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.

What worries me is that, was this student just looking for ANY excuse to use his toy? Or was he truly concerned for his safety?

dogma wrote:
To be fair, even though I think I understand what it is you're getting at, you seem rather extreme with respect to what it is you want to say (sometimes people have the right ot use lethal force in self-defense). Much of what you've posted makes it seems as though you favor outright execution for any spacial violation. Sure, you've contradicted that notion directly, but your other language has made it seem as though the contradiction was disingenuous.

I think what she is getting at is that she is highlighting just how bad a situation can get in a heartbeat, especially when its not expected. Hence, as my logic follows, how much more dangerous it would be when an intruder is already in aggressive mode.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:
To be fair, even though I think I understand what it is you're getting at, you seem rather extreme with respect to what it is you want to say (sometimes people have the right ot use lethal force in self-defense). Much of what you've posted makes it seems as though you favor outright execution for any spacial violation. Sure, you've contradicted that notion directly, but your other language has made it seem as though the contradiction was disingenuous.

I think what she is getting at is that she is highlighting just how bad a situation can get in a heartbeat, especially when its not expected. Hence, as my logic follows, how much more dangerous it would be when an intruder is already in aggressive mode.

Yes , heartbeat , or split second decision ( the term i kept using )
@ the highlighted part:


EDIT: Im editing to attempt to lessen the confusion: hold on....
1) I never said Intruders on a property should automatically be slaughtered because the owner can

2) I did say in a situation where you are forced to react to incapacitate the intruder , and when its literally a split second decision between who shoot who first ,
i dont think the victim ( house owner ) should be holding back and humanely try to aim for the arm or the leg . ( i stated torso to be most accurate )
i also stated NOT ALL intruder are there for stealing things , there are also Murderers . HENCE why i said none of us are psychic and we do NOT always have the privilege of 2nd guessing.

3) I brought up intruder already lost his human rights for this reason. Can you imagine them shooting at each other? the home owner 's aim was delayed because he was worried about
excessive force , and his aim missed the arm altogether during the fight. And then the intruder shot the man dead , and then the family . What im saying all along is , dont have 2nd thoughts
and gave all these opening for someone that ignored YOUR rights to be safe in YOUR house and end up dead.

LunaHound wrote:
I dunno , im honestly confused to what seb is on about , not just tonight ,...He misunderstands my points , i told him thats NOT what i meant , he choose to not believe me and not reinterpret what i mean. ( despite some others clearly understands )
...
Thus [b]I Do Not Understand you Seb.[/b]
...

As far as Seb, I can't really comment on what he is doing or saying as I smacked that jackass with the ignore button on my first run with it. Luna, when I first came to dakka I realized (suprise) that there are some aspects of this place that aren't worth a damn. Period. Specifically, in the people. You got trolls. You got emotional retards. You got MASSIVE over-investors. You have such a variety of emotional and psychological improbabilities that it makes the mind spin. None of these turkeys are worth reading as they become simply a time suck, bring you down to their level and beat you at their own dribbling game with their own simpering experience.

Ignoring someone is not necessarily a mena thing. It can be a "I have no idea what they are doing" thing as well. If this guy is this incomprehensible to you, then either he is trolling you and you are sucking down the bait, or there is some kind of a language/communications barrier that frankly, IMNSFHO, ain't worth the bother of botherin with. There is only so much time in the day, and I'll spend very little of mine on situations like that. I recommend you give the ignore key a shot; you can always undo it later if you wish.

And don't take my comments above as thoughts upon dakka as a whole. There are some great people here, but that's just another topic for another post.

This reminds me of the merry-go-round. Lots of movement but nobody is going anywhere except circles.

It's pretty safe to assume that for now the police have cleared his name. I'd be surprised if even the DA decides to try him for something. Excessive force MAYBE but if he felt his life was in danger (and we can't say whether or not he felt that way as I'm not psychic and can read his thoughts) it is justified, in ANY State to use lethal force so I'm not even sure an EF charge would stick.

