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.

No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.

You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.

As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.

Frazzled wrote:No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.

You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.

As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.

Yes, you are correct, I"m defending what I think the legal system should be, because there is a debate going on, or was going on, about castle doctrine in the state of TN, my state. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* shoot an intruder who is obviously unarmed; What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a blanket right to do so. I think if you kill someone the law needs to look at you first as someone who has killed someone, then when the evidence comes in, it looks at you as someone who did what they had to do to protect their life and liberty.

I like you Fraz, but I'm going to have to come out and say that it is real easy to call someone a coward over a text box, and you're sorely mistaken. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm arguing from what I feel is *right*, not because I'm a pansy liberal or whatever you call it in the great state of Texas.

I believe with all my heart that one of the ideals of America is that the government, a government for the people by the people, is a government that trusts its citizenry with arms. I also believe that comes with legal responsibility. Like Victor Frankl said, and I paraphrase, since there is a statue of liberty on the east coast, there should be build a statue of responsibility on the west coast. Both concepts go together. I think that if you take the liberty to use a firearm in self defense you have to accept that you're going to be investigated if you kill someone.

That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. What it means is that the people need to ask questions and make sure you're on the up and up.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Thanks to firearms, anyone could shoot me. .

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.

You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.

As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.

Yes, you are correct, I"m defending what I think the legal system should be, because there is a debate going on, or was going on, about castle doctrine in the state of TN, my state. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* shoot an intruder who is obviously unarmed; What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a blanket right to do so. I think if you kill someone the law needs to look at you first as someone who has killed someone, then when the evidence comes in, it looks at you as someone who did what they had to do to protect their life and liberty.

I like you Fraz, but I'm going to have to come out and say that it is real easy to call someone a coward over a text box, and you're sorely mistaken. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm arguing from what I feel is *right*, not because I'm a pansy liberal or whatever you call it in the great state of Texas.

I believe with all my heart that one of the ideals of America is that the government, a government for the people by the people, is a government that trusts its citizenry with arms. I also believe that comes with legal responsibility. Like Victor Frankl said, and I paraphrase, since there is a statue of liberty on the east coast, there should be build a statue of responsibility on the west coast. Both concepts go together. I think that if you take the liberty to use a firearm in self defense you have to accept that you're going to be investigated if you kill someone.

That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. What it means is that the people need to ask questions and make sure you're on the up and up.

1. I didn't call you a coward. You're making the Gun Equals Man reference. I said you lack judgement in what the threat is, and that lack of judgement could get you killed in this circumstance. Your safest option is to run quickly. I'd proffer the same for many people. I'd proffer the same for my kids and wife if there is such a route.

2. All the other stuff you said is fine but doesn't have jack to do with the issue of self defense. I could have a crow bar.

3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.

Alpharius wrote:

Thank God, this thread was starting to get really boring.

1. I didn't call you a coward. You're making the Gun Equals Man reference. I said you lack judgement in what the threat is, and that lack of judgement could get you killed in this circumstance. Your safest option is to run quickly. I'd proffer the same for many people. I'd proffer the same for my kids and wife if there is such a route.

Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me.

2. All the other stuff you said is fine but doesn't have jack to do with the issue of self defense. I could have a crow bar.

The thread started as a gun thread though, and you know as well as I do that for all practical purposes the contraversy is over firearms, not self defense. Regardless of what you're armed with, my opinion doesn't change, for that matter

3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.

If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?

Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me.
That is sound advice and I would recommend such, in similar manner to the fire situation. I do not have this option. If its in the house then there is family there and they must be protected. Even if there is no family I have the doggies and yes I'd skin the BG alive with a swiss army knife before I'd permit harm to the doggies. The BG is a waste of skin. The doggies are not.

3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.

If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?
Thats the problem, you don't understand presumptions and costs. There are always presumptions, and the costs are staggering to a trial.

