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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Under California (and Texas) Law, in my home, I have no "duty to retreat" - one of the few sensible laws that we have on the books.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.

TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

@shuma no . You are specifically ignoring why i said we dont have the luxury to go easy on the intruder .
Unless of course you are psychic and know how the intruder will behave / act .

You are assuming every break ins the intruder will steal thing and leave.
What about the ones that gets murdered in their sleep ?

Again why must the victim risk that?

Why should the intruder have the upper hand to choose when they are the one that disregard the law
to break in other's house ?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.

friended for being reasonable and allowing doubt before sentencing.

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

You just used like four logical fallacies at the same time.

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

Fateweaver wrote:When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.

I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.

Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.

Fateweaver wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

You were also trained to shoot after assessing the situation I hope. Which is not what Luna is advocating.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.

Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.

I like the way you think , factoring in the realistic possibilities instead of the "lawyer" talk some rather throw around.
Let me borrow your scenario and change it alittle.

What if there are more than just 1 intruder ? suddenly the option gets even less now right?

LunaHound wrote:
And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

ummm.. huh?

I am saying we don't know the motive.

I am saying we don't know if he attacked or not

I am saying when self defense allows for killing

I am not sure you're reading what I post, or are simply assuming I am saying something wrong because I think we can't jump to murder being legit

Are you saying that we anyone that kills someone in their house is innocent?
Are you saying that if someone breaks in you should shoot them?

Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.

Both a statement of an intent to maintain life, and a realistic plan of action. All done with regular size text and logic.

Contrast with-

And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

Again, in Mn you have the right to lethal force to prevent a felony from occuring in your home. Breaking into someones house to commit theft/burglarize is a FELONY under Mn statutes. You don't have to wait until they snatch something up to steal or come after you with a knife or rolling pin or a wooden spoon. In my state they committed a felony and therefore I can use deadly force EVEN if I don't feel threatened by the person.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

Fateweaver wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

Again, in Mn you have the right to lethal force to prevent a felony from occuring in your home. Breaking into someones house to commit theft/burglarize is a FELONY under Mn statutes. You don't have to wait until they snatch something up to steal or come after you with a knife or rolling pin or a wooden spoon. In my state they committed a felony and therefore I can use deadly force EVEN if I don't feel threatened by the person.

If you're not threatened isn't that an execution? I mean actual writ of the law aside, that seems awfully morally dubious.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.

That doesnt answer anything . You 2's reasoning is purely based on if the victim has a choice.
Which i keep bringing it up again and again , how do you assume we have a choice?
if you cant even tell how the intruder will act? How to you judge the situation ? better yet
are you able to judge the situation safely and effectively ?

How?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.

That doesnt answer anything

Yes it does. You either don't like, or simply don't understand the answer.

frgsinwntr wrote:agreed... but the student's case is in question.

if i shot someone in my home, and then said... "he lunged at me"... then would this be justified self defense? how would you know I was not lieing?

What if the student invited him in and then attacked? remember, there is no other wittness, only the one person that called in and said he heard "cries of fear"...

I'm not about to jump on the band wagon and say the guy was right to kill.

there are a lot of things that could have happened.

I guess that's fair. Things like this should never go uninvestigated.

However, between the huge number of prior offenses from the guy, and the awkwardness of the killing (a sword?) and lack of motive for the student to have murdered someone I think it's pretty likely the investigation will find the (alleged) burglar to have been at fault.

Skarwael wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.

Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.

I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.

I don't think he's saying "people are unable to shoot them in a non-vital spot due to their training".

The reason people are trained to shoot for the torso is generally because in the heat of the moment, you can't afford to miss. If you sneak up on them you may be able to, if you're a sharpshooter who can keep his cool when being attacked you may be able to, and you might just get lucky and stop him firing blindly for the legs. But you usually can't afford to miss, and in a situation where your at risk of being killed or seriously injured you're usually going to have trouble hitting what you mean to. Furthermore, a shot to the legs or shoulder isn't guaranteed to take someone out, especially if they're on some sort of drugs or are for some reason highly motivated to hurt you. (Even shots to the torso may not take them out in this case, actually.)

Plus, people can die from a shot to a seemingly non-vital place just like they can survive a shot to a vital place. It's just less of a sure thing over all, and it's a great strategy for those who can afford to use it, but a lot of the time you can't.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I did answer it, how about you go back and actually read the post of mine immediately under your big text bonanza.

That doesnt answer anything

in an attempt to stop the flaming....


Luna....
Are you saying that we anyone that kills someone in their house is innocent?

Are you saying that if someone breaks in you should shoot them?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reread my states laws on self-defense. It is a felony to break into someones house with intent to commit a crime. As I pointed out you don't normally break into their house to watch their tv or sleep in their bed or play their ps3. Just breaking into someones house to steal a $5 book constitutes committing a felony as a crime is being committed. You also may not have time to assess the situation. My house is situated in such a way that the front entrance and rear entrance are at either end. If someone breaks into my house I will tell them "I will give you to the count of 3 to turn around with your back to me and walk out" but only if I can see they are clearly unarmed or not holding a gun. If they have a weapon of any sort all bets are off and that person will most likely end up in the cemetery somewhere.

Both a statement of an intent to maintain life, and a realistic plan of action. All done with regular size text and logic.