As a point of principle, I don't ignore people. That's right. Not even you. *point* You know who I'm talking to...

@grizgrin: Dammit! You're avatar freaked me out there for a second. (especially with your rank thrown in).

On Topic:
'Better to er on the side of caution'

On of favourite adages, and rings true here. (The less sophisticated version is 'Shoot first, ask questions later')

What disturbs me is that there was screaming, was the man screaming for mercy or help? Did the student get carried away? These are questions that only he, the intruder, and mabye geebus and the police can answer.

Fateweaver wrote:This reminds me of the merry-go-round. Lots of movement but nobody is going anywhere except circles.

It's pretty safe to assume that for now the police have cleared his name. I'd be surprised if even the DA decides to try him for something. Excessive force MAYBE but if he felt his life was in danger (and we can't say whether or not he felt that way as I'm not psychic and can read his thoughts) it is justified, in ANY State to use lethal force so I'm not even sure an EF charge would stick.

After taking a look through this thread, if nothing else, I have learned a bit about all of you. I though it was rather interesting to hear this kind of thing actually be discussed, regardless of the merry-go-round, which, if you take a deep enough look is a lot more like a spiral. And so on and etc... boomerang-skadoo.

Emperors Faithful wrote:What disturbs me is that there was screaming, was the man screaming for mercy or help? Did the student get carried away? These are questions that only he, the intruder, and mabye geebus and the police can answer.

The real question is was the guy screaming "HALP ME GEEBUS!!!", or was the student saying "GEEBUS WILL BE HERE SOON!!!"... or something along those lines.

LunaHound wrote:
Yes , heartbeat , or split second decision ( the term i kept using )
@ the highlighted part:

Then this entire 12 page thread has been based on people talking past one-another. Yay, internet!

This kind of spiral?

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:This reminds me of the merry-go-round. Lots of movement but nobody is going anywhere except circles.

It's pretty safe to assume that for now the police have cleared his name. I'd be surprised if even the DA decides to try him for something. Excessive force MAYBE but if he felt his life was in danger (and we can't say whether or not he felt that way as I'm not psychic and can read his thoughts) it is justified, in ANY State to use lethal force so I'm not even sure an EF charge would stick.

LOL!
EF charge!

Emperors Faithful wrote:What disturbs me is that there was screaming, was the man screaming for mercy or help? Did the student get carried away? These are questions that only he, the intruder, and mabye geebus and the police can answer.

The real question is was the guy screaming "HALP ME GEEBUS!!!", or was the student saying "GEEBUS WILL BE HERE SOON!!!"... or something along those lines.

Not funny


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dammit! I screwed up the qoute, okay the bit in bold and underlined is ME.

Fateweaver wrote:All well and good but some have already stated that had the kid abandoned his garage and went back inside that all would be rosy. Rosy for the perp who walked away with someones belongings only to do it again the following night or week or whenever. The system failed Mr. Rice and it failed the student. Had the system not failed, Mr. Rice would be alive today, eating 3 meals, watching all the cable he wants but at least he'd be off the street.

The kid got in a life and death situation. He came out on top, but there was nothing guaranteeing that result. He could have been killed over a bicycle.

And yeah, policing is tough, so it isn't always going to catch people as soon as they go on someone's property. So we have to deal with things in more sensible ways than getting into life and death situations whenever someone attempts petty theft, and maybe that means letting someone steal your bicycle.

That isn't to say the kids deserves jail time, if his version of events holds up then he did what he had to to protect himself. But he did something very silly none the less.

It would be really hypocritical if the system failed the student by jailing him. If this turns out to be truth and he is never charged there will still be some to question it. A copy of the new Space Hulk says Mr. Rices sister sues or tries to sue the student for wrongful death.

Unfortunately, you can't stop someone trying to sue? That consists of someone saying 'I want to sue'. What really matters is whether her case has sufficient merit to reach court, and if it does reach court whether or not she wins.

