|
On September 02 2009 01:07 Forgottenfrog wrote:Have you guys ever stared down at the other end of a gun before? It's quite frightening. Ever got beaten up by a gun before? there's a lot of talk about self defense and what you would do but what if they outnumber you and outpower you? its easy to act tough online  I would obviously summon my lvl 100 Pikachu to defend me. I know what you're thinking... and yes I did stop his evolution to Raichu and rigged him with rare candy.
don't you need a lightning stone or something to make him evolve? He didn't evolve naturally iirc
|
On September 01 2009 19:51 General Nuke Em wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life?
Property [ ]
Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary:
Bare hands [ ]
Improvised weapon [ ]
Knife [ ]
Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible:
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Thank you for your time!
404th post. HTML Error: Sense not found.
When they say minimum amount necessary, then they mean don't shoot a guy for walking off with your Bose speakers. But I think the keyword is necessary, rather than minimum. If shooting a gun becomes necessary then you fire with intent to kill. Neutralize the threat. Firing a gun to disable when in a self defense situation is still considered taking lethal force by you, and if you use potential lethal force and he gets stopped without killing him YOU will get persecuted. As far as I know anyway. It's been a while since I've looked into this.
|
On September 02 2009 00:20 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 00:13 shidonu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote:
What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this. Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do. You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you. On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
|
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
1. You are in no danger
I hope when compiling this list of reasons why defending your property with force is unjustifiable that you didn't put them in order of strongest to weakest. Assuming you are in no danger when someone breaks into your house is a ridiculous thing to say.
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
What does this even mean? We're not in a courtroom. Defending yourself has nothing to do with punishment.
The punishment for ATTEMPTED MURDER is not death. So using this logic, you are still not justified in killing someone even if they are trying to kill you.
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
This is a ridiculous thing to say. I guess it's safe to say that if you were in the 4th hijacked airplane on 9/11 you would have waited to be flown into a building? This is entirely your opinion as clearly the law offers protections for people that act to uphold the law and allows people to make "citizen's arrests."
4. This is how innocent people get killed
Because nobody has ever been killed while cooperating, right? This isn't really even an argument for or against the justification of killing someone in self-defense. It's the innocent person's choice if he wants to defend his property.
|
If someone breaks into my house, they get shot.
|
On September 02 2009 00:56 psion0011 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 00:54 Alizee- wrote:On September 02 2009 00:24 psion0011 wrote:On September 01 2009 16:17 Misrah wrote:
I know that in america, you can do what you like- under these conditions:
You can only shoot the intruder when they are attacking you / threatening you. They must be facing/running towards you.
If you shoot them at any other time, they or their family can press charges and you can be tried for murder.
Ie. if they have a gun and have their backs faced twards you and are running away, shooting them would be a crime. Then you don't know your own country very well, because a man in texas shot an unarmed kid in the back of the head while he was kneeling in front of him, execution-style, and got away scot free. They broke in to steal some food  That's correct, although I wouldn't use cases as for a basis, but rather the law and as I said in my state and several others(such as Florida) the Castle Doctrine applies, its law, look it up. I'm still baffled why people would be accidentally breaking into houses.....one of you please explain your reasoning. It's actually the other way around. Despite what the law says, using cases as precedence is very powerful, since the law is always up to interpretation, but precedence isn't.
Rofl. Precedent isn't up to interpretation?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
|
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
He said it all. Bravo man! Totally agreed.
And I would like to add that if you have the right to shoot a person in your home no matter what (if you feel hes going to steal/harm you in any way) thats just plain stupid. That would just opened a hole in a law where person can kill anyone and then state he/she felt frightened by that persons actions...
|
I'm not sure if the statistics on home invasion are that much lower where I live or if our media just doesn't blow its importance out of proportion. I just don't see home invasion as a threat to me in any way. As long as I'm not involved in organized crime myself then why the hell would anyone go into my apartment and try to kill me? I sleep with my apartment door unlocked.
I think the focus should be how to reduce the already low figures on home invasion not what you can and cant do in the rare occasion that it actually does happen. If someone was actively threatening your life I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself. However the first lesson when getting robbed is to do whatever the robber tells you to. If you aren't stupid you just give him what he wants. I also don't think people should be allowed to own guns unless they have a hunting license or are policemen.
|
On September 02 2009 02:09 IceCube wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill. He said it all. Bravo man! Totally agreed. And I would like to add that if you have the right to shoot a person in your home no matter what (if you feel hes going to steal/harm you in any way) thats just plain stupid. That would just opened a hole in a law where person can kill anyone and then state he/she felt frightened by that persons actions...
