|
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote:
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
Since a burglar is someone who breaks into a building with the purpose of committing a crime, I'm confused as to how you can confuse an innocent person for a burglar. That seems rather difficult to do. "Oh hey, person in my home that I don't know or remember inviting in, you must be a family member!"
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
Burglars deserve to die. They're pieces of shit who break INTO YOUR HOME, and intend to do God knows what. You want to break into my garage and steal my car, fine, you want to break into my home, I will fucking cut you.
|
I have a feeling this is more for the deterrent factor - if you know you can be legally stabbed in the face when you're burgling(?) a property, some people will think twice about doing it. Still, someone will end up being stabbed. Robberies will continue and it's laws like this that allow people to defend themselves. Someone asked what would happen if the thief was already running with your stuff - the Justice Minister stated that this would not be covered. Basically if you find yourself confronted by a thief in your home you can defend yourself. You don't have the right to chase him down.
Laws seem to vary from state to state in the US - some places have recorded cases of homeowners being sued because thieves have injured themselves when trying to steal their property, which seems grossly wrong. Other states have recorded incidences of people being shot for stepping on someone's front lawn, which likewise seems grotesque. Clarifications in the law like this seems like a sensible step forward.
|
It's stupid if someone breaks into your house and tries to steal your shit and you try to stop them, you should get punished. Seriously makes no sense to me. I'm glad at least some places are doing this.
|
On June 30 2011 12:29 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: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. Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you ! Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote:
And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything. Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine
You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery?
I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme.
And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law
|
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote:
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal. It's a criminal man, he may be armed. When you see a criminal in your house, you don't have the time to ask him for a cup of tea and talk shit over, there could be a hole between your eyes in mere seconds. Instincts say that your in danger when a criminal is in your home and you take action. Personally I would not shoot with the purpose to kill but rather put him down until cops arrive, if he dies though w/e can't be helped.
|
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote:
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.-wikipedia (on Castle Law)
|
On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote:
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal.
These laws are for when the intruder is a threat to your safety. Its illegal to hurt/kill someone when they are not a threat IE someone is going for your wallet on the counter and you blow him away.
|
On June 30 2011 12:37 Ryshi wrote:
I clearly said "reasonable". The murderer could also create false evidence you know, like attach gloves + break own window.
My example may not be completely applicable to the rule, but what I'm just trying to get at is there are times regulations fail to cover certain areas and was wondering if anyone could provide perhaps some insightful scenario instead of just accept a rule without much critical thinking.
Your example is ridiculous. You certainly can't call the person you want to kill to invite him over (shows you had familiarity with the 'burglar', making it unlikely that he was a burglar), so you must invite him over via face to face discussion. If you did that, I doubt most people would randomly accept a stranger's invitation to their house. So that basically limits it to people you know. Burglars usually are NOT people you know, they're fucking lowlifes who break into homes with the intent of committing a crime.
1. It is very rare, a very small percentage of burglars committed are by people known familiarly to the victim.
2. Plenty of evidence can be lacking. example: lack of deceased's footprints by the door. lack of tools used to force entry on deceased's person. lack of fingerprints on tools. Your fingerprints/DNA on the tools. Unexplained time gaps between estimated time of death and you calling the police. Witness testimony from friends and family of deceased who will say "He was invited over, you're a lying sack of shit".
|
to people saying its immoral or some shit haven't seen what happens when burglaries go bad. A case near where i live 4 people broke into a guys house and duct taped him and his family to chairs. sad thing is that one of the men duct taped they're faces...they suffocated. someone breaks in, shot first. oh but make sure they're facing you.
|
Good. Now the UK just needs to allow handguns again and I'd consider living there 
|
On June 30 2011 12:43 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:32 Hekisui wrote:
There are plenty of actual cases where innocent people are confused for burglars and are attacked or killed for trespassing.
And even besides that, how does a criminal deserve to die? They break the law. It is immoral. But killing a criminal on sight is also immoral. Your plasma tv isn't worth more than the life of a criminal. These laws are for when the intruder is a threat to your safety. Its illegal to hurt/kill someone when they are not a threat IE someone is going for your wallet on the counter and you blow him away.