And I'm not risking my copy of Space Hulk for anything

Wrex has another goal on the old chalky board!!! That is such a good idea though... gotta love it. I wonder how much time it would take to get the permits for such a contraption . As in maybe never sir... WHAT??? MY SLIDE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME!!!

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not funny

I am going to assume that wasn't sarcasm. Okay, moment of peace for the dude... peace over. I still find that funny BTW...

I am not sort of saint mate, I never said I cared for the guy, for all I knew he was a total douche, regardless of "being worthy of death" or whatever the hell. In my eyes, he probably wasn't, but we are not talking about the Dalai Lama here, or the Pope or something, so hey, peace be with you brother and take care; just close your door on the way out.

Well, a smart civil judge will not even try a case but wrongful death can be made if you feel the person killed was wrongly killed.

I mean good luck with her even getting a court date if the kid is indeed found to be innocent of wrong doing and did act in self defense.

I mean if you can sue McD's over spilling hot coffee in your lap and burning your coochie because you're an idiot than you can sue someone for killing somebody else, even if it was justified.

Sometimes perps can win civil suits for being hurt committing a crime. Strange but true.

@Wrex: Just how OLD are you? 3?

Only if I get cookies... and some milk too please.

Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll want some milk.
Give a mouse some milk, and he'll develop a taste for human blood.
If he develops a taste for human blood, he'll want some mindless minions.
If he gets some minions, the National Guard will be sent in to control the situation.
But when they'll only fuel the growing vampire army, and soon the whole world will be overrun with bloodthirsty monsters.

That's why I had to kill your father Jimmy, he gave a mouse a cookie...

(Robot chicken, sometimes funny, sometimes sick, always leaves a scar)

That's an insult to 3yo's everywhere. LOL.

J/k.

I think I'm gonna climb into bed. Get up early and start my steak marinading, get some ingredients for a nice Caesar salad to go with my steak tomorrow night and maybe pick up some beer to wash down my Yukon.

Once I'm nice and liquored up I'll pull out some guns and start shooting anything that moves. It's how we amuse ourselves in the North. Up here you aren't a real deer hunter unless you are tripping over your own feet in a drunken stupor.

Just too bad we don't have the border jumper problem they have down south.

Just make sure you keep an eye out for the cookie monster... he is out for your cookies... and blood too apparently .

I think that one of the things that this comes down to is that the intruder probably didn't take the kid with a gakkin samurai sword seriously and tried to disarm him or scare him outta there. Unfortunately for him, the kid probably had more time logged pretending he was a samurai after he got done playing WoW then the guy spent in jail. Thus the story does not end well. I mean I wouldn't take the kid seriously, I find someone with a gun to mean business vs. someone with a sword is a stupid nerd.
What would you be more scared of:
Granny with a gun?

or Star Wars Kid with a katana?

LunaHound wrote:w/e Seb , you are the only one here complaining . You pretty much missed the whole point of using the police as example.

The point is pretty simple and basic...

Police is armed
Police was just making arrest , not to harm
Police is careful

They still got injured to that point.

What has the danger of a policeman making an arrest got to do with using lethal force to protect yourself from a home intruder?

You should never, ever move into grappling range with an intruder in order to arrest him.

The point for some reason i still cant get it to you ( ok i'll blame it on myself that my explanation is bad , but honestly i would expect you to connect the dots and make some sense out of it
like fateweaver can )

No, I understand your claim, it's just that it a poor claim.

Oh and Seb , i already forgot what you are still complaining about.

In a discussion about self defence against a home invader, you posted that policemen are often wounded while attempting to make an arrest. My point is that is a manipulative, irrelevant point.

I mean ok there is a possibility that the sentence sucks , but then WHY does fateweaver get it right every -single -time.

Umm, because he's on your side, so is willing to cut you some slack?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Well seb is the one that came in throwing bunch of ************** at me tonight . I dont even know what the heck his problem is.
wrex look at seb's post starting from page 6 and see who started the aggression.