Frazzled wrote:


Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me.
That is sound advice and I would recommend such, in similar manner to the fire situation. I do not have this option. If its in the house then there is family there and they must be protected. Even if there is no family I have the doggies and yes I'd skin the BG alive with a swiss army knife before I'd permit harm to the doggies. The BG is a waste of skin. The doggies are not.

3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.

If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?
Thats the problem, you don't understand presumptions and costs. There are always presumptions, and the costs are staggering to a trial.

I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.

Its not that I don't believe you have a right to self defense. It has more to do with society than any specific situation. I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong. It doesn't matter what is actually occuring, it is a philisophical standpoint. I think it sets a very bad precedent.

I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life. If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right. A burglar needs to go to jail and be punished, not killed. I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.

Grignard wrote: You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.

With modern forensics, I really do not see this being an issue. They can predict probable distance of the firearm, angle of the shot, and gather all manner of evidence which to us would be meaningless or invisible. A criminal mastermind able to move a body without any signs of a struggle into his home, then shoot it and report it to the police, would be as capable of hiding the body in an anonymous fashion. Heck, time of death alone precludes much of the ability to stage a scene, unless you hold your victim until the wee hours of the morning, break into your own home and then untie them and shoot them.

It seems like it would be much easier to stage a suicide, if you really wanted to kill someone and evade investigation. I'm sure there are pointed questions asked when a Castle killing is reported. No police officer worth their salt is going to respond to a body in your house by saying "You know, don't worry about it. He was in your house, so you're ok. We'll just call the coroner on our way out.".

Even when I was in a car accident where I was hit from behind, I was interviewed (interrogated) for about 15 minutes at the scene- and this was a minor fender bender for me. They spent a half hour checking our insurance, verifying our tags and license, and then sent us on our way. That was for pure property damage, with both sides telling a similar story. I do not think for one instant that our law enforcement officials would be more lax about a firearms death in a home because there was a castle law. Like Frazzled has pointed out, there just would not be an accusation or indictment made against the homeowner once the facts of the matter were established.

In short, criminals crafty enough to abuse the Castle law are crafty enough to have other ways to dispose of bodies and evidence.

I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.

No its part and parcel of the same issue.


I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong.
That is not the intent of the law. Thats what YOU think the intent is, and its wrong. The law's intent reflects the presumption that this BG is a bad actor and has placed others in immediate peril or fear of it. They are not burgling a donut shop. They have entered someone's house with people in the house.
Imagine if this is grandma's house. Thats a fear that grandma is never going to get away from. grandma is not swift like you and is in serious peril and fear. Just moving fast dramatically increases the likelihood of a fall. A fall will likely break her hip. If she breaks her hip she's dead in 6 months.


I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life.

I'd agree except when it comes to family or innocent bystanders. I'd burn you alive to protect family, without a thought.


If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right.

You're the only one espousing that this is the case. Its not. If it was it would be occurring now. There's no great amok storm of people capping intruders and then sucking down a twelve pack without repurcussion. These things are always investigated by the police and prosecutor, even in the strongest castle doctrine states.


I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist

And that violates one of the stated requirements of the law and is also basic stare decisis for SD. The person claiming SD can't themselves be committing criminal activity (this is actually a cool Bar question on the multiple choice/T/F section).

Gitzbitah wrote:

Grignard wrote: You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.

It seems like it would be much easier to stage a suicide, if you really wanted to kill someone and evade investigation. I'm sure there are pointed questions asked when a Castle killing is reported. No police officer worth their salt is going to respond to a body in your house by saying "You know, don't worry about it. He was in your house, so you're ok. We'll just call the coroner on our way out.".

My neighbor died of natural causes (im pretty sure). I got involved because the neighbors know im a registered nurse, and she came running to my house in the middle of the night for help. (she knocked).

Because i was in the house doing CPR when the police arrived i had to give a full statement, fingerprints, all that jazz. The scene was completely documented and photgraphed. All this was done for a guy that obviously had a heart attack i his sleep (as far as i could tell).

