|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding.
What? Read it again.
"Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police."
And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble.
‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing."
On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead.
He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point!
And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately.
The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.
So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home.
No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.
Case closed.
|
On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.)
Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone.
Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences.
Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing.
|
United States41973 Posts
That is unquestionably murder. Once they were incapacitated he could have called the police and let them do their job, instead he felt that being laughed at merited executing a teenage girl. There was no risk to him or his property after they were incapacitated, he deserves to go to jail for deciding to sentence both of them to death for entering his home and then executing them. While the case for guns protecting his property can be made by that example, as his property was not stolen after he shot the thieves, the case for keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people who use excessive force to kill people is also made.
|
On December 16 2012 23:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper healthcare is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation.
You have a good point, and I probably worded my opinion poorly. What I find sad, is that many people get denied the treatment they need because their insurance doesn't cover the costs or because they cannot afford insurance in the first place. That is what I meant by healthcare being a privilege.
|
On December 17 2012 07:34 Mista_Masta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 23:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper healthcare is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation. You have a good point, and I probably worded my opinion poorly. What I find sad, is that many people get denied the treatment they need because their insurance doesn't cover the costs or because they cannot afford insurance in the first place. That is what I meant by healthcare being a privilege.
Education is a mandatory obligation of the state and paid for by taxes in the United States. Even if you don't have kids or send your kids to private schools you pay. Healthcare however, is not, go figure...
|
On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing.
Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand.
I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns.
Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution.
|
On December 17 2012 07:34 Mista_Masta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 23:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper healthcare is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation. You have a good point, and I probably worded my opinion poorly. What I find sad, is that many people get denied the treatment they need because their insurance doesn't cover the costs or because they cannot afford insurance in the first place. That is what I meant by healthcare being a privilege.
Disagreed [with BluePanther] - a right is not simply an allowance, it is an INHERENT allowance. Big, important, difference. Healthcare being an obligation is a bit of a biasing vocab, but understood (though not sure how its relevant except to illustrate the semantic difference).
|
Yeah, that article is a joke. He's not in trouble because he killed them. He's in trouble for all the extra bullshit he decided to tell the cops, that and he stashed the bodies lol. Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble.
|
He's also in trouble because he killed him...... He's just primarily in trouble and in MORE trouble because of the extra stuff. That's pretty clear in both the article and the logic.
|
On December 17 2012 07:41 bluemanrocks wrote:
He's also in trouble because he killed him...... He's just primarily in trouble and in MORE trouble because of the extra stuff. That's pretty clear in both the article and the logic.
He's going to jail because he executed incapacitated people and then hid their bodies. If he would have called 911 as soon as he shot them he would have been scott free. Instead he dragged them into a basement then shot them each in their faces and hid the bodies. It's really not that hard to understand.
|
On December 17 2012 07:39 Kaitlin wrote:
Yeah, that article is a joke. He's not in trouble because he killed them. He's in trouble for all the extra bullshit he decided to tell the cops, that and he stashed the bodies lol. Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble.
He is in trouble because he killed them.
‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing.
And if he didn't say all the stuff the Cops are would have had to be stupid to not figure it out. They would have asked why the teen was shot from under the chin through the skull... they would have asked why so many bullets for unarmed teens and why he didn't stop...
Perhaps he could have covered it up, but he was going down regardless.
|
On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed.
We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police.
|
On December 17 2012 07:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed. We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police.
On December 17 2012 07:39 Kaitlin wrote:
Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble.
You are disturbing. No one should ever give you a gun.
And this is why we need background checks on everyone, to make sure people that think like you don't get guns.
|
United States41973 Posts
On December 17 2012 07:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed. We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police.
