artistcalledian 0 #51 November 10, 2005 QuoteLike any segment of society, members of gun clubs will have their bad apples/turds/assholes/etc. Now, answer my question please. of course he was wielding a gun, but do you think he could have shot those kids if he didn't have a gun... guns kill people, its crazy to suggest they don't________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #52 November 10, 2005 I've asked jokingly before - but I really do wish to petition the administration of this site now. Can we please have a [slaps head in despair] smiley? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #53 November 10, 2005 Quotedo you think he could have shot those kids if he didn't have a gun... guns kill people You contradict yourself. You imply that the man killed the kids, but then you blame the gun. I personally have never heard of a gun that decided on its own to hop off the rack in the store and go down to the gas station for a quick robbery or murder, so some other factor must enter into the equation. I'll give you a hint: people.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #54 November 10, 2005 A couple of things: Can someone please explain to me why it is considered OK to shoot a buglar. Burglary is not a capital offense. If anyone shoots an unarmed burglar they should be prosecuted for murder. End of story. Switzerland: I live there currently, and yes they all have guns of varying caliber allowing them to fight their way to their unit in case of invasion. However they are now contemplating storing the guns centrally due to a few too many cases of husbands deciding to use their wife's head for target practice. Americans and Europeans generally don't understand each other on this point (= guns, not Switzerland HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 November 10, 2005 QuoteCan someone please explain to me why it is considered OK to shoot a buglar? Can someone clarify the terms Burglary vs larceny vs theft? I though Burglary involved some form of physical attack/threat in the process of theft. But I'm not sure. It relates to answering the question though. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #56 November 10, 2005 Now we just need to have a good 'activist' judge rule the law unconstitutional. I hope it happens soon.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #57 November 10, 2005 QuoteCan someone please explain to me why it is considered OK to shoot a buglar. Burglary is not a capital offense. If anyone shoots an unarmed burglar they should be prosecuted for murder. End of story. If you're asleep in bed and are awakened by a burglar rummaging around in your bedroom. Are you going to wait for them to come at you with a knife before you do anything? If anyone shoots a Burglar that they KNOW is unarmed...they should be prosecuted. But if someone is in my house, I'm not going to wait and see. I assume they'll kill me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #58 November 10, 2005 QuoteBut if someone is in my house, I'm not going to wait and see. I assume they'll kill me. I think a more realistic assumption would be that they want to take your stuff... But seriously, you would pull your gun and pull the trigger? No yelling "Get out of my house" or even "I have a gun. On your knees boy. The Police are coming." Not being judgemental here. Just trying to understand.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #59 November 10, 2005 QuoteBut seriously, you would pull your gun and pull the trigger? No yelling "Get out of my house" or even "I have a gun. On your knees boy. The Police are coming." I would pull my gun and yell "get down on the ground". If they made any kind of move other than a face plant on the floor...I'd fire. Not only would I fire, I'd put 2 in their chest and on in the head. I'm not giving someone a chance to kill me. And if they're in my house uninvited stealing my stuff, I don't think it's a stretch to think they may be capable of that as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #60 November 10, 2005 QuoteI would pull my gun and yell "get down on the ground". If they made any kind of move other than a face plant on the floor...I'd fire. OK. Makes more sense than the usual "I'd kill the fucker" you hear on these boards. Quote And if they're in my house uninvited stealing my stuff, I don't think it's a stretch to think they may be capable of that as well. Hmm most burglars (around here anyway) are just junkies trying to raise money for the next fix. If they had a gun they would have sold it a loong time ago to get some dope.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #61 November 10, 2005 Quote And if they're in my house uninvited stealing my stuff, I don't think it's a stretch to think they may be capable of that as well. Very good point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #62 November 10, 2005 In the England you are permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, another, your possessions, for the prevention of crime or to affect a lawful arrest. It has been this way for a long time and I see no reason to change it. This right extends to lethal force, although it has been judged that it can only be reasonable to use lethal force in defence of yourself or another rather than mere property. I guess the legal system has concluded that a TV just isn't worth that much. The reasonableness of the force used is a test based on all of the circumstances as believed by the home owner. The jury must consider what the home owner thought the facts were rather than what they actually were. If the level of force used was reasonable under those circumstances then it was legal. If the jury consider that based on the facts as the home owner believed them the level of force was unreasonable, that is to say excessive, then it was not legal. So if you come downstairs and see a burglar with your DVD player you may attack him. You may do so with a weapon and you may do so as a pre-emptive strike. You may do this to protect your DVD player from theft or merely to affect the arrest of the burglar. The level of force you use must be proportionate to the threat as you see it. If you thought the burglar