Frazzled wrote:
I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.

No its part and parcel of the same issue.
I don't agree. They *should* be separate concerns altogether

I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong.
That is not the intent of the law. Thats what YOU think the intent is, and its wrong. The law's intent reflects the presumption that this BG is a bad actor and has placed others in immediate peril or fear of it. They are not burgling a donut shop. They have entered someone's house with people in the house.
Imagine if this is grandma's house. Thats a fear that grandma is never going to get away from. grandma is not swift like you and is in serious peril and fear. Just moving fast dramatically increases the likelihood of a fall. A fall will likely break her hip. If she breaks her hip she's dead in 6 months.


In such an obvious case only someone who was deaf dumb and blind would accuse that person of a crime. I still don't see how you need a universal shield against prosecution.

I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life.

I'd agree except when it comes to family or innocent bystanders. I'd burn you alive to protect family, without a thought.


I think it is wrong to assume that someone who forcefully enters property is going to do grievous harm. They're burglars. I'm sorry, but if you shoot a man in the back, or someone who is pleading for their life, then you need to be prosecuted, regardless if that person was commiting a crime. If you wake up in the night and there is someone in the house, and you're frightened, that is a different story entirely.

If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right.

You're the only one espousing that this is the case. Its not. If it was it would be occurring now. There's no great amok storm of people capping intruders and then sucking down a twelve pack without repurcussion. These things are always investigated by the police and prosecutor, even in the strongest castle doctrine states.

Apparently I'm not the only person with problems with it, or there wouldn't be a debate in my state about it. You said yourself there are parts of the country where this does not hold true. There isn't a storm of people out robbing banks, but it is still against the law


I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist

And that violates one of the stated requirements of the law and is also basic stare decisis for SD. The person claiming SD can't themselves be committing criminal activity (this is actually a cool Bar question on the multiple choice/T/F section).

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.

You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.

When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.

Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.

ShivanAngel wrote:

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.

You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.

When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.

Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.

I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.

You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.

When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.

Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.

I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.

The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.

You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.

When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.

Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.

I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.

The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.

In said case, why did shots need to be fired? They were leaving. That is when you call the police and report a theft.

I'm just saying there needs to be a window for prosecuting excessive use of force. Its just like the police should not be able to hide behind police powers when they use excessive force. Did the police really need to shoot a guy 40 something times? Did multiple armed men need to beat Rodney King when he was on the ground? Of course not. That is simple brutality and cruelty, and personally I won't stand for it.

That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?

Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.

Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?

I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.

Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.

You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.

When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.

Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.

I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.

The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.

It has happened in NY. thats what the castle doctrine was so specifically codified in Texas.

I'm just saying there needs to be a window for prosecuting excessive use of force.

Thats what we are saying. There already is. These things are fully investigated.

At this point I think any argument is just giving Grignard ammunition. We can move on to higher caliber arguments.

We Americans love guns because they are the single biggest argument for our archaic and sacred measurement system, which we so arrogantly refer to as standard. .50 caliber bullets that are 1/2 inch in diameter are just so much cooler sounding than 5.56 mm rounds. Just as knights, swords and castles dominated Europe's founding, the revolver and the cavalry dominated our national conscious. Part of me still yearns for a simpler time when a man could ride into the desert and fight Indians or outlaws for fun and profit. When you didn't buy land, you just held it. That is the true nature of the American Dream. We are a people of conquest and exploration. That's why we took over the moon.

We could just pour water on Grignard.

Lets be polite now. We just have a difference of opinion.

It tiz a chemistry joke.

The disadvantage of Grignard reagents is that they readily react with protic solvents (such as water), or with functional groups with acidic protons, such as alcohols and amines.

Grignard wrote:If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?

Actually my understanding is that this isn't true in the case of self-defense a lot of the time. All the court needs to prove is that you killed the man, which is well known, and probably something you've already admitted to doing. After that is established the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the killing was in self-defense. Which is a bad system, I think, in the case of a burglary.

