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.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
ok leave the house with my entire family
Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops
.....
Much easier to shoot him.
Likely as soon as he realized he was caught he'd bail. If he's violent enough to try something, then you shoot him.
I think you should be able to say that you *tried* to retreat though.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.
My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.
Your understanding is misplaced. 'if you cannot afford an attorney' is the key phrase. Public defenders are crap and plea bargain your case not defend it. you're going to pay the bucks.
Well, that is an example of the consequences of neglect of public services, but that is another story.
I know public defenders who are dedicated and believe in the ideals of what they're doing.
That is beside the point though. Its a matter of what is *right*
And what is right is not putting a terrible burden on the innocent, but on the BG.
here's what one class told me to do.
*retreat with family to safe room (fancy term for closet or other place with one entrance)
*have other call police or you do so. Leave line open.
*shout out "The police have been called. I have a firearm and am in fear for my life. I will use it."
*if BG enters space, empty your clip in him.
here's what another class told me.
*If you're at a stop sign and someone looks at you funny, cap 'em. Then drag em into your house. Call the cops and tell 'em he was coming right for you. Be sure to hide all your beers and put on your best wife beater T shirt.
ok maybe not, but thats what your fear seems to be.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:And what is right is not putting a terrible burden on the innocent, but on the BG.
here's what one class told me to do.
*retreat with family to safe room (fancy term for closet or other place with one entrance)
*have other call police or you do so. Leave line open.
*shout out "The police have been called. I have a firearm and am in fear for my life. I will use it."
*if BG enters space, empty your clip in him.
here's what another class told me.
*If you're at a stop sign and someone looks at you funny, cap 'em. Then drag em into your house. Call the cops and tell 'em he was coming right for you. Be sure to hide all your beers and put on your best wife beater T shirt.
ok maybe not, but thats what your fear seems to be.
That seems an entirely reasonable reaction. But that isn't what I understand the castle doctrine concept to mean. My understanding is that technically you can shoot someone who is in your house if they don't have permission to be there.
You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
I'm not against self defense, it just bothers me that the law can establish a *right* to use force with trespassing as the sole justification. That's a concept that I'm uncomfortable with that could lead to all manner of mischief being protected by law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:The problem is
When he hears "I have called the police and am in fear of my life and have a firearm"
If he is a psychopath he empties the entire clip into the close door her heard that come out of....
Interior doors in houses will not stop anything bigger then a 22 LR
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/24 23:05:01
There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it. This also goes for people who want to create gun bans on the basis of all these supposed armed maniacs running around.
Ultimately it isn't the intent, but I'm concerned about issues concerning due process of law and public safety. Did we always have these laws? Why change things that are more or less working already.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it. This also goes for people who want to create gun bans on the basis of all these supposed armed maniacs running around.
Ultimately it isn't the intent, but I'm concerned about issues concerning due process of law and public safety. Did we always have these laws? Why change things that are more or less working already.
PArt of it like i said is protection of property. I would have to guess most of the time you dont get your stuff back. At least three of my friends who were robbed didnt. You want to steel my things, you run the risk of being shot.
Grignard wrote:
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
How do you have any idea if the guy that just woke you up at 2 am is armed? 'Excuse me- do you have a gun?' Seriously..... if someone is in your house at night riffling through your stuff with a flashlight- you have NO IDEA if they are armed.
People do not accidentally break into houses- there are several conscious decisions involved. Choosing the neighborhood. Choosing the house. Choosing where to break in. Choosing to break in.
Once all those choices have been made- if they make the mistake of choosing my house and waking me up- Im going to provide them with a simple illustration in how to clearly realize they have made a mistake.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers. I dont want to ever have to shoot someone in my house. Legal ramifications aside I dont want to clean up the mess, or spend a night in jail while the forensics teams validate what happened.
But Im not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to do me or the people in my home any harm.
It is THEIR choice to break into peoples homes and put themselves and the occupants in danger. They made the choice- they have to deal with the consequences of that.
Grignard wrote:
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
How do you have any idea if the guy that just woke you up at 2 am is armed? 'Excuse me- do you have a gun?' Seriously..... if someone is in your house at night riffling through your stuff with a flashlight- you have NO IDEA if they are armed.
People do not accidentally break into houses- there are several conscious decisions involved. Choosing the neighborhood. Choosing the house. Choosing where to break in. Choosing to break in.
Once all those choices have been made- if they make the mistake of choosing my house and waking me up- Im going to provide them with a simple illustration in how to clearly realize they have made a mistake.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers. I dont want to ever have to shoot someone in my house. Legal ramifications aside I dont want to clean up the mess, or spend a night in jail while the forensics teams validate what happened.
But Im not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to do me or the people in my home any harm.
It is THEIR choice to break into peoples homes and put themselves and the occupants in danger. They made the choice- they have to deal with the consequences of that.
