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.
Well, it's not as if you need to keep the groundhog whole except for stew.
Not much bragging rights in mounting a groundhog on your wall.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
But he was pretending to be a zombie; he deserved a shotgun to the chest.
Oh, ground hog day. Well, he was a loony groundskeeper.
FYI, she loves it when I over penetrate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/31 02:47:03
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
If there's to be no restriction on concealed carry, would that only be on pistols or could you walk around with a Garand on your back? Because that would be totally sweet.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
You'd totally look like the dude from Fallout with a rifle slung across your back. And have chafed shoulders.....
If your surviving the Apocalypse or Post Apocalypse you need to have your rifle ready to fire at all times.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/31 05:19:25
To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.
+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, Hero of Helsreach +++
The Vengeance Crusade Black Templars Resource Faith and Fire The Ammobunker Gamertag: MarshalTodt
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:You'd totally look like the dude from Fallout with a rifle slung across your back. And have chafed shoulders.....
If your surviving the Apocalypse or Post Apocalypse you need to have your rifle ready to fire at all times.
Which is why these are on my "To Buy" list over the next few years:
Lever Action Pistol in .45 Long Colt
12 Guage Super Shorty in leg holster
Sp-89 (Civi Legal Mp5k) in leg holster
Which also comes in a sexy under arm holster option also
jp400 wrote:Which also comes in a sexy under arm holster option also
Would a concealed carry license let you go do your shopping with that?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
And all I will ever ask for is a Dragunov... is that to much to ask?:(
You ready for this?
Have access to one, shot one, and am not impressed by the SVD. Though if you want, you can pick up a Romanian knock off for about $800 here.
**EDIT**
And I see your rifle Fraz... and humbly submit my dream rifle complete with the super duper highspeed optics:
I mean hell... Who doesn't want to go Ground Hog hunting with this bad boy?
It so it came to pass that Judgement Day came upon Groundhogville, and the mighty were smote by the finger of JP400...
JP400 wins the who can shoot the badass rifle contest. I shot a .50 in my younger days but I like my shoulder undislocated at this point in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
jp400 wrote:
So pretty.
If there's to be no restriction on concealed carry, would that only be on pistols or could you walk around with a Garand on your back? Because that would be totally sweet.
I think you're missing the "concealed" part of concealed carry a bit there Sebster.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/03/31 12:14:57
-"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!
jp400 wrote:Which also comes in a sexy under arm holster option also
Would a concealed carry license let you go do your shopping with that?
Short Answer: It depends...
A MP5 stands for Machine Pistol... so it and the semi auto civi version (SP-89) are classified as a pistol. So if you have a CCW, you could (So long as you were following your local state laws) CC this. Now if your state rocks (like my state) its legal to CCLEGAL full auto weapons. So technically you could CC a Mp5k, or a Glock 18 if you owned one legally.
However, if you actually used it to defend yourself, a saavy lawyer could nail you for excessive force since you are packing more firepower then the local police.
Frazzled wrote:
jp400 wrote:
It so it came to pass that Judgement Day came upon Groundhogville, and the mighty were smote by the finger of JP400...
JP400 wins the who can shoot the badass rifle contest. I shot a .50 in my younger days but I like my shoulder undislocated at this point in my life.
I own a 12ga and a .45. I pack more firepower than most cops (.38 being the default gun for cops in my town).
I want to purchase some beanbag rounds. I want to see a man go down in pain when I smack his junk with a beanbag from my shotgun, then I'll unload one into his sternum for good measure.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Where do you live, that your local PD isn't up to the national min standard of 9mm? Just to give you an idea on when the .38 special was considered king......
And you are more then welcome to pay large amount of money to hit a guy with said bean bag. Im just going to laugh when he gets arrested and then turns around and sues you for excessive force and wins.
He's in my house I can kill him and not face repercussions (well except cleaning up blood).
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
I'm outside of city limits.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/04/01 19:52:15
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Soda Bottle Silencer, Lime, and plastic bags make all that judicial stuff go away.
To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.
+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, Hero of Helsreach +++
The Vengeance Crusade Black Templars Resource Faith and Fire The Ammobunker Gamertag: MarshalTodt
Fateweaver wrote:I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
I still think your a loony, how can you talk about killing someone that simply?
I believe he forms the words in his mind, the translates them into text and hits submit.
To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.
+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, Hero of Helsreach +++
The Vengeance Crusade Black Templars Resource Faith and Fire The Ammobunker Gamertag: MarshalTodt
Fateweaver wrote:I own a 12ga and a .45. I pack more firepower than most cops (.38 being the default gun for cops in my town).
