|
On July 02 2011 02:06 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 01:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:
This kind of sentencing should only be done in nations where inquiries about such self defense are able to be thoroughly investigated. I remember in Texas a drunk man ran around naked in his neighborhood, and once he crossed into a certain property owner's land he was promptly shot in the chest. He began to run away but was kicked in the back, forced to kneel and then shot by a 12 gauge shotgun in the head.
Such things should not be possible. Too many crimes are committed under the veneer of self defense, if such a thing becomes legal anywhere there must be ZERO doubt of lethal intent and ZERO tolerance for overstepping the boundaries of self defense. Not to mention a police force with the skill and equipment to THOROUGHLY investigate any and all deaths or injuries... I repeat myself for emphasis. And I am sure that man was charged appropriately. No where in the US is it legal to shoot for trespassing or shoot someone you have detained. What is your alternative? Charge everyone who kills a home invader?
I just want to point out that killing someone for stepping on your own, and killing someone for invading your home are not exactly the same thing.....
|
Castle... doctrine....? 
|
They don't have guns there, but if they did I'm sure they would allow shooting too. Seems pretty standard.
|
When I first read this i thought it said burgers o.O
|
On July 01 2011 17:10 Velr wrote:
What?
If someone breaks into your house and your home you expect him to kill you?
Ahm... There is still a diffrence between "breaking in" and "killing someone" when it comes to the persons performing it... Most criminals that get caught by the owner just run as fast as they can...
You forget that these fucking idiots only watch Fox news and seem to think that criminals just go around shooting people in the face for fun.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Because they've chosen to put themselves in that threatening position I'm not going to take the risk of not killing them.
Let's be clear here.
Did you seriously just imply that NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS RISKY?
This topic actually scares me about the current police state of our world. These scumbags actually value their own TV over someone else's life.
|
On July 02 2011 01:45 dupshflayh wrote:
I'm not going against this, by all means, but judging by some of the reactions in here, you're now sitting ready with your knives out and camo paint in your face just waiting for the burglars to come. That's not cool, and not the intent of the law. There's a difference between "Thank god they cleared up my right to defend myself" and "HELL YEAH, A LOOPHOLE TO STAB PEOPLE LEGALLY!"
Whatever happened to human value? If someone takes my tv, as long as they're not violent, I don't see any reason to stab them, shoot them, or anything of the sorts. Do you really hate people that much?
This in a nutshell.
I think I am going to move to Norway. My fellow Americans have turned into a bunch of angry blood crazed idiots.
|
On July 01 2011 23:58 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 23:51 roosten wrote:On July 01 2011 14:04 Chargelot wrote:On July 01 2011 13:41 GreatHate wrote:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to KILL someone for robbing their house is an angry anti-social person who needs to get some perspective on life. I seriously hope that the people who hold this "shoot first ask questions later" mentality fall victim to it one day.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a baseball bat to some asshole trying to steal your shit, but to support taking a knife or a gun to them? Your TV, that insurance will cover, is really worth more than this person's life? "I hope people that support murder get murdered!" I don't understand this logic. That said, a home invasion isn't always "BREAK IN, TAKE THE TV, RUN LIKE HELL!" They play out closer to "Break in, go to the TV, find the home owner is home, beat him til the blood stops gushing, continue to take the TV." How often do you think this happens? In 2009 in the US there were 2,199,125 burglaries and 15,241 murders. Even if every last one of those murders happened during a home invasion - which is clearly not the case - that still leaves you 99.31% of burglaries where there was no loss of life. There's a reason a home invasion ending in homicide makes the headlines, and it's not because it's common. Then how many of them ended in rape or assault? Why should a home owner have to take the risk of being the victim of any of any of those outcomes? How about this- Don't break into someone's house, and you won't have to take the risk of getting killed. Sounds fair to me.
Show me where in my post where I said or even implied that a home owner should have 'to take the risk of being the victim of any of those outcomes'? All I was trying to do with that post was to get the hyperbole toned down a bit, and an implication that most or even a high proportion of burglars will beat their victims to death is just a preposterous exaggeration.
|
Wow this sounds so rediculous, but I approve of it, burglars etc.should be punished the right way 
Edit: Especially after hearing/seeing how the UK law seems to not have any proper 'lawful' punishment for criminals, much like the Finnish law seems to protect them more than the victim(s).
|
Property is not worth more than the life of a criminal. There are thousands of reasons someone would break into your house and "The burglar is pure evil." is only one of them. It might even be someone that is fleeing from real criminals, only to hide in your house and then get shot by you "because I shoot everyone that enters my house uninvited".
Burglar breaks in and runs away when he sees you = not okay to shoot or stab (maybe hold him at gunpoint?).
Burglar breaks in and threatens you = okay to shoot or stab nonlethally (as best as you can prevent death of course).
Burglar breaks in and assaults you = whatever the fuck you want to do, do it (this however, does not imply you can shoot him while he's already on the floor).
That's how I would define laws regarding burglary. Also, I don't understand these idiotic stories of lawsuits against home owners defending themselves from burglars. How in god's name can a judge rule in favour of the criminal? Unless, of course, these stories are greatly exaggerated...
|
On July 02 2011 03:05 Thorakh wrote:
Property is not worth more than the life of a criminal. There are thousands of reasons someone would break into your house and "The burglar is pure evil." is only one of them. It might even be someone that is fleeing from real criminals, only to hide in your house and then get shot by you "because I shoot everyone that enters my house uninvited".
Burglar breaks in and runs away when he sees you = not okay to shoot or stab (maybe hold him at gunpoint?).
Burglar breaks in and threatens you = okay to shoot or stab nonlethally (as best as you can prevent death of course).
Burglar breaks in and assaults you = whatever the fuck you want to do, do it (this however, does not imply you can shoot him while he's already on the floor).
