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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If he shot them when they were running away then that isn't acceptable. But if they were in his house, and there were four of them, then it's very reasonable to assume his life was at risk.

Sure. And now the police are going to look into that. And if they were running away he'll be in trouble. If they were confronting him he'll be fine.

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

America HURR!!!

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

As far as I'm concerned, you can have them - bon appetit!

An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.

I'm not some trigger happy, war wacky, right winger, but the thieves didn't drop in to give the guy some Christmas cards.

I'm not against all types of theft. If a person is starving or needs to save a life, then theft is justifiable. I'm sure somebody will challenge my logic on this.

It's a different matter if somebody is breaking into a house to feed a drug habit or looking for easy cash. Put yourself in the homeowner's position. It's 3am, it's dark, you're scared, and if you're wearing white underwear, chances are it won't be white for long.

There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.

I'm not some trigger happy, war wacky, right winger, but the thieves didn't drop in to give the guy some Christmas cards.

I'm not against all types of theft. If a person is starving or needs to save a life, then theft is justifiable. I'm sure somebody will challenge my logic on this.

It's a different matter if somebody is breaking into a house to feed a drug habit or looking for easy cash. Put yourself in the homeowner's position. It's 3am, it's dark, you're scared, and if you're wearing white underwear, chances are it won't be white for long.

There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.

But a seeing a shadow in your house doesn't let you know if they are a crack addict or starving and Mr Colt doesn't discriminate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.

The law in this case is common law and the 1967 criminal law act (accoring to wikipedia anyway). I very much doubt that the 'PC brigade' had anything to do with either.

Go go, Castle Doctrine.

I make the assumption, and state law agrees with me, that if you're in my home, uninvited, you're there to do harm to my family and I. The law in question renders me immune to legal and civil prosecution should I choose to remove the threat you present by emptying my shotgun in your direction.

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to kill anyone. I certainly don't want to clean your blood off my walls and hardwood floors. But at the same time, I don't care WHY you're in my home, waking me up at 3 in the morning. I will not hesitate to defend my family, and my self, from anyone who decides we look like a good target.

My suggestion to the beginning criminal mastermind / hungry person that steals from people to feed his poor family: Heed the signs and stickers I have posted about my property. Move along and find an easier target. Move to a state where they don't mind being victims and haven't enacted castle doctrine. You'll be safer in your chosen profession / hobby.

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

Guns are for pussies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.

Political correctness means not victimising sections of society in public forums - television, the print etc. What does that have to do with self-defence laws?

 Testify wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

Guns are for pussies.

Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

As far as I'm concerned the thieves safety is up to him. If he/she wasn't stealing in the first place then they wouldn't have a problem. My family safety comes first then or animals and stuff. Somewhere way down that line I might worry about the intruder afterwards. I don't know what their intentions are or what their armed with. Why should I give them the power to break the law and do as they please with my family or our things. I give one warning. After that I put 2 in your chest. I'll take my chances with a jury. At least I know my family's safe.

Filthy Sanchez wrote:
Go go, Castle Doctrine.

I make the assumption, and state law agrees with me, that if you're in my home, uninvited, you're there to do harm to my family and I. The law in question renders me immune to legal and civil prosecution should I choose to remove the threat you present by emptying my shotgun in your direction.

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to kill anyone. I certainly don't want to clean your blood off my walls and hardwood floors. But at the same time, I don't care WHY you're in my home, waking me up at 3 in the morning. I will not hesitate to defend my family, and my self, from anyone who decides we look like a good target.

My suggestion to the beginning criminal mastermind / hungry person that steals from people to feed his poor family: Heed the signs and stickers I have posted about my property. Move along and find an easier target. Move to a state where they don't mind being victims and haven't enacted castle doctrine. You'll be safer in your chosen profession / hobby.

This guy has got it just about perfect imo.

Edit.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.

Yes because the right to bear arms has proven to be such a good determent to crime.

So far no crimes has been commited towards me. Well the perception of a battle harden vet on the block does play into it. Everyone knows a lot of vets have cool personel weapons to......

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.

Yes because the right to bear arms has proven to be such a good determent to crime.

It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one. If we can't stop crime, we can at least do everything in our power to protect ourselves from it. I've said it before on this forum, gun ownership is about nothing more than putting the responsibility of personal safety in the person's own hands.

In S.Carolina the castle doctrine extends the entire property not just the house, so it doesn't matter if someone is running away while they are still on your property

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

Most 'American' forum post I've ever seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/09/cops-find-100-marijuana-plants-in-home-after-homeowner-shoots-suspected-burglar/?intcmp=obnetwork

ANother home defense shooting...but with a munchie feel to it

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.