Sbuh? I came into the thread on page 6 to challenge a suggestion of yours that someone had to be psychic to know if a person was a threat. At the point you were already being dismissive of other posters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:1) I never said Intruders on a property should automatically be slaughtered because the owner can

No, although you did say;
"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."

So... you're not saying that intruders should be killed automatically, you're just saying maybe it would be better if they were.

2) I did say in a situation where you are forced to react to incapacitate the intruder , and when its literally a split second decision between who shoot who first ,
i dont think the victim ( house owner ) should be holding back and humanely try to aim for the arm or the leg . ( i stated torso to be most accurate )
i also stated NOT ALL intruder are there for stealing things , there are also Murderers . HENCE why i said none of us are psychic and we do NOT always have the privilege of 2nd guessing.

And, back on page six where I apparently came in all hostile, I was saying the exact same thing. If you have to shoot, shoot to for the centre mass, shoot to kill.

3) I brought up intruder already lost his human rights for this reason. Can you imagine them shooting at each other? the home owner 's aim was delayed because he was worried about
excessive force , and his aim missed the arm altogether during the fight. And then the intruder shot the man dead , and then the family . What im saying all along is , dont have 2nd thoughts
and gave all these opening for someone that ignored YOUR rights to be safe in YOUR house and end up dead.

You don't 'lose human rights'. They just don't work like that. A guy who's been sentenced to death and has been strapped to the chair still has his human rights, its just that human rights don't include 'the right to life even when you've been sentenced to death by a fair and just court'. Similarly, the issue isn't that an intruder has lost his human rights, it's that there is no right to life if you represent a deadly threat to another citizen.

Meanwhile, you're playing a game here. You keep saying 'I don't think you should just kill criminals automatically'. But you went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical that gave the option of avoiding a confrontation. You went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical where the intruder represented no risk. And you keep posting about how you can't delay or think or that could be lethal, so you better just shoot. Then you posted that there'd be an upside to killing intruders automatically.

HEY SEBSTER!!! Chill mate... I know you can keep this conversation going, but it is really not necessary.



I know that katanas are single-edged, but you appear to be wielding a double, nay a QUADRUPLE-edged sword at the moment... which really makes no sense from various angles.

JEB_Stuart wrote:or Star Wars Kid with a katana?

That is spot on man , your on a roll tonight .

grizgrin wrote:As far as Seb, I can't really comment on what he is doing or saying as I smacked that jackass with the ignore button on my first run with it. Luna, when I first came to dakka I realized (suprise) that there are some aspects of this place that aren't worth a damn. Period. Specifically, in the people. You got trolls. You got emotional retards. You got MASSIVE over-investors. You have such a variety of emotional and psychological improbabilities that it makes the mind spin. None of these turkeys are worth reading as they become simply a time suck, bring you down to their level and beat you at their own dribbling game with their own simpering experience.

What's weird is that I don't even know who grizgrin is. I must have said something that really, really pissed him off, and I have no recollection of it at all.

"For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday."

Hey, in defense of cookie monster that is how I feel about my cookies. I keep a fork nearby and if you reach for one I'll stab your hand.

Ok this is just weird everytime im arguing with someone , my web browser dies . and even weirder , i can still talk to people on AIM.
anyways good thing i copy and pasted my edit so i dont have to retype:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:
To be fair, even though I think I understand what it is you're getting at, you seem rather extreme with respect to what it is you want to say (sometimes people have the right ot use lethal force in self-defense). Much of what you've posted makes it seems as though you favor outright execution for any spacial violation. Sure, you've contradicted that notion directly, but your other language has made it seem as though the contradiction was disingenuous.

I think what she is getting at is that she is highlighting just how bad a situation can get in a heartbeat, especially when its not expected. Hence, as my logic follows, how much more dangerous it would be when an intruder is already in aggressive mode.

