Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:I think my position has been stated. The retreat rule was a joke used by prosecutors that puts people's lives in jeopardy. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

An unarmed intruder is automatically deserving of death? That is a lot different than someone who enters your house with a knife to do robbery or harm.

In many states, the entrance into a residence in the commission of a crime meets the legal standard for self defense. in some states, that standard is statutorily written, or legally interpreted, as meaning self defense up to lethal defense. The legal presumption is for the GG.

I'm not saying that isn't the law, for that matter, it could be the law where I live, but regardless I disagree with that. If you can use lethal force on someone who enters your property while committing a crime, then that means you could kill anyone, because if you and the guy you shoot are the only witnesses, who is to say if he was there by your permission or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.

You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.

Henners91 wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.

Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.

So- do we want to do the stereotype thing?

And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...

So, you find one guy, that hosts a show called 'Future Weapons'(on Discovery Channel), and you pull a youtube clip of him. You're assuming he's drooling/getting aroused over a finger sized grenade. He is hosting a show- he's supposed to show some enthusiasm for the subject. He is also a former Navy SEAL with 10 years of operational experience. So, from my standpoint- if some technology comes along that would allow my freinds/comrades carry out thier job more safely- hell yes Im going to be enthusiastic about it. I have freinds serving in the middle east- and anything that increases their odds of coming home safely is a good thing in my book.

And your 'logic' of "I havent seen an example of a British person drooling over it..." is ridiculous. You dont know all British people, and your idea of the average American seems flawed/misinformed as well.

Since you're basing it on the people here on Dakka- bear in mind this is a WARgame based forum- which kind of comes with an inherent belief that blowing up imaginary opponents with guns is cool.

Mistress of minis wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.

Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.

So- do we want to do the stereotype thing?

And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...

So, you find one guy, that hosts a show called 'Future Weapons'(on Discovery Channel), and you pull a youtube clip of him. You're assuming he's drooling/getting aroused over a finger sized grenade. He is hosting a show- he's supposed to show some enthusiasm for the subject. He is also a former Navy SEAL with 10 years of operational experience. So, from my standpoint- if some technology comes along that would allow my freinds/comrades carry out thier job more safely- hell yes Im going to be enthusiastic about it. I have freinds serving in the middle east- and anything that increases their odds of coming home safely is a good thing in my book.

And your 'logic' of "I havent seen an example of a British person drooling over it..." is ridiculous. You dont know all British people, and your idea of the average American seems flawed/misinformed as well.

Since you're basing it on the people here on Dakka- bear in mind this is a WARgame based forum- which kind of comes with an inherent belief that blowing up imaginary opponents with guns is cool.

Yah Henners, I think you're cherry picking a little bit.

Grignard wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.

You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.

I'll grant that a strung out methhead probably is not worried about losing his life. I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that most robberies are not perpetrated by such drug addicts, and that the more rational individuals out there would be dissuaded from robbing a house if they knew they could lose their life in the attempt.

I don't believe that it will stop robberies entirely, but I do imagine it raises the bar of what sort of individuals will attempt robbery. Thus, it reduces the pool of people willing to rob. This should lead to a resulting drop in that crime. Consequently, it would also mean that the people that do attempt to break into houses and steal things are more likely to be malicious, and thus are more deserving of whatever happens to them.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.

You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.

I'll grant that a strung out methhead probably is not worried about losing his life. I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that most robberies are not perpetrated by such drug addicts, and that the more rational individuals out there would be dissuaded from robbing a house if they knew they could lose their life in the attempt.

I don't believe that it will stop robberies entirely, but I do imagine it raises the bar of what sort of individuals will attempt robbery. Thus, it reduces the pool of people willing to rob. This should lead to a resulting drop in that crime. Consequently, it would also mean that the people that do attempt to break into houses and steal things are more likely to be malicious, and thus are more deserving of whatever happens to them.

I'm sorry on that one. Even if such a law deters crime, I can't morally stand behind that. While using lethal force against someone who is harming you or your loved ones is an expected and even righteous response, I do not think a petty criminal should be shot out of hand, without question.

So what are you going to use? Harsh language?

How about just using an empty gun?

Henners91 wrote:How about just using an empty gun?

What if his gun isn't?

Henners91 wrote:How about just using an empty gun?

Thats a horrible idea, if you're going to threaten someone with a gun, you'd better be ready to use it, because regardless of the actual status, if someone believes you're pointing a loaded gun at them, you've just upped the confrontation level. They're going to be more likely to hurt you if they can.

I support human rights for those that deserve them. I don't believe criminals currently engaged in criminal activity have any rights. They voluntarily surrendered them the moment they broke the contract we have to behave like decent, law-abiding citizens. They can have them back once they're not a threat- but I think that a criminal is a threat until the police have them in handcuffs.

edit- The problems with an empty gun have already been enumerated by Frazzled and Grignard. I need to be quicker on the draw.

Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?

With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?

The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.

Just for reference, here's what UK law says on the matter of intruders in the home:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

Henners91 wrote:How about just using an empty gun?

Hahahahahaaha

Buy a heavy one so you can club them with it.

Seriously, just buy a baseball or cricket bat if thats your answer.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?

With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?

The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.

You're asusming someone can get out. What about kids or old people left in the house? What about the valiant weiner brigade, defending the house against human intruders? (yes I view the life of one weiner dog more than all the criminals of the world put together).

And you're also assuming someone defending their house is not already doing those things. SOP is call the police and get to a defensible location. Getting out is an option if available.

But I am using a fire extinguisher. One BG-small fire. Many BG's call in these guys, and yes I mean those exact guys, even though they're pretty old now :

I grew up with the mind set of "the weapon is for the women". What this means is say that I'm are being robbed, my job as the male of the house is to confront the robber and my girls is to call the police. If I'm getting pumbled or stabbed then she has the weapon and I'm standing between them and her.