I want to purchase some beanbag rounds. I want to see a man go down in pain when I smack his junk with a beanbag from my shotgun, then I'll unload one into his sternum for good measure.
Note to self, wear cup if intending to tick off fateweaver...
-"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!
Fateweaver wrote:I didn't say strangers can't knock on my door or ring the doorbell.
I don't care where you live. If you walk into a house uninvited it is breaking and entering and trespassing all rolled into one.
My state, MN, says I can use lethal force to defend my home against a felony being commited. B&E in Mn is a Felony. Ergo, if someone enters my house uninvited I can use lethal force if I feel I need to. Depending on the individual I would not always use lethal force. If a child walks into my house and looks lost or scared of course I won't shoot him. If an adult enters my house and he appears to be drunk and or jacked up on some illegal drug and looking to cause trouble than he won't be leaving my house without a hole (or two) in him.
If somebody has nothing but goodwill intentions when they come to my house they won't just open the door and walk in. They'll knock first or ring the doorbell or yell my name or whatever.
I still think your a loony, how can you talk about killing someone that simply?
I didn't say it would be easy on me afterwards. I don't live alone so if someone with ill intent enters my home when the other person is there it is not only my duty to protect myself but to protect the other individual. Would I feel remorse later? Of course I would. I'm not a monster. Would I regret what I did? Probably not. My neighborhood has more meth heads and meth dealers than decent folks so I'd be doing the community a favor by offing a dealer or an addict.
But keep thinking that I could kill and man and not regret it. If someone enters my house looking for trouble than I can easily and simply say that I would kill him/her if I had to. If MY life and/or the life of the other person in my house depended on it.
Sorry you don't feel that way but that is the difference between you and I. Me being me doesn't make me a loon or a dangerous individual. You might choose to defend your home with your fists or a bat or a knife. All 3 can be lethal if used properly (crack someone in the head with a wooden bat hard enough and they'll actually suffer a very slow, painful death as their brain swells inside there now fractured skull until it can swell no longer and ruptures inside their head).
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:I believe he forms the words in his mind, the translates them into text and hits submit.
OK thats literal LOL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/04/01 20:10:28
-"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!
If he just walks into your home and you shoot him, your going to jail.
If he breaks into your house and you can prove intent to do you harm, you can then kill him.
If he breaks into your house with intent to harm you, and you hit him with a NLR, he goes down and is no longer a threat, and you hit him again, you just crossed the line into excessive force. If he goes down from NLR and you then kill him, then its murder.
In any case if you shoot someone, be prepared to spend at least 72 hours in the local jail while the PD figures out what happened.
Here is another kicker.. you live in a city? Justified or not you can be tried for "discharging a firearm within city limits".
Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Minnesota is the same way, thankfully. For being a Liberal state it sure does protect gun owners rights fairly well (though those laws were passed before it fell into Liberal hands and we've gotten lucky that none of our Liberal politicians have passed any slowed gun laws. Some have tried but they've all failed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/04/01 20:11:40
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Frazzled wrote:Texas' version of the Castle Doctrine is basically if BG enters house, GG is free to alleviate BG's need for breathing. We're more civilized that way.
Amusingly, California also has a reasonable Castle Doctrine in place, meaning, if a threat is in your home, you can do whatever you feel necessary to protect yourself.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Fateweaver wrote:
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.
I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/04/02 01:33:19
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
If he walks into my house it's Breaking and Entering. A Felony. Hence I can defend my house with deadly force if I feel the need. All I have to do is feel threatened by his actions and someone just walking into my house as if he lives there would make me feel threatened.
Wrong. That is called Trespassing. Breaking and Entering requies some sort of force or 'breaking' to have occured, such as breaking a window or forcing a door open. Just walking into your house (if you left the door open that is) does not necessarily contistute breaking and entering. So if you were to walk dowstairs and spot a guy just walking in a seating himself on the couch, you don't have the right to use lethal force until he makes a threatening move. Unless of course you live in a place where you can use lethal force on trespassers. Then that would make you one of "those" people.
He doesn't have to intend to do harm. He could be headed for the refrigerator for a bite to eat and I can still use lethal force to diffuse the situation.
No. Having killed him, the onus is on you to prove that either he intended to cause harm, or there was reason for you to beleive so. As far as I know, a hobo walking into your house and getting a bite to eat from the fridge can not be called 'threatening'. Therefore, you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him just for that alone, you could tell him at gunpoint to get out of your house, but you wouldn't be allowed to pull the trigger until he actually did something threatening. (Like picking up the kitchen knife or something). Again, this is only if you live in a sane part of the world that values human life. If you live in a place where you can shoot anyone you feel like who enters your premises, then again you are one of "those" people.