Again, I've already noted that in my opinion that situation completely justifies force. Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home. It needs to go to court and the situation has to be investigated. How are we supposed to know what exactly occurred. The fact remains that in the situation, someone is dead. When that occurs, you should have to explain yourself, no matter how justified you feel you are.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it.
Since I live in a world where these things take place, I like having a firearm in the house. I also like the idea that when I'm not around my wife has a firearm in the house. Yes, the odds of being the victim of this type of crime are slim. I'm sure that's comforting if it happens to you.
As a side note, I really hope that New Hampshire will adopt Drawing and Quartering as their method of Capital Punishment before these animals are sentenced.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
One can go on in an endless debate about power and fear when it comes to guns, but I think it misses the point.
Guns are like cigarettes - they are both dangerous products which people enjoy the use of. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, opium, caffeine, trans-fats, the list goes on and on and on of things that are simultaneously dangerous and fun. I mean, given speeding laws basically everywhere I'd ever consider driving a car, why do they even bother building cars that go faster than 80 MPH? Because it's fun to drive fast, regardless of the risks.
Different cultures are variously tolerant or averse when it comes to risk with regards to different products and activities. Is worrying about the dangers of guns silly when you're running a 20,000 calorie a day diet? Sure, but every culture has their own goofy way of handling risk (I mean, just look at Islam - martyrdom and jihad are within "acceptable" levels of risk while eating pork and drinking alcohol are considered too risky to be partaken by the good muslim).
Guns are awesome. They are also dangerous. Americans, in general, have a culture of focusing on the awesome at the expense of the risk, and guns are no exception. That and we have guns built into our culture through our political world reinforcing it. That and we have a huge area: population ratio, which means we can have a lot more fun with things like driving fast and blowing stuff up without chronically bothering the neighbors.
The rest, honestly, is rather trivial. I mean, with regards to crime, what LAW banning guns is going to stop a CRIMINAL? I guess if you really believe that the prime motivator of crime is opportunity, then limiting opportunity makes sense, but this belief is not borne out by empirical evidence (Canada has a higher gun ownership per capita than the US, but a much lower crime rate, for example).
As for being cavalier about the value of life with regards to guns, don't tell me you've never watched a war movie before...
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers.
This is actually a very sound tactic. There's no mistaking the sound of a shotgun slide, and there's no confusion about what a tube of 00 buckshot will do to you. You can take a couple 9mms and be back on your feet in a couple days. A 12g takes parts of you off.
When (my dad) boguht my rifle, he had to fill out some paper work and we waited about half an hour before they sold it to us.
This is actually the standard formula. You fill out a background check, the gun store calls the agency in charge of the check, they verify that you're good to go, and you leave with the weapon.
I actually got to a point with this process where I had the form, which is basically a series of true/false questions, memorized. If I recall, it was just true, all false, then the last true. But now I'm married and have kids, so I don't buy guns like I used to.
I think if I were overly worried about my safety or those in my household, I think I'd put my time, energy and money into formulating some kind of escape plan. The way I figure most burglars are just that, burglars. The number of people who break into random homes with the intent of killing,raping or torturing the inhabitants is rather limited. Chances are if a criminal is in my home, they are after my stuff not my life. Chances are pretty damn good that if I have a way out the scene that isn't going to draw attention, nobody going to get hurt.
On the other hand, if I go at the dink with a gun and draw attention to that fact either by announcing it or shooting and missing or simply failing to totally disable them, I've escalating the situation.
They'll know their life is in danger and react accordingly. I have a weapon, but so might they. I don't like the idea of a course of action that has a nonzero chance of breaking out into an armed struggle. That certainly can't be safe for anyone in the burglar or otherwise.
A weapon is also a pretty big accident hazard, even a single mistake or absent-minded breech of proper handling can lead to really bad times.
I guess when it comes down to flight or fight with a threat that probably isn't too intent on giving chase, I'd rather try to make flight my default option. He runs away lives to run away another day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/25 05:07:05
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?
Everytime they broke in (or tried to), no one was home. The second time, we had contractors who were working on the house. The third time, the guy who was caught, tried to go it alone. Our neighbor called the cops, the neighborhood was sealed off and he had nowhere to go.
We'll be testifying against him in June.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
jp400 wrote:This just in.... giant worm invades Frazzled's house. More at 11.
**WARNING** Slight language... but funny as hell
Pretty accurate, but they came in from the right side, and Tbone leaped on its back with a tiny cowboy hat and rode that puppy rodeo style until it gave up the ghost. Its a thing he does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:The problem is
When he hears "I have called the police and am in fear of my life and have a firearm"
If he is a psychopath he empties the entire clip into the close door her heard that come out of....