Lie and say he did.
|
On June 30 2011 12:45 SC2Joker wrote:
to people saying its immoral or some shit haven't seen what happens when burglaries go bad. A case near where i live 4 people broke into a guys house and duct taped him and his family to chairs. sad thing is that one of the men duct taped they're faces...they suffocated. someone breaks in, shot first. oh but make sure they're facing you.
I remember that case, the father was the only one alive, the mother got raped, and her and the children was still in the house when they lit it on fire(or did they stab them? I forgot)
|
On June 30 2011 12:45 Kimaker wrote:Good. Now the UK just needs to allow handguns again and I'd consider living there
Oh, Lord no  One of the best things we have going is not having easy access to guns.
|
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!
sorry, it was dark, since the lights were out when he broke in (even if the lights were on, the lights were off..) and i thought i saw him reach for a gun, so i put three in him
|
On June 30 2011 12:42 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:29 endy wrote:On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: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. Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you ! On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote:
And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything. Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery? I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme. And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law
They won't take it as truth automatically, and obviously if the victim is someone who lives around, it's not gonna work. Regarding the investigation, I'm sure police will not make as much effort as they would if someone was missing and they were looking for the corpse.
Anyway, this law will not make it easy for anyone to kill someone else, but it sure creates a grey zone.
|
I wish I lived in a country with laws like that. I would get a nice sharp sword or a gun if its legal to own, since I wouldn't want to get into knife fighting range with a criminal who potentially could have HIV/diseases and infect you if they bleed on you during the fight.
|
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!
Lawlz, the way you phrased your reply was hilarious! But yeah if it was my house, I would probably shoot them if I can unless its my neighbor and gardener since I have high fences and there is almost no way to accidentally "stumble" into my backyard.
|
On June 30 2011 12:52 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 12:42 Supamang wrote:On June 30 2011 12:29 endy wrote:On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote: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. Dude...if there are no witnesses chances are you wont get caught anyway regardless of whether or not you invited him anywhere If there's no witness, you still need to get rid of a body, which is imo the part of the crime where you will have the most chances to get caught. With that law, the police themselves will get rid of the body for you ! On June 30 2011 12:17 Supamang wrote:
And if there is a witness and he calls the cops, of course charges will be pressed against you
I wasn't talking about someone who witnessed the crime directly, but a random guy in the street who sees you opening the door for your victim. He won't go spontaneously to the police station and say "Hi, I saw that guy opening the door to another guy" unless he learns specifically in the newspaper that there has been a crime there AND remember the exact address of a perfectly normal and uninteresting event (someone opening a door). And if the newspaper doesn't publish a picture of your or of the victim I doubt the witness will remember anything. Just make sure that your neighbors who will be obviously questioned by police later don't see you opening him the door and you'll be fine You seem to be suggesting that the police will take the killer's word as truth automatically. What happened to an investigation? Asking around the people who knew the victim and the killer about what motives either might have had for murder or robbery? I dont know, I just dont see the police being fooled by this kind of scheme. And the witness example you gave wouldnt affect a murder investigation regardless of this law They won't take it as truth automatically, and obviously if the victim is someone who lives around, it's not gonna work. Regarding the investigation, I'm sure police will not make as much effort as they would if someone was missing and they were looking for the corpse. Anyway, this law will not make it easy for anyone to kill someone else, but it sure creates a grey zone.
You obviously don't watch videos where people suddenly out of no where pull a gun on you in a second and shoot you dead. If someone's in my house, I wouldn't be taking a chance like that. I can give you links to videos where this stuff happens if you want.
It's my house, I shoot first, ask questions later.
|
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.
Just make sure that if you do take action against would-be attackers, you kill them. Otherwise they'll just come back and sue you into oblivion.
|
On June 30 2011 12:05 coZen wrote:
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!
Actually, in most states you have free reign to cut off the head of a trespasser into your home at night. You are free to shoot him full of bullets if you want. You don't have to wait for him to do jack shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