If I hit him with an NLR and then hit him again when he's down the court has to PROVE that he was down for the count after the first one. It's on the prosecutor to prove I was overzealous.
True, but it wouldn't be that hard with forensics to tell whether he was on the floor when you shot him. Even if you had a good ol' time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm outside of city limits.
Good for you.
The first two I admit are a bit sketchy but then again with the Castle Doctrine I just have to "feel" threatened by someone entering my house uninvited and that is reasonable cause enough for me to defend myself. The person does not even need to be armed. It's on the hands of the prosecutor/police officers to prove I didn't feel threatened and that can't be proven.
No. Inccoret. The police have to prove that you killed someone, with your conffession, the body in your house, the smokeing gun ect, that shouldn't be too hard. Having used 'self-defense' as your defense, the onus is on YOU to prove that you had reasonable grounds to feel threatened and that taking lethal action was absolutely neccesary. That shouldn't be extremely hard to do, especially if you're telling the truth, but you still have to do that.
I'll admit, this is mostly on my experience with Australian Law and the Westminister system (couple with some basic sense). If the law really is that different between the two, then I'll apologise again, for I was not aware that you were one of "those" people.
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
1st rule of thumb is broken with the unlawful entry. Trespassing is an unlawful act of entering ones dwelling or car or place of business, ergo rule 1 is broken.
2nd rule is broken as soon as the intruder steps across my door. Being in my house is acting illegally since he was not allowed into my home permissively.
Yada yada.
The last one does not apply as Minnesota has the "Stand your ground law". I am not required to warn an intruder or flee my home if possible before using deadly force. All of those conditions above must be met (with exception to the last one as previously mentioned).
So the onus is not on me to prove I was in fear of my life. If a 25yo cranked up on crack or meth comes into my house while I'm home, even if the door is wide open he has broken rules 1 and 2, most likely intends to hurt me or someone in the house, most likely is going to try to burglarize me before OR after trying to inflict bodily harm upon me. That gives me all the authority I need to cap him.
As far as a bean bag round to the nuts and then to the chest. Again, it has to be proven he was down for the count after the first shot.
Oz laws and US laws differ so much I'm not sure why you think what applies to you applies to us.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Fateweaver wrote:
The last one does not apply as Minnesota has the "Stand your ground law". I am not required to warn an intruder or flee my home if possible before using deadly force. All of those conditions above must be met (with exception to the last one as previously mentioned).
I never mentioned having to flee the house. All I said was that you have to have been reasonable in your use of deadly force.
So the onus is not on me to prove I was in fear of my life. If a 25yo cranked up on crack or meth comes into my house while I'm home, even if the door is wide open he has broken rules 1 and 2, most likely intends to hurt me or someone in the house, most likely is going to try to burglarize me before OR after trying to inflict bodily harm upon me. That gives me all the authority I need to cap him.
Yes, that much is clear. In this case you can reasonably forsee that this man is a threat. However, he would not (if he survived) be found guilty of Breaking and Entering as that does require some amount of forced entry to be used in the Illegal entry. However, if you keep your doors at least closed then you'll never experience this little technicality.
I must stress to you though, even I can clearly see that the 'Castle Doctrine' does not give you free reign to shoot whoever you wish so long as the enter your house illegally. There must be a threat of some sort to your or your persons that requires lethal action. With the drugee walking in with intent to hurt or steal that's a clear case, you don't know what that fella's got or what he's going to do. However, let's say that some homeless man walks in sits on the couch and watches TV. Unless he made some threatening gesture (without provocation from you) then you would not be allowed to shoot him. You could call the cops, but unless there is a real threat to yourself or others then you are not allowed to take the life of another on a whim.
As far as a bean bag round to the nuts and then to the chest. Again, it has to be proven he was down for the count after the first shot.
No, you are using the defense, therefore the onus is on you to prove that the second shot was necessary. I know that even that much is similar between the Oz and the US.
Oz laws and US laws differ so much I'm not sure why you think what applies to you applies to us.
That's true, but the basic prinicples still apply. (In general) We still have reasonable use of lethal force (which doesn't necessarily mean guns) in Self-defense. Our legal systems have more in common than you might at first think. Although I'm surprised at the leeway each State of the US has in being able to make it's own laws. There isn't nearly as much of that in Oz.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
