|
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote:
Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ?
As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine.
Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone.
edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ?
I would take about 5 seconds for the police to realize there was no forced entry if you just invited someone over to kill them. What's your pick up line? "Hey come break my front door open and smash some windows, also ignore my knife"
|
On June 30 2011 17:03 poorbeggarman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 16:54 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:52 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:36 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:28 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 16:07 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 15:54 Usul wrote:
Wow, its sad to see how few people here value human life. Or think that killing is the appropiate answer for stealing. Yes, stealing is wrong, but stabbing is way off. Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution. If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis. It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight. Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really. So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes. So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner. You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot? I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"? I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc.
Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont.
I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary.
And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
|
waiting to see someobdy stabbing somebody not a burgler
|
On June 30 2011 15:57 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:40 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family. Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option. That's safe, but you'll likely never see your shit again. Do you have insurance for that?
I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
|
On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote:
Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun!
Have you ever been to the states? There's a reason why we have the highest murder rate in the world.
|
On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote:
Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun!
My school permits open carry in the classroom, hehehe. I love telling that to Europeans and watching their eyes get HUGE.
|
On June 30 2011 17:11 Usul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:03 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:54 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:52 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:36 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:28 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 16:07 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 15:54 Usul wrote:
Wow, its sad to see how few people here value human life. Or think that killing is the appropiate answer for stealing. Yes, stealing is wrong, but stabbing is way off. Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution. If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis. It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight. Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really. So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes. So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner. You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot? I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"? I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc. Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont. I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary. And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"?
Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa?
Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed.
|
On June 30 2011 17:14 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:57 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 15:40 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family. Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option. That's safe, but you'll likely never see your shit again. Do you have insurance for that? I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
Killing in self defense =\= yanking a prisoner out of a cell to give them a lethal injection.
|
On June 30 2011 17:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote:
Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun! My school permits open carry in the classroom, hehehe. I love telling that to Europeans and watching their eyes get HUGE.
Well, that is one reason why the US has an "unintentional death by firearm" rate that rivals most third world countries (though i couldn't find any statistics newer than 2007, but might be just my bad google-fu).
|
On June 30 2011 12:05 coZen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote:
In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not. no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
It varies by state.
Anyway, this is rather offtopic since the thread is about the UK.
|
On June 30 2011 17:19 poorbeggarman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:11 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 17:03 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:54 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:52 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:36 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:28 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 16:07 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Woa, no one here would just randomly stab someone robbing their house. All this has to do with is the law acknowledging someone's right to defend themselves. If my house was being burglarized I would confront the criminal with a gun. Not with the intention of shooting them though. I would bring it for intimidation, and for my safety just in case they are hostile. In %99 percent of cases they will just run off. But if they turn out to be dangerous, and I feel compelled to defend myself, Its nice to know I will be safe from prosecution. If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis. It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight. Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really. So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes. So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner. You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot? I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"? I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc. Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont. I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary. And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"? Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa? Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed.
Nice trick to avoid my key point.
|
On June 30 2011 17:19 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:14 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:57 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 15:40 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:
[quote]
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why shouldx the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family. Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option. That's safe, but you'll likely never see your shit again. Do you have insurance for that? I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options. Killing in self defense =\= yanking a prisoner out of a cell to give them a lethal injection.
Did you read the last 9 words of my post? Defending property =/= self defense.
|
On June 30 2011 17:23 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 17:08 KryptoStorm wrote:
Looks like every american TeamLiquidan owns a gun! My school permits open carry in the classroom, hehehe. I love telling that to Europeans and watching their eyes get HUGE. Well, that is one reason why the US has an "unintentional death by firearm" rate that rivals most third world countries (though i couldn't find any statistics newer than 2007, but might be just my bad google-fu).
