|
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 February 03 2013 10:07 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. False, it's called castle doctrine. Maybe you should do a little research before you attempt to argue about something you know nothing about. Show nested quote +
Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently.
What? I said attempting apprehend someone invading your home is a childish fantasy. Your reading comprehension is appalling. You should leave this thread, your 'style' of 'debating' is horrid.
"In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self-defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent."
Edit - another one - "deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another"."
You're just as delusional as you accuse me to be to think that the only solution to home invasion is to shoot them.
Your use of ad hominem is admirable. I didn't realise telling people to leave was a good debating style, perhaps you could impart some more wisdom unto me?
|
On February 03 2013 10:09 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:07 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently. Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family. Ad hominem. If the criminal has a gun, if I have a gun - if people are allowed to buy guns with ease - whichever way it ends people are going to die. So I argue people shouldn't have guns, because I'd rather people don't die. That's all there is to it.
It's pretty ironic you would bring up fallacies after the last few posts you have made.
|
On February 03 2013 10:09 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:07 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently. Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family. Ad hominem. If the criminal has a gun, if I have a gun - if people are allowed to buy guns with ease - whichever way it ends people are going to die. So I argue people shouldn't have guns, because I'd rather people don't die. That's all there is to it.
You write off your children as "already dead" in every hypothetical situation where someone may try to murder them, and you see no possible way you could ever come between an attacker and your family to give them your best aimed bullets?
|
On February 03 2013 10:11 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:07 heliusx wrote:On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. False, it's called castle doctrine. Maybe you should do a little research before you attempt to argue about something you know nothing about.
Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently.
What? I said attempting apprehend someone invading your home is a childish fantasy. Your reading comprehension is appalling. You should leave this thread, your 'style' of 'debating' is horrid. "In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self-defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent." You're just as delusional as you accuse me to be to think that the only solution to home invasion is to shoot them. Your use of ad hominem is admirable. I didn't realise telling people to leave was a good debating style, perhaps you could impart some more wisdom unto me?
Imminent threat is established as soon as they enter your home or car, as demonstrated in 1000's of cases dealing with castle doctrine in the last century. You would know this if you read past the line that you think proves your point.
edit; to show how ridiculous you sound, where did I say I think the only solution to home invasion is lethal force? Your inability to formulate a rebuttal is the reason you continuously use fallacious arguments.
|
On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so.
If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
|
On February 03 2013 10:13 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:09 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently. Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family. Ad hominem. If the criminal has a gun, if I have a gun - if people are allowed to buy guns with ease - whichever way it ends people are going to die. So I argue people shouldn't have guns, because I'd rather people don't die. That's all there is to it. You write off your children as "already dead" in every hypothetical situation where someone may try to murder them, and you see no possible way you could ever come between an attacker and your family to give them your best aimed bullets?
There are millions upon millions of possibilities, and really I don't see the merit to the discussion in debating all of them. I could be awake, someone could kick my door in, I could have a gun at hand and I could stop them dead. Or I could be asleep, they could sneak in through a window, creep into my child's room and slit her throat.
I don't see how gun ownership is justified by the possibility of my deflecting an attack on me or my children. Without the availability of gun ownership, such attacks seem far less likely.
|
On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that.
|
On February 03 2013 10:16 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:13 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:09 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently. Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family. Ad hominem. If the criminal has a gun, if I have a gun - if people are allowed to buy guns with ease - whichever way it ends people are going to die. So I argue people shouldn't have guns, because I'd rather people don't die. That's all there is to it. You write off your children as "already dead" in every hypothetical situation where someone may try to murder them, and you see no possible way you could ever come between an attacker and your family to give them your best aimed bullets? There are millions upon millions of possibilities, and really I don't see the merit to the discussion in debating all of them. I could be awake, someone could kick my door in, I could have a gun at hand and I could stop them dead. Or I could be asleep, they could sneak in through a window, creep into my child's room and slit her throat. I don't see how gun ownership is justified by the possibility of my deflecting an attack on me or my children. Without the availability of gun ownership, such attacks seem far less likely.
