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.

The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.

Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.

Grignard wrote:
That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?

If you think this is bad, you should see what we're permitted to do if you're caught trying to steal a horse. Imust admit, I've not heard of fire ants employed in that manner before.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:
That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?

If you think this is bad, you should see what we're permitted to do if you're caught trying to steal a horse. Imust admit, I've not heard of fire ants employed in that manner before.

The use of fire ants, no matter how heinous the crime should not be allowed....

Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.

As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.

The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.

I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.

What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?

Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.

Hey since when has Texas ever listened to the Geneva Convention?

Grignard wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.

As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.

The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.

I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.

What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?

Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.

Shooting the running criminal???

They make dirt bikes and baseball bats for a reason....

Grignard wrote:

I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It is worth a human life.

Cleared your typo.

ShivanAngel wrote:The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.

Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.

That isn't what I'm saying. He still has human rights though. It is simply wrong to shoot a man for petty reasons such as property, and it opens all sorts of doors that are going to end up costing us our gun rights. It is as simple as that.

Human beings are human beings.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.

As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.

The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.

I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.

What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?

Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.

Shooting the running criminal???

They make dirt bikes and baseball bats for a reason....

False question. You can't generally shoot a fleeing criminal. Thats missing the part about fear of imminent bodily harm.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It is worth a human life.

Cleared your typo.

Thats called cold blooded murder.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.

Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.

That isn't what I'm saying. He still has human rights though. It is simply wrong to shoot a man for petty reasons such as property, and it opens all sorts of doors that are going to end up costing us our gun rights. It is as simple as that.

Human beings are human beings.

The problem is this.

Scenario 1#
Bad guy is unarmed and rummaging through your things. You approach him with weapon of choice and he gives up until the police arrive.

Scenario 2#
Bad guy is armed and rummaging through your things. You approach him with a weapon and he shoots in the direction he hears you yelling from, killing you.

Personally im not going to take the chance of determining between scenario one and two. The term shoot first, ask questions later came about for a reason.

Thats called cold blooded murder.

You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.

At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.

Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.

Frazzled wrote:

Thats called cold blooded murder.

You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.

At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.

Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.

You could very easily invite someone you didn't like into your house, murder them, then break out a window. Just make sure you break the window from the outside in, so that it looks as if there was forced entry. Wait, don't worry about it because there won't be anything more than a cursory investigation, because after all, they were on your property, so it was your right to end their life.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Thats called cold blooded murder.

You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.

At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.

Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.

You could very easily invite someone you didn't like into your house, murder them, then break out a window. Just make sure you break the window from the outside in, so that it looks as if there was forced entry. Wait, don't worry about it because there won't be anything more than a cursory investigation, because after all, they were on your property, so it was your right to end their life.

A. Thats blindingly not correct.
B. I like your thinking.

I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Heres the biggest issue....

YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....

If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.

Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Heres the biggest issue....

YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....

If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.

Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.

Oh come on, in the scenario I described you have them at gunpoint, completely with their pants down, so to speak. What can they do? If they go for something in their pocket, great, pull the trigger, but do you really think it is ok if that person bails, to shoot them in the back? Or even to shoot them in the back when there not even aware of your presence?? How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Well that officially went off topic. I'm out.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Heres the biggest issue....

YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....

If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.

Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.

Oh come on, in the scenario I described you have them at gunpoint, completely with their pants down, so to speak. What can they do? If they go for something in their pocket, great, pull the trigger, but do you really think it is ok if that person bails, to shoot them in the back? Or even to shoot them in the back when there not even aware of your presence?? How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??

If they are fleeing and you shoot them as they run down your driveway then yeah, id have an issue with that.

If you catch them in the act, and they dont realize your there... Im not going to risk something going wrong...

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.

We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission

Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.

Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.

Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.

Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.

Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.

Well that officially went off topic. I'm out.

I think you're bailing because deep down inside you know that law is wrong. I get the impression that you're someone who has respect for human life and compassion, but you've been poisoned by the same political crap that I was, and you don't want to confront it.

You'd be wrong on all counts.

Frazzled wrote:You'd be wrong on all counts.

Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.

Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?

Stormrider wrote:"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

If someone is in my house, I wont go: "Gee, I'm sorry you had a gak childhood and are now committing crime to exist, I understand why you are stealing my stuff" bs! I will give them one chance to surrender and lay on the floor. If they decide that they will test my trigger finger it's too late for them.

My house was broken into 3 times in a 5 week span in October and November last year. The perpetrators were both meth addicts and one of them is still on the loose. They had weapons with them too, a prybar, a pellet psitol and a hunting slingshot. I don't care if they are outgunned, they broke the law, they pay the price for breaking in to my house. I live in SW Missouri so I know about real problems with meth, we're the capital of the country for it.

Did you shoot them?

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You'd be wrong on all counts.

Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.

Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?

You're using the best case scenario argument to push your agenda and it doesn't work.

-If you're a criminal and you break into a house you are going in there with extreme bad intent. That puts me in danger of life and limb.
-If you're stealing my car at night (note thats the law) you are creating an extreme at risk situation. That puts me in danger of life and limb due to those circumstances.
-If you're carjacking my vehicle or I believe someone else is bing the victim of a felony and I need to use force to stop it, the criminal has again put me in danger of life and limb, this time to another.
-Nothing says what you're going on about, chasing someone down the street for stealing a tootsie roll. I have to fear for my person or others, and that fear muist rise
to the level of fear of death or grievous harm. Even then my use of force is limited to the events noted.

In all these instances the criminal has put me in fear of life and limb. I am FULLY in right, morally and legally to protect myself.
The law is quite specific, and unlike most law equisite in its subtlety. Every permitted instance has its base in unusual or dangerous circumstances. I will admit you're not looking at the entire law-its a bit longer and I may be noting items that aren't apparent. but in essence

*Either direct self defense (fear of imminent harm) or defense of another.
*If not above then "SD" permitted only in defined circumstances.
*Lethal SD is additionally limited to a standard of fear of death or serious harm.

(the reality of no billing is more broad than these limits I will admit though and people are routinely no billed with substantially greater leeway than these limits).

I think I should proffer for additional information, that, due to personal circumstance, any BG viewed in this is deemed a potential murderer with capacities nearly as good as I, and not a thief. My resulting views are less, er ambiguous.

I just wonder if all this doesn't encourage criminals to use guns...

They already have them.

Henners91 wrote:I just wonder if all this doesn't encourage criminals to use guns...

There lies the other problem with gun control.

Criminals already get guns illegally, if they make them harder to get, criminals will still get them, but law abiding citizens wont.

That's why Europe is in the grip of a massive increase of gun crime.

</sarcasm>

Grignard wrote: How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??

Yes.

It has happened before and very well could happen again. Trying to find some links for you, but since I cant remember the names/cases google is being a pain in my arse.

Just my .2 cents

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why Europe is in the grip of a massive increase of gun crime.

</sarcasm>

QFT.

We actually (here in the UK) just have stabbings... Usually amongst gangs against others of their ilk it seems.