Yea, we probably have the highest gun ownership per capita, so such a statistic falls in line with blatant common sense.
|
On June 30 2011 15:47 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:41 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:23 Gheed wrote:On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place. You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar. If i'd kill someone only to later find out that he never was a threat (i.e. was unarmed), i couldn't live with it anyways and probably end up killing myself because of that. Unless the person is actively shooting at me or trying to stab me (in which case i'd probably already be dead), deadly force is not an option for me, no matter who the other person is. Criminals don't just become criminals because they are born evil, they have a life too. Some of them even have a wife and children. Their life is in no way worth less than mine just because they got on the wrong path somewhere. There are lots of options to scare intruders away or incapacitate them. What if someone was holding a fake gun to your family. Would you feel bad over killing them? That is no different than someone who breaks into your house. They are putting themselves into a threatening position in which they have the potential to kill and it is not up to you to take the risk of assuming that they don't. The typical strawman argument... No, i still wouldn't use deadly force. Anyways, that situation is totally unrelated to this thread as a burglary usually doesn't turn into an hostage situation. If it does, give him what he wants and later call the police and get your stuff back and that guy into prison. If your property is worth more than a human life, your priorities are really messed up.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit.
There, I said it. I also completely believe it.
That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me.
As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
|
On June 30 2011 17:14 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:57 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 15:40 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:29 Sea_Food wrote:On June 30 2011 15:10 abominare wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:On June 30 2011 14:22 Hekisui wrote:
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional?
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. For some reason your country tag makes me giggle about your response. Seriously though why should the burden fall on the victim to minimize the danger the criminal may be in? Granted crime and violent crime in Germany is most likely less than in the states, but hitting some one with a frying pan that potentially has a gun isn't exactly high on my list, I find that .45 acp injected from my 1911 wisens them up Non sensical. You are afraid to hit burgular with gun, but not afraid to shoot him? If he is in range so are you, or are you willing to risk your life because you belive your a superior gunman compared to him? It's about incapacitating them in the safest way possible. That would be a gun. And yes, I do believe I know my house better than any burglar. What is your solution? Run? That is not an option when you have a family. Actually because i live in a nation where getting a personal gun is so hard I dont have the option to shoot the burglar, but if i did I still belive pretending to be asleep and calling police quietly is the safest option. That's safe, but you'll likely never see your shit again. Do you have insurance for that? I rather hope the police to catch him than try to shoot a man i didnt club, because i assumed he had a gun. Besides, there is a reason why death penalty isnt allowed in most western areas, i find no reason why we should be allowed to kill someone even if they are doing a crime if tje state isnt allowed to, especially if like you said there are safer options.
I never said shoot him, I just said if you want to keep your stuff you need to confront the burglar. The police are not going to catch him, its just naive to think they will. If you're a police officer, and someone tells you their home was robbed, whats your next move? You might check for finger prints, which is useless if they wore gloves, and you'll ask them if they had any enemies. That's about it. Maybe ask some pawn shops what they bought recently. There's not much else they can do. Murderers are generally easier to catch because there's a much greater chance for forensic evidence, and there's usually a motive and relationship between the victim and perpetrator. Burglars generally just randomly pick a house that looks like it has some good shit in it. Also, the law doesn't say you can kill someone who is committing a crime, it says you can kill someone to defend yourself. Buddha said you can defend yourself. Can you grasp that? Mother fucking Buddha! Maybe that well put in perspective the level of crazy your spewing.