Unless you happen to have a giant electromagnet, how would you expect new laws to remove guns from people who already disregard them?
|
On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that.
Depends on what he does to you. If he is trying to kill you or your loved ones, why not?
|
On February 03 2013 10:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. Depends on what he does to you. If he is trying to kill you or your loved ones, why not?
Well maybe but right now we're assuming that he may be armed but maybe not. I'm not shooting at the guy just yet for the same reason that I don't assassinate people at random in the off chance that they might kill me if I don't do it first.
|
On February 03 2013 10:21 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:18 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. Depends on what he does to you. If he is trying to kill you or your loved ones, why not? Well maybe but right now we're assuming that he may be armed but maybe not. I'm not shooting at the guy just yet for the same reason that I don't assassinate people at random in the off chance that they might kill me if I don't do it first.
You seem to be an intelligent guy, surely you can comprehend the difference between a random guy on the street and someone breaking into an occupied home.
|
On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there? Show nested quote +
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Show nested quote +
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical?
I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said:
You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be.
This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary:
"when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another"
Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No.
On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you.
|
On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that.
My question I'd like you to think about. Just an honest thought experiment. At what point would you say the danger to the innocent is high enough to justify killing in self defense?
In other words, if 1% of break-ins with the resident home involved some act of violence against the people living there, is it justified?
10%?
Or never? I assume somewhere in between, it starts making sense, and once it starts to make sense at all, it makes a lot of sense in general not to take chances with your loved ones.
|
@larkin as I said earlier, legal precedent is established on the fact that imminent threat is established the second someone breaks into your home. Your opinion of imminent threat has no bearing on the actual usage of the castle doctrine in self defense cases. It has already been established 1000s of times.
|
On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: Show nested quote + You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: Show nested quote +"when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you.
You accuse me of sexism. Right there you demonstrate that you're looking for room to diminish my character in an effort to score points. I suggest the possibility of a single mom for two reasons. One, physical size. Women tend towards being smaller than men. Fact. Two, women tend to get raped more than men. More reasons to need some better options in self defense.
I would reasonably fear imminent peril when they're inside my home. As I've stated a few dozen times, I don't know what they intend or might try, and taking time to ask them could be suicidal. Thus, justified. I think we can both agree that if you have a potentially armed intruder, walking up, slapping him across the face with a glove, and asking him to state his intention is a dangerous plan. And yes, I know you never quite put it in those words.
|
On February 03 2013 10:30 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. You accuse me of sexism. Right there you demonstrate that you're looking for room to diminish my character in an effort to score points. I suggest the possibility of a single mom for two reasons. One, physical size. Women tend towards being smaller than men. Fact. Two, women tend to get raped more than men. More reasons to need some better options in self defense. I would reasonably fear imminent peril when they're inside my home. As I've stated a few dozen times, I don't know what they intend or might try, and taking time to ask them could be suicidal. Thus, justified. I think we can both agree that if you have a potentially armed intruder, walking up, slapping him across the face with a glove, and asking him to state his intention is a dangerous plan. And yes, I know you never quite put it in those words.
He is flame baiting, I don't know why it isn't getting across to him that a random attacker can do anything and that you don't know what they are going to do. I suppose he thinks that most criminals are just there to take a few things, nothing too drastic or anything and it's our responsibility to make sure we don't harm our intruder too much.
|
On February 03 2013 10:30 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. You accuse me of sexism. Right there you demonstrate that you're looking for room to diminish my character in an effort to score points. I suggest the possibility of a single mom for two reasons. One, physical size. Women tend towards being smaller than men. Fact. Two, women tend to get raped more than men. More reasons to need some better options in self defense. I would reasonably fear imminent peril when they're inside my home. As I've stated a few dozen times, I don't know what they intend or might try, and taking time to ask them could be suicidal. Thus, justified. I think we can both agree that if you have a potentially armed intruder, walking up, slapping him across the face with a glove, and asking him to state his intention is a dangerous plan. And yes, I know you never quite put it in those words.
