.
Contrast with-
And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
Again, in Mn you have the right to lethal force to prevent a felony from occuring in your home. Breaking into someones house to commit theft/burglarize is a FELONY under Mn statutes. You don't have to wait until they snatch something up to steal or come after you with a knife or rolling pin or a wooden spoon. In my state they committed a felony and therefore I can use deadly force EVEN if I don't feel threatened by the person.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
Again, in Mn you have the right to lethal force to prevent a felony from occuring in your home. Breaking into someones house to commit theft/burglarize is a FELONY under Mn statutes. You don't have to wait until they snatch something up to steal or come after you with a knife or rolling pin or a wooden spoon. In my state they committed a felony and therefore I can use deadly force EVEN if I don't feel threatened by the person.
If you're not threatened isn't that an execution? I mean actual writ of the law aside, that seems awfully morally dubious.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.
That doesnt answer anything . You 2's reasoning is purely based on if the victim has a choice.
Which i keep bringing it up again and again , how do you assume we have a choice?
if you cant even tell how the intruder will act? How to you judge the situation ? better yet
are you able to judge the situation safely and effectively ?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.
That doesnt answer anything
Yes it does. You either don't like, or simply don't understand the answer.
frgsinwntr wrote:agreed... but the student's case is in question.
if i shot someone in my home, and then said... "he lunged at me"... then would this be justified self defense? how would you know I was not lieing?
What if the student invited him in and then attacked? remember, there is no other wittness, only the one person that called in and said he heard "cries of fear"...
I'm not about to jump on the band wagon and say the guy was right to kill.
there are a lot of things that could have happened.
I guess that's fair. Things like this should never go uninvestigated.
However, between the huge number of prior offenses from the guy, and the awkwardness of the killing (a sword?) and lack of motive for the student to have murdered someone I think it's pretty likely the investigation will find the (alleged) burglar to have been at fault.
Skarwael wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.
Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.
Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.
I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.
I don't think he's saying "people are unable to shoot them in a non-vital spot due to their training".
The reason people are trained to shoot for the torso is generally because in the heat of the moment, you can't afford to miss. If you sneak up on them you may be able to, if you're a sharpshooter who can keep his cool when being attacked you may be able to, and you might just get lucky and stop him firing blindly for the legs. But you usually can't afford to miss, and in a situation where your at risk of being killed or seriously injured you're usually going to have trouble hitting what you mean to. Furthermore, a shot to the legs or shoulder isn't guaranteed to take someone out, especially if they're on some sort of drugs or are for some reason highly motivated to hurt you. (Even shots to the torso may not take them out in this case, actually.)
Plus, people can die from a shot to a seemingly non-vital place just like they can survive a shot to a vital place. It's just less of a sure thing over all, and it's a great strategy for those who can afford to use it, but a lot of the time you can't.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.
That doesnt answer anything
in an attempt to stop the flaming....
Luna....
Are you saying that we anyone that kills someone in their house is innocent?
Are you saying that if someone breaks in you should shoot them?
Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.
Both a statement of an intent to maintain life, and a realistic plan of action. All done with regular size text and logic.
Contrast with-
And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Sometimes shouting is the only way to get points across. Luna may be a bit more fanatical in your eyes in regards to agreeing with me but her and I are both on the same wavelength.
I'm not saying personal property is more valuable than human life but if we are going to argue that than I would feel threatened if someone broke into my house, even if they didn't intend to mean harm to me so than whose life is more important? Mine, the victims or his, the aggressor?
You can sugar coat a dog turd all you want (in this case trying to justify letting someone live just because they have the right as a human even though they violated my rights to a peaceful existence) but no matter how much sugar and sprinkles and chocolate you coat a turd with, underneath it is still a turd.
That kid obviously felt threatened, that in and of itself is enough in most states to be able to use deadly force and walk away. The guy apparently lunged at the kid, he was slashed across the torso. Had he been slashed open on his back in what looked like was an attack on the guy when he was clearing trying to flee than the jury could find for the aggressor turned victim but such is not the case.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)
Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.
However, between the huge number of prior offenses from the guy, and the awkwardness of the killing (a sword?) and lack of motive for the student to have murdered someone I think it's pretty likely the investigation will find the (alleged) burglar to have been at fault.
Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.
I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.
Prior crimes do not indicate guilt and can't be used as evidence for a conviction of a new crime. Innocent until proven guilty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.
Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!
How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .
I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)
Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.
Unless you are the same person?
LOL calling me a sock puppet?
No, don't think so. Thanks. I've fought with him before on another topic. I live in NJ, i don't know where he lives.
But seriously can you answer my questions instead of attacking credibility? I'd appreciate a more mature nature of discussion from you. I'm not 15.
Fateweaver wrote:
You can sugar coat a dog turd all you want (in this case trying to justify letting someone live just because they have the right as a human even though they violated my rights to a peaceful existence) but no matter how much sugar and sprinkles and chocolate you coat a turd with, underneath it is still a turd.
That kid obviously felt threatened, that in and of itself is enough in most states to be able to use deadly force and walk away. The guy apparently lunged at the kid, he was slashed across the torso. Had he been slashed open on his back in what looked like was an attack on the guy when he was clearing trying to flee than the jury could find for the aggressor turned victim but such is not the case.
You're assuming he was guilty... what if it was murder and the guy was let in, then attacked?
The Prosecutor held the sword wielder in custody for a bit... maybe he also sees something fishy?
Bottom line. Dead men tell no tales. The student claims that he feared for his life.... he'll walk.
The only bugaboo is... what the guy who overheard the screaming really heard.
My question is.. who was doing the screaming for his life? If it can be proven that the guy that was cut up was the one screaming BEFORE the fatal blow was struck then the kids going to jail. I.E was it an execution with a samarai sword? or a true self defense.
I'm not saying personal property is more valuable than human life but if we are going to argue that than I would feel threatened if someone broke into my house, even if they didn't intend to mean harm to me so than whose life is more important? Mine, the victims or his, the aggressor?
You'll note from the start I have yet to give an opinion one way or the other except insofar as I believe that its a great injustice to vociferously exclaim the virtues of killing, even when in self defense. I dislike it when people go "lol he killed him with a sword" when A. swords are brutal cutting weapons, and B. a man was maimed badly enough to die. Regardless of the topic at hand reverence for the concept of mortality and murder should be enough to keep people civil in the discussion. Which it hasn't.
Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.
dogma wrote:
If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.
I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.
frgsinwntr wrote:
stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force
[/url]
You might want to look at 'Home Invasion' - that crime performed when someone is actually home rather than burglary.
According to William Welch
1) the defendant actually believed that the victim was committing or about to commit a specific crime in or at the defendant's home
Well, there's no question here.
2) the defendant's belief was reasonable
5.4x murder rate of national average is pretty reasonable.
3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's conduct.
This is the only one that is debatable. I posit that 29 convictions and just getting out of prison the prior weekend may well have been the only way this would have stopped at all.
You can't use prior convictions in a court of law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
LOL calling me a sock puppet?
No, don't think so. Thanks. I've fought with him before on another topic. I live in NJ, i don't know where he lives.
But seriously can you answer my questions instead of attacking credibility? I'd appreciate a more mature nature of discussion from you. I'm not 15.
I dont know what the heck a socket puppet is , but can you explain how "you" supposedly answered my question
when you just quoted shuma?
Im not here to accuse anyone of anything . But it makes no sense to me
why you would quote someone else and said "you" answered.
slow down there.
I asked you questions in an early post and then after you skipped my question, I asked you to answer mine. I quoted YOU who just happened to quote him.
But seriously
answer my questions
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Bottom line. Dead men tell no tales. The student claims that he feared for his life.... he'll walk.
The only bugaboo is... what the guy who overheard the screaming really heard.
My question is.. who was doing the screaming for his life? If it can be proven that the guy that was cut up was the one screaming BEFORE the fatal blow was struck then the kids going to jail. I.E was it an execution with a samarai sword? or a true self defense.
GG
This is why I like you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:
dogma wrote:
If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.
I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.
frgsinwntr wrote:
stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force
[/url]
You might want to look at 'Home Invasion' - that crime performed when someone is actually home rather than burglary.
According to William Welch
1) the defendant actually believed that the victim was committing or about to commit a specific crime in or at the defendant's home
Well, there's no question here.
2) the defendant's belief was reasonable
5.4x murder rate of national average is pretty reasonable.
3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's conduct.
This is the only one that is debatable. I posit that 29 convictions and just getting out of prison the prior weekend may well have been the only way this would have stopped at all.
he served time for the previous convitions, these can not be used to convict him of a new crime
Now if anyone messes with that guy all he has got to say is "I killed a guy with a Samurai Sword in one hit. Your move."
IMHO the intruder deserved it. If it was night time and a random man is in my house and he lunges at me and I got a weapon in my hand you bet your sweet ass I'm not going to go
"HOLD ON A MINUTE GOOD SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE ON YOUR TRUE INTENTIONS BEFORE I DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT USING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION THAT COULD RESULT IN YOUR DEATH OR MAJOR PHYSICAL HARM!"
If I were the intruder I would have screwed you up by then. If he didn't mean harm to me, he would have turned and LEFT etc. not attacked me.
And Frg, I would really like to see what you would do in the same situation. I'll say it, I would have done the same exact thing. Now, the intruder doesn't truly deserve death, but that is the risk when you attack someone in their own home at night.
Now, if the dude would have ran down and wtf pwned him with the sword when the intruder wasn't looking, that is a different case. But ATM we assume that he didn't.
If this guy is convicted it's a sad story. If you invade my house and attack me I'll GLADLY shoot you dead. That doesn't mean I won't feel bad about the killing, but my life is more important than yours. End of story.
Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.
Because human life has some inherent value that humans don't assign to it? The value of human life is at best enlightened self interest.
Rocks don't seem to care. Animals don't seem to care. Weather doesn't seem to care. Insects don't seem to care. Mankind has no empirical evidence its any more or less valuable than any other animal.
A man is dead. There's one less burglar available to relieve me of my stuff. One less person cycling through our legal and prison systems. Somehow how they died is supposed to be more important than the Obituaries.
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.
if thats true... then in your case you WOULD have legal grounds for this.
I used to work at the Clarion hotel on Canal Street in New Orleans doing graveyard shift. It was close by the Iberville projects and it got to be a pretty lively place around there at night.
Just to drive you guys nuts with what ifs...
Yesterday a guy broke in to my house, i let him leave with my stereo, waited. Then broke into his house and raped him, he then shot me in the back(i in his...) and he sued me for 10 trillionbajillion dollars. The judge found in favor of the plantiff, which was me for i had countersued, acting against histhreat to sue me which made me very afraid that i was going to die, because laywers chase ambulences. My mom said they do that cause they drained my dad dry, and he was chasing him to sign the credit card slip to cover his bill, or something like that. Anyway long story short, i got put in a home for gifted youngsters and and now have mutant ape powers, and a sword...actually a Rapier. Thats right i'm the fabled Rapier Ape, now with 50%more rape. So you see i was actually fighting crime by raping that B&E criminal. Bet you he'll think twice before stealing stuff from mutant monkeys again.And all this before 3pm. The rest of you however are screwed.
Oh and to quote Rob Schinder
"You can do it!
Cut his F---ing head off!"
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
I wish you good luck in trying to ascertain someone's motive before they kill you in a robbery.
You can't use prior convictions in a court of law.
What's not true? That outside of the courtroom people can continue to use prior convictions to base their judgements? I never mentioned a trial, I mentioned an investigation. It seems unlikely that this case will ever be brought to trial at all.
That presumption of innocence is not a guarantee of actual innocence? That should be self-evident.
@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.
If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.
if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.
but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT
I wish you good luck in trying to ascertain someone's motive before they kill you in a robbery.
frgsinwntr wrote:
he served time for the previous convitions, these can not be used to convict him of a new crime
He also can't be convicted POST MORTEM. This is not a courtroom. Where i posit 29 crimes establish a pattern.
See also USC28a rule 404 "(2) an accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim, as in support of a claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide"
So there's confirmed opportunity to use it in defense.
I'm cheering for the student, simply because I believe in the castle doctrine...although the sword does have a certain poetry.
Similarly, dumbass should know better than to have expensive toys in that neighborhood. If he can afford Johns Hopkins, he can get an apartment in Glen Burnie for the same price with a lower crime rate.
Shadowbrand wrote:I say do what the Texans too with burglar's shoot to kill.
That's not really fair though. Firearms instructors generally teach
1:have a damn good reason to have your weapon out, and
2:If you're pointing it at a person, you intend to kill.
And they teach 'shoot to kill' in Montana, Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
If someone is attacking me, I have the right to defend myself as I see fit.
The whole point of the Castle Law is that, your home should be safe ground, so where else would you go?
I agree with you, but some people seem to forget the whole violence(or thereat thereof)/supreme authority concept.
(before Wrecksaur goes there: Yes, Violence is indeed authority with sour cream and tomatoes for $0.40 more. *just* like a taco supreme.)
Oldgrue wrote:
I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.
The law doesn't presume choice. You can remove choice from the system and replace it with qualitative logic. For example, you would imprison a murderer not because it was his decision to commit murder, but because he was determined to be a murderer and murderers should be imprisoned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:
Because human life has some inherent value that humans don't assign to it? The value of human life is at best enlightened self interest.
Rocks don't seem to care. Animals don't seem to care. Weather doesn't seem to care. Insects don't seem to care. Mankind has no empirical evidence its any more or less valuable than any other animal.
Aside from the fact that we're all human anyway. I mean, if you're going to argue that any given human is no more valuable than any given cow, then you should probably stay as far away from the meat-eating population as possible.
Oldgrue wrote:
A man is dead. There's one less burglar available to relieve me of my stuff. One less person cycling through our legal and prison systems. Somehow how they died is supposed to be more important than the Obituaries.
Sod that.
Its not in your enlightened self-interest to ensure a fair legal system?
Again, we don't know 100% of the details of the OP's article. We can also speculate the kid invited him in and killed him in cold blood. What we can't speculate is the exchange that took place. Neighbors heard someone scream, they don't know who so that's up to investigators to determine. As well, if there was any kind of verbal exchange/warning that wasn't shouted or yelled the neighbors most likely would not have heard that.
