EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9241 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 07 2015 00:59 heliusx wrote: Plansix you haven't a clue what you're talking about. First you told me I was wrong about my states laws, which I am not, now you've moved on to some shit about most states don't have castle doctrine, even in Florida blah blah blah. Why can't you just accept that fact you opened your mouth about something you're ignorant about? I never said most states don't have a castle doctrine. I said it varies. My stat(MA) has one, but we have rules for excessive force and different requirements for reasonable fear. Florida does not and does not require a warning if you are in the home. I don't know what state you live in. I assume its one of the ones where you can gun down anyone in your house and claim you were scared. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 07 2015 01:18 heliusx wrote: Now you're just contradicting yourself. No I corrected myself. Their laws for deadly force and the right to retreat are weirdly written and reference the threat of deadly force as well. I mis-read the deadly force laws when the castle rule did not apply. And you still haven't answer the question about what state you live in. Because all the shit you are talking about works in Florida, but not in MA. Wouldn't even fly in New Hampshire. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1947 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote: Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. Wow. You know, in Germany there was a time not so long ago, where the life of some groups of people was worth less then the life of the rest. Your Grandfathers helped us end that dark period of time. I would rather get shot myself then accidentally shooting a 16 year old drunk kid that had a stupid maturity test or something and had to steal a xbox from a house in the neighborhood. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 07 2015 01:24 Plansix wrote: No I corrected myself. Their laws for deadly force and the right to retreat are weirdly written and reference the threat of deadly force as well. I mis-read the deadly force laws when the castle rule did not apply. And you still haven't answer the question about what state you live in. Because all the shit you are talking about works in Florida, but not in MA. Wouldn't even fly in New Hampshire. I didn't notice you asking where I'm located. I'm in Louisiana. LA 14:20 Louisiana Revised Statutes (L.R.S.) Title 14. Criminal Law §20. Justifiable homicide A. A homicide is justifiable: (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger. (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing. (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. (4) (a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. (b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law. B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur: (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle. (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force. D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23439 Posts
On October 07 2015 02:06 heliusx wrote: Don't need to be scared of anything. You have a right to use lethal force on anyone breaking in, that's all there is to it. Yeah, legal and appropriate diverge in many areas. Several people end up in a scenario like this: FREDERICK COUNTY, Va. - Many buy guns to protect themselves against crime, but for one father in Frederick County a split decision to use his gun backfired after he accidentally shot his 16-year-old daughter. "[A] male subject stated, ‘My daughter's been shot and I’m taking her to the hospital.’ There was an open line for a few seconds and then the phone disconnected," said Captain Donnie Lang with the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, describing the 911 call into dispatch. Investigators said the confusion happened in the 400 block of Lily's Way around 3:30 a.m. Tuesday when the girl's father was getting ready for work. According to the Frederick County Sheriff's Office in Virginia, the father has been identified as Deputy Easton McDonald, with the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. Source or these: A Colorado Springs father fatally shot his teenage step-daughter Monday, saying he thought she was a burglar. Prior to the incident, police received a call about a burglary in progress. But when they got there, they found the 14-year-old with a gunshot wound. She was taken to the hospital and died soon after, according to CBS Denver. The incident is the latest tragedy involving the use of deadly force to protect the home. And it is one of several incidents in which a parent has killed their own child after they mistook them for a burglar. Last September a Connecticut teacher shot and killed his 15-year-old son after his neighbor called to say she thought she saw a robber in the front yard. Just a few weeks after that, a retired Chicago police officer shot and killed his 48-year-old son after he came in the back door late one night. And an off-duty police officer killed his son last July while the two were on vacation in upstate New York, after he told police he believed him to be an intruder. In that case, shooter Michael Leach was charged with second-degree manslaughter and is facing prison time. Source Not sure why they seem to be so frequently current/retired police officers. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Sure. But if you ban something to prevent people from getting killed/hurt, and people get killed/hurt anyway, can you still say it was worthwhile to ban it? How about a depressed man murdering hundreds of people in the space of seconds using a plane? Good lord some people are really dumb. You understand that this is an argument for gun control, right? Like, one dude slipped through the controls, and managed to murder 200 innocent people flying a plane. Note that we have a fairly rigorous control scheme regarding who gets to fly planes, they have to go to pilot school, get background checks, mental health evaluations, licenses, etc. We very specifically have agreed upon, as a society, that random depressed crazy people shouldn't be allowed to fly planes whenever the fuck they want. You can't be depressed, and in a day be like "you know, I think I'm going to fly a jumbo jet into a mountain", hop on a plane, and do it. It's fairly obvious why most people think that would be fucking stupid. Now, I wonder whether we can extend this analogy to other issues we (and by we I mean largely America, the only developed country where this shit regularly happens) are currently and commonly facing... | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On October 07 2015 03:45 BallinWitStalin wrote: Good lord some people are really dumb. You understand that this is an argument for gun control, right? Like, one dude slipped through the controls, and managed to murder 200 innocent people flying a plane. Note that we have a fairly rigorous control scheme regarding who gets to fly planes, they have to go to pilot school, get background checks, mental health evaluations, licenses, etc. We very specifically have agreed upon, as a society, that random depressed crazy people shouldn't be allowed to fly planes whenever the fuck they want. You can't be depressed, and in a day be like "you know, I think I'm going to fly a jumbo jet into a mountain", hop on a plane, and do it. It's fairly obvious why most people think that would be fucking stupid. Now, I wonder whether we can extend this analogy to other issues we (and by we I mean largely America, the only developed country where this shit regularly happens) are currently and commonly facing... Never underestimate the power of stupid. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5751 Posts