Yes , heartbeat , or split second decision ( the term i kept using )
@ the highlighted part:


EDIT: Im editing to attempt to lessen the confusion: hold on....
1) I never said Intruders on a property should automatically be slaughtered because the owner "can"

2) I did say in a situation where you are forced to react to incapacitate the intruder , and when its literally a split second decision between who shoot who first ( in an shoot out for example )
i dont think the victim ( house owner ) should be holding back and humanely try to aim for the arm or the leg . ( i stated torso to be most accurate ) UNLESS the intruder is 100% sure to be unarmed AND is cooperating ( i stated this many pages ago.... twice too )
i also stated NOT ALL intruder are there for stealing things , there are also Murderers . HENCE why i said none of us are psychic and we do NOT always have the privilege of 2nd guessing ( again in a dire situation )

3) I brought up intruder already lost his human rights for this reason. Can you imagine them shooting at each other? the home owner 's aim was delayed because he was worried about
excessive force , and his aim missed the arm altogether during the fight. And then the intruder shot the man dead , and then the family . What im saying all along is , dont have 2nd thoughts
and gave all these opening for someone that ignored YOUR rights to be safe in YOUR house and end up dead.

The picture of laceration is not to insult anyone but to back up the point i have been saying many many times.
1) You can never be too careful , i mean police are trained AND armed , and look at what the knife did
2) You can never anticipate their motive completely , again look at the pic of the police

I mean people can attempt to dissect what i said and make it look like im some heartless person that makes no sense , but i think my sentence are pretty basic now.

Umm, because he's on your side, so is willing to cut you some slack?

Umm again no. Based on your replies i can tell you didnt get the point . He dont need to cut me slack to understand the sentence's intention.

And dont make this into "whose side is who on" its childish and ridiculous , we see it in YMDC all the time people dragging an argument on just attempting to out argue GWar

*lastly , if the reply seems out dated , because my internet died while i was "editing" earlier this page.

LunaHound wrote:The picture of laceration is not to insult anyone but to back up the point i have been saying many many times.
1) You can never be too careful , i mean police are trained AND armed , and look at what the knife did
2) You can never anticipate their motive completely , again look at the pic of the police

If your point is that deadly situations can be deadly, then yeah. But the risks a policeman takes in trying to arrest someone are very different to the risk a homeowner has, because the homeowner should never closing to that range.

I mean people can attempt to dissect what i said and make it look like im some heartless person that makes no sense , but i think my sentence are pretty basic now.

I think you're constructing a situation where, while you claim that you shouldn't shoot a suspect on sight, you then go about creating every excuse for doing just that. With my last reply when I reached the end I thought about deleting everything else and keeping just one bit, because it really got to the substance of what you're doing here. Predictably, you didn't bother to respond to that bit, so I'll post it again;

"You keep saying 'I don't think you should just kill criminals automatically'. But you went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical that gave the option of avoiding a confrontation. You went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical where the intruder represented no risk. And you keep posting about how you can't delay or think or that could be lethal, so you better just shoot. Then you posted that there'd be an upside to killing intruders automatically."

Umm again no. Based on your replies i can tell you didnt get the point . He dont need to cut me slack to understand the sentence's intention.

And dont make this into "whose side is who on" its childish and ridiculous , we see it in YMDC all the time people dragging an argument on just attempting to out argue GWar

You have to understand, saying 'this other person agrees with my posts' doesn't count for a lot when they're saying much the same thing as you. Your posts need to stand on their own merits, not on the basis that someone else agrees with them.

*lastly , if the reply seems out dated , because my internet died while i was "editing" on previous page.