Interior doors in houses will not stop anything bigger then a 22 LR
No no that occurs if he's down the hallway, downstair etc. All the important people are in the closet. If he's in LOS you fire warning shots until he gets the hint and quits twitching.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
YOU HAVE NO CLUE HE'S UNARMED UNTIL THE POLICE HAVE HIM IN THE BACK OF THE SQUAD CAR.
You assume so many things its screamingly not funny and you truly should never have a firearm. You'll make the wrong move and be dead. Dear God i pray you're never on a jury.
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
I've personally known several actually.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/05/25 12:24:45
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Grignard wrote: Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home.
I don't think the law Frazzled quoted supports that right. The criteria is a forced entry, and a reasonable fear of your life or your family. Forced entry means they have defeated a deadbolt, broken a window, or in some other way made it clear that they are getting into your house regardless of what countermeasures you have in place. To me, and many of the defenders of lethal force home defense, that action is proof of malicious intent.
So now we have an individual with malicious intent on the loose in the occupied home. If this occurs, I will be afraid for my life and those of my family. It's just like seeing an obviously drunk driver on the road. They've done something illegal that makes them dangerous to you. If you can, you avoid them. Houses, however, are significantly less mobile than cars. Getting your family away from danger is, at best, impractical and often impossible in a home invasion scenario. That's what this law should be about. Protection for you and your family in case you do find yourself in a situation where you have to kill an intruder in your home. It is not about a right to kill people in your house. You need to be a dictator, evil boss, or the lord of a small island nation to go about killing your houseguests.
Eh, here's a scenario- you sleep on one side of the house, your children sleep on the other. Between you is the kitchen and the living room. You have a gun (or cricket bat) on or near the nightstand. There is a window in your bedroom leading to the outside (we'll assume ground floor). You hear the crash of a window from between you and the children's room. What will you do?
That is the current set up for my house, which undoubtedly colors my view of the possible options if someone broke into my house. I think the more members in your family, the less viable retreat is as an option and the greater threat the unknown home invader poses. This extends beyond the inital gun situation, you might decide to battle to protect your family with a baseball bat or crowbar, or whatever happens to be close to hand- though if you use one of those ridiculous leg lamps, keep that detail to yourself! A gun tends to polarize the discussion because it is more likely to kill the individual it is used on than a bat or improvised bludgeon.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
Frazzled wrote:
You assume so many things its screamingly not funny and you truly should never have a firearm. You'll make the wrong move and be dead. Dear God i pray you're never on a jury.
Since when did you become senator Brady, Fraz? I can't read over text the tone of that statement, but if you're serious I think you're being a bit of a hypocrite saying who should own a gun or not. And I'd be who you'd want on a jury, because I'm going to break my neck in order to be as fair as possible.
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
Frazzled wrote:
I've personally known several actually.
I don't think we're disagreeing in terms of substance, but rather the wording and intent of law.
Like I said, if I'm armed and someone I don't know is in my house in the middle of the night, there is a good chance they're getting shot, armed or not. I'm probably going to be terrified and I would be justified in shooting the guy on the basis of that fear alone.
If, in the scenario I presented, you suprise some kid that thinks he's a baller who is going through your crap, and I already have the gun on him, I'm more likely to tell him to get out of my house before he gets shot. More likely the shooting I'd be doing would be to fire my size 10 foot into his ass, in the general direction of the curb.
I think if we were armed in a true home invasion scenario, I don't think you or I would react any differently. What I disagree with is how the law is supposed to handle that. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a *right* to shoot someone in your house just because of entry. I'm not saying you *shouldn't*, but it should not be a *right*. I think if you kill someone there has to be an investigation into what exactly happened, and you're going to have to answer some pointed questions. Surely you could see how a right to kill someone simply because they've entered your property could be abused.
Part of the family I grew up with pretty much carried guns wherever they went, and had pulled firearms on people more than once. Had someone really tried to harm them on their property, they'd be deader than a doornail. I'm convinced they wouldn't nail some dumb kid in the back though, although by the time they got done busting his jaw, he might regret being a punk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:
Grignard wrote: Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home.
I don't think the law Frazzled quoted supports that right. The criteria is a forced entry, and a reasonable fear of your life or your family. Forced entry means they have defeated a deadbolt, broken a window, or in some other way made it clear that they are getting into your house regardless of what countermeasures you have in place. To me, and many of the defenders of lethal force home defense, that action is proof of malicious intent.
So now we have an individual with malicious intent on the loose in the occupied home. If this occurs, I will be afraid for my life and those of my family. It's just like seeing an obviously drunk driver on the road. They've done something illegal that makes them dangerous to you. If you can, you avoid them. Houses, however, are significantly less mobile than cars. Getting your family away from danger is, at best, impractical and often impossible in a home invasion scenario. That's what this law should be about. Protection for you and your family in case you do find yourself in a situation where you have to kill an intruder in your home. It is not about a right to kill people in your house. You need to be a dictator, evil boss, or the lord of a small island nation to go about killing your houseguests.