|
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 30 2011 17:27 Usul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 17:19 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 17:11 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 17:03 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:54 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:52 poorbeggarman wrote:On June 30 2011 16:36 Usul wrote:On June 30 2011 16:28 ComusLoM wrote:On June 30 2011 16:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 30 2011 16:07 ComusLoM wrote:
[quote]
If there was an intruder in my house and I had access to a firearm I would shoot him regardless of how threatening he was. Burglaries are terrifying violating experiences regardless of whether you're at home or not. They deserve to die and should be shot on sight. Imagine if people knew they had the right to do that in Britain, we would never have had to endure Oasis. It just seems like that's how you end up shooting a neighbor, or a family member getting a late night snack. Besides, most burglars are just punk kids who need a good scare to set them straight. Why would a neighbour be in my house? And you can't commit more crime if you're dead so it's a win win really. So lets just kill every criminal. I believe that human life still has value even if they make mistakes. So virtuous. I wonder if you can say the same thing after some really horrible shit happens to you, or worse, your family/spouse/partner. You like if my cousin was a burglar who got shot? I don't quite understand your sentence, but i mean like a burglar/burglars breaking into your home, steal stuff and rape the female(or even male, lol) members of your family/spouse/partner, right in front of you, taunting you while they do it; will you still believe they just made a "mistake"? I suppose its no good asking you now, coz you'll just give some sweet, disney-like reply in your comfortable state in front of the pc. Yeah lets insult each other, it will really help the discussion! Wait - no it wont. I edited my sentence above for clarity. It can go both ways. Burglars have family too. And why are you talking about rapist now? It was about burglary. And there still is a HUGE difference between instantly shooting him with a gun or threatning him first. And your country really failed, if someone is able to rape your family while your watching. Talking about downsizing the police or having no telephone-infrastructure. So your are saying there is no way in between the options "shoot to kill" and "letting him rape your family"? Rape, burglary. Do you mean to tell me that a burglar isn't capable of rape, and vice versa? Lol, police and telephone infrastucture; so you're saying police and telephone infrastructure totally wipes out the incidence of burglary/rape in germany. That's impressive indeed. Nice trick to avoid my key point.
Your "key point" was so obscure, nonsensical and out of point that I didn't feel the need to address it.
Its such a broad topic, and it obviously depends on the circumstances. Looks like if 6 men invade your home(weapons unknown) and you have 1 gun, you're going to threaten first and let them gain the upper hand right.
Your posts are also so inconsistent that I've no idea what your stance on the topic is:
"Wow, its sad to see how few people here value human life. Or think that killing is the appropiate answer for stealing. Yes, stealing is wrong, but stabbing is way off"
So with your latest post you're saying gun usage is ok. Also, stabbing does not always result in death lol.
Nice trick.
|
On June 30 2011 17:48 Bleak wrote:
I think if someone breaks into your home at night and if you have a gun, you should first warn him to leave your house and force him to give your belongings back. If he does not comply, if he attacks you, and if he is unarmed/carries a melee weapon, you may shot him in the leg or so to immobilise him. Then, call the police.
However, if the guy is armed with a firearm, I believe you should shoot him. Doing otherwise would be taking a big risk.
In any case, if you are in panic, can't think straight due to fear/adrenalin, and if you shoot burglar, that is still lawful.
Sad to see the Americans caring more about their plasmas than the life of an individual. I have heard that in some places asking people directions in U.S is dangerous as people think you are a trespasser or sth. Americans only care for money and property.
Never happening.
Firing a handgun is difficult enough when you are perfectly calm, aiming for center mass, and have time to put your sights on the target.
When your adrenaline is spiking because someone just broke into your house who may or may not be carrying a weapon? Good luck, it's not going to happen. Do not underestimate what stress does to your body. Trained people have a hard enough time aiming at a LARGE target under stress and most people simply aren't trained in stress inoculation.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that you should announce yourself and tell the burglar to get the hell out of the house. For me though? He gets one chance. If he doesn't start leaving I am shooting. Reaction gets beating by pro action every single time so if he's hiding some weapon in his waist band then I better act first.
|
From http://georgiapacking.org/law.php :
+ Show Spoiler +
Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
So, hypothetical break-in at my house.
I will shoot the burglar with my very first good opportunity. Why? He has broken in, and I do think he intends to assault me, because if he wins a violent confrontation (and I do plan on confronting him, there's no law that describes how you approach the intruder aka I'm choosing not to call the police and hide), he can avoid going to prison for years at the low low price of beating my ass, and he WILL have to beat my ass or draw a gun in order to disable and escape me. Sounds reasonable enough.
And I do find it necessary to shoot him, inflicting lethal injury, because I have no reason to suspect that anything but a lethal injury would permanently keep the intruder from attacking me with a weapon (gun) that he may have. I would also like to point out that aggravated battery is indeed a felony, so I find it necessary to maintain a non-melee range with the intruder (even though him shooting at me would also be considered aggravated battery), and use a gun to disable him, in order to prevent the reasonably expected battery from occurring.
