EPTThis is why I am thankful for the Castle doctrine.
Teen mom is my multitasking hero - Page 5
| Blogs > Glaucoma |
|
Enki
United States2548 Posts
This is why I am thankful for the Castle doctrine. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:35 Hekisui wrote: Your comment has no content. Do you have nothing to say? If so why comment? And what's so funny? A 18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf) just lost her husband, then gets buglers break into her house and ends up shooting one of them. lmao? No! It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know. God get banned please If two men, wielding a 12 inch knife were attempting to break into your home what would you do? If you had a gun you'd use it. If you don't, you're an idiot. She was protecting her child. A child that cannot protect himself. Do you not understand this/ | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:40 Denzil wrote: I absoulutely see where you're coming from and you are correct. There are few black and white situations in morality and you have to use the information based upon the circumstances which makes it such a hard topic (in my opinion) because you will end up with people sentenced for life for justified killings and you'll have vice versa. I was suggesting it in these circumstances, these men have proceeded to put a lot of effort into going after this specific person and breaking into the house and clearly brandishing the knife was enough for me to suggest he was planning on taking her life, implying to me he was devoid of life as it is and deserved what he received. Obviously using the eye for an eye thing is silly as living by that creates a circle of violence until one side runs out of eyes but there are times when it's relevant and there are times when it isn't. if I came off as someone who applies that rule to every situation then my bad I didn't mean to. I think we're arguing exactly the same thing here but in different ways  Let's just say I agree with everything in this post :D | ||
|
Horuku
United States405 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:41 SeaSwift wrote: Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here: a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side In neither case is responding worth it. I am going to go with A. He is purposefully trying to bait arguments, his last post containing even more attempts at flame material "18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf)." Makes you wonder how someone can get 200 posts when they are intentionally derailing topics. | ||
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:42 SeaSwift wrote: I think we're arguing exactly the same thing here but in different ways Let's just say I agree with everything in this post :D fair enough | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:49 JinDesu wrote: For the people who say it'd have been better to wound him - She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it. I'd also say that she had no idea what kind of weapons the intruders had either. If you think your opponent is carrying a shotgun rather than a knife, you don't aim to wound. Especially not if you are protecting a baby, and are not for sure competent in a firefight. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:49 JinDesu wrote: For the people who say it'd have been better to wound him - She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it. And how many people can accurately shoot a good to wound? It's not as easy as it looks. I've shot a gun once. I can definitely tell you that it would take me quite a while to properly learn to hit exactly where I want it to go. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
edit - i was wrong aboutthe second guy. he turned himself in, so he must have ran. | ||
|
Dalguno
United States2446 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:41 SeaSwift wrote: Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here: a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side In neither case is responding worth it. I think with a comment like 18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf). I'm gonna go with A. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote: I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote: How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On January 05 2012 09:26 Djzapz wrote: Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her. It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously. | ||
|
Mastermyth
Netherlands207 Posts
If this exact thing happened over here (although not likely because the police would arrive faster, small dense country etc) she would not be charged with murder. She might get fined for possession of weapons but that's a separate charge. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 09:29 Demonhunter04 wrote: It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously. You aim for the center of mass, period. If you're shooting a weapon as a civilian it is because you're afraid for your life. You are not trained nor obligated to try and make a non-lethal shot. It's absurd to increase your own at risk in the hope you don't critically wound the person who is trying to at the minimum assault you with a deadly weapon, and potentially murder you. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
 | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On January 05 2012 09:37 Myles wrote: You aim for the center of mass, period. If you're shooting a weapon as a civilian it is because you're afraid for your life. You are not trained nor obligated to try and make a non-lethal shot. It's absurd to increase your own at risk in the hope you don't critically wound the person who is trying to at the minimum assault you with a deadly weapon, and potentially murder you. Not to argue with you, just to clarify this from the point of view of the law because you raise a valid, reasonable point. It doesn't need to be the same for all countries around the world but most follow the same reasoning: Killing in self-defence - i.e. defending all the goods you have: property, liberty, life, your family, etc - is ultima ratio but it's covered if the circumstances are there. Generally, one is to consider if a less agressive/defensive measure can be applied: a warning (shot) or a non-lethal reaction can have the same protective outcome. But in a situation like this, judges usually factor in that you might have no time to act less harshly (if the risk of endangering yourself or the baby in that case is too big) or simply that you're too scared to think clearly. In that case, what prevails is the interest of the one who's innocent and not at fault over the one who's deliberately endangering you. There's a threshold of leniency for the defenders as well as an influence of common sense. And the doubt (how the circumstances really were) benefits the person who defends herself. | ||
|
Raz0r
United States287 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:16 Hekisui wrote: Why am I a troll? Sheesh. She was never attacked. They didn't know she had a gun. She never fired a warning shot. The other guy wasn't shot and he didn't kill her. As the article reads, she killed him the first opportunity she got. In the Netherlands she would be found guilty for sure. Same in UK. You saying the lawmakers in those countries are trolling too? You choose to be wrong to be immoral. Sad. People like Denzil proof my point and proof that I am not trolling. It is just people being brought up with bad morality. Not a disagreement over how much violence one can use in defense of property. I disagree with your opinion. I don't know about you, but if I saw someone with a knife in their hands I'm pretty sure its threatening and I need to defend myself. Their actions could be unpredictable, like throwing something in my eyes or doing something to distract me from being able to shoot them if I needed to, so it is their choice to give up their life and be shot. They could be hiding some hidden weapon or item and just be showing their knife as a front. You cannot predict everything so the best case if you value your life is to simply shoot them. Not saying human life should be easy to take, but it's reasonable to shoot them because they are threatening your life. When there aren't any authorities nearby to save you, it should be clear it's either potentially kill some criminal (meaning you disable, kill or w/e you need to do to protect yourself) or get killed. If you really value your life and put yourself in that situation where you're in danger, are you going to take your chances and just try to disable them or talk them out of harming you? Who knows how sick they are mentally or w/e, sure they need help but again, its you or the other person. I value my life so I would shoot them in the head, no chance for any response or counter attack from the other partner. | ||
|
Raz0r
United States287 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:31 ggrrg wrote: When you're threatened, you should have the right to defend yourself. However, in this situation I feel like she had the chance to scare of the intruders before they entered the house, not to mention that she could have tried to wound them not lethally. My English teacher told us about a friend of his who was an engineer in Texas. He got lost, saw a farm, knocked and was shot through the door... died instantly. Nice story, but I hope you know the difference is that your English teacher's friend was only knocking on the door, while these men were busting down the door with a knife. Your English teacher's friend is a victim of unnecessary violence and it was an overreaction of that farmer. If the farmer thought that person was threatening within reason which isn't the case, since he was only knocking, the farmer is at fault here. This 18 year old mother on the hand had a choice to either let these men armed with a knife over power her and kill her or w/e they were intending to do OR she can save herself like she did and shoot them. | ||
| ||