If you warn someone and they don't heed your warning than they obviously intend to keep up with what they are doing or try to hurt you. If I warn somebody that is in my house to leave and they keep advancing or keep rummaging through my stuff looking for something to steal they are going to get shot, as obviously it is there intent to not leave until they get what they are coming for.
If you speed you normally get 1 written warning (after a verbal of course and depending on officer and attitude of the suspect), after that it's ticket and court time. Why should someone breaking into my house get more than one warning? and why the feth should I have to leave my own house when I have the means to defend myself?
It is a persons right to live but when that person threatens my existence, my peaceful existence and/or that of my family they give up that right. Plain and simple.
With 29 priors had he not been killed for being a moron who obviously won't rehabilitate himself he would have MOST LIKELY committed his 31st down the road and it might have been someone else who killed him or he might have killed some innocent person just trying to get a good nights sleep.
First off: Killing someone with a sword is AWESOME. Seriously. Guy gets a few Style Points. It is generally pretty difficult to use a sword indoors effectively in a modern home. Especially a slashing attack.
Second: If someone breaks into your home you should have every right to do what ever you think is necessary to defend your family, your self, and your possessions. I do not work my ass off for some freeloading, idiotic son-of-a-bitch CRIMINAL to come in a take my stuff.
And that is the key point. CRIMINAL. As soon as he is in my house without permission, he has committed a crime. I have no idea his intentions or his current status of armed or not. If he did not have criminal intentions, he wouldn't have broken in.
That means that poor feth hole is MINE. I will butcher him if I need to, without a question coming out of my mouth to betray my position until he is skewered on one of MY swords. How do I know he isn't there to rape my wife? I'm not giving him a CHANCE to to do anything but run, or die. That is your penalty for committing a crime against me in my own home. I'm so sorry you can't grow a brain and be a contributing member of society, but that isn't my problem at the time.
And another thing that should not be allowed: Said criminal's family should NOT be able to sue me for killing him. Why should I pay because your child/husband/other family member is a criminal? I've probably already paid for his jail time, that family doesn't deserve gak.
dogma wrote:
The law doesn't presume choice. You can remove choice from the system and replace it with qualitative logic. For example, you would imprison a murderer not because it was his decision to commit murder, but because he was determined to be a murderer and murderers should be imprisoned.
Since we don't have any method to evidence said determinism, we must presume choice. I can't summon Laplace's Demon any more than anyone else. Heisenberg suggested this particular demon can not exist, and still violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Determinism then beggars the philosophical question of responsibility. Can there actually be crime for a causal (or scientific) or theological determinist? If there was no option, then there is no responsibility, and therefore no accountability for wrongdoing (or wrongdoing for that matter).
I mean, if you're going to argue that any given human is no more valuable than any given cow, then you should probably stay as far away from the meat-eating population as possible.
Strangely, I say much the same thing in regards to PETA. They still won't leave me alone. But to follow the analogy: The cow and I both would prefer not to be eaten, but in the end neither of us have a universal determination making us inherently more valuable. Lots of cells, proteins, nutrients, but no "Do not smite under penalty of..." tag.
Its not in your enlightened self-interest to ensure a fair legal system?
Aha! Herein lies the rub. The legal system is not in question.
A man stole from another man, who responded with violence. We question the degree of violence, but accept that the theft was unfair. How many repetitions does it take for a career criminal to be removed from the populace as irredeemable?
Some cultures advocate pretty severe repercussions for theft.
I'd say the law was pretty darn fair to the burglar.
edit: is it wrong of me to have expected the rocket propelled chainsaw?
Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.
I'd personally give this kid a medal. If he does still serve jail time even if he is found to have defended himself due to "excessive force" I will write a letter to that state governor and let him know how unfair it really is and how messed up it is you can't defend yourself.
In a different article I read it said that the kid told the investigator that he had told the guy to "Freeze. Stay where you are." and then the guy lunged.
If he isn't lying about it than the guy had ample warning, had time to rethink his stupidity. Instead he opted to go after the guy armed with a sword and obviously intended to harm the kid. The fact he died on the scene is just too bad as now the kid will have a blood stain on his garage floor. Nothing Oxyclean cannot take care of.
Fateweaver wrote:Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.
AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Because killing is inherently wrong by the modern understanding of the social contract, and the idea that property is more valuable than life is questionable at best. Also, don't use the size script to prove your point. We all read it the first time, it's not like we can't read the tiny letters. Instead of using big type, try understanding opposing arguments.
Well, the whole social contract theory is a load of bull twinkie anyway. Its about as useless as a Russian whore in church....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.
lol
OMG! FETHING HILARIOUS! Oh, and I agree with pretty much everything you have posted so far Luna, nice work.
frgsinwntr wrote:[
... I pose you the question, what if he wasn't?
What if he wasn't what? There to rob the guy? That the student just happened to invite over a person who is criminal? Just so he could kill them under the pretense of being robbed? I'm sorry, I'd like to think that the only people who are that sadistic and crazy don't live here. But, I may be wrong.
But, I suppose we should look at the alternative? What if the dead guy had simply broke in to have a dry place to sleep? It's still breaking and entering. And then there is the account that he lunged at the student. If it is all true, then the student was completely correct in his actions.
We could sit here and debate all day about the possibilites.
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but a robot sent back in time to save the world from evil omni-computers.
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but a zombie who was determined to bring the world to it's knees in a zombie plague.
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but Chuck Norris?
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but already dead? [Wait, see above Zombie entry]
Skarwael wrote: Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.
I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.
Actually, to purposefully hit a (moving) target as small as an arm or leg (and anywhere in the torso/head is a vital area), one would have to be very highly trained, especially in the heat of the moment. It is a known fact that one of the effects of adrenaline is the loss of fine motor control. If you doubt that fine motor control is necessary when using a handgun, you've never fired one. Yes you can "spray and pray", but have fun claiming self defense when your stray bullets hit neighbors and/or innocent bystanders (or even the family members you were trying to protect), but miss the target (It's amazing how much you can miss by even at a distance as little as three feet). This is the main reason that self defense classes teach pupils to aim center mass.
Another reason they train you to do this is criminal law. No matter where you shoot somebody, unless they receive proper medical attention the person will die. They may not die quickly, but they will die, either from blood loss, or if left untreated long enough, infection or septicemia. The laws state that there are only certain times in which you may use deadly force. Even having the time to decide to try the far riskier shot to incapacitate, is evidence of the fact that your life was not threatened enough to warrant deadly force. Basically, if you you need to use lethal force to protect yourself, then use lethal force.
Yet another reason they teach you this is civil law. Say you DID shoot to incapacitate, and beat the subsequent criminal charges. This does NOT make you immune to civil lawsuits from the perpetrator, or his/her family. You know charges like "intentional maiming" and other such.
More OT: All of the above would presumably apply to using a sword on somebody, especially if that person is actually coming at you. Their momentum combined with your own force, would presumably make the cut deeper than intended.
Lordhat wrote:
Yet another reason they teach you this is civil law. Say you DID shoot to incapacitate, and beat the subsequent criminal charges. This does NOT make you immune to civil lawsuits from the perpetrator, or his/her family. You know charges like "intentional maiming" and other such.
More OT: All of the above would presumably apply to using a sword on somebody, especially if that person is actually coming at you. Their momentum combined with your own force, would presumably make the cut deeper than intended.
Actually many states that use Castle Law Doctrine also incorporate immunity for those defending themselves, their homes, their work, etc. from any sort of civil cases. It really is a unique system, and something trial lawyers hate.
Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.
I guess if you shoot them with a 10ga shotgun in the leg they would topple over seeing as they'd have no leg but then there is the whole bleeding all over my house issue.
Aim for the heart. A lot less blood to clean up than shooting them in the leg or even gut.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.
I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.
LunaHound wrote:And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
People don’t have to be psychics because, for the most part, they are not complete idiots. Being as they are not complete idiots, they are capable of understanding the specifics of a situation and using that to determine to a large extent the level of threat to them and their families posed by a break-in.
If you are home alone, hear glass being broken, and can move quickly outside from an exit well away from the sound of broken glass, it is safe to say you can exit without being in fear of your life. You do not have to be psychic to know you can escape that situation without shooting anyone.
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away.
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
The argument that you can’t know anything because you’re not psychic so you better start shooting is disingenuous, invented to justify a fantasy of noble private citizens blowing away the villainous home invader. There will always be unknowns and complicating factors, and the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the homeowner. But it must be the benefit of the doubt… that is, the actual doubt over the circumstances of that case.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.
I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.
Police in the field have about 1 round in 6 hit the target at a range of twenty feet, and they're shooting at the centre mass. If you're going to shoot, shoot at the centre mass.
The issues that need debate are the decisions you should make too avoid being in the same room as a home invader, and whether a person actually needs to be in fear of their life to shoot.
I can't believe I typed the second bit, I have a really hard time getting my head around the idea that people think you should be able to shoot someone just because they broke in, whether you're in fear of your life or not.
LunaHound wrote:And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?
People don’t have to be psychics because, for the most part, they are not complete idiots. Being as they are not complete idiots, they are capable of understanding the specifics of a situation and using that to determine to a large extent the level of threat to them and their families posed by a break-in.
If you are home alone, hear glass being broken, and can move quickly outside from an exit well away from the sound of broken glass, it is safe to say you can exit without being in fear of your life. You do not have to be psychic to know you can escape that situation without shooting anyone. Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )
The argument that you can’t know anything because you’re not psychic so you better start shooting is disingenuous, invented to justify a fantasy of noble private citizens blowing away the villainous home invader. There will always be unknowns and complicating factors, and the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the homeowner. But it must be the benefit of the doubt… that is, the actual doubt over the circumstances of that case.
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.
I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.
I realize this but a well sighted in laser is a lot more accurate than relying on the fixed sights on most handguns. If I hear someone break into my home I normally have 30 seconds or so to establish my target depending where in my house they happen to be. At 15 feet if I'm aiming center chest odds are unless that person goes Neo on me, even if the sight is a little off, the round will find it's mark on and hit that person.
Most often it it is not a quick draw, old west type of shootout at high noon where the defender has to actually pull the gun from the holster. Mine is not holstered in my house, it's kept by my bed in my nightstand. If I had to use it I'd pull it from drawer, flick off the safety and advance toward the disturbance with it in the ready-fire position. Sometimes, seeing the red dot on their heart will make a person think twice about messing with you. I've never had to pull a gun on anyone yet but I do know the limitations of laser sights and Hollywood does not actually smoke and mirrors lasers on guns.
The sight won't make you shoot like Annie Oakley if you can't aim without one but it will make your shot more accurate.
LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.
If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.
This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.
It must be noted that Jeffersonian ideals, mostly those of personal responsibility and integrity, are very influential in Castle Law Doctrine. In fact these laws are almost completely reliant on them as a means of justification.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, even with laser sights, hitting a moving leg or swinging arm will be difficult and just shooting somebody in a non-vital area will not necessarily deter that person from attacking/shooting back.
I like how much people see Hollywood and believe it. Just because a gun has a laser sight, doesn't make it 100% accurate. Lasers have to be sighted in just like regular sights; They are accurate only at a specific range (where the trajectory of the bullet crosses the line of the laser). Too close and the bullet will be above the mark, too far and it will be below the mark. I see them as especially superfluous on a (non-hunting) handgun, considering the range at which handguns are designed for (5-10 yards). At these ranges your target can cross the distance before you can see the sight, put it where you want and pull the trigger. Defensive handgun training is a constant necessity. Ideally you want to be able to draw, point, and shoot and be accurate. This ONLY comes with repetition, and no fancy gadget or doodad will replace that.
Police in the field have about 1 round in 6 hit the target at a range of twenty feet, and they're shooting at the centre mass. If you're going to shoot, shoot at the centre mass.
The issues that need debate are the decisions you should make too avoid being in the same room as a home invader, and whether a person actually needs to be in fear of their life to shoot.
I can't believe I typed the second bit, I have a really hard time getting my head around the idea that people think you should be able to shoot someone just because they broke in, whether you're in fear of your life or not.
The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.
I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?
Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.
I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.
LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.
If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.
This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.
And i never said people do. So i'll clear it up again for people that seem to purposely ignore what i say ( not you dogma )
In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ?
- do you know how many intruders are involved?
- can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot
- can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms?
- can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression?
- what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon?
- or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )
I can list more , but the list above are extremely dangerous and impossible to tell ahead of the time .
How do you deal with that safely , you are welcome to reply .
But if you cant , then know this . I dont want to see anyone getting hurt because they feel going easy on an intruder is deemed "humane"
which is not the case at all here.
*edit , i dont know where you guys are getting the idea of "luna think every type of break in deserves to be killed " from
but do try not put words in my mouth as much .
Cane wrote:
dogma wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.
If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.
This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.
Agreed. A black and white approach doesn't really work in this case or in many legal circumstances.
Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.
LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.
If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.
This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.
Agreed. A black and white approach doesn't really work in this case or in many legal circumstances.
Tells that to my states self defense laws and statutes. I'm too lazy to look them up but I believe it was page 2 or 3 I posted links.
In a nutshell for those too lazy Mn law says use of lethal force is allowed to prevent a felony crime from occurring in your home. Burglary in the state of Mn is a Felony, Burglary is the act of breaking into someones dwelling with intent to commit theft. Thus, entering my home to commit theft (and wtf are they in my house if it's not for the purpose of stealing or trying to harm me or my brother) does grant me, by the state of Mn, the right to lethal force to defend my dwelling.
If they break into my shop that ISN'T attached to my house or just stand in my front yard looking sheepishly at me I cannot use lethal force as that is not considered my dwelling and I would therefore be liable and most likely jailed for excessive force UNLESS that person pulled a gun or some similiar weapon on me but just being in my shop or garage or tool shed does not give me right to kill them.
I realize this but a well sighted in laser is a lot more accurate than relying on the fixed sights on most handguns.
Proper point-shoot training means you're not using the sights fixed or not. Repetition will train you to point the barrel where you intend to shoot every time very accurately. When done seriously with self defense in mind, stress is added to the training mechanism to stimulate adrenaline flow, and accustomizing one to it's effects. Note that this is INTENSIVE training, far beyond what the normal policeman or soldier will undergo. Swat and Spec Ops train like this, for a reason. They need to be accurate every time. Unfortunately I do not have the financial ability to train like this and neither will the average Joe, as it requires 1,000's of rounds to first hone the skills, and then a minimum of 300 rounds a week to keep them.
If I hear someone break into my home I normally have 30 seconds or so to establish my target depending where in my house they happen to be. At 15 feet if I'm aiming center chest odds are unless that person goes Neo on me, even if the sight is a little off, the round will find it's mark on and hit that person.
This is likely. My post was more directed at the people who think that laser's = instant OMGBOOMHEADSHOTPWNED.
The sight won't make you shoot like Annie Oakley if you can't aim without one but it will make your shot more accurate.
Agreed, but only if you have time to place it accurately AND process that you have done so (Hard to do if the intruder rushes you as soon as he's aware of your presence. Not likely, but still a possibility). I still advocate learning to shoot instinctively without one, at which point it would just be a liability, having practiced so much without it.
LunaHound wrote:Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )
So, upon hearing broken glass, you're assuming it is reasonably likely that there is a lookout posted outside near your exit point who will attack you or alert others, or that if they hear you escaping they'll hunt you down... therefore you need to approach the sound of the disturbance weapon at the ready. I don't know you, but I don't believe you're a paranoid psychotic, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you aren't honest in arguing the above from a genuine position.
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )
They were running away, it was explicit in the hypothetical that they were running away. The point is that is a person is running away from you as fast possible, even though he is in your house and you aren't psychic, you can tell you don't need to shoot him.
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )
No, I don't assume that, where did you learn to read? I said they were lunging, and that was sufficient grounds to justify self defence. This doesn't exclude a wide variety of other circumstances that would also justify self defence.
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
What was my point? The point was that there are lot of circumstances where the threat level can be reasonably determined. Like Dogma said it is not a complicated thing to understand.
The homeowner should get the same rights as the home invader because, strangely enough, everyone gets the same rights.
Your last line about us assuming the only type of intruder is the kind who will run away is just rubbish. Just awful. No-one has said that home invaders will always run away, no-one has hinted at it, implied it or relied on it in their arguments.
In fact, people have said just the opposite, saying it is alright to defend yourself when you are in fear of your life, which would indicate an understanding that many home invaders will not run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.
And several other states as well. Of course, 'that's the law' isn't much of a defence against the charge 'that's a crap law'.
I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?
I'm not arguing that they might not be there to break a law? That would be silly, given they've already broken one just by entering.
People are arguing that just because someone is breaking a law, it doesn't mean you get to shoot them.
Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.
You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.
I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.
LunaHound wrote:Considering you arnt a psychic , you would have to take risk of not knowing if there is a look out out side.
Thats to say if you are a ninja and can sneak by undetected. ( 2 Risk already )
So, upon hearing broken glass, you're assuming it is reasonably likely that there is a lookout posted outside near your exit point who will attack you or alert others, or that if they hear you escaping they'll hunt you down... therefore you need to approach the sound of the disturbance weapon at the ready. I don't know you, but I don't believe you're a paranoid psychotic, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you aren't honest in arguing the above from a genuine position. Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then turns and runs away, you don’t have to be psychic to know you don’t have to shoot them because they’re running away. ( And what if they dont run away? )
Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?
They were running away, it was explicit in the hypothetical that they were running away. The point is that is a person is running away from you as fast possible, even though he is in your house and you aren't psychic, you can tell you don't need to shoot him.
See above .
If you hear glass being broken and move to your child’s room and someone enters the room from the opposite direction, then lunges at you, you don’t have to be psychic to understand that’s a significant risk and you better shoot.
You assume that they have to lunge at you or be in close proximity to cause harm ? come on this isnt the ice age , even they have throwing spear back then ( risk #3 )
No, I don't assume that, where did you learn to read? I said they were lunging, and that was sufficient grounds to justify self defence. This doesn't exclude a wide variety of other circumstances that would also justify self defence.
Yep , and exactly how accurate and fast on the trigger are you willing to put your family in danger to acess the situation to deem it "justify situation" ? are you Neo? can you do bullet time? Cuz... i dunno anyone can
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
What was my point? The point was that there are lot of circumstances where the threat level can be reasonably determined. Like Dogma said it is not a complicated thing to understand.
And my point is , a bullet flies too fast . You think there is time and chance to determine the situation , i think its risky . And i wont risk my live for the sake of someone purposely intruding.
The homeowner should get the same rights as the home invader because, strangely enough, everyone gets the same rights.
Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane .
Your last line about us assuming the only type of intruder is the kind who will run away is just rubbish. Just awful. No-one has said that home invaders will always run away, no-one has hinted at it, implied it or relied on it in their arguments.
In fact, people have said just the opposite, saying it is alright to defend yourself when you are in fear of your life, which would indicate an understanding that many home invaders will not run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The law in Mn supports using lethal force to prevent a crime from being committed in your dwelling.
And several other states as well. Of course, 'that's the law' isn't much of a defence against the charge 'that's a crap law'.
I can't get my head around the fact some people think citizens don't need handguns or that someone breaking into your house is doing it because they don't intend to commit a crime. Wft are they breaking into my house for? A place to sleep? Watch free cable tv?
I'm not arguing that they might not be there to break a law? That would be silly, given they've already broken one just by entering.
People are arguing that just because someone is breaking a law, it doesn't mean you get to shoot them.
Someone breaking into my house is intending to commit a crime beyond breaking and entering (as that in and of itself is a crime) and so I have a really hard time comprehending why I, the guy who owns the house and pays taxes, should run from some lowlife hell bent on robbing me when I can defend myself and have the RIGHT to defend myself.
You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.
I should buy a .44mag. feth wounding the bastard, I'll either take his head clean off or dismember him. Haha.
Teehee. Killing people is hilarious.
See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.
Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.
LunaHound wrote:Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.
What other conclusion could be drawn from what you've been arguing in this thread?
You said there is no luxury to go easy on the intruder, because you aren't psychic. You later repeated the point about lacking psychic abilities, ignoring the countless other abilities humans have at their disposal for figuring a situation out, and started talking about psycho killers breaking in to houses to kill people in their sleep.
frgsinwntr asked if you thought anyone that killed someone in their house is innocent. If you believe the right to shoot was limited, then the answer was a very simple 'no'. But you didn't give that answer.
frgsinwntr later said that while you should use lethal force to protect your family, but not just because someone broke in. Relapse wished good luck in trying to ascertain motive in a robbery, meaning that you should open fire first and foremost, giving no thought to the conditions indicating whether or not someone is a threat. You quoted Relapse for truth.
When I gave an example of a victim being able so leave the premises without ever seeing the intruder, you supposed additional attackers lurking outside waiting to hunt the victim down.
So you believe a significant number of home invaders are there to kill you, not just take your stuff, but will look for you in the house in order to kill you. You believe that as we aren't psychic, there is absolutely no possible way of knowing if the intruder is a psycho killer or regular burglar. You think that even if you can quickly exit the house, there's a significant risk that the possible psycho killer has sentries lurking outside.
LunaHound wrote:Yes , and show me where i said break in = automatically ok to kill the intruder.
What other conclusion could be drawn from what you've been arguing in this thread?
You said there is no luxury to go easy on the intruder, because you aren't psychic. You later repeated the point about lacking psychic abilities, ignoring the countless other abilities humans have at their disposal for figuring a situation out, and started talking about psycho killers breaking in to houses to kill people in their sleep.
frgsinwntr asked if you thought anyone that killed someone in their house is innocent. If you believe the right to shoot was limited, then the answer was a very simple 'no'. But you didn't give that answer.
frgsinwntr later said that while you should use lethal force to protect your family, but not just because someone broke in. Relapse wished good luck in trying to ascertain motive in a robbery, meaning that you should open fire first and foremost, giving no thought to the conditions indicating whether or not someone is a threat. You quoted Relapse for truth.
When I gave an example of a victim being able so leave the premises without ever seeing the intruder, you supposed additional attackers lurking outside waiting to hunt the victim down.
So you believe a significant number of home invaders are there to kill you, not just take your stuff, but will look for you in the house in order to kill you. You believe that as we aren't psychic, there is absolutely no possible way of knowing if the intruder is a psycho killer or regular burglar. You think that even if you can quickly exit the house, there's a significant risk that the possible psycho killer has sentries lurking outside.
In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ?
- do you know how many intruders are involved?
- can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot
- can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms?
- can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression?
- what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon?
- or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )
*Cough because after countless times i post in this thread " if a situation occurs that is going to be risky , i rather not risk / trade a family's
safety just to make sure the intruder is humanely incapacitated . *cough *cough.
No seb , ya know i really dunno what else that must mean after its been repeated over and over and over and over again.
*shrug
LunaHound wrote:Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.
Did you read the anecdote? I pointed out that you were alone in the house, and that the breaking glass was at the opposite side from your direct exit. The example was created specifically for the example of ‘you can leave the house safely and not risk any engagement with the attacker’.
Most people would recognise that as what it was, and say ‘I would leave the house, because I value my life more than some property.’ But you didn’t, you invented some stuff about attackers lurking outside, and when I pointed out how silly that was you ignored the explicit conditions of the hypothetical to invent a situation more to your own liking.
Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?
Sigh. You’re right that just because someone is running away it doesn’t mean they’re automatically completely harmless, but there are certainly many, many conditions where a person in flight is clearly no longer a threat. In those situations, you shouldn’t shoot.
You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?
Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane.
No, and if you think there is a risk to your life you should shoot, everyone has said that. But you keep ignoring the simple idea that there are situations in which a home invader is clearly not a threat.
See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.
“Unlike you guys”? So you’re saying some of us are lying? Don’t play that passive aggressive game, if you have an accusation to make, make it.
Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.
You aren’t being honest. Outside of the deeply paranoid and people who are actually being hunted by armed gangs, no-one who hears breaking glass in their house, assumes there are lookouts lurking in the bushes outside. It’s ridiculous. But you typed it out and put it in as a reason that you couldn’t safely exit the house.
But I’ll just ask this big question again; can you conceive of a situation where a home intruder might not be in genuine fear of his life? If that is possible, if the homeowner shot the intruder despite not fearing for his life, do you consider him a murderer?
Wait... for good measure... Silly beer drinking U.S. Americans...
Sebster wrote:You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?
LunaHound wrote:Again , dont put words in my mouth . What im saying is , unlike you suggested im not going to attempt to move a whole family to sneak out of the "exit"
unless i know there there isnt someone as look out or i wont bump into them on the way out . I would phone the police and pray they'll arrive first . But INCASE they dont , the gun will be ready.
Did you read the anecdote? I pointed out that you were alone in the house, and that the breaking glass was at the opposite side from your direct exit. The example was created specifically for the example of ‘you can leave the house safely and not risk any engagement with the attacker’.
And im again telling you , in the real world you wouldnt KNOW that thus the example is pointless
Most people would recognise that as what it was, and say ‘I would leave the house, because I value my life more than some property.’ But you didn’t, you invented some stuff about attackers lurking outside, and when I pointed out how silly that was you ignored the explicit conditions of the hypothetical to invent a situation more to your own liking.
Umm , if its safe to leave the house during a break in , im sure people would . But realistically ? no.
Now you see , here is why i said no one is psychic and should NOT treat this as if you are. How do you confirm when they "run" they'll run out of the house?
how do you know they arnt running to another room due to the sudden surprise ( and thinking what if you have a gun for them )
In other words You Dont Know , I Dont Know . Again , you want to risk it?
Sigh. You’re right that just because someone is running away it doesn’t mean they’re automatically completely harmless, but there are certainly many, many conditions where a person in flight is clearly no longer a threat. In those situations, you shouldn’t shoot.
And did i say they should? stop putting words in my mouth
You’re obviously struggling with the idea that hypotheticals demonstrate general points, so I’ll just ask the one, big question. Can you conceive of a situation where a homeowner would not be justified in killing the invader?
Yes , if the home owner shouts "i call the police , give up or give it up or i'll shoot " and the intruder actually drop onto the floor with arms and legs spread out and surrenders . It can end peacefully
[color=green]Bingo , thus im not going to wait around to be shot first to be humane.[/color]
No, and if you think there is a risk to your life you should shoot, everyone has said that. But you keep ignoring the simple idea that there are situations in which a home invader is clearly not a threat.
See the sentence i highlighted? dont do that again. Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.
“Unlike you guys”? So you’re saying some of us are lying? Don’t play that passive aggressive game, if you have an accusation to make, make it.
Why would i need to play passive aggressive game? Are you out of your mind? You said im not honest , i simply replied with the truth that
a forum is certainly not something worth lieing for. Cogito, ergo sum ( where the **** did you pull that from that im implying anything more? )
Granted there is a possibility that my sentence might cause confusion , but there is also possibility that you are misunderstanding what i type as well on your end.
So even though i understand you are in a "heated" debate atm , try to control yourself mister.
You aren’t being honest. Outside of the deeply paranoid and people who are actually being hunted by armed gangs, no-one who hears breaking glass in their house, assumes there are lookouts lurking in the bushes outside. It’s ridiculous. But you typed it out and put it in as a reason that you couldn’t safely exit the house.
WTH? what does this have to do with honesty ? What make your situation anymore credible than mine that a break in always solo and never results in murder?
But I’ll just ask this big question again; can you conceive of a situation where a home intruder might not be in genuine fear of his life? If that is possible, if the homeowner shot the intruder despite not fearing for his life, do you consider him a murderer?
Yep i answered above already , and to the 2nd part of the question. If the intruder "had" a weapon , and he threw it away and layed down head first with arms and legs out
AND the owner still decide to shoot him ( assuming its 100% confirmed there is no accomplice ) then its murder.
Here , incase you think im the type that do passive aggressive or w/e BS , here is something truthful i want to say , and not sugar coating it
and i know you wont like it.
Honestly , with me expressing my view on why its risky to deal with intruder *your way warranting this type of
garbage debate is why nothing can get done now days. You are so engorged in the sake of debating that you already forgot why we are arguing.
Let me just tell you this , in sentences there are always a few ways to interpret the meaning .
Try re-reading what i type from the very beginning without prejudice and you might not miss interpret my sentences.
You have the right to defend yourself and your family. It's having the right to use lethal force to defend your X-Box that's a lot more dubious.
Again, I don't give a damn about the fact they are trying to steal, I care about the fact they may decide not to leave witnesses or maybe they broke in in the first place to kill me and my bro.
I am not going to ask the guy politely why he broke into my house just so that I can judge whether or not to use lethal force. Burglary is a FELONY in my state, I have the State of Mn's permission to use lethal force to prevent that Felony from occurring.
If the scumbag had not broken into my house in the first place he might have lived to see his next birthday.
Again, why must I keep myself in check for the benefit of some low life pile gak? Should I grab a chair or maybe a flashlight to beat him with instead of my gun so he has a chance to retaliate and hurt me or kill me?
I have a hand gun in my house for protection. Some people keep German shepherds or Rottweilers for protection.
Now, would you rather see someone turn a German Shepherd loose on an intruder or shoot them? Because according to you, to do anything other than shooting the guy/woman is more humane. Trust me, it isn't pretty what a Shepherd/Rott/Pitbull can do to a person. Unless the guy is armed I guarantee the guy will wish he had been shot instead.
I love these arguments. It seems as if once a month some lefty that knows gak about gun rights and self defense laws/rights tries to make me and my friends look evil and bad because we want to protect one of the rights the Constitution grants us. Maybe not all Left-wingers think that way but every one of them that have confronted me about it HAVE been left wingers so I admit to being biased like that. If I offended someone I am not going to apologize. Sorry.
I could care less about this situation, people will shoot to kill regardless of the law, and that is only common sense talking.
Bringing up the point of a dog, it is pretty much the same thing, but in that situation your putting an animal in danger .
What does intrigue me though, is how voraciously both sides of this debate are pushing for their views... Does it really matter? There are so many situations that the obvious answer is to nuke them from orbit, but in most situations there is a better answer.
Whether you choose to decapitate the intruder is up to you, the main point being, why in the feth would you feel so absolutely fantastic about it?
Wrexasaur wrote:
Whether you choose to decapitate the intruder is up to you, the main point being, why in the feth would you feel so absolutely fantastic about it?
Sigh i dunno , i wouldnt feel fantastic about harming someone else if its not necessary .
Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .
I kept telling him if a situation occured that is unconfirmed and unsafe for the house owner ( which is 90% of the time in reality ) ,
i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors ( that i have typed twice already )
I wouldn't feel fantastic about it as a .45ACP round is a little over $1 per round. I pay $25 for 20 at Gander Mtn.
I wasted $1 and around 15-20 minutes cleaning my gun because some douche is trying to steal my 40k dudes. If I had a copy of the 3.5 Chaos codex laying around I'd throw that at them, tell them to read it and then call the funny wagon when their brain goes to mush from reading such drivel. LOL. Or maybe I'd do them a favor and shoot them to put them out of their misery.
Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.
That was for Fateweaver actually, and I have no problem with his views, just the fact that he seems to take intense pleasure from the whole idea.
You however Luna, seem to be pushing uphill for the sake of going downhill backwards... just saying. Read your statement a few more times, and try to point out the fallacy in it.
Wait... here it is...
Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .
Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...
i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors
But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?
Fateweaver wrote:Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.
Right... okay then. You can do what you do, and you will I am sure, just make sure that Santa does not "give" you a bad wrap on Christmas .
DIE BUGS DIE!!! Bugs that look an awful lot like you... but I digress.
Nobody is saying we'd have a damn party and roast marshmallows in celebration. I'm sure it'd shake me to the core even if I wounded the guy and he lived.
If I was able to, ie the guy wasn't lunging for me or pulling a gun, warn the intruder first. I'd give him 5 seconds to turn his back to me and walk out of my house. That is all that I would offer that person. If after 5 seconds are up and he/she is still standing there looking at me or still rummaging through my stuff you damn right I'm going to shoot. When they refuse to heed my warning and comply I can only assume they are going to hurt me if given the chance or at the very least try to grab something of value and then run for it.
One chance. 5 seconds if I'm able to give them that warning. After that I'll call the Sheriff and I'll tell them to call a mortician.
Sorry scumbag. Game over. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200
Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .
Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...
i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors
But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?
.
Ok wrex , just for you i'll attempt to multi quote... (opens another tab window)
K see this list , are the variables in a break in scenario that is very real . Ignoring any of them can put yourself in high risk , if not fatal .... for you AND your family:
In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ? ( how do you know the glass didnt fall off later after they smashed it via tape first ) - do you know how many intruders are involved? ( so if 1 surrenders , how do you confirm its safe? . If you can sneak pass 1, how do you confirm there arnt more? ) - can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot ( how do you confirm they are only in for robbery not murder? seriously ) - can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms? ( tic tok tic tok , not risking it ) - can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression? ( confrontation between life and death only takes a split second , none of us normal humans can spare it ) - what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon? ( again , emphasizing on how hard if not impossible to confirm the situation to warrant the force required to incapacitate the intruder ) - or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )
Compare that list with what i have said many times as well:
For example:
Yes , if the home owner shouts "i call the police , give up or give it up or i'll shoot " and the intruder actually drop onto the floor with arms and legs spread out and surrenders . It can end peacefully
Which is assuming his accomplices didnt know whats going on and didnt storm in afterwards to turn you into a bee hive. Then yes its possible to end the situation .
Wrexasaur wrote:That was for Fateweaver actually, and I have no problem with his views, just the fact that he seems to take intense pleasure from the whole idea.
You however Luna, seem to be pushing uphill for the sake of going downhill backwards... just saying. Read your statement a few more times, and try to point out the fallacy in it.
Wait... here it is...
Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .
Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...
i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors
But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?
Fateweaver wrote:Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.
Right... okay then. You can do what you do, and you will I am sure, just make sure that Santa does not "give" you a bad wrap on Christmas .
DIE BUGS DIE!!! Bugs that look an awful lot like you... but I digress.
I wouldn't take pleasure in killing another, well I guess maybe if he raped my girlfriend or something I would but that is not what is being discussed here (rape). It would upset me but I would not feel remorse or pity, nor would I smile and spit on his body. Even in that situation I'd be under scrutiny and berating and brow beating by cops to make sure I'm not full of gak. The stress would probably age me another 10 years but if it's the price I have to pay to defend my home than so be it.
It's a realistic view of a very realistic situation. If I enjoyed the idea of killing someone, even in self defense then most likely I would enjoy killing period. I can't say I do. I've never killed anyone but rest assured I don't get off on the idea of killing.
Again, I don't need to feel threatened personally under Mn law. Just the idea of someone being in my house without my permission gives me the only authority I need to use lethal force if Me, myself and I deem it necessary. I could stick to baseball bats and rolling pins but I'm guessing shooting somebody, even if it doesn't kill them, is a lot more humane than disfiguring their face with a baseball bat or even putting them in a coma from blunt force trauma to the head.
But I digress. It's 5am my time, I'm tired of debating. Some will always believe everyone has a right to live regardless, others will feel the way I do. I defend Luna as funnily enough I understand where she is coming from and how she would handle it. Doesn't make her less wrong than the people saying to flee your house or bargain with the person. If a friend or family member broke into someones house and was shot and killed I would be upset of course but I would not begrudge the person who did so if it was proven and they convinced me that they had no choice.
Whilst I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself, your family and your property (and I wish such laws were stronger here in the UK), I don't agree that you should be able to use lethal force to do so unless your life is directly under threat (vis someone shooting at you or running at you with a knife/etc).
The prevelance of guns in the US probably leads to many more deaths than would otherwise occur in home defence situations in other nations. A gun is almost by definition a tool designed to kill things. It was designed with that as its primary use.
And the sad fact is that in a country where pretty much anyone and everyone can get a gun, your attacker/breaking in person is just as likley to have one as you are, if not more likley.
As I have never been confronted by an attacker in my own home, or even had someone break in, I cannot say what I would do. I would certainly not aim to kill an attacker. I would be more likley to attempt to chase him off or failing that, restrain him.
The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.
I am of average build and size and believe that I could probably hold my own against most people in a low threat situation, such as confronting a burgler who has just entered the property (as they will have a free corridor of escape). If confronting them in a higher level of threat, I would at least want the element of surprise on my side, which would mean the threat was such that I felt the need to preemptively attack in order to defend myself/family/etc.
I personally think that most break ins will fall into the low risk category, with most burglers choosing to flee rather than fight.
I don't hold with the idea that most people breaking in would rather stand and fight than to attempt to make off with whatever they have managed to steal/without a fight. I also don't hold with the idea that someone breaking in has the express intention of causing your person harm. Such people are comparatively rare, and I believe, can be identified through their actions sufficiently easily to allow you to prepare to either run away, or take more definitive action in your own defence.
Fateweaver wrote:Just the idea of someone being in my house without my permission gives me the only authority I need to use lethal force if Me, myself and I deem it necessary
I can see about ten million problems with this specific interpretation, but I think you did not mean it in the way that I think you did. I am also quite sure that you contradicted yourself quite profusely with the generic quality that this statement conveys.
SilverMK2 wrote:The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.
That and how in the feth are you going to have that gun ready in time? The ONLY practical way I can think of is by having it out in the open, or under your pillow or something (OMFG...OMFG...OMFG CRAZY). Whereas some households may be find an appropriate way to keep a firearm ready, most have all sorts of conflicting interests to that situation. The list goes on and on, and the situations that could occur simply do not merit a ready firearm in my eyes.
That and I would honestly prefer to have a dog sick-balls (morals be damned) while I got my family to safety and called the police. I am also a bit of a Mcgiver, so I would probably have some sort of tiger trap if I was expecting someone... I mean nachoes... and a sunday... ahem.
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
The guy did a bit more than steal. Although, actually, as it turned out, "attempted steal" snicker. He lunged at an armed home occupant. And however you spell the dang thing, it's no toothpick. I doubt he could have missed the 3 feet of hardened steel ol boy was packin. I mean; this isn't a matter for the courts, this is Darwin in action.
JohnHwangDD wrote:No, as Americans, we already have that right.
We simply want it to be strongly upheld under all circumstances.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I will take this at face value and say GOD DAMN RIGHT.
Lordhat wrote:...
We'll ask you what your definition of decent is after your house is invaded. Until you experience just how exposed, vulnerable, and violated it makes a person feel, don't comment on it. Seriously.
Eh......., while I think we are on the same side of the argument, it IS a forum.
frgsinwntr wrote:unless your life is threatened, it is murder.
yep, it is murder I said it.
however since the intruder lunged at someone with a sword.... it could be accidental/manslaughter and not murder.
The link was enough. Text walls do nothing to bring us together as a community, so let's not build them, hm'k? Seriously, good contribution but the link would have been fine.
Fateweaver wrote:Nobody is saying we'd have a damn party and roast marshmallows in celebration.
Without trying to sound like I am degrading your opinion; I just might. And some would join me.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sure it'd shake me to the core even if I wounded the guy and he lived.
If I was able to, ie the guy wasn't lunging for me or pulling a gun, warn the intruder first. I'd give him 5 seconds to turn his back to me and walk out of my house. That is all that I would offer that person. If after 5 seconds are up and he/she is still standing there looking at me or still rummaging through my stuff you damn right I'm going to shoot. When they refuse to heed my warning and comply I can only assume they are going to hurt me if given the chance or at the very least try to grab something of value and then run for it.
One chance. 5 seconds if I'm able to give them that warning. After that I'll call the Sheriff and I'll tell them to call a mortician.
Sorry scumbag. Game over. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200
In addition to what you said, I'm a family man. I'll gladly defend them. Even when the wife is mad at me and I am couch-bound.
LunaHound wrote:Wrex did my long post at attempting to explain it to you make any sense?
Yes it did. In the future I would focus on clarity to avoid any more flame wars. Keeping your format crisp is the key to success in an online conversation.
I understand what you say for the most part, but you do quite liberally blur the lines of clarity on occasion. The red and green text killed me .
Blue and orange are much better, and they will help you keep a clear intent.
SilverMK2 wrote:Whilst I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself, your family and your property (and I wish such laws were stronger here in the UK), I don't agree that you should be able to use lethal force to do so unless your life is directly under threat (vis someone shooting at you or running at you with a knife/etc).
The prevelance of guns in the US probably leads to many more deaths than would otherwise occur in home defence situations in other nations. A gun is almost by definition a tool designed to kill things. It was designed with that as its primary use.
And the sad fact is that in a country where pretty much anyone and everyone can get a gun, your attacker/breaking in person is just as likley to have one as you are, if not more likley.
As I have never been confronted by an attacker in my own home, or even had someone break in, I cannot say what I would do. I would certainly not aim to kill an attacker. I would be more likley to attempt to chase him off or failing that, restrain him.
The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.
I am of average build and size and believe that I could probably hold my own against most people in a low threat situation, such as confronting a burgler who has just entered the property (as they will have a free corridor of escape). If confronting them in a higher level of threat, I would at least want the element of surprise on my side, which would mean the threat was such that I felt the need to preemptively attack in order to defend myself/family/etc.
I personally think that most break ins will fall into the low risk category, with most burglers choosing to flee rather than fight.
I don't hold with the idea that most people breaking in would rather stand and fight than to attempt to make off with whatever they have managed to steal/without a fight. I also don't hold with the idea that someone breaking in has the express intention of causing your person harm. Such people are comparatively rare, and I believe, can be identified through their actions sufficiently easily to allow you to prepare to either run away, or take more definitive action in your own defence.
Ah yes.....the argument I hear all the time. 2 points and then I really am done for now.