Not a problem. I'm on the other side of the world and will drop out of a conversation for half a day at a time. Such are the vagaries of posting on the internet.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:The picture of laceration is not to insult anyone but to back up the point i have been saying many many times.
1) You can never be too careful , i mean police are trained AND armed , and look at what the knife did
2) You can never anticipate their motive completely , again look at the pic of the police

If your point is that deadly situations can be deadly, then yeah. But the risks a policeman takes in trying to arrest someone are very different to the risk a homeowner has, because the homeowner should never closing to that range.
Ok since you want to be picky , guess it cant be helped ... So will i , Ikimasu! If a careful police can be hurt via a knife , Imagine what a gun on a intruder can do ( again split second unless you are faster than bullets )

I mean people can attempt to dissect what i said and make it look like im some heartless person that makes no sense , but i think my sentence are pretty basic now.

I think you're constructing a situation where, while you claim that you shouldn't shoot a suspect on sight, you then go about creating every excuse for doing just that. With my last reply when I reached the end I thought about deleting everything else and keeping just one bit, because it really got to the substance of what you're doing here. Predictably, you didn't bother to respond to that bit, so I'll post it again;

"You keep saying 'I don't think you should just kill criminals automatically'. But you went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical that gave the option of avoiding a confrontation. You went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical where the intruder represented no risk. And you keep posting about how you can't delay or think or that could be lethal, so you better just shoot. Then you posted that there'd be an upside to killing intruders automatically."
Here is the problem , you think im obliged to use your hypothetical scenarios (what made yours any more important? )
but im not going to use yours because I gave a more realistic scenario that i explain my later things on.

Umm again no. Based on your replies i can tell you didnt get the point . He dont need to cut me slack to understand the sentence's intention.

And dont make this into "whose side is who on" its childish and ridiculous , we see it in YMDC all the time people dragging an argument on just attempting to out argue GWar

You have to understand, saying 'this other person agrees with my posts' doesn't count for a lot when they're saying much the same thing as you. Your posts need to stand on their own merits, not on the basis that someone else agrees with them.

No you have to understand , i never said "this other person agrees with my post " this is why i said you never read my posts properly. I said fateweaver UNDERSTANDS my sentence ,
i can care less what you 2 agree with or not . Im fully aware 2 people dont have to share the same view on things . But atleast you should attempt to understand what im implying instead of spending so much
effort or finding faults in my sentences.

*lastly , if the reply seems out dated , because my internet died while i was "editing" on previous page.

Not a problem. I'm on the other side of the world and will drop out of a conversation for half a day at a time. Such are the vagaries of posting on the internet.

You dont have to reply to that because contrary to what you think , not every thing i post is related to you . Yet you seem to jump at me for everything i post
as if IT IS all for you.

@ wrex there you go orange letter .... but i dont see how this is easier to read than red?

Orange does help, and is much easier to read. I may start doing that in my uber-quotes more often, it takes about the same amount of time.

Posting on a forum, you can expect to have people respond... or what is the point? You seem to be very happy to acknowledge any support you receive by default, and even if sebster has been a bit pushy, I would say that in some way he had reason too.

Sebster is no dummy, and that much is quite clear, I doubt that his intention was to rile you up.

Wrexasaur wrote:Orange does help, and is much easier to read. I may start doing that in my uber-quotes more often, it takes about the same amount of time.

Posting on a forum, you can expect to have people respond... or what is the point? You seem to be very happy to acknowledge any support you receive by default, and even if sebster has been a bit pushy, I would say that in some way he had reason too.

Sebster is no dummy, and that much is quite clear, I doubt that his intention was to rile you up.

This will be my 3rd or 4th time saying this.

I-dont-care if others agree with me or not . What i care about and find the most important is , whether the other side understand what im trying to say or not.
because how do you debate on something if you dont even try to understand what the other side is saying? thats like plugging your ear going la la la no not going to listen la la la

What im happy about is that atleast some people understand my sentences NOT MY VIEWS Do you understand ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I think you're constructing a situation where, while you claim that you shouldn't shoot a suspect on sight, you then go about creating every excuse for doing just that. With my last reply when I reached the end I thought about deleting everything else and keeping just one bit, because it really got to the substance of what you're doing here. Predictably, you didn't bother to respond to that bit, so I'll post it again;

"You keep saying 'I don't think you should just kill criminals automatically'. But you went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical that gave the option of avoiding a confrontation. You went to extreme lengths to avoid answering the hypothetical where the intruder represented no risk. And you keep posting about how you can't delay or think or that could be lethal, so you better just shoot. Then you posted that there'd be an upside to killing intruders automatically."