This is kind of like the one up rule, if someone is attacking you with a stick you are justified in using a knife. Also this plays on the law that you are able to shoot someone without consequence to protect another person from harm.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that by my count this affords the perpatraitor three warnings which is by far more then you are required to give.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?

With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?

The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.

You're asusming someone can get out. What about kids or old people left in the house? What about the valiant weiner brigade, defending the house against human intruders? (yes I view the life of one weiner dog more than all the criminals of the world put together).

And you're also assuming someone defending their house is not already doing those things. SOP is call the police and get to a defensible location. Getting out is an option if available.

But I am using a fire extinguisher. One BG-small fire. Many BG's call in these guys, and yes I mean those exact guys, even though they're pretty old now :

But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:I grew up with the mind set of "the weapon is for the women". What this means is say that I'm are being robbed, my job as the male of the house is to confront the robber and my girls is to call the police. If I'm getting pumbled or stabbed then she has the weapon and I'm standing between them and her.

This is kind of like the one up rule, if someone is attacking you with a stick you are justified in using a knife. Also this plays on the law that you are able to shoot someone without consequence to protect another person from harm.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that by my count this affords the perpatraitor three warnings which is by far more then you are required to give.

in Texas you are required to follow this procedure, and strictly:
-fire three warning shots into center mass, then warn them that you'll shoot them again if they don't stop.
-repeat. reload as needed. Keep the dog from peeing on them while they are down, unless the dog really has to go.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.

Whata resonable man would accept is open to interpretation and a trial.
Castle laws are needed to protect GGs from horrific legal defense costs, and are most definitely needed.

States have responded to aggregious cases of prosecutor misconduct or other horrible circumstances in the past by enacting these laws, and precisely setting what the standards are.

Frazzled wrote:

in Texas you are required to follow this procedure, and strictly:
-fire three warning shots into center mass, then warn them that you'll shoot them again if they don't stop.
-repeat. reload as needed. Keep the dog from peeing on them while they are down, unless the dog really has to go.

You forget the part where Cheney must also approve the gun for human target consumption:

I am so stealing that.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:
But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.

Whata resonable man would accept is open to interpretation and a trial.
Castle laws are needed to protect GGs from horrific legal defense costs, and are most definitely needed.

States have responded to aggregious cases of prosecutor misconduct or other horrible circumstances in the past by enacting these laws, and precisely setting what the standards are.

That is a problem with the legal system that probably needs to be addressed by, among other things, making it so that lawyers entering the profession have more incentive to go work for the public defender. You shouldn't have to pay for a legal defense in this country, or that is the way I"ve always understood it.

It used to not bother me, but having sit and thought about it, it disturbs me that it would be morally and legally defensible to kill a petty criminal. If someone is threatening or even damaging property with great sentimental value is one thing, but that is a human life that is completely irreplaceable.

As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.

Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.

I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.

I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?

They are entering someone's home to cause harm. They know or can reasonably expect someone to be there which means serious intent there. They are creating the situation of their own demise, in effect committing suicide by homeowner.

So my concern for their wawa position is not there.

Grignard wrote:

I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?

It really comes down to who you believe deserves the benefit of the doubt. One party has entered someone else's home. They've broken the law, and no one can reasonably guess as to what they may be doing, but we do know it will be harmful to the homeowner, even if it is just stealing a microwave. The other thing is, they know that it can end like this and knowingly take that risk. If you jump the fence into a yard with a beware of dog sign, then you're probably going to get bit.

The other side is the homeowner, who doesn't know if the person creeping around in the kitchen is making a sandwich, or getting ready to rape his wife or her husband and kill his or her family.

Personally, I am quite content to let dozens, or hundreds of teenagers who don't really deserve death die if it means that one family doesn't have to suffer the rape or murder that could have been stopped with decisive lethal action. If you could be sure that the intruder was unarmed and no threat to you, then you shouldn't shoot them. Until you know though, you need to stop them from causing you harm as quickly and efficiently as possible. I can't really think of any way to assure a homeowner that an intruder is unarmed and harmless unless they're fully restrained or dead.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.

I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?

They are entering someone's home to cause harm. They know or can reasonably expect someone to be there which means serious intent there. They are creating the situation of their own demise, in effect committing suicide by homeowner.

So my concern for their wawa position is not there.

No, you don't know they're entering a home to cause harm. If you wake up in the middle of the night and see someone you don't know approaching, then thats pretty darn threatening, and you'd be justified in using force. But that is a lot different than sneaking up on some teenager rummaging through your garage in the middle of the daytime, and the law needs a means to investigate. The law should investigate when someone was killed with violence, do you agree?

I don't know what their wawa position is. People sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes those decisions violate other people's rights. It is pretty well established that poverty is associated wtih criminality. A criminal still has basic human rights though. I don't think any rational person would have a problem with someone using lethal force to defend themselves, or if they use it out of fear. That is unfortunate that someone had to do that, but I believe people have a right to protect themselves from aggression as fundamental as the right to speak freely or the right to bear arms. This does not mean that people should take the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I would even understand going after someone who did reprehensible, cruel crimes, but this isn't what we're talking about.

I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

Then you've made the correct decision. If someone doesn't stand down once you pull a weapon on them, you have to follow through. If you're willing to fire on someone who is threatening you or yours, then you can justify carrying a weapon.

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?

If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?

If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?

You just changed the argument from house to property. That's a big damn difference.

Wait why would I sneak up on them? I'm not Rambo. I secure the location of any relatives and canines and have the wife call the police. If its a home invasion you're already shooting. Neither of those conform to your scenario.