1). There would most likely be A LOT more innocent people killed in home break ins if normal citizens could NOT own a handgun. I'm sure a lot more intruders are scared off when confronted by a gun than those deserving of a Darwin and attacking a home owner who is armed so no proof that guns given to normal citizens = more death due to citizens owning hand guns.
2) There is no statistical proof or concrete evidence that allowing law abiding citizens to own a handgun or shotgun or whatever kind of gun has INCREASED criminals and felons obtaining them. Any person with a felony, of any kind, can NEVER LEGALLY own a gun so they obtain them illegally, either by theft or by buying them on black market.
This kind of drivel that the peace loving, left wing extremists love to spout is undocumented proof and is proof that people will eat whatever bs is spoon fed to them.
Again, in some States (Mn as one) it does not matter IF I feel threatened. I can use lethal force to prevent a Felony. Burglary in my state is a Felony. If you have my Xbox in your arms I don't have to give you a second chance to walk away. All I have to tell authorities is that I felt threatened by his/her presence in my house. Nobody can contradict your feelings. Seriously, if someone breaks into my house at 3am, even if all they want is my dvd collection and PS3, I am going to feel threatened because of HOW they got into the house, not so much as WHY they broke in. You want a goddamn PS3 so bad get a job and buy one. Trying to steal one will most likely end up with you in prison or 6 feet under. Not really a tough decision IMO.
Knives are dangerous too though... at a range of 2 feet or less of course... and my point is smashed. WREX SMASH POINT!!! SMASH POINT SMASH!!!
It is clear that guns are not what people hype them up to be, in essence, bangstick not make dead all the time. Sometimes bangstick misfire and dead me too.
I would prefer mace and a tazergun to be totally honest, but there is something clearly psychological about having what most would consider the most dangerous weapon a person can own. I always preferred flamethrowers, but they get quite messy... hmmm, I will have sprinkles come to think of it... and some chopped up snickers bars too.
There would most likely be A LOT more innocent people killed in home break ins if normal citizens could NOT own a handgun.
Not the case over here or other "socialist 111 " type countries.
You were saying something about undocumented drivel yes ?
Can you prove, beyond doubt, that banning handguns of all kinds except to military personnel would DECREASE the number of gun fatalities here in the US? I know the answer, you can't. You also can't compare one country that doesn't allow citizens handguns as freely as another and expect it to be fair. I can't prove the UK changing its gun laws to be more like the US will decrease fatalities of innocents but neither can you prove it wouldn't.
Every Dem who has ever been in office has tried to feth normal citizens out of guns through some sort of bs bill or law. Obama hasn't proposed anything yet but he will, just watch and wait.
Of course not, just as well that's not what I'm arguing then really eh ?
I am intrigued as to how you can prove, as according to your previous statement, that not having handguns in the house WOULD, "beyond doubt" result in more deaths. I, too, know the answer, you can't.
This is a fun game.
Shall I make a crack about gun lovin' right wing extremists spouting undocumented proof and swallowing whatever BS is spoon fed to them now ?
Fateweaver wrote:Every Dem who has ever been in office has tried to feth ME out of MY guns through some sort of bs bill or law. Obama hasn't proposed anything yet but he will, just watch and wait.
Fixed that for you...
When they try and take your guns... use them?
I dunno, this all seems like rhetorical tripe to me...
reds8n wrote:Shall I make a crack about gun lovin' right wing extremists spouting undocumented proof and swallowing whatever BS is spoon fed to them now ?
There is something crawling on your arm... want me to shoot it for you? Geez man, no need to be so harsh about this...
LunaHound wrote:And im again telling you , in the real world you wouldnt KNOW that thus the example is pointless
Okay, it’s clear you don’t understand the point of a hypothetical. You seem to be thinking that a hypothetical is there to trick you into believing something, so you’re fighting against them through whatever means you can think of.
A hypothetical is there to demonstrate a simple point. In the first hypothetical, it was there to demonstrate the idea that it was possible to exit the house without engaging the intruder at all. The second hypothetical was there to demonstrate a situation where the intruder was engaged, but not an active threat. The third hypothetical was there to demonstrate.a situation where violent force was justified.
There were no tricks, no need to invent possible other factors. They just demonstrated three simple ideas;
1) You don’t need to engage the intruder.
2) It might be clear the intruder isn’t a threat, so you don’t have to shoot him.
3) If you haven’t been able to avoid the intruder, and he appears a risk, it is sensible to defend yourself, and that can include shooting the intruder.
Three very simple points, that you’ve spent a long time doing everything but addressing.
And did i say they should? stop putting words in my mouth
No, you didn’t, but I didn’t say you did. That’s a very odd reaction and I have no idea where you got it from.
Why would i need to play passive aggressive game? Are you out of your mind? You said im not honest , i simply replied with the truth that
a forum is certainly not something worth lieing for. Cogito, ergo sum ( where the **** did you pull that from that im implying anything more? )
I don’t know why you need to play a passive aggressive game, I just observed that that was what you were doing.
Your summary is disingenuous, because it carefully skipped the one part I pointed out that did imply more. I’ll repeat it for you;
“Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.”
You posted that, plain as day. It implies other people here are lying, and I think you should retract it or state who is lying, and about what.
WTH? what does this have to do with honesty ? What make your situation anymore credible than mine that a break in always solo and never results in murder?
I was posting a hypothetical to demonstrate a simple point. I could have put *note this is just a hypothetical and doesn’t explain every possible situation ever but is merely used to demonstrate a point*, but I assume most people understand how a hypothetical works.
And yes, you were being dishonest. Instead of addressing a simple concept at face value, you invented a ludicrous situation involving additional attackers lurking outside. Not answering a point on it’s merits, and instead inventing silly side points is intellectual dishonesty.
Yep i answered above already , and to the 2nd part of the question. If the intruder "had" a weapon , and he threw it away and layed down head first with arms and legs out
AND the owner still decide to shoot him ( assuming its 100% confirmed there is no accomplice ) then its murder.
Thankyou, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Now from there, can you consider a range of situations where the homeowner might not be in fear of his life, but killed anyway? Because all anyone has said is that those situations occur, and the occupant isn’t always justified in using lethal force.
And from there, while accepting that the occupant isn’t in full knowledge of all the facts and that he has only a second to decide, it is still possible than in the case of some home break-ins lethal force might be used when it was not necessary.
Honestly , with me expressing my view on why its risky to deal with intruder *your way warranting this type of
garbage debate is why nothing can get done now days. You are so engorged in the sake of debating that you already forgot why we are arguing.
No, I’m not in love with debate, quite plainly this has sucked.
I do like discussion, putting forward a point, and having that point discussed on its merits, and rejected, accepted or most likely modified. But that requires people who are willing to give and take, expand points, concede where they should, and address the substance of the other side.
You haven’t done that. You’ve invented bizarre to avoid answering simple questions, you’ve written countless pages without ever addressing the very simple counter points that have been made, and you’ve thrown out passive aggressive attacks and then denied having done so.
I've read most of the thread so far and have a few questions:
1) He confronted the attacker, who lunged at him, then he hit him once. Sounds like classic self-defence? Ok, and how do we know the attacker lunged at him? Did the dead guy say so? No. That would be the GUY WHO KILLED HIM saying that. I don't think you can take that at face value.
2) A neighbour heard "Screams of fear" - whose? How trustworthy is that testimony (hint: all forms of eye/earwitness testimony are barely more than junk)
3) People seem to say he should be ok for defending his home because there were other people inside and their lives might be threatened by this intruder whose intentions were unknown. Fair enough. Except the intruder wasn't in his home, he was in the garage, which the report stipulates is separate from the house. All this guy had to do is call the police, wake up his housemates, and stay alert. If they hear the guy trying to enter the house, shout "Leave, the police are on the way". No need to confront him and risk exposure to any weapons he may or may not have.
The basic truth is, we know next to nothing about this situation. We have a news report (doubtless riddled with misinformation, as nearly all news reports about crimes are) and nothing else. Any discussion about the specific case is going to be informed almost enotirely by peoples' pre-formed views, rather than the meager 'facts' we have available to us, and is therefore most likely to devolve into bickering.
I think that a more interesting (and possibly civil) discussion could be what peoples' views are regarding laws of this type, and more specifically how each person feels those laws should be worded. Is this thread the place for such a discussion or do you think a new one is warranted?
Personally, I believe that use of deadly force (i.e. force that in intended, or could be reasonably be expected, to result in the death of the person it is used on) CAN be justified in the defense of yourself and your freinds/family, but not only property. I have no idea how I would start to legislate that, and would need to give it a lot of thought, but that's my stance. Basically, if I was alone in the house and there was an intruder, I would consider getting out of the premises (after calling the police on my mobile phone) to be by far the preferable route. Choosing to confront the intruder (and yes, it IS a choice) is me choosing to expose myself to whatever weapons/drugs/mental health issues that person brought in with them, and is in my opinion a stupid thing to do even if armed.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
Not correct Yankee. In Texas if there is an intruder in your house the presumption is they are a threat, and you are permitted to terminate with extreme predjudice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
LunaHound wrote: Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ? Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR. So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.
You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.
If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.
This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.
Again thats not necessarily correct. Some states have specifically included locations, like garages, or even outside the home. It really is a a state by state thing. For intstance, if i night I hear something outside and see someone attempting to break into a car I can blow 'em away in texas. In Cali, at least when I lived there, you couldn't.
EDIT: wow this thread has gone on overnight hasn't it. Excellent.
reds8n wrote:If you were a REAL American you could use that as a lasso and capture the varmints. And then tak'em to Texas.
Or something.
If you were a really real American, you would shoot them with an arrow and take their scalp
And in general reply to Fateweaver (not to anything specific, because I think his post was mostly "I WANNA SHOOT PEOPLE, DON'T TAKE MY GUNS YOU DAMN LEFTIE GAY COMMIE HO RAH!!!!111111pi7"), if a society has say, 100 guns, all specifically for use in the police and armed forces, it is next to impossible for the average citizen to gain access to a firearm. Criminals would need to go to an external source for their guns, increasing the cost and complexity of attaining them.
This means that the average criminal will have little to no chance of getting access to a gun. This leaves the more organised crim gangs and the odd dedicated criminal type as the sole people who will be motivated and connected enough to get a gun.
I understand that there are other ways of getting guns, and that they are not as rare as I have suggested above, however, I was attempting to give a simple example of how a lower total number of guns combined with a greater restriction of who can have and use them can contribute to people who are not supposed to have them from having them.
You say how can allowing people to legally have guns increase the number of armed criminals? Well, take my example above, and compare it with my example below...
If we lived in Americaland (not to be confused with any real country where there are possibly more guns than people), where anyone can buy as many guns as they like (or rather, can afford) and, say, 7/10 households have at least one "home defence" weapon, all one would have to do is brake into a couple of houses and steal a gun. That is not to mention the slightly dodgy gun shop that will sell to anyone, the "resellers" of guns that people happen-to-find-laying-on the-street-honest, etc etc.
Edit: I am also most definately not a left wing political person. My viewpoint usually lies somewhat right (quite a lot in some areas) of centralist policy. That is not to say that I do not admire certain left political points of view. I guess that is part of my being raised in a country controlled by 2 right wing parties where anything not verging on agreeing with the Nazi party is considered communist.
In reply to "This kind of drivel that the peace loving, left wing extremists love to spout is undocumented proof and is proof that people will eat whatever bs is spoon fed to them." I can only point to my edit, and add that I think you may want to examine your own viewpoint before attempting to tar others as being blind to the real world and only being able to spout the party line.
In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.
Theory that you can heavily debase with misinformation and contrived extrapolation no less. FUN TIMES!!!
If confronted by a robber, I would advise giving them your stuff and moving on with your life. If confronted by a rapist/murderer/pervert/hooligan monster thing... shoot first?
It is theory when you are in the moment too... just saying... to nuke the site from orbit...
Relapse wrote:In Switzerland, by law people have guns as I understand it. If this is true, what is the crime rate there?
You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.
So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population.
They also have very strict laws on gun control and use, as well as for the sale of ammunition.
All the above combined with the general level of education and high standards of living mean that rates of any crime, but especially gun crime is very low.
Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.
I only just saw this thread, but as a Ken-Jutsu student, I'd judt like to say that the blow which appears to have killed the other guy seems to have been a standard 'kote' strike. That's about as low level as it gets, being one of the three basic cuts. It's aimed at the wrist, and is designed to slash the opponents veins, causing them to bleed to death. If this guy was killed by one of those, than it was from blood loss, and he must have been crawling around on the floor for a while before he died. I'm not too sure how long death from blood loss is, but one would have thought that there would be ample time to call the medical authorities, or at least attempt to staunch the bleeding once he passed out.
Ketara wrote: I'm not too sure how long death from blood loss is, but one would have thought that there would be ample time to call the medical authorities, or at least attempt to staunch the bleeding once he passed out.
Having worked on several cases with sword attacks and similar, even the vague description of the injuries in the original report suggest death would be in a matter of minutes. Staunching the blood flow from a severed or mostly-servered arm is really hard. You'd need a tourniquet, fast, and a decent amount of luck. If the chest wound damaged a lung, major blood vessel or heart, you pretty much need a paramedic on-hand to prevent very rapid death from combined blood loss. Obviously, there are cases of people surviving far worse injuries, but those are the lucky few rather than the norm.
I would suggest that if you don't want someone bleeding to death in front of you, hit them with something other than a sword. Sharp metal plus adrenaline makes for some hideous damage very, very quickly.
His hand was nearly cut off... and you bleed to death really really quickly.
Anyone who has had a serious open wound would know this. The movies portray death as some epic fight to survive, when more oft than not, you die in a matter of minutes from such wounds.
No ambulance could have saved this guy, especially when he got cut twice, and rest assured that this kid was not in the mood to stop the bleeding.
From reading a few more posts, and reviewing some of the article, this kid seems to have intentionally "hunted" this guy down. Going all the way from the house to the garage is just odd to me, especially when a freaking sword is this cat's self defense weapon of choice.
If I have the opportunity, I would use a paintball gun just for kicks . The hilariousness and ability to quickly incapacitate someones vision would not be short lived.
Just a quick explanation for the non-martial artists out there...