Such hypothetical concerns would be dealt with by a judge and jury. Our legal system is filled with vague wording that is open to interpretation.
|
Just because someone breaks into my home should not be the incentive I need to lose all my morals.
|
On September 02 2009 01:25 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 00:20 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:13 shidonu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote:
What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this. Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do. You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you. On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire. That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911?
@illu, Are you joking when you point out the unlikeliehood of a robber breaking into your house to kill you? Because in the first post you think guns should be banned in case "I accidentally enter someone's unlocked home and get shot." I can guarentee you one of these 2 things happens a lot more often than the other yet you think guns should be banned to prevent the one that almost NEVER happens from happening? C'mon......
I'd also like you comment on what you said, "..Robbers do not break into your home to kill you." Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that is why they are called "robbers." I think they are there to steal property, it's pretty much the meaning to their name. The town I live in (gainesville, FL) is built around the university here which is pretty big with 50,000+ students. In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
P.S. you'll be glad to know that the serial killer I spoke of was executed around the time of my first semester here.
|
As long as you don't shoot the person in the back or as they are trying to escape you should be justified in defending yourself
|
On September 02 2009 02:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 01:25 Draconizard wrote:On September 02 2009 00:20 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:13 shidonu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote:
What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this. Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do. You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you. On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire. That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically. Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911? @illu, Are you joking when you point out the unlikeliehood of a robber breaking into your house to kill you? Because in the first post you think guns should be banned in case "I accidentally enter someone's unlocked home and get shot." I can guarentee you one of these 2 things happens a lot more often than the other yet you think guns should be banned to prevent the one that almost NEVER happens from happening? C'mon...... I'd also like you comment on what you said, "..Robbers do not break into your home to kill you." Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that is why they are called "robbers." I think they are there to steal property, it's pretty much the meaning to their name. The town I live in (gainesville, FL) is built around the university here which is pretty big with 50,000+ students. In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. P.S. you'll be glad to know that the serial killer I spoke of was executed around the time of my first semester here.
Im sure the killer only broke in to rape them, but was forced to stab them when they tried to defend themselves. If they had just willingly had sex with the intruder, no lives would had been lost.
|
There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy.
|
On September 02 2009 02:36 gLyo wrote:
There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy.
I'll say it again.
If someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot.
|
On September 02 2009 02:39 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 02:36 gLyo wrote:
There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy. I'll say it again. If someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot.
When you say it like that, it sounds so simple, but it's not. What if the burglar has a gun and sees you first? What if you shoot and miss? What if it's not a burglar at all, but a family member coming home late and making a din and you can't tell through the dark? There are a million possibilities that make trying to shoot a burglar more dangerous than complying with him.
Not to mention the fact that taking another human beings life is a pretty heavy weight to carry.
|
On September 02 2009 02:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 01:25 Draconizard wrote:On September 02 2009 00:20 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:13 shidonu wrote:On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote:
What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this. Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do. You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you. On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire. That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically. Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911? .
That's fine, as long as these people value their property and their sense of what's "right" moreso than their own existence. It's a matter of utility, I suppose.
|
just be careful don't shoot everyone...
next thing we know you shot dead a mailman gg
|
The way I feel is if somebody is armed and robbing my house, I'd politely ask them to leave before I shoot them. If they don't then I shoot. And I'll shoot to kill, fuck shooting people in the knee, that allows them to go to court and say shit like "I wasn't charging at him, there was a ghost behind him and I was trying to save his life". Ok that's stupid, but once they try to sue me they sure as hell aren't going to admit to trying to charge/shoot me after robbing me.
Of course, if possible I'd rather not have to kill anyone, but if I felt my or my families life was threatened I wouldn't hesitate to kill. I'd put the whole clip in him (or enough to guarantee his death.).
Also, if you do find yourself having killed someone, its recommended to piss yourself and/or have a drink of alcohol (just A drink, don't get drunk that's just stupid) after so its obvious you were scared/distressed by the whole incident.
|
On September 02 2009 02:26 BlackJack wrote:
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