might have a knife for example that he may use against you, you would be justified in using more force than if you thought they were unarmed. You would not be justified in killing them however unless you felt threatened – although this is quite likely under the circumstances anyway. Let's look at your scenario – the person who shoots an unarmed burglar. Prosecution would only follow if it was thought that the force used was unreasonable under all of the circumstances as the accused saw them. So you must put yourself into the mindset of the accused. You must forget whether or not the burglar is actually armed and instead consider if the home owner believed they could be armed or even if the homeowner believed there to be a threat to them irrespective of the burglar's possession of weaponry. Then, armed with those circumstances you must consider if the act of shooting the burglar was reasonable, or unreasonable and excessive. You might vote that they were excessive. 11 others on the jury might vote that it was not. Under other circumstances the rest of the jury might agree with you. This is why we use juries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #63 November 10, 2005 QuoteCan someone clarify the terms Burglary vs larceny vs theft In England, burglary is trespassing plus theft (or merely the intent to steal). Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it. And robbery is theft + the use of force (threatened or real). We don't have an offence of larceny so I don't know what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #64 November 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteCan someone clarify the terms Burglary vs larceny vs theft In England, burglary is trespassing plus theft (or merely the intent to steal). Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it. And robbery is theft + the use of force (threatened or real). We don't have an offence of larceny so I don't know what it is. Ah, I forgot to list robbery, I mixed that up with burglary. Larceny is run-by hitting of businesswomen in the back of the head with geese. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #65 November 10, 2005 QuoteLarceny is run-by hitting of businesswomen in the back of the head with geese. And should be regulated just like the deer season. No geesing off season. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #66 November 10, 2005 QuoteIn the England you are permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself... As always, a good and informative post. Thank you.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #67 November 10, 2005 That's the way it works MOST places here as well. Although it will vary slightly state to state. A couple of states do allow deadly force to protect property, but I believe that's only Fl and Tx. You know...the good Christian states Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #68 November 10, 2005 QuoteIn the England damnit, missed the "the" out when I changed "UK" to "England". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #69 November 10, 2005 >I would pull my gun and yell "get down on the ground". If they made any > kind of move other than a face plant on the floor...I'd fire. Really? If they turned to run, you'd fire? I wouldn't; killing people comes in just about last on the things I want to do with my life (and deal with later.) Heck, they could take a bunch of stuff with them; I can replace stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #70 November 10, 2005 QuoteHeck, they could take a bunch of stuff with them; I can replace stuff. Not without a $500 deductible. Sheesh, that guy would be toast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #71 November 10, 2005 QuoteReally? If they turned to run, you'd fire? If they didn't immediately drop to the floor I would fire. If they started fleeing before I got a bead on them, no, I wouldn't shoot them in the back. But if I've got someone covered and tell them to get on the floor, I'm not going to wait around too long to see if they're going to comply, run, or shoot me. If they make a sudden move in any direction I'm assuming they're going for their own weapon and protecting myself. I don't want to kill anyone either. But I don't want to die. And I just can't seem to give an intruder in my house the benefit of the doubt that they don't mean me harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #72 November 10, 2005 An appropriate thing to know about Texas at least is that we have different sets of circumstances for defending yourself with deadly force in your home. I could be way off since I'm not a lawyer... but there is a difference between someone trespassing on your property in the day and at night. If I recall, during the day, you have to be in immediate fear for your life or the life of another. At night, shoot first. The rationale being that if someone is in your house, at night, unwelcomed, they're probably up to no good and you can't tell if they're armed so you don't give them a chance to show you that they're armed by hurting or killing you before you defend yourself. And I've always learned that a criminal should only know you're armed after he sees the muzzle flash.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #73 November 10, 2005 You'll be glad to know the NRA has already file a lawsuit challenging the ban news here I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #74 November 10, 2005 QuoteIf they didn't immediately drop to the floor I would fire. If they started fleeing before I got a bead on them, no, I wouldn't shoot them in the back. But if I've got someone covered and tell them to get on the floor, I'm not going to wait around too long to see if they're going to comply, run, or shoot me. If they make a sudden move in any direction I'm assuming they're going for their own weapon and protecting myself. which is exactly why a large proportion of the world regard americans as trigger happy idiots________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #75 November 10, 2005 Could you explain why I've recently begun thinking of Brits as ignorant, childish, and socially retarded? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