Ken-Jutsu is a term that encompasses most Japanese styles and techniques with a blade. It's learning how to handle and kill with different weapons, ranging from the basic Katana, to Kodachi, Wakizashi, and so on. Kendo, Battojutsu, Iai-jutsu and more, all these are specialised fields in, or derivatives of Ken-Jutsu. It's a rare dojo that teaches Ken-Jutsu, most specialise in something like Kendo or Aikido, which will only teach you to use a blade in a specific way(although there are some key principles common to virtually all the arts)
Batto-Jutsu is about drawing your sword, and slashing your opponent in one lightning fast smooth attack, and then resheathing it, as opposed to keeping a blade out, and fighting with it.
I'm not too sure the Kenpachi v Ichigo picture is quite relevant, as Kenpachi(the large guy in white) wields a blade with one hand. Whilst this is possible, unless you specialise in one of the styles that has a weapon in each hand, you would use both hands to grip your sword. Here's a good example between Kendoka.
So you read my post before it was changed then?
The reason I changed it is I don't really like to talk about it all that much.
The way I meant the picture was the position of the sword and the description given about the wounds on the guy. They can't even find the weapon the other guy had which is why I mentioned the weapon as "knife". Kenpatchi would be the one with the "knife" in that picture.
Battojutsu usually leaves the sword in one hand as the other holds the saya. Because of how you have to draw the weapon to attack it's generally a good idea to also know an unarmed style equally as well. I see it more of a counter attack like style, rather than just attacking them out right.
Obviously he just swang it at him and there really wasn't a style. It looks like they just went for the weapon, maybe in an attempt to knock it away.
Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.
So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population
So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.
But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:If I have the opportunity, I would use a paintball gun just for kicks . The hilariousness and ability to quickly incapacitate someones vision would not be short lived.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.
So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population
So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.
But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.
How about we say their culture is different enough that pretending that just using one barometer to determine something about the firearm issue is not very useful, or valid.
Stopping people from owning guns for target shooting and hunting is unfair to those who want to pursue those hobbies. There have been cases of gun control helping in the US and hurting in the US, but ultimately it's the motivation for the crimes that's behind the huge amount of armed violence in America.
Bullet control man... it is the only way, and Chris Rock shall guide us unto the light... epic pause... and thus we shall be one with him that is the, erm... tapioca pudding? No... Banana cream pie, that shall be so duly noted as such we deem to be as fit as a pigeon... or a horse rather, that makes more sense.
Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.
Yeah, exactly.
And I bet you wouldn't be trying to calculate if the intruder has stolen $499 or $501 dollars to check if he's a felon and legally open to heavier retaliation.
One thing that I hadn't seen discussed yet is, is it self defense to kill an intruder because you are afraid, that if you let them go, they may come BACK with more buddies.
I don't know if that kind of fear makes it legally justifiable to end someones life if they had entered you abode, but I certainly can see someone not wanting to risk retaliation from said robber if he escaped.
no not legal. Generally its a standard of fear of immenent harm to yourself or another person. obviously there are codicils to that depending on state.
Perhaps if there were multiple intruders in your house you may be forced to kill one because you can't let him run and regroup with the others and you can't injure him and then turn your back on him to go after someone else?
It doesn't seem like a very probable circumstance at any rate, unless you have a history with the mafia or something.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps if there were multiple intruders in your house you may be forced to kill one because you can't let him run and regroup with the others and you can't injure him and then turn your back on him to go after someone else?
It doesn't seem like a very probable circumstance at any rate, unless you have a history with the mafia or something.
Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.
Oh I think some of us do.
Hence my use of the phrase a lot. I've known people that by their talk, you'd think would drink blood from the skulls of those who offend them, but when it came down to a nasty situation, they'd be the first to run. On the other hand I've also seen people that were really quiet turn into frothing maniacs when it got time to fight.
I like the way I'm portrayed as some lunatic by having my words switched around.
Look, I know my states laws. I've read the statutes. 4 of my buddies are cops, another dozen (including the cops) are military or ex-military. I think I know the damn laws concerning MY state of Mn. So unless you live here (and nobody in this thread that I'm aware of does in fact live in MN) I believe I know the law for my state better than you.
I also believe in my right, granted to me by the US Constitution to own a handgun, m16, shotgun, ak47, m1 garand, etc. etc. etc. Just because some of you feel that the US would be a happy place where we all get along and sing Kumbaya around a campfire if it weren't for the 2nd amendment granting us the right to own a gun does not make your opinion right and mine somehow wrong.
Seriously, if you honestly want to believe someone breaking into your house has no intention of committing a crime (and they already have unless your state doesn't consider B&E and trespassing a crime) than I will not feel pity or remorse when they steal your plasma tv and your movie collection and then kill you and your entire family because "well, I thought shouting at him and threatening him with my spork in a non-violent way would make him realize the error of his ways."
Banning guns to citizens would not deter those obtaining them illegally. Gun running is huge and some assault rifles, like ak47's, are so damn cheap that even a jobless thug could obtain them fairly easily. Sell 1 pound of marijuana and viola, enough cash for 2-3 ak47's.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Stopping people from owning guns for target shooting and hunting is unfair to those who want to pursue those hobbies. There have been cases of gun control helping in the US and hurting in the US, but ultimately it's the motivation for the crimes that's behind the huge amount of armed violence in America.
Yeah, pretty much. Where there's poverty and drugs there'll be violent crime, whether you have guns or not.
There's another issue with gun culture and paranoia, but that's not something gun control can address.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:One thing that I hadn't seen discussed yet is, is it self defense to kill an intruder because you are afraid, that if you let them go, they may come BACK with more buddies.
I don't know if that kind of fear makes it legally justifiable to end someones life if they had entered you abode, but I certainly can see someone not wanting to risk retaliation from said robber if he escaped.
Just throwing that out there.
GG
I think it's pretty dubious. I mean, imagine that Dave's buddies are waiting for him for him to get back from breaking in to ol' man Peterson's joint. Dave gets back to his buddies, he's breathing heavy and sweating, and he tells them it's because Peterson had a gun, so Dave turned and legged it out of the house and ran all the way back.
Or imagine scenario two, where Dave's buddies are waiting for him to get back from ol' man Peterson's house when they hear a shot. Dave doesn't come back, and they find out the next day Dave was shot in the back when he was running away.
Which scenario do you think is more likely to lead to the gang coming after ol' man Peterson?
JohnHwangDD wrote:Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!
Indeed :(
So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.
I gather that because the US does not believe in state funding for anything, a lot of people wanting to go to university will go through via an army/navy/etc placement, meaning that a large proportion of your population will have been trained by the armed forces. However, that is a far cry from national service, where everyone of the correct age range (unless otherwise disqualified by mental health issues, etc) serves.
I also know that the US has quite a large active reserves list (about 850,000 I believe), and an even larger "ex-service" list (due to the high through put of your armed forces), but again, that is still a relatively small proportion of your population that is trained to perhaps the highest standards, those of the armed forces.
Even more so than America (though I would not have thought it possible), guns are engrained into the Swiss way of life. Given the vast number of guns in the country, there are relatively few gun crimes (or crimes all together) with "34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault" in 2006 for example.
But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.
I would rather there be no guns, and have some kind of blunt instrument to hand.
Lordhat wrote:Well, you live in the UK. Wish granted.
I was talking about in a generalised way, rather than in relation to any specific nation.
However, the lack of guns is one reason that I am happier to live in the UK than I would perhaps be to live in the USA. Though I have to say that the times I have visited the US I have not really noticed the gun culture (other than seeing the odd gun shop in the shopping centres, or "malls" as you heathens call them ).
Though it is sad that our law makers have now made it almost impossible to go shooting in the UK. I would love to be more free to go target shooting here.
But when it comes to the theoretical break in of my house, wherever it is located, I would rather there be little to no chance of guns being involved than for guns to be a very real possibility, either on one or both sides.
frgsinwntr wrote:wrexar, you're a lot smarter then you seem at first glance.
You've earned a bonus point : )
I knew I heard something behind me... Where are you man... TELL ME!!!
Here is an AP clip summarizing the whole situation. One thing that strikes me as odd is that this guy "theoretically" stole the guys game system a few hours earlier. This story does not add up for me at any rate, but I don't think that the kid should be charged anyway though.
There is definitely a point to be had about him going from the house to the garage (which was entirely separate apparently), which I find to be a bit odd and vigilante-like, but at least in some way within his "feasible rights". Running into a dark area like a samurai just reeks of this kid being totally hyped to murder, that is all.
JohnHwangDD wrote:National conscription isn't such a great benefit, nor does it drive high standards - ask Russia. I'm not impressed.
I accept your point that national service does not always produce high standards of trained individuals, however, we are not talking about some 2nd or 3rd world country, we are talking about the Swiss, who always do everything well
I would rather that retards not break into people's homes.
In an ideal world, certainly.
But as they do so, they should get whatever the hell that they deseve.
And if we honest, innocent taxpayers can be saved the cost of trail and incarceration, so much the better.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for protecting your home and family; I just don't believe that you require a gun to do so. As I have mentioned before, a ready source of guns just leads to escalation in a conflict. Escalation that is dangerous and need not take place.
I wish the laws here in the UK were more pro-home owner in terms of self defence but sadly this is not the case. Anything I do against an intruder in my own home may well result in my arrest. A sad result indeed.
(EDITED for being too harsh) It is always interesting to me that non-US citizens seem to delight in discussing our freedom to bear arms. We are fortunate to have the freedom that you don't, as it helps to protect the other freedoms we have retained despite 200 hundreds years.
Further, these are the arguments of someone who's never had to deal with a stalker or someone actually trying to do them great harm. How is my wife going to defend herself from an attacker? How about her aged parents? The whole concept is stupid. Exterminate attackers, the more superior armed you are the better.
I am quite shocked that you see my posts thusly, and indeed am quite shocked at your rather scathing and dismissive reply to them.
Granted this is an off topic forum, rather than a dedicated discussion forum, but I would have thought from the general flow of conversation here it can more or less be clearly seen that this is more of a discussion than anything else, and I would expect someone who obviously possesses a wealth of experience on (as well as being part of the structure of) Dakka such as yourself to be able to see that.
I would also expect that the banding of ideas and statements of personal point of view would not be taken as personal attacks on another individual or nation.
"I think that guns are not required for personal defence" =/= "You are an idiot, I hate your country and you all smell and should give up guns because I say so and am right".
I have at no point stated any judgement on your system. As far as I can recall, all my posts have been along the lines of increased number and availability of guns => increased gun crime.
Further, I have stated repeatedly that guns are designed for a single task: To kill people. By bringing a gun into any situation, you immediately raise the stakes to perhaps the ultimate level. In a society with few guns, the chances of someone taking things to this level are much more remote than when all you have to do is point and click.
Again, as has been stated by others, avoidance can always be used as a tactic for dealing with intruders. Your wife does not have to take on an attacker head on. Her aged parents can lock themselves in their room, or similarly leave the building and call the police.
Attack is not always the only, or best defence.
As I stated myself (and you kindly restated and commented upon), I have not been confronted by an attacker in my own home, but that does not mean that I have a) never been confronted by an attacker before, b) do not have a brain and can't think about how I would go about it. It also does not mean that I do not know how to contuct myself in a fight.
Again, as I have stated before, I wish that UK law was more in line with US law on home defence, which should go some way to demonstrating to you that I am not simply condemning America and its laws out of some "America-bashing" desire.
In fact, your conjecture about the relevance of my input to this discussion is more flawed than my own thinking on the subject of a requirement for guns to be necessary in home defence.
SilverMK2 wrote:I am quite shocked that you see my posts thusly, and indeed am quite shocked at your rather scathing and dismissive reply to them.
Granted this is an off topic forum, rather than a dedicated discussion forum, but I would have thought from the general flow of conversation here it can more or less be clearly seen that this is more of a discussion than anything else, and I would expect someone who obviously possesses a wealth of experience on (as well as being part of the structure of) Dakka such as yourself to be able to see that.
I would also expect that the banding of ideas and statements of personal point of view would not be taken as personal attacks on another individual or nation.
"I think that guns are not required for personal defence" =/= "You are an idiot, I hate your country and you all smell and should give up guns because I say so and am right".
I have at no point stated any judgement on your system. As far as I can recall, all my posts have been along the lines of increased number and availability of guns => increased gun crime.
You are completely correct. After counting to 10 I went back and modified the post. Unfortunately you saw the original venting my spleen post. My apologies.
Further, I have stated repeatedly that guns are designed for a single task: To kill people. By bringing a gun into any situation, you immediately raise the stakes to perhaps the ultimate level. In a society with few guns, the chances of someone taking things to this level are much more remote than when all you have to do is point and click.
Here I call absolute BS. If someone's trying to kill you they are going to try to kill you. Better I have a gun to stop them from doing that.
Again, as has been stated by others, avoidance can always be used as a tactic for dealing with intruders. Your wife does not have to take on an attacker head on. Her aged parents can lock themselves in their room, or similarly leave the building and call the police.
Attack is not always the only, or best defence.
Again I call BS. Anyone with experience knows you can kick in a door with one or two kicks. An inside door-strioctly one kick. As the saying goes. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
As I stated myself (and you kindly restated and commented upon), I have not been confronted by an attacker in my own home, but that does not mean that I have a) never been confronted by an attacker before, b) do not have a brain and can't think about how I would go about it. It also does not mean that I do not know how to contuct myself in a fight.
Fights are for kids and rabbits. Have you ever been confronted by an attacker come to kill you? If not then your lack the proper paradigm here.
Again, as I have stated before, I wish that UK law was more in line with US law on home defence, which should go some way to demonstrating to you that I am not simply condemning America and its laws out of some "America-bashing" desire.
Word, again my apologies for the intial part of the first post. I was venting and have serious issues about the 2nd amendment due to real world conditions I cannot go into on a public forum (mods know, they've heard my private bitter rage about certain things).
Frazzled wrote:
(EDITED for being too harsh)
It is always interesting to me that non-US citizens seem to delight in discussing our freedom to bear arms. We are fortunate to have the freedom that you don't, as it helps to protect the other freedoms we have retained despite 200 hundreds years.