On October 07 2015 01:59 Plansix wrote: I stand corrected and a review of rulings related to the law says you are not required to issue a warning, but doing so is recommended by the Supreme Court Justices(at least for police). So I admit you are correct that in that state you are able to legally kill people break into your house and say you were scared. I think being scared might also be a natural reaction to having your house broken into, not just something you have to "say" after you defend yourself. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 07 2015 00:11 zlefin wrote: Acker, don't say nonsense about the study being intentionally misleading to the general public; the study says what it says, and like all well done studies, is VERY careful to limit its conclusions and findings. It's media coverage and others' opinions of the study that tend to overstate the findings. The study was well done, and there'd be no reason to cut the CDC research budget over it, as it was well done. This is the third time this study has been used to support grand, sweeping "conclusions" in the last 12 pages. At some point, you have to wonder what exactly this means for whoever wrote the study and why they did not nip this in the bud in their publication, as done in translational medicine papers. Reminds me of the most recent study on Connecticut's licensing laws, where their mathematical model weighted murder-haven Maryland by over 50% for the gun homicide model and by less than 5% for the "all other homicides" model. A study can be technically accurate in its abstract...while burying its modeling behind a paywall. I can only hope kwizach isn't using Kellerman as one of his studies, because Kellerman had to retract his own paper. Counting criminals bringing guns into houses for the express purpose of homicide as "gun-owning households" will do that, no matter how technically accurate the paper is. The CDC was technically defunded for funding technically accurate publications, according to the NRA. Why give the NRA more technically accurate ammo? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Unfortunately, living in France, this is exactly how things are. We've had our home broken into on multiple occasions, luckily we don't have anything excessively valuable here or else we'd probably have dead family members. That's the interesting thing about criminals: they don't really follow the law. So it makes me piss myself with laughter when people want to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens. More power to criminals, less to people to defend themselves. Gun shootings? 11 year old killing his sister? Jesus Christ that fucking little shit probably has no idea what he did. His parents are absolute fuck-tards since they don't raise their children and clearly aren't responsible in the first place. If laws made any sense, those parents would do jail time. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 07 2015 13:43 Incognoto wrote: I'm sorry but I would much rather live in a neighborhood where half of the people are armed and live responsibly, rather than live in a neighborhood with a bunch of scumbags who WOULD shoot me with firearms if they could. Unfortunately, living in France, this is exactly how things are. We've had our home broken into on multiple occasions, luckily we don't have anything excessively valuable here or else we'd probably have dead family members. That's the interesting thing about criminals: they don't really follow the law. So it makes me piss myself with laughter when people want to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens. More power to criminals, less to people to defend themselves. Gun shootings? 11 year old killing his sister? Jesus Christ that fucking little shit probably has no idea what he did. His parents are absolute fuck-tards since they don't raise their children and clearly aren't responsible in the first place. If laws made any sense, those parents would do jail time. The idiotic thing with this attitude is that people actually believe "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" are actually two separate groups. Shockingly most criminals are law-abiding citizens until they commit their first crime. And many (most) suicidal shooters going on rampages commit crimes once and only once, and it's at the expense of a dozen (or more) other people. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8752 Posts
On October 07 2015 13:43 Incognoto wrote: I'm sorry but I would much rather live in a neighborhood where half of the people are armed and live responsibly, rather than live in a neighborhood with a bunch of scumbags who WOULD shoot me with firearms if they could. Unfortunately, living in France, this is exactly how things are. We've had our home broken into on multiple occasions, luckily we don't have anything excessively valuable here or else we'd probably have dead family members. That's the interesting thing about criminals: they don't really follow the law. So it makes me piss myself with laughter when people want to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens. More power to criminals, less to people to defend themselves. Gun shootings? 11 year old killing his sister? Jesus Christ that fucking little shit probably has no idea what he did. His parents are absolute fuck-tards since they don't raise their children and clearly aren't responsible in the first place. If laws made any sense, those parents would do jail time. ive seen this logic before. its absolutely stupid what youre saying is we shouldnt have laws on anything, because good people will know better whereas criminals would break them anyway. lets legalise heroin usage, because responsible people will still know not to use it. lets remove speed limits on every road, because responsible people will drive safely anyway. lets allow people to build bombs and sell grenades freely, because responsible people would know better than to blow shit up with it. see the flaw in your logic? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 07 2015 15:02 evilfatsh1t wrote: ive seen this logic before. its absolutely stupid what youre saying is we shouldnt have laws on anything, because good people will know better whereas criminals would break them anyway. lets legalise heroin usage, because responsible people will still know not to use it. lets remove speed limits on every road, because responsible people will drive safely anyway. lets allow people to build bombs and sell grenades freely, because responsible people would know better than to blow shit up with it. see the flaw in your logic? Ironically, you're absolutely allowed to buy C4, tanks, fighter aircraft, grenade launchers, air-to-air missiles, and howitzers in the United States. The number of people murdered using the above in the United States is less than five; almost certainly zero. Vending machines are more dangerous. Shows what gun control advocates know. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8752 Posts
i cannot for the life of me understand what kind of government would allow an average citizen to just pick up a c4 from a nearby shop and do whatever they want with it. the regulations surrounding the purchase of those kinds of weapons must be way stricter than gun purchasing, otherwise there is literally no hope for america | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Shockingly, countries with high gun control and low gun culture have lower gun usage in crimes as well, including muggings, robberies, and burglaries. It's like people actually believe in some mythical Hollywood land where becoming a criminal instantly gets you access to some magical black market. | ||
| ||