I'll just repeat what I already posted;

"It never fails to amaze me how people are willing to completely ignore the facts of a case in order to pretend they're being picked on for being manly men who want to shoot people coming into their homes.

When a shooting happens the shooter is arrested. It's the only sensible thing to do until a police investigation has established the act was in self defence. "Okay, you say its in self defence so you're free to go, but just promise you'll stay at home in case we have to arrest your for murder."

And in both cases mentioned - Martin and Hussain - the home invader was fleeing the scene when killed. Despite that Martin got five years, and Hussain got a one year suspended sentence.

And yet people still complain. Because they'd rather be outraged than be right."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
So far no crimes has been commited towards me. Well the perception of a battle harden vet on the block does play into it. Everyone knows a lot of vets have cool personel weapons to......

And I am wearing my anti-elephant hat. People laugh but no elephants have fallen on my head so clearly it works.

can I buy your hat

 Lordhat wrote:
It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one.

Punishment, both for the individual involved and others who might otherwise consider that crime.
Direct physical prevention.
Reform.
Community involvement.
Aggressive policing (cops on every corner).


I mean, seriously? Are you actually saying people can't be deterred from committing crime?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
can I buy your hat

$1 million.

I happen to have become used to not having elephants fall on my head and I'd hate to have anything threaten that.

And I am wearing my anti-elephant hat. People laugh but no elephants have fallen on my head so clearly it works.

You never know you might be "that guy".

 Jihadin wrote:

And I am wearing my anti-elephant hat. People laugh but no elephants have fallen on my head so clearly it works.

You never know you might be "that guy".

Has he been approached by Republicans or maybe even a robocall from the Romney campaign? Or are those different kind of elephants...

Wish this stuff would never happen in the first place though :( It's a dark day for justice when an innocent is even arrested for removing a piece of scum from the earth, they made their own stupid idiotic choices with their miserable lives and now they can do no more harm to anyone.

Give the tenant a medal. HOOZAH!

The survival instinct is strong for nearly everyone. If people break into your home with guns in hand, and you have a gun yourself, it's only natural to defend yourself.
There is a big difference breaking into somebody's home with the intention to rob/rape/kill at 3am and knocking on somebody's door at 3am because your cars broken down and you need help to get your pregnant wife to hospital. I wouldn't expect to be gunned down for that!!

But for homeowners being invaded by crooks, the hard working shop owner facing an armed robber, or an eight stone woman being attacked by a 15 stone man who wants to rape her, then in my eyes, Mr Colt is justified.

I'm not some right wing gun nut. I can sympathise with people stealing food because they're starving, or a teenager falling in with bad company. But if I'm a shopkeeper with a gun pointed at my face, then I'll fire back if I get the chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nearly forgot to mention. The homeowner in this case has been released on bail by the police.

Most people on here though say it will never happen though. The odds are against you. That you never be "that guy". Those that don't believe "crap happens"

The sort of situation I'm talking about is life or death. If somebody stole an apple from my garden, I wouldn't shoot them if I caught them in the act. If somebody stole my car, or a bar of chocolate, I wouldn't be too bothered either. I'd be mad, but not that mad.
But if somebody was shooting at me with the purpose to wound, or kill, and you had the means to fire back, who wouldn't?
Like I've said, there are many things I don't like about America, but this is one I agree with.

 Seaward wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.

It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.

However because traditional organised crime relies more on muscle than firepower the East London gangster is a tough nut to crack.
Many achieve a legendary rep that cant really be rivaled merely by committing more drive bys.

 Testify wrote:

Guns are for pussies.

You would be surprised just how often in reality the man without the gun wins. Guns are a crutch, sure a small kid can shoot a special forces veteran, but in many situations its the man not the weapon which matters most. Many who think defense equals guns miss out on that.

I remember the UN EU led mandate on Kosovo that allowed peace keepers in but only if they were unarmed. Needless to say the policy was idiotic political garbage and the mandate was only passed because of it was assured of failure. allowing for the intensity of conflict in the former Yugoslavia with all the incensed tigger happy heavily armed bigots there were active at the time. However many of the UN peacekeepers particularly from the UK and French armed forces made a real go of it, and even had success because the quality of the man without the gun relying only on his uniform and mandate proved more than the fanatic with.

I wont repeat the stories I heard, I will leave you to find some for yourselves, they should not be too difficult to find.