I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm just putting out there what I would do, personally, in case of a break in at my house after reviewing my state laws. Do with this what you will, only note that I will not change my stance. Like I said, I'm just presenting my perspective (to anyone who cares) on the situation with respect to my laws.
|
On June 30 2011 17:37 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 15:47 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:41 OsoVega wrote:On June 30 2011 15:32 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:23 Gheed wrote:On June 30 2011 15:20 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 15:12 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:55 Morfildur wrote:On June 30 2011 14:44 nemo14 wrote:On June 30 2011 14:26 MozzarellaL wrote:
[quote]
Tell me what is irrational about assuming an intruder into your home is there to kill or rape you when it's the middle of the night. I'm really interested in knowing your reasoning. I would not confront any intruder with anything less than deadly force. It's either that, or I hide in a closet and call the police. there is no middle ground, because you don't know, in fact, it is impossible to know, without putting yourself in grave danger, what the intruder is carrying or intends to do. Exactly. What is the homeowner supposed to do, turn the lights on and ask the intruder what his intentions are and whether he has any weapons? When it's two in the morning and a stranger is creeping through your house, it is time to shoot first and ask questions later. No law should restrict a person's right to defend their last place of refuge. What about incapacitating the intruder? Are the only options for you hide or kill? Is there nothing in between? Just give him a nice little smack with a frying pan or whatever blunt object you have ready and then call the police and the ambulance. Deadly force should always be the last option after every other option fails and someone who considers it his first and only option and a natural right needs some psychological assistance imho. Have you ever tried to "incapacitate" someone? It is a hell of a lot less reliable than the movies make it look. A gun, however, requires considerably less finesse/luck to remove a threat from the equation. Yes, but that potential thread has a high chance of being dead after that. Well, maybe it's really the country as the poster before you suggests, but i would never, ever use force that has the potential of being deadly. When in doubt, i'd rather die and let the murderer rot in prison later than risk killing someone who never was a threat in the first place. You'd rather die then kill someone that was trying to kill you? That's some pretty hardcore turning of the other cheek. Do you have kids? Family? People who like you? I'm pretty sure they'd value your life more than that of some asshole burglar. If i'd kill someone only to later find out that he never was a threat (i.e. was unarmed), i couldn't live with it anyways and probably end up killing myself because of that. Unless the person is actively shooting at me or trying to stab me (in which case i'd probably already be dead), deadly force is not an option for me, no matter who the other person is. Criminals don't just become criminals because they are born evil, they have a life too. Some of them even have a wife and children. Their life is in no way worth less than mine just because they got on the wrong path somewhere. There are lots of options to scare intruders away or incapacitate them. What if someone was holding a fake gun to your family. Would you feel bad over killing them? That is no different than someone who breaks into your house. They are putting themselves into a threatening position in which they have the potential to kill and it is not up to you to take the risk of assuming that they don't. The typical strawman argument... No, i still wouldn't use deadly force. Anyways, that situation is totally unrelated to this thread as a burglary usually doesn't turn into an hostage situation. If it does, give him what he wants and later call the police and get your stuff back and that guy into prison. If your property is worth more than a human life, your priorities are really messed up.
Yes my property is worth more than the asshole that broke into my house and is jacking my shit. There, I said it. I also completely believe it. That's not the real issue though. The real issue though is that some guy that just committed a felony is inside my house at night uninvited. I have no clue what the guy breaking into my house intends to do and I refuse to risk my family on a maybe. If the guy is in my house at night, and he shouldn't be, I honestly have no qualms with killing him. People who break into houses are not good people. Trust me. As a Police officer I really admire your confidence in the police but the real fact of the matter is that house burglary victims rarely get their stuff back. Most of the time they depend on insurance to take care of it. That aside I am far more worried about my family than my stuff and I will use lethal force to protect them without a second thought. They are too important to risk otherwise.
What if you go searching for the burglar your gun up, then the burglar you did not see, or even a secong burglar you did not know were there kills you because they were afraid? Who then is left to defend your family? Just because you felt your property is worth more than life of a criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