Or call the police and let them get there with an ambulance asaply because sitting there and watching two teenagers die when you can save them is really, really fucked up. Yes, stealing is wrong, not arguing that one. But they could have gone on to contribute to society and they have friends and parents and siblings and so forth, anyone with a shred of empathy would feel obliged to help someone else's kid survive, even if they had made some pretty awful choices. Purely from an economic point of view an 18 year old represents a pretty huge investment in food and education that is getting squandered, society as a whole is losing out unless you know absolutely that they were never going to do more than steal.
|
On December 17 2012 07:41 bluemanrocks wrote:
He's also in trouble because he killed him...... He's just primarily in trouble and in MORE trouble because of the extra stuff. That's pretty clear in both the article and the logic.
On December 17 2012 07:42 heliusx wrote:
He's going to jail because he executed incapacitated people and then hid their bodies. If he would have called 911 as soon as he shot them he would have been scott free. Instead he dragged them into a basement then shot them each in their faces and hid the bodies. It's really not that hard to understand.
Bolded the points (in my original post ) which I felt I made originally and you missed, which address and disagree partially (but not completely) with what you've said.
|
On December 17 2012 07:42 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:39 Kaitlin wrote:
Yeah, that article is a joke. He's not in trouble because he killed them. He's in trouble for all the extra bullshit he decided to tell the cops, that and he stashed the bodies lol. Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble. He is in trouble because he killed them. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing. And if he didn't say all the stuff the Cops are would have had to be stupid to not figure it out. They would have asked why the teen was shot from under the chin through the skull... they would have asked why so many bullets for unarmed teens and why he didn't stop... Perhaps he could have covered it up, but he was going down regardless.
The shot from under the chin was excessive. The bullet count doesn't matter so much as the trajectory. As long as they were not laying down for any shots, he could have loaded them up with 6 shots each and let them bleed out before calling police.
Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me. The point is made. There is one hell of a deterrent for people trying to burglarize an armed homeowner. Do you think these two dead teens give a shit that this guy is getting prosecuted for his ridiculous reaction ? They are still dead. It doesn't matter if the homeowner is crazy or reasonable, if they are armed, you are fucked.
|
On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution.
Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that.
The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair.
|
On December 17 2012 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:43 Kaitlin wrote:On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed. We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:39 Kaitlin wrote:
Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble. You are disturbing. No one should ever give you a gun. And this is why we need background checks on everyone, to make sure people that think like you don't get guns.
Yeah, I'm totally a threat to society because I believe burglars give up their right to live when they break into someone's home. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting someone charged with burglary deserves the death penalty for their crime. I'm only saying if they live to stand trial after breaking into someone's home, they should consider themselves lucky to be alive.
|
On December 17 2012 07:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:43 Kaitlin wrote:On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed. We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police. Or call the police and let them get there with an ambulance asaply because sitting there and watching two teenagers die when you can save them is really, really fucked up. Yes, stealing is wrong, not arguing that one. But they could have gone on to contribute to society and they have friends and parents and siblings and so forth, anyone with a shred of empathy would feel obliged to help someone else's kid survive, even if they had made some pretty awful choices. Purely from an economic point of view an 18 year old represents a pretty huge investment in food and education that is getting squandered, society as a whole is losing out unless you know absolutely that they were never going to do more than steal.
I have to question your assessment of their ability to contribute to society, as opposed to being a strain on it. These kids were addicted to drugs, at least she apparently was. I don't know if this was their first burglary, but had it been successful, do you think it would be their last ? How would you feel if you were the next on their list and having pawned some of the shit they stole from their prior burglary, they purchased a firearm ? Not to mention, assuming they didn't get away, they would be prosecuted and have served a number of years in prison for this crime. So, instead of contributing to society, they are a strain on it for a number of years. Yeah, I'm not convinced the "investment" in these two is worth much. Anyways, you can never know someone's intentions when they violate your personal residence, you have no choice but to assume the worst to satisfactorily protect your family.
|
United States24569 Posts
If someone broke into my house, and I used non-lethal force to defend myself, and they were eventually recovered by an ambulance and saved, when they got out of jail I would be worried they would come back for revenge.
I wonder if there are famous cases of that happening...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