Further, these are the arguments of someone who's never had to deal with a stalker or someone actually trying to do them great harm.
How is my wife going to defend herself from an attacker? How about her aged parents?
The whole concept is stupid. Exterminate attackers, the more superior armed you are the better.
The thing is, Frazz, attackers in the USA are often as well armed as their victims, which results in crimes often being bloodier.
All other things being equal, you should expect to find a much lower rate of burglaries in the USA, with all the householders' guns, than a country with very tight weapon laws like Japan.
However it doesn't happen, and actually the USA has a much higher rate of violence and murders than Japan, because so many more people are tooled up.
This doesn't make an argument for gun control in the US -- personally I think it's impossible -- OTOH it doesn't mean that it would be good for other countries to widen gun ownership.
Frazzled wrote:
(EDITED for being too harsh)
It is always interesting to me that non-US citizens seem to delight in discussing our freedom to bear arms. We are fortunate to have the freedom that you don't, as it helps to protect the other freedoms we have retained despite 200 hundreds years.
Further, these are the arguments of someone who's never had to deal with a stalker or someone actually trying to do them great harm.
How is my wife going to defend herself from an attacker? How about her aged parents?
The whole concept is stupid. Exterminate attackers, the more superior armed you are the better.
The thing is, Frazz, attackers in the USA are often as well armed as their victims, which results in crimes often being bloodier.
All other things being equal, you should expect to find a much lower rate of burglaries in the USA, with all the householders' guns, than a country with very tight weapon laws like Japan.
However it doesn't happen, and actually the USA has a much higher rate of violence and murders than Japan, because so many more people are tooled up.
This doesn't make an argument for gun control in the US -- personally I think it's impossible -- OTOH it doesn't mean that it would be good for other countries to widen gun ownership.
The thing is
1. Thats already occurred. Regardless I want my wife armed against a stalker. I have no clue why anyone would want less.
2. I live next to a border where people run machine guns. Gun laws in the US are irrelevant.
Frazzled wrote:It is always interesting to me that non-US citizens seem to delight in discussing our freedom to bear arms. We are fortunate to have the freedom that you don't, as it helps to protect the other freedoms we have retained despite 200 hundreds years.
The idea that guns protect other rights has no relation to reality. The Iraqis under Saddam had assault rifles in their homes.
Further, these are the arguments of someone who's never had to deal with a stalker or someone actually trying to do them great harm.
How is my wife going to defend herself from an attacker? How about her aged parents?
The whole concept is stupid. Exterminate attackers, the more superior armed you are the better.
Yeah, earlier on I mentioned that you can guns themselves don't seem to matter much in violent crime stats (compared to poverty & drug abuse)... but what worried me about guns was paranoid gun culture. I was talking about the above.
Yawn. The founding fathers disagreed with you. Their wisdom has served us well.
Concerning actual self defense. Again crime stats are not relevant to my point (although I can show plenty of stats as to crimes prevented via flashing handguns care of the FBI). To protect my family the greatest advantage is desirable. That currently is semiautomatic firearms and shotguns. If you have a different desire good for you and I hope it works out for you and I mean that with no disrespect. I am not taking that risk.
Here's a tip though, if the laws change I am still not changing.
Wrexasaur wrote:There is definitely a point to be had about him going from the house to the garage (which was entirely separate apparently), which I find to be a bit odd and vigilante-like, but at least in some way within his "feasible rights". Running into a dark area like a samurai just reeks of this kid being totally hyped to murder, that is all.
The garage is part of his place of residence. If he is being burglarized, and the story also said that the man lunged at him after being confronted, he has a right to defend himself and his property.
I am looking at it if I were in the same situation, and running into dark spaces with swords drawn is like the ending to a samurai flick TBH.
Any experience I have in the city, dealing with alleyways and such, serves to prove my point. He went there with the clear intent of doing damage in my eyes.
In essence the castle law is one that serves to allow you to defend yourself and your family, whether or not that involves material stuff, you are taking action to protect yourself. Even if the guy DID lunge (this is the kids account, remember that) this cat had to walk at least a hundred feet with a sword (look at Conan go ), enter the garage, turn the light on, and all with the intent to use that sword, not to scare the guy off, but to hurt him.
So if he was actually trying to defend himself, as in the guy jumped in the window next to his head, I would see no problem whatsoever, but the kid was obviously pissed about his XBOX or w/e, and he had a goal of some sort in mind. I would think that the goal he had in mind, had very little to do with protecting himself and his roommates. I.E. he took the initiative and hunted this burglar down.
The best gun control/society system imo would be one similar to the Swiss model. Mandatory military service and issue rifles to basically all households all the while having strict control.
I'm a big supporter of mandatory military or civil service - stronger, smarter population ftw...high school just doesn't cut it in terms of attaining adulthood and being a productive citizen.
The burglar (from all accounts) was there to steal, which is obviously wrong, but he was not in the same area as the student.
So, if you hear noise, and no one is running AT YOU (before you confront them with a sword of course) call the police FFS. From what I understand, this student could have easily had enough time to call the cops (which I am not sure he did before going on the hunt), where minutes count, the police can help.
This student was just lucky the guy did not have a gun quite frankly, and that is the main point I am trying to make. Being in clear and present danger was not something this student had to address until he put HIMSELF, in that situation.
Kilkrazy wrote:You would hardly go after someone with a sword if you didn't want to do them damage.
I suppose, but at the very least I would expect that the student was trying to send a message. I am not sure if you have ever been confronted with a sword, but running at a person with one (while unarmed) is practically suicide. I would rather fight someone with a bat than a freaking sword, I tell you what.
Cane wrote:I'm a big supporter of mandatory military or civil service - stronger, smarter population ftw...high school just doesn't cut it in terms of attaining adulthood and being a productive citizen.
Sounds like a plan... but a plan that would be extremely hard to implement in the U.S. High school is really not cutting it anymore to say the least. Take a look at this new generation, ignorant they may be, but totally stupid they are not. Whether having a populace that is "equally" trained is necessary, I do not know.
Frazzled wrote:You are completely correct. After counting to 10 I went back and modified the post. Unfortunately you saw the original venting my spleen post. My apologies.
Don't worry about it, anyone can have a bad day, I have re-read your edited post and it is much nicer *forgets your old post*
Phew, all sorted.
Here I call absolute BS. If someone's trying to kill you they are going to try to kill you. Better I have a gun to stop them from doing that.
The assumption here is that someone is trying to kill you. My understanding is that most people breaking and entering will be doing it to a) get things they want, and b) get things they can sell later on.
Assuming (see, everyone can do it ) the above is the case and you are at home at the time, you come into the room where they are happily stuffing your TV into their pocket, they are most likley going to do one of 3 things (to a varying degree):
1) Panic and run off 2) Try to frighten you off (possibly including minor assult in order to scare you off and/or make their escape) 3) Attack you
Now, your assumption, however correct or incorrect it may be (given that it only takes one person wanting to kill you no matter how many times you have your house broken into by more passive folks and you are dead) that anyone breaking into your house will be prepared to, and possibly wanting to hurt and/or kill you. Given your assumption, you wish to own any measure of defence that you can, vis some kind of gun.
Now, here I can understand your desire. If someone was in fact breaking in in order to cause me personal harm.
Again I call BS. Anyone with experience knows you can kick in a door with one or two kicks. An inside door-strioctly one kick. As the saying goes. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Again, here you are assuming that anyone on the property is there to cause personal harm. Yes, to an attacker who wants to hurt or kill you, a door will not hold out for long. However, against someone who is just there to steal some stuff, it provides them the chance to run away before the police arrive.
Fights are for kids and rabbits. Have you ever been confronted by an attacker come to kill you? If not then your lack the proper paradigm here.
Kill? Perhaps not, but then it did not progress to that kind of level. I think my point here about guns instantly putting you into the top level of conflict springs to mind. "What use is a knife in a nuke fight?"
If you, say, bump into some psycho who happens to be carrying a gun, he can, within a couple of seconds, have turned round and shot you full of holes. Remove the gun, and he may have a knife. But unlike bullets, you have a far better chance of dodging or blocking a knife than a bullet.
Hell, let's pretend that we live in a fantastical world where all weapons have been removed. He could turn round and try to beat you up. But again, this is a threat at a level below that of even knives. It takes more effort to kill someone with your fists than it does with a knife, and significantly more effort than to just shoot someone.
My point here is this: No matter what kind of situation you find yourself in, bumping into a psycho, walking into the wrong street wearing the wrong coloured shirt, etc, it gets increasingly harder to get out of that situation without holes in yourself if everyone is armed. If I were armed, and they were not, then I would have an advantage. If they were armed and I was not, they have the advantage, but will probably be more inclined to just tell me to begger off. If we are all armed, we are all equally disadvantaged. The only real way we can go is to shoot each other, or posture and withdraw.
I have possibly lost what I was trying to say here, but I am in the middle of making dinner, so am trying to remember how long things need to cook
The basic premise is that the more heavily armed you and everyone else is, the more likley you are to use those weapons.
Word, again my apologies for the intial part of the first post. I was venting and have serious issues about the 2nd amendment due to real world conditions I cannot go into on a public forum (mods know, they've heard my private bitter rage about certain things).
No problems.
I think we are simply looking at this from two utterly different points of view. I live in a country where there are very few guns and a lot of people will probably be able to get through their lives without ever seeing one in the flesh.
From reading some of your later posts, you live in a country where guns are pretty much everywhere, and as I mentioned above, the "haves" are at an advantage over those who "have not".
Here I can understand the need to have some kind of firearm in order to level the playing field somewhat (as well as for sporting activities, which I would love to be able to partake in).
SilverMK2 wrote:I think we are simply looking at this from two utterly different points of view. I live in a country where there are very few guns and a lot of people will probably be able to get through their lives without ever seeing one in the flesh.
From reading some of your later posts, you live in a country where guns are pretty much everywhere, and as I mentioned above, the "haves" are at an advantage over those who "have not".
Here I can understand the need to have some kind of firearm in order to level the playing field somewhat (as well as for sporting activities, which I would love to be able to partake in).
For the most part, people with guns in the U.S. are not quite as trigger happy as one would think. This is a very heavily populated country, so the large number of gun related violence (from a homeowners perspective) could be a very small statistical fraction.
In general, the main question I have for a responsible gun owner, would be how they plan to keep that gun safe, yet ready at all times. It just doesn't add up, you need to either have a loaded shotgun under your bed (fair enough I suppose, not safe, but logical), or you need to be able to open your gun cabinet, in time, without making the intruders aware of your actions. This is a particularly difficult thing to do, and the reason that I prefer crossbows... just saying .
The kid did put himself in very real danger, yes. I am sure he did not go looking to kill the guy. He heard someone in his garage, grabbed something for defense and went to investigate. Odds are good the guy would have just taken what he wanted and left but there is also the chance the guy would have went into the house to try to grab something in which case the kid would STILL have had to defend his property.
Only the kid knows the true picture AND the authorities and I'm willing to bet if the cops suspected him of being the aggressor they would not have released him. The fact he was held overnight and questioned is not an uncommon practice. Even if the cops KNOW you killed in self defense they still will question you just to get the facts straight for the record.
I'm sorry that some feel that that Mr. Rice had as much right to be able to leave even after committing a crime than the kid had to defend his property. Chances are good that the guy would have gotten away before the police got there, with something belonging to the kid, or maybe not, hid out until the next night or day and then tried again. For whatever reason Mr. Rice was released 8 months early. Even on good behavior a person with that many priors is normally seen as a risk and will fulfill the full prison term, not be let out early.
I blame the system for Mr. Rice's death and I blame Mr. Rice for being that stupid as to attack someone holding a 3-4 foot long piece of sharpened steel. LOL. Had the student wanted to kill Mr. Rice he would have snuck into the garage without turning on a light and struck the man while he was obviously on his knees rummaging around under a counter/work bench.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:I think we are simply looking at this from two utterly different points of view. I live in a country where there are very few guns and a lot of people will probably be able to get through their lives without ever seeing one in the flesh.
From reading some of your later posts, you live in a country where guns are pretty much everywhere, and as I mentioned above, the "haves" are at an advantage over those who "have not".
Here I can understand the need to have some kind of firearm in order to level the playing field somewhat (as well as for sporting activities, which I would love to be able to partake in).
For the most part, people with guns in the U.S. are not quite as trigger happy as one would think. This is a very heavily populated country, so the large number of gun related violence (from a homeowners perspective) could be a very small statistical fraction.
In general, the main question I have for a responsible gun owner, would be how they plan to keep that gun safe, yet ready at all times. It just doesn't add up, you need to either have a loaded shotgun under your bed (fair enough I suppose, not safe, but logical), or you need to be able to open your gun cabinet, in time, without making the intruders aware of your actions. This is a particularly difficult thing to do, and the reason that I prefer crossbows... just saying .
Mine personally I keep in the night stand next to my bed in a drawer. Full clip loaded. Upon awaking I can have gun in hand and safety off in 8-10 seconds. I also have my gun safe in my room that uses an electronic combo lock and can have that open in about 20 seconds (obviously takes a few seconds to get out of bed). I don't have kids in my house ever so I need not worry about having to lock up my handgun in the daytime.
Just because Americans have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that it is required. While I am sure this is understood, it is being treated as if it is the other way around. There seems to be a bit of "well I don't need one" kind of attitude going about. Well good for you, you don't have to have one. I don't own a firearm, I don't have the need for one.
Ahtman wrote:Just because Americans have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that it is required. While I am sure this is understood, it is being treated as if it is the other way around. There seems to be a bit of "well I don't need one" kind of attitude going about. Well good for you, you don't have to have one. I don't own a firearm, I don't have the need for one.
Yes, that's quite true.
However, the fact that so many people do have weapons helps make society as a whole more dangerous, for example, by easily turning trivial disputes into shooting matches, and by giving criminals a strong incentive to arm themselves. Guns are one reason why the murder rate in the USA is so much higher than most western democracies. When anger flares, a gun is far more likely to cause deadly wounding than fists, bats or even knives.