Eh, here's a scenario- you sleep on one side of the house, your children sleep on the other. Between you is the kitchen and the living room. You have a gun (or cricket bat) on or near the nightstand. There is a window in your bedroom leading to the outside (we'll assume ground floor). You hear the crash of a window from between you and the children's room. What will you do?
That is the current set up for my house, which undoubtedly colors my view of the possible options if someone broke into my house. I think the more members in your family, the less viable retreat is as an option and the greater threat the unknown home invader poses. This extends beyond the inital gun situation, you might decide to battle to protect your family with a baseball bat or crowbar, or whatever happens to be close to hand- though if you use one of those ridiculous leg lamps, keep that detail to yourself! A gun tends to polarize the discussion because it is more likely to kill the individual it is used on than a bat or improvised bludgeon.
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/25 13:04:07
Oh wow... so you did understand that they had already broken into yourr home. You know, that would be more than enough for me to be afraid of them, regardless of how they appeared. A pre-teen has more than enough strength to shoot a gun, and hit me at house range (say under 20 feet). Guns can be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.
Thanks to firearms, anyone could shoot me.
Anyone that breaks into my house means me harm.
In my mind, they are most likely going to shoot me to keep doing that harm or avoid the law they scoff at by breaking into my home.
To reiterate, I am afraid of anyone that breaks into my home regardless of age, sex, race, or apparent social status. Anything else is prejudiced at best, racist at worst, and a whole other can of worms regardless. And yes, I am afraid enough to shoot without warning if they are between me and other members of my family (not immediately between- that would be tragically ironic).
If you'd rather defend the rights of a criminal committing a crime, by all means do so.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.[/quote]
So you're dooming the GG into bankruptcy and potential jailtime because of what the BG did. This sort of reasoning is exactly why this law and similar laws were put in place. SD is an affirmative defense, if they can't prove it they are going to prison. With "no assumptions" its just one guys shooting another guy and the full weight of the state against some poor homeowner who did nothing more than make the mistake of being alive when the BG broke in to do him and his family harm. This is not sane.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh wow... so you did understand that they had already broken into yourr home. You know, that would be more than enough for me to be afraid of them, regardless of how they appeared. A pre-teen has more than enough strength to shoot a gun, and hit me at house range (say under 20 feet). Guns can be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.
Thanks to firearms, anyone could shoot me.
Anyone that breaks into my house means me harm.
In my mind, they are most likely going to shoot me to keep doing that harm or avoid the law they scoff at by breaking into my home.
To reiterate, I am afraid of anyone that breaks into my home regardless of age, sex, race, or apparent social status. Anything else is prejudiced at best, racist at worst, and a whole other can of worms regardless. And yes, I am afraid enough to shoot without warning if they are between me and other members of my family (not immediately between- that would be tragically ironic).
If you'd rather defend the rights of a criminal committing a crime, by all means do so.
I'm not defending the rights of a criminal. That is not why we have legal defense. I'm defending the due process of law.
And this has nothing to do with prejudice, the scenario I gave has to do with obviously having the jump on someone who isn't obviously armed. Like I said, they don't follow instructions and leave my home, they get shot. I'm not attacking the right to self defense, I'm making a point about protection under law.
Back in the day they had a concept called outlawing, where someone was litterally *out* of the protection of *law*. It was one of the worse things you could do, possibly worse than the death penalty, as anyone could do what they wanted to the person, and they had no protection under the law of the King. They didn't generally do this for petty theft and tresspass, but rather things like murder and treason. There is a big difference.
I think there are plenty of reasons that may lead to you shooting someone in your house. I mean, you can't wait till they lay a hand on you to shoot them. I'm not arguing with *intent*, but I don't think that killing someone justified by forced entry alone should have blanket protection under law. The authorities need the legal leverage to investigate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.[/quote]
So you're dooming the GG into bankruptcy and potential jailtime because of what the BG did. This sort of reasoning is exactly why this law and similar laws were put in place. SD is an affirmative defense, if they can't prove it they are going to prison. With "no assumptions" its just one guys shooting another guy and the full weight of the state against some poor homeowner who did nothing more than make the mistake of being alive when the BG broke in to do him and his family harm. This is not sane.
No Fraz, you're putting a lot of presumptions in there. If the shooter had ulterior motives other than self defense, then they should go to jail. If it is the shooters word against a dead man, are you just going to take it at face value? That is why it shouldn't have blanket protection. If the GG is truly the GG after sifting through the evidence, then its self defense, he was terrified, protected his home, end of story. If it turns out it was a drug deal gone bad, someone goes to jail.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/25 13:38:31
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 