You jerk , i responded to it , TWICE . This is why i keep saying you dont read what i post.

Go read , page 6 and 7

Lastly Seb , this has gone on long enough , so let me just ask you this ( as it seems to be the best option )
Do you wish to
a) debate this properly by debating with my intended points , or
b) are you just going to sit there interpreting my sentence with your own meaning ? Or
c) drop this ?

LunaHound wrote:If your point is that deadly situations can be deadly, then yeah. But the risks a policeman takes in trying to arrest someone are very different to the risk a homeowner has, because the homeowner should never closing to that range.
[color=orange]Ok since you want to be picky , guess it cant be helped ... So will i , Ikimasu! If a careful police can be hurt via a knife , Imagine what a gun on a intruder can do ( again split second unless you are faster than bullets )

Yes, but the policeman is grappling with a guy to arrest him. Something the homeowner is absolutely not going to be doing. How many times do I have to point out that grappling with a suspect is wholly different thing to keeping your distance from an intruder while you have a gun drawn on him?

Here is the problem , you think im obliged to use your hypothetical scenarios (what made yours any more important? )
but im not going to use yours because I gave a more realistic scenario that i explain my later things on.

Umm, there was no hypothetical in there. It was a list of points you've made in this thread. So I'll try again, hopefully this time you'll read what I said. In this thread, despite saying the intruder shouldn't be shot automatically, you've avoided any discussion of the possibility that you can avoid confrontation or that the suspect might not be obviously not a threat. You've made every attempt to highlight the risk of the intruder, including talk of how they'll often kill homeowners even if they're not a threat, and how the slightest hesitation can be deadly, all leading up to the conclusion to shoot as quick as possible. And you've talked about how if intruders were shot automatically there'd be an upside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:You jerk , i responded to it , TWICE . This is why i keep saying you dont read what i post.

Go read , page 6 and 7

No you didn't. That wouldn't even be possible, given that you only made several of those claims later in the thread. Again, please read carefully, this is about the combination of things you've said in this thread, indicating a trend.

Lastly Seb , this has gone on long enough , so let me just ask you this ( as it seems to be the best option )
Do you wish to debate this properly by RAI or RAW ?

I play by RAMFWD*, the one true way of playing.


*Rules as most fun when drunk.

sebster wrote:
Yes, but the policeman is grappling with a guy to arrest him. Something the homeowner is absolutely not going to be doing. How many times do I have to point out that grappling with a suspect is wholly different thing to keeping your distance from an intruder while you have a gun drawn on him?

No , the police didnt get cut in a grapple / struggling situation . The documentary showed the distance needed by the bad guy
to reach the police before he is able to draw the gun. Andhow many time do i have to point out my point is , if someone can close in from a distance and harm the police with a melee weapon,
you can be sure they can faster with a gun. See? You just arnt getting the purpose of the example.

sebster wrote:
Umm, there was no hypothetical in there. It was a list of points you've made in this thread. So I'll try again, hopefully this time you'll read what I said. In this thread, despite saying the intruder shouldn't be shot automatically, you've avoided any discussion of the possibility that you can avoid confrontation or that the suspect might not be obviously not a threat. You've made every attempt to highlight the risk of the intruder, including talk of how they'll often kill homeowners even if they're not a threat, and how the slightest hesitation can be deadly, all leading up to the conclusion to shoot as quick as possible. And you've talked about how if intruders were shot automatically there'd be an upside.

I said previous post , and i'll say it again You Jerk , i did respond , TWICE . Page 6 and Page 7