The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that most Euro countries, Japan, Canada, etc. do not have such a tooled up society. Part of our fascination with the US situation is us thinking, "Thank feth we haven't gone down that road."
I know a lot of Americans strongly believe in the right to bear arms, and they can't understand why foreigners don't want to bear arms.
Kilkrazy wrote:I know a lot of Americans strongly believe in the right to bear arms, and they can't understand why foreigners don't want to bear arms.
I am going to share a story to back up Kilkrazy's point here.
In West Oakland where I lived for quite a while, and in multiple locations, guns were seen monthly, if not weekly.
West Oakland is known for pot growers, and near a place I lived, there was a warehouse being used to do just this. I am talking about a serious operation, not small beans and rice pancakes status. Anyway, this guy grew pot, a gang broke in while toting AK47's and Tec 9's... the guy was dead before he had a chance to get his gun. End of story.
So the fact that criminals will inevitably have access to better weapons, in my eyes at least, means that no matter what, a homeowner with legal firearms is at a disadvantage by default. Having your cute little auto-glock is nice and all until you realize that you need illegal firearms to really be able to defend yourself. I will add that these cats with such weapons usually have absolutely no clue how to use them, but an AK47 is and AK47, and you will be hard pressed to out-shoot that with some buckshot.
In order to keep in line with the whole idea of being prepared with something that they may have before you know they have it... is nice until you realize you are fighting with a peashooter by comparison. Thinking of all criminals as idiots is... stupid... and the real deal criminals (the ones that spend time outside of jail dont ya know) are very smart, and they are basically pursuing a career in their own right. In short, the perps will always always always have the upper hand, simply because they get alpha strike... combined with experience in dealing with Conan the Homeowner.
This is obviously not in support of such criminals, but it should be noted that you are always at a disadvantage to a prepared criminal, and you should approach them as such. Being tough and mighty ain't naught but making your head a clearer target, tell you what.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Not utterly irrelevant. It's called a counter-point and they are used in debates.
Yeah that is it... oh yeah, so good... make sure you start as many flame wars as possible by picking up on the useless hit and run responses...
That was his first post, and probably his last in this thread. Let's try and make it count, eh?
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.
The intruding man's sister want the katana guy charged?
I lol'd .
At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?
For the most part, people with guns in the U.S. are not quite as trigger happy as one would think. This is a very heavily populated country, so the large number of gun related violence (from a homeowners perspective) could be a very small statistical fraction.
In general, the main question I have for a responsible gun owner, would be how they plan to keep that gun safe, yet ready at all times. It just doesn't add up, you need to either have a loaded shotgun under your bed (fair enough I suppose, not safe, but logical), or you need to be able to open your gun cabinet, in time, without making the intruders aware of your actions. This is a particularly difficult thing to do, and the reason that I prefer crossbows... just saying .
There are other options.
And of course iwith one of these you can sleep soundly and at ease:
And of course iwith one of these you can sleep soundly and at ease:
I'LL TAKE A DOZEN NINJA CATS!!!
Are you cash only?
In all honesty, I have been thinking about getting a revolver, but that would be for sport only. I am more of a spear and arrow guy truth be told, but there is something quite intriguing about a nice revolver.
Ahtman wrote:Just because Americans have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that it is required. While I am sure this is understood, it is being treated as if it is the other way around. There seems to be a bit of "well I don't need one" kind of attitude going about. Well good for you, you don't have to have one. I don't own a firearm, I don't have the need for one.
..do you have anything worth teaing ? Just...curious... is all.Yes. Yes..just curious.
[quote=Wrexasaur
West Oakland is known for pot growers, and near a place I lived, there was a warehouse being used to do just this. I am talking about a serious operation, not small beans and rice pancakes status. Anyway, this guy grew pot, a gang broke in while toting AK47's and Tec 9's... the guy was dead before he had a chance to get his gun. End of story.
So the fact that criminals will inevitably have access to better weapons, in my eyes at least, means that no matter what, a homeowner with legal firearms is at a disadvantage by default. Having your cute little auto-glock is nice and all until you realize that you need illegal firearms to really be able to defend yourself. I will add that these cats with such weapons usually have absolutely no clue how to use them, but an AK47 is and AK47, and you will be hard pressed to out-shoot that with some buckshot.
1. I'll take a shotgun over an AK at short range.
2. You're basing the argument on drug dealers going after each other? Counterpoint. Mexico has very restructive gun legislation. Yet drug cartels are killing eaqch other off by the thousand with fully automatic weaponry, heavy machine guns, and grenades.
3. Its better to have a pistol and options vs. no pistol and no options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrexy what type of revolver?
Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.
I was mainly making the point that this guy was supposedly prepared for that kind of "raid", and he still could not stop them from just filling him full of lead.
You are right that having a stick is better than having a rock, but I still think that there is a big difference between a group of guys with hardcore weaponry, and a family with a handful of shotguns and pistols. This situation is pretty out there, to be sure, but I still think that you are overestimating how much protection a legal gun can provide you.
1. I'll take a shotgun over an AK at short range.
At short range yes, but in general an AK is just a better weapon by far. The stopping power alone, and the ease of use (magazines and what have you) is more than enough to put it in an entirely different category of weapon... and you can bury them if need be .
2. You're basing the argument on drug dealers going after each other? Counterpoint. Mexico has very restructive gun legislation. Yet drug cartels are killing eaqch other off by the thousand with fully automatic weaponry, heavy machine guns, and grenades.
Mexico... yah... If I lived in Mexico, I would have freaking RPG's mate.
3. Its better to have a pistol and options vs. no pistol and no options.
In many situations, I would consider well beyond insufficient, but there is obviously truth to your statement regardless.
As the saying goes though, trying to open locks with your wang is usually a pretty impractical idea... keys are better for such situations.
Wrexasaur wrote:Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.
I was mainly making the point that this guy was supposedly prepared for that kind of "raid", and he still could not stop them from just filling him full of lead.
You are right that having a stick is better than having a rock, but I still think that there is a big difference between a group of guys with hardcore weaponry, and a family with a handful of shotguns and pistols. This situation is pretty out there, to be sure, but I still think that you are overestimating how much protection a legal gun can provide you.
Thats correct. However, it could buy me time to get the family out. I'm not exactly expecting to be attacked by Spetznatz. A stalker on the other hand-yes.
Exactly. If you stand by a wooden target when the hatchet throwers come, you're a dead man. Of course if you have ninja kitty then ninja kitty will have already gone back in time and kiled their fathers before they were born. You don't mess with ninja kitty.
Unless you're ninja puppy of course. Then ITS ON BABY!
LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.
The intruding man's sister want the katana guy charged?
I lol'd .
At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?
The UK used to impose the death penalty for stealing anything worth more than a few shillings. It didn't stop crime. Instead, we got the expression, "You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb."
Criminals aren't deterred by the magnitude of punishment, they are deterred by the chance of successful prosecution.
Wrexasaur wrote:Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.
Might I suggest the street howitzer... And yes that is a real gun.
LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.
The intruding man's sister want the katana guy charged?
I lol'd .
At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?
The UK used to impose the death penalty for stealing anything worth more than a few shillings. It didn't stop crime. Instead, we got the expression, "You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb."
Criminals aren't deterred by the magnitude of punishment, they are deterred by the chance of successful prosecution.
I think I would have to agree with KK on this. I think you would just make the criminals more desperate. I don't think a person high on crack cares what the punishement is going to be. All he cares about is getting money for his fix. If he thinks that he's getting death if he's caught, he might think it better odds to kill whatever is in his way.
Very nice holsters. The button on the side locks the gun so a criminal cannot disarm you by pulling your gun from the holster unless he knows to push the little button first.
They are really great for fast draws (like for comp shooting) and keep you safe from some thug going for your gun.
Lots of law enforcement officers are now using these.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm, again I think people miss the point.
She did not mean death as in a death sentence carried out legally through a trial, she meant death as in if you break into someones house knowing you will probably die might make you think twice.
Granted, it won't stop all intruders from trying to obtain a Darwin like Mr. Rice did but it might make a few more of them think twice, especially the ones not tweaked on drugs.
Apparently Mr. Rice had 29 priors and got out of prison 8 months early. It is evident he had no concern about going back as it's obvious even with that many priors he had a slap on the hand. Apparently MD doesn't have a "3 strikes your out" justice system.
Frazzled wrote:And Cuba is an excellent example of one with strict gun control.
And Stalinist USSR
And Nazi Germany.
The idea that the Nazis took away the guns of the citizens is a complete myth. The Weimar Republic had tight gun control laws, and these were liberalised by the Nazis under the 1938 Firearms bill, where the trade and acquisition of rifles and shotguns became completely open. This didn't change until the allies took control, at which point guns the Germans were completely disarmed, including policemen. Which society do you think was a better place to live, Nazi Germany or Ally controlled Germany?
The Soviets did increase gun control in the late 30s. But the class most directly targetted in the purges was military officers, they didn't just have access to guns, they had access to tank companies and infantry batallions. But they were still rounded up and executed. Because effective resistance is built around networks, secure cells, and political will. Once you have those things then getting your hands on some guns is child's play.
It's a fun game, to pretend that if government suddenly turned bad then you'd take your rifle and start a revolution. In this sense it's like the zombie apocalypse. And about as realistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.
Increasing penalties for crime have been show to have no effect of the rates of incidence. Increasing rates of conviction are a driving factor, once those get above around 30% you start seeing dramatic decreases in rates of offence. The other big factor is economic opportunities, unsurprisingly if you give people lawful ways to earn a decent living they're less likely to go into crime.
But there has been strong correlations shown between increasing penalties and escalations in the scale of the crime. If you're facing 10 years for break and enter, probably best to kill the witness, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. So yeah, your idea of homeowners killing burglars is unlikely to lower the number of burglaries, but very likely to increase the violence committed by burglars on homeowners.
At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?
No, everyone has rights, and everyone should be accountable for any crimes they've committed. The burglar would be charged for break and entering, except he's dead so it's a little pointless. The homeowner is now being investigated to see if slaying the victim was lawful, and if it is deemed he was within the law he'll be fine (and the law is quite leniant in this regard).
Alright, so there was no break in but the point is the man made an aggressive move toward the student. At that point the man became the aggressor. Self-defense is still self-defense.
DA has to prove the kid went looking to harm Mr. Rice. Nobody knows what would have happened if Mr. Rice had decided to turn and walk away but the fact is he didn't.
The kids story still stands. I think it was updated to reveal more detail once all the facts were known, not that the kid recanted. He told Rice to stop, Rice instead attacked the kid. It's not the kids fault he had the sword in his hand. He had 3 choices.
1) Run, which I'm sorry is not an option IMO
2) Drop the sword and try to subdue the guy with his bare hands, as that is the humane and non-excessive way meaning Rice would have had a chance to grab the sword and use it on the student
3) Defend according to instincts. Weapon in my hand? I'm going to use it. I didn't bring it for show and tell.
Fateweaver wrote:Alright, so there was no break in but the point is the man made an aggressive move toward the student. At that point the man became the aggressor. Self-defense is still self-defense.
DA has to prove the kid went looking to harm Mr. Rice. Nobody knows what would have happened if Mr. Rice had decided to turn and walk away but the fact is he didn't.
The kids story still stands. I think it was updated to reveal more detail once all the facts were known, not that the kid recanted. He told Rice to stop, Rice instead attacked the kid. It's not the kids fault he had the sword in his hand. He had 3 choices.
1) Run, which I'm sorry is not an option IMO
2) Drop the sword and try to subdue the guy with his bare hands, as that is the humane and non-excessive way meaning Rice would have had a chance to grab the sword and use it on the student
3) Defend according to instincts. Weapon in my hand? I'm going to use it. I didn't bring it for show and tell.
I agree , with the slash been INFRONT of the body , what does that tell?
Unless the intruder is blind or unless the intruder has no intention of backing out from seeing the katana
why is he slashed just once , in the front right?
My question is , why was the intruder there ? and why didnt he run?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. This sounds more likely to go to court.
You think so? I mean, the new reports indicate the kid was an idiot who went looking for trouble, but at the end of the day he was backed up against the shed door, and the guy lunged at him. What was he supposed to do?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. This sounds more likely to go to court.
Yeah and it will mean an acquittal. I'd love any DA in the world to get 12 people to agree that the kid became the aggressor. It is apparent that Mr. Rice did not try to retreat as he was slashed in the front thus corroborating the kids story.
It will only go to trial if the MD police feel he used excessive force for the situation at hand but good luck convincing 12 people the kid had alternatives when Mr. Rice became the aggressor and they have to all 12 agree the kid "went looking to even the score."
I wouldn't say for sure that it'll go to court, it just sounds more likely to do so now that we know the guy who was slashed hadn't broken into a house.
I'd be surprised at a conviction though, definitely. I think the kid still has too much backing him up for that.
I'm too lazy to look up MD law but in some states, like Tx, just being on someone property is enough to give you the right to defend yourself.
I'm not so sure the police will pursue a criminal trial as I'm sure they'd see the futility of it. I think they'll realize, as you put it, too much stacks favorably with the kid. Worst they could do is get him for excessive but when you have a weapon in your hand the last thing you are going to do is drop it.
Police have a little more leeway in those regards but if a cop has a gun on you and you run at him, even unarmed, he will shoot your ass dead as it's justifiable (and not just because he's a cop although that does hold SOME merit).
It's a shame others don't feel its that cut and dry John and will of course have to post 2 dozen more times why the intruder has rights even when his rights infringe on ours.
I didnt want to post this because when i saw it on TV , it was pretty disturbing ( it was a documentary on discovery channel where police were heavily lacerated before they can draw their gun from holster )
But i had a feeling a few of you seriously doesnt know how a split second can effect the whole situation
even if you are a police NOT TO MENTION if you are the victim from the intruder.
Have fun , hope it doesnt happen to your beloved ones btw.
So ya... if you want to take the time to ask if the intruder would like a cup of tea ( or milk and cookies since its late at night ) please go ahead.