That's how I would define laws regarding burglary. Also, I don't understand these idiotic stories of lawsuits against home owners defending themselves from burglars. How in god's name can a judge rule in favour of the criminal? Unless, of course, these stories are greatly exaggerated...
Because locks on doors don't exist, right? I just think someone hiding inside of your house is a very silly example...
|
After reading through this thread one thing I'm sure of is that I'm never, ever going to the United States. I can't believe how many of you are bloodthirsty pychopaths who think that stealing is a crime that should be punishable by death and that the lives of human beings can be worth less than a laptop or television.
No fucking wonder you have such a problem with violence in your country when even the law abiding citizens glorify and lust for it.
A person who would break into someones house and steal an ipod may be bad, but someone would kill him for it is far, far worse.
The only time it is ever acceptable to take a persons life is when it's necessary to save another.
|
On July 02 2011 03:43 Exarl25 wrote:
After reading through this thread one thing I'm sure of is that I'm never, ever going to the United States. I can't believe how many of you are bloodthirsty pychopaths who think that stealing is a crime that should be punishable by death and that the lives of human beings can be worth less than a laptop or television.
No fucking wonder you have such a problem with violence in your country when even the law abiding citizens glorify and lust for it.
A person who would break into someones house and steal an ipod may be bad, but someone would kill him for it is far, far worse.
The only time it is ever acceptable to take a persons life is when it's necessary to save another.
Allow me to break it down for you
Burglar in the hourse
Does he have violent intention?
If you are Kerrigan and can read minds you should be able to figure this out.
If yes=>Shoot him (A)
If no=>Hold him at gunpoint until police arrive. (B)
If Maybe then you will still shoot him because he maybe a danger to you and your family.
Now I am no telepath so I can't read their minds. i don't know if they're spiteful or not. Nor do I know if they're armed. I could incapacitate him, but defending yourself with such a half-assed resolve will only get you sued later by the criminal (lol). There for, For your sake and your family sake. Aim for the vitals.
|
So in Colorado we have what is called the "make my day law" which says that if someone illegally enters your property you have the right to kill them "when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." The idea is that you shouldn't need to confront a robber/potentially worse criminal to get rid of them you can just shoot. And I can tell you it works, I was getting robbed once while asleep in my bed and when they made some noise and I woke up they saw me and ran the fuck away cause I could have killed them on the spot (even though I didn't have a gun and probably wouldn't have used it even if I did). So Colorado has had this law on the books since 1985 and if it gets abused or even used very often at all we don't hear about it so I would assume we wont be seeing the corpses stack up over in London-town.
|
The Castle Doctrine isn't about empowering bloodthirsty psychopaths -- it's about allowing normal people to protect the safety of their homes and families from criminals (and consequently, to act as a deterrent for potential offenders).
Burglars don't always play nice. Some are young and scared, and just found themselves in a bad life situation, but some are also ruthless killers who don't mind using methods like torture and murder if they think it will help them crack a safe or find hidden valuables, or simply to eliminate witnesses who could put them in prison.
The question is, in the middle of the night when you hear that window breaking, would you really be prepared to gamble your life (and lives of others who depend on you) on philanthropy and optimism? I would not.
|
I believe it's ethical to be able to shoot someone fatally for breaking into your house. Eye for an eye, crime for a crime. I'm not saying that breaking and entering is as serious a crime as fatally shooting someone, but the only one being wronged is the owner/residents of the house, and they're the only ones who need react to what's going on. If burglars knew that entering a house would get them killed, I'm sure that would deter them.
|
On July 02 2011 04:56 Zdrastochye wrote:
I believe it's ethical to be able to shoot someone fatally for breaking into your house. Eye for an eye, crime for a crime. I'm not saying that breaking and entering is as serious a crime as fatally shooting someone, but the only one being wronged is the owner/residents of the house, and they're the only ones who need react to what's going on. If burglars knew that entering a house would get them killed, I'm sure that would deter them.
So nothing wrong with death sentence on everything.
|
Your reading skills are lacking if that's what you glean from what I said, but then again english isn't your first language so I don't blame you.
|
This topic actually scares me about the current police state of our world. These scumbags actually value their own TV over someone else's life.
To be completely honest I value anything and everything over the life of a criminal. One who stoops to thievery over the alternative of getting a job or applying for some gov't program has a life that means jack shit to me.
Let's be clear here.
Did you seriously just imply that NOT KILLING SOMEONE IS RISKY?
I agree that not killing someone is risky. In fact it's often the judicial system that makes it so. Back in October someone broke into my house. Some scrawny little shit about 17. He didn't make it out of the door with anything except a pair of handcuffs. What happened to him after that? Absolutely nothing. Some how or another the "attempted" burglary charge did not stick and he was free. Yay America? But that's not the worst part. What is? Two months ago he was caught for another crime. What crime? Shooting someone in the head...over a bicycle...
Criminals life < Anything else
|
On July 02 2011 05:10 Zdrastochye wrote:
Your reading skills are lacking if that's what you glean from what I said, but then again english isn't your first language so I don't blame you.
Actually, simplifying it a bit, like you americans are so fond of, that's what you're saying (See, I can also use Master suppression techniques).
If you're saying "any crime is worth another", which you specifically did, then there is nothing wrong with putting a death sentence (Or, just allowing people to kill whoever commits a crime) on everything like some third world country. And even you americans (MST again!) should realize that doesn't work.
Also, for the deterrent effect. No. People are not going to stop running out of money or falling on hard times. That's the main cause of crime. They're just going to harm more people when they know that if they enter a house, it's going to be a wild west scenario according to the law. Whoever harms the other one first, wins. Then they're more likely to hold you hostage, to prevent you from killing them. And that with good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