Did the police really need to shoot a guy 40 something times?

If the police are discharging their firearms, it's to kill; 40 bullets will accomplish that end pretty assuredly. I'd be rather concerned if the police were instructed to "shoot to disable", actually, as I think that would be far more of a leap in the brutality of their actions than killing a corpse with more holes than necessary is. Of course, on the other hand, the police probably should have fired off less, from the standpoint of not possibly hurting someone with a ricochet if nothing else. Still, it sounds more like an issue of fear overriding their self-discipline than shooting someone a bunch of times just because they can.

Phryxis wrote:

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.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if things are done differently in other states, that's why I posted that.

halonachos wrote:That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?

Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.

Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?

I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.

It'd be stupid that is what it'd be. You're hidden and he has a weapon. He wants to take your stuff, not kill you. Suddenly you've thrust a sharp object into his body, and very possibly not killed him and if you haven't he is probably going to fight back after his life is clearly in danger now. On the other hand, remaining hidden (waiting for a chance to escape if possible) means that is almost no chance of being turned on you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

I would have no problem killing someone who invaded my home. I would make sure to kill them very thoroughly with my initial attack in order to prevent them attacking me back. It's not a matter of rational thinking, it's primal fear and the fight or flight response.

I know because I was once woken by the sound of an intruder. It was nothing real -- I realised months later my fridge compressor made a 'plinking' noice under certain conditions. However I thought it was real and it scared me enough to get my baseball bat and go looking for trouble.

The amount of adrenaline in my body, I think I would have ripped a tiger apart if it had been in my way. After that experience I got an axe.

I wouldn't have enjoyed chopping someone's chest open because they broke into my flat but I would certainly have done it.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would have no problem killing someone who invaded my home. I would make sure to kill them very thoroughly with my initial attack in order to prevent them attacking me back. It's not a matter of rational thinking, it's primal fear and the fight or flight response.

I know because I was once woken by the sound of an intruder. It was nothing real -- I realised months later my fridge compressor made a 'plinking' noice under certain conditions. However I thought it was real and it scared me enough to get my baseball bat and go looking for trouble.

The amount of adrenaline in my body, I think I would have ripped a tiger apart if it had been in my way. After that experience I got an axe.

I wouldn't have enjoyed chopping someone's chest open because they broke into my flat but I would certainly have done it.

Agreed!

And...








Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

halonachos wrote:That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?

Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.

Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?

I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.

It'd be stupid that is what it'd be. You're hidden and he has a weapon. He wants to take your stuff, not kill you. Suddenly you've thrust a sharp object into his body, and very possibly not killed him and if you haven't he is probably going to fight back after his life is clearly in danger now. On the other hand, remaining hidden (waiting for a chance to escape if possible) means that is almost no chance of being turned on you.

I'm not sure what the Jena six have to do with the wording of laws regarding self defense on private property.

That does bring up an interesting point as it relates to firearms. I don't think the way that the authorities look at firearms is color blind. One thing I was glad to see was the NRA politically and financially supporting African Americans who had arms illegally confiscated during the unrest associated with Hurricane Katrina and their efforts to get their property ( the firearms ) back.

Fraz and company and I essentially don't disagree much. Ultimately it gets down to differences in wording in certain laws. I believe either one of us would probably react the same way if we were armed and encountered an intruder in our home in most cases. My problem is essentially with what I feel is the increasing tendency of US citizens to want to do away with the legal protections that we used to hold dear in this country, and an increasing tendency to see any criminal at all as life unworthy of life.

I'm a bit different than many firearms enthusiasts. With the exception of hunting, I look at my firearms as an interesting hobby, sport, and exercise of a right rather than any practical application. I have no problem using lethal force on someone who breaks in my home in the middle of the night, but I have chosen not to keep my firearms loaded for such a purpose as I have decided I do not have enough training in that type of shooting to safely do so with other people in the house.