Contrast with-

And again i ask you ( stop ignoring this part ) , what made you psychic to be able to know the intruder's motive?
Especially there are the type that murders everyone in their sleep even when they can get away after
stealing w/e cleanly?

Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Sometimes shouting is the only way to get points across. Luna may be a bit more fanatical in your eyes in regards to agreeing with me but her and I are both on the same wavelength.

I'm not saying personal property is more valuable than human life but if we are going to argue that than I would feel threatened if someone broke into my house, even if they didn't intend to mean harm to me so than whose life is more important? Mine, the victims or his, the aggressor?

You can sugar coat a dog turd all you want (in this case trying to justify letting someone live just because they have the right as a human even though they violated my rights to a peaceful existence) but no matter how much sugar and sprinkles and chocolate you coat a turd with, underneath it is still a turd.

That kid obviously felt threatened, that in and of itself is enough in most states to be able to use deadly force and walk away. The guy apparently lunged at the kid, he was slashed across the torso. Had he been slashed open on his back in what looked like was an attack on the guy when he was clearing trying to flee than the jury could find for the aggressor turned victim but such is not the case.

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)

Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.

Unless you are the same person?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

However, between the huge number of prior offenses from the guy, and the awkwardness of the killing (a sword?) and lack of motive for the student to have murdered someone I think it's pretty likely the investigation will find the (alleged) burglar to have been at fault.

Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.

I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.

Prior crimes do not indicate guilt and can't be used as evidence for a conviction of a new crime. Innocent until proven guilty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Which is a hyperbole ridden scare tactic, utilizing a sarcastic inference to disarm logical counter-argument by bypassing it entirely.

Omfg lol scare tactic? are you kidding? You are giving me too much credit!

How about you just answer my question? then i dont have to retype so many times to the point i need to
increase the font size , which then you complain .

I answered your question, can you answer mine? (no sarcasm, I am really trying to understand your point better)

Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.

Unless you are the same person?

LOL calling me a sock puppet?

No, don't think so. Thanks. I've fought with him before on another topic. I live in NJ, i don't know where he lives.

But seriously can you answer my questions instead of attacking credibility? I'd appreciate a more mature nature of discussion from you. I'm not 15.

frgsinwntr wrote:Prior crimes do not indicate guilt and can't be used as evidence for a conviction of a new crime.

I just did use it.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Fateweaver wrote:
You can sugar coat a dog turd all you want (in this case trying to justify letting someone live just because they have the right as a human even though they violated my rights to a peaceful existence) but no matter how much sugar and sprinkles and chocolate you coat a turd with, underneath it is still a turd.

That kid obviously felt threatened, that in and of itself is enough in most states to be able to use deadly force and walk away. The guy apparently lunged at the kid, he was slashed across the torso. Had he been slashed open on his back in what looked like was an attack on the guy when he was clearing trying to flee than the jury could find for the aggressor turned victim but such is not the case.

You're assuming he was guilty... what if it was murder and the guy was let in, then attacked?

The Prosecutor held the sword wielder in custody for a bit... maybe he also sees something fishy?

Bottom line. Dead men tell no tales. The student claims that he feared for his life.... he'll walk.

The only bugaboo is... what the guy who overheard the screaming really heard.

My question is.. who was doing the screaming for his life? If it can be proven that the guy that was cut up was the one screaming BEFORE the fatal blow was struck then the kids going to jail. I.E was it an execution with a samarai sword? or a true self defense.

GG

frgsinwntr wrote:
LOL calling me a sock puppet?

No, don't think so. Thanks. I've fought with him before on another topic. I live in NJ, i don't know where he lives.

But seriously can you answer my questions instead of attacking credibility? I'd appreciate a more mature nature of discussion from you. I'm not 15.

I dont know what the heck a socket puppet is , but can you explain how "you" supposedly answered my question
when you just quoted shuma?


Im not here to accuse anyone of anything . But it makes no sense to me
why you would quote someone else and said "you" answered.

I'm not saying personal property is more valuable than human life but if we are going to argue that than I would feel threatened if someone broke into my house, even if they didn't intend to mean harm to me so than whose life is more important? Mine, the victims or his, the aggressor?

You'll note from the start I have yet to give an opinion one way or the other except insofar as I believe that its a great injustice to vociferously exclaim the virtues of killing, even when in self defense. I dislike it when people go "lol he killed him with a sword" when A. swords are brutal cutting weapons, and B. a man was maimed badly enough to die. Regardless of the topic at hand reverence for the concept of mortality and murder should be enough to keep people civil in the discussion. Which it hasn't.

Im not sure how quoting shuma would count for you answering.

Unless you are the same person?

I have like six accounts on this forum.

dogma wrote:
If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.

I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.

frgsinwntr wrote:
stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force
[/url]
You might want to look at 'Home Invasion' - that crime performed when someone is actually home rather than burglary.
According to William Welch

1) the defendant actually believed that the victim was committing or about to commit a specific crime in or at the defendant's home

Well, there's no question here.

2) the defendant's belief was reasonable

5.4x murder rate of national average is pretty reasonable.

3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's conduct.

This is the only one that is debatable. I posit that 29 convictions and just getting out of prison the prior weekend may well have been the only way this would have stopped at all.