You were being a little belittling towards women, yes. Sexism - even in casual forms like that - is a problem and one I'd like to admonish where possible. I wasn't trying to "score points" or diminish your character.
Do you really live in such a black and white world? Is the only option in your mind to shoot him? Were I in your shoes in this hypothetical, shooting would and should be the last, possible resort.
I did, however, make several points and ask a few questions that you neglected to answer in this post. So I'll just wait until you do.
|
On February 03 2013 10:34 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:30 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is?
I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual?
Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do.
And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. You accuse me of sexism. Right there you demonstrate that you're looking for room to diminish my character in an effort to score points. I suggest the possibility of a single mom for two reasons. One, physical size. Women tend towards being smaller than men. Fact. Two, women tend to get raped more than men. More reasons to need some better options in self defense. I would reasonably fear imminent peril when they're inside my home. As I've stated a few dozen times, I don't know what they intend or might try, and taking time to ask them could be suicidal. Thus, justified. I think we can both agree that if you have a potentially armed intruder, walking up, slapping him across the face with a glove, and asking him to state his intention is a dangerous plan. And yes, I know you never quite put it in those words. He is flame baiting, I don't know why it isn't getting across to him that a random attacker can do anything and that you don't know what they are going to do. I suppose he thinks that most criminals are just there to take a few things, nothing too drastic or anything and it's our responsibility to make sure we don't harm our intruder too much.
Because that statement right there isn't troll baiting?
I made a statement quite simply and neutrally a few pages back, and JingleHell responded extremely aggressively when there was really no need to do so, thus leading to this petty little display of ad hominem when we could really be debating intelligently, like gentlemen.
It is getting across to me, it is simply such a ridiculous hypothetical that people would break into a house not to steal but to harm the inhabitants to me. It doesn't happen here, when it does it is a real aberration. If you are that afraid of being attacked in your home in the US then something is seriously wrong with your society, far more so than I previously feared.
|
On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: Show nested quote + You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: Show nested quote +"when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you.
Your whole argument seems to based on some ideal world scenario, where it's easy to determine the intent of an intruder, or whether they are armed or not.
If someone had broken into my home, yes, I would probably be fearing for my life. A criminal is in my house in the night, it is most likely dark, and I have no idea whether they are armed or not and how they will react in a confrontation. In this situation my life is potentially at risk, I don't have the luxury of time to determine their intent or if they happen to be armed or not.
It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say?
Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities.
|
On February 03 2013 10:34 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:30 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is?
I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual?
Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do.
And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. You accuse me of sexism. Right there you demonstrate that you're looking for room to diminish my character in an effort to score points. I suggest the possibility of a single mom for two reasons. One, physical size. Women tend towards being smaller than men. Fact. Two, women tend to get raped more than men. More reasons to need some better options in self defense. I would reasonably fear imminent peril when they're inside my home. As I've stated a few dozen times, I don't know what they intend or might try, and taking time to ask them could be suicidal. Thus, justified. I think we can both agree that if you have a potentially armed intruder, walking up, slapping him across the face with a glove, and asking him to state his intention is a dangerous plan. And yes, I know you never quite put it in those words. You were being a little belittling towards women, yes. Sexism - even in casual forms like that - is a problem and one I'd like to admonish where possible. I wasn't trying to "score points" or diminish your character. Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Do you really live in such a black and white world? Is the only option in your mind to shoot him? Were I in your shoes in this hypothetical, shooting would and should be the last, possible resort.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
I did, however, make several points and ask a few questions that you neglected to answer in this post. So I'll just wait until you do.
Why don't you just show me the ones I've missed. Because so far, your main points that I can discern are all entirely based off of false pretenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
