LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSure it does. They fought back, didn't they?Originally Posted by chinawatcher
You're gonna last a long time here.
Support
Oppose
[QUOTE=Capsoda;686774]Now if that were true there would only be one country, the one with the left over nukes.
I'd be glad to discuss your line of reasoning on another more appropriate thread........
Sure it does. They fought back, didn't they?
You're gonna last a long time here.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
If I were a crook, that's where I would go.
If my house were broken into, I'd show the crook this:
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
YES.
I don't believe that such a thing as reasonable response even exists in certain situations.If someone breaks into your home you have to assume he's hostile.Because he(or them) enters your home he also has the initiative and the advantage of surprise.You are dizzy from just waking up,you may be untrained,old,sick,outnumbered or a woman(and criminals use to pick just this kind of people).The only proper response is to severely wound or kill the hostiles,with whatever you have at your disposal.Better to be judged than buried.
Those who know don't speak
If there is a threat of death or great bodily harm, one can defend oneself with deadly force anywhere not just in your home (common law in all US states). I believe the statutes in question give the home owner just a little more leeway. The point is to deter the armed burglar. I think the focus should be away from whether bubba junior can blow away any intruder with his 12 gauge and focus on whether these laws reduce break-ins associated with grievious bodily harm.
Such unanimity was becoming suspect...
No of course you're not a king in your castle. Its not because it is your house that you have the right to kill any trespasser. If there's a serious threat to your life sure, but for 99,99% of burglary cases its just for your big screen TV that they came. And your TV is not worth a life.
True...That is why I advocate a typical 'wheel gun', 38 cal is fine. I grew up with this and despite owning a Steyr M40 today, I have a .38 for the G/F. It is simple to operate and maintain. There is no feeling or looking to see if there is a round in the chamber. I tell her that if an intruder is not down after six shots, it does not matter if she has a seventh.
But what if my TV is worth MY LIFE, which is 'a life', is it not? A burglar have no use for my life. What can he do with me? I cannot do anything a TV does. How many homeowners or drivers have been killed for the THINGS they own? How many store keepers shot, may be not killed but physically harmed nonetheless, for the THINGS they tend? To criminals, the social contract that most of us voluntarily agreed to in order to have a functional society is very much worthy of sacrifice for the objects they want that are not theirs.
I totally support "Castle Law" even though it's forbidden in Russia to harm an offender more than he harmed you.
It's not a TV I am going to defend with gun in his hands. Thug is already guilty for breaching, going to be guilty for robbing and doesn't mind to be guilty for murder if I'm at home. I defend my life and lives of my relatives never knowing robber's plans.
So for his sake he should know that he'll be shot dead if he brakes in, and I will be considered right, because it's him who violated the law, not me. Or else I still can kill him trying only to wound (thus "exceeding a right for necessary self-defence" as it named in Russia) and go to a jail which will not resurrect him but gives him hope I won't shoot.
Inevitable death is the only way to keep thugs away from homes.
All said never denies my personal responsibility for any gun accidents.
:yeahthat:
Μολὼν λαβέ
Hakkaa Päälle
I'm from Canada and I'm wondering what the equivalent - if there IS an equivalent - right is here.
At any rate, I support it, as long as there is a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the homeowner. What happened to that poor Japanese exchange student is unforgivable.
Tony Martin is a thoroughly debated case.
Shooting someone who is fleeing? This is a judgment call.
How does the homeowner know the criminal attacker is not going to close the door to prevent witnesses from seeing what happens next?
How does the homeowner know the criminal attacker is not going to close the door to prevent escape?
How does the homeowner know the criminal attacker is not going to summon accomplices to assist in criminal activity?
What is at issue is the criminal who illegally enters a dwelling, not how the occupants of the dwelling deal with the criminal.
@Rusty
You can step on scorpions, you know... :P
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
What is at issue is the criminal who illegally enters a dwelling, not how the
occupants of the dwelling deal with the criminal.
I remember a South African guy I worked with years ago telling me how one day his father shot dead a man who had entered their yard by climbing over the wall. (this was on the farm in SA)
When his father called the police to report it, the officer on the other end of the line told him to drag the body so part of it lay over the doorstep/threshhold of the house. (he laid one foot in the doorway)
When the police arrived there was no investigation needed, as the perpetrator was concidered to have been inside the house - So no crime had been commited by the home owner.
I guess that must have been some time ago, and I had no reason to doubt what my friend was telling me..........
Last edited by DragoonGuard; 27 Oct 09, at 15:02.
No offense taken. Thank you for the reply.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: