'Cause baby, it's gonna get hot in here.
Topic of the day - Force and Self Defence.

Over in England, there's been an on-going topic focused around the balance of force in regards to self defence.
How much is too much? If someone breaks in to your home - can you smack 'em? Can you kick them in the head? Can you.. shoot them in the back whilst they run away?
The latter is what happened here. A farmer had been the victim of frequest burglaries at his home. One evening he caught 2 of the people in his home. As they noticed him, they ran off. As they were running away, he shot one in the back. It turned out the thieves were 15 and 16. Anywho, the kid who was shot, died soon after in hospital. The farmer, after a massive and lengthy, controversial and media-popular trial, was sent to prison for manslaughter. He ended up doing something like a year, or some such.

So whatchya think? How far should a person be allowed to go in regards to self defence? What is considered self defence? Was the presence of these kids in his home enough of a factor to be regarded as self defence? Or maybe not as they were running away, and he shot them in the back?
Oh, and if you litter this thread with wanking over your favourite gun and how best you would have shot the thieves (See: some of the Americans on this board), then I'll tear off your balls and feed them to you on a platta of anal-fluid.
Have fun.

So I can run around robbing peoples homes, but so long as I run away, it's okay, right?

In the USA.
Thats Murder 2nd.
If you can POSSIBLY avoid the conflict, you are obligated by law to avoid it.

There is a famous law case of a Farmer out in the country somwhere that was having one his barns broken into and robbed often...
So this Farmer set up a shotgun, attached to a window, when someone opened up the window.. BAM.. gun would go off..
And Yep.. sure enough a kid tried to burgler his barn, opened the window and got his head blown off.

Farmer was sentenced to life in jail.

For the use of force to be justified, you have to show that you had no way out and that your own life was in immeniant harm.

Recently in Wisconsin two people tried to break into a womans house in Madison. She looked out the window and seen what appeared to be a gun, she shot through the door and killed them both. No charges filed on the woman. They showed one of the dead would be robbers moms at the scene crying that her son shouldn't of been gunned down..I don't get it. Dont break into peoples homes and you shouldnt run into that problem.

I keep all my guns in one area and ammo in another area locked up. Would take to long for me to run and load em up to kill an intruder but then again I don't own guns for protection. I would like to think my 2 dogs would chew the nuts off anyone trying to enter my house :)



Ibudin

I guess that's the problem though Ibudin. Is something as horrific and tragic as murder, justify defence in keeping your home safe?
I mean take my example - the kids were running away and shot in the back.
YES, they have no right whatsoever burglaring someone. YES, something in regards to the law and policing needs to be done. HOWEVER.. what gives you the right to shoot someone in the back as they run away?
Your property. Your life. Your belongings - absolutely.
But wouldn't, say, phoning the police and getting better security in the form of alarams or locks or reinforced window panels/doors, be a more humane way of dealing with 2 kids, then murdering them?

I dunno. I think the use of force in self defence is a given right, I do. But I don't think anyone has the right to take it as far as murder if it's out of context. I mean if you're in a bar, some guy comes up and whacks you. By all means, have a few rounds. But should you be allowed to then stab this guy in the face with a broken bottle and kill him?
I think it's all about balancing between threat and force, obviously. But I guess that's the grey area.

I was once mugged on a train home. It was broad daylight, and I was sitting in an area pretty much on my own. There was one entrance/exit to the area I was sitting in, which was closed off when a kid came along and asked for a quid. I said I didn't have any money, and he went. 2 mins later, about 4 kids pile through the door. I tried to deal with it as best I could; not resisting, as it's only money (which I lied about not having, seen as I didn't have a lot). But I've almost never felt as angry as that before, and if I could have, I would have beat the living shit out of those kids. But kill them?
Whose right is that?

I guess that's the problem though Ibudin. Is something as horrific and tragic as murder, justify defence in keeping your home safe?

If the intruder was running down the street and out of my house and you shot him in the back, it's cold blooded murder period. If the intruder was breaking into my home and showing signs of potentially being dangerous..holding something, large person, mutliple people..I will do what ever it takes to protect my family period. I hope I am never in that position and hope no one puts me in that position.

It's all were you live Halo..if you see on a daily basis people being killed in there own home because some crack head is looking to steal some drug money. You are on the defense all ready for the get go. My family > anything else and won't hestiate in the least bit to do what it takes to insure their safety ..so yes murder is a justified means defence in keeping my home safe. If you would rather have them stuff a knife in your loved ones chest or shoot them because they are affraid of a witness..then good for you.


Keep in mind I am not talking about walking out into my garage and seeing someone running off with something of mine.. I would be happy he ran off and I didn't have to deal with him. Insurance covers that..what I am talking about is someone breaking into my home or already in my home and showing no signs of leaving or worse yet threating me.



Ibudin

For the use of force to be justified, you have to show that you had no way out and that your own life was in immeniant harm.

This is wrong on so many levels. Criminal law varies by state. In Alabama, for example, you are not required to retreat from your home during a burglary. Furthermore, I believe all states allow you to use force in the defense of another; you are not required to show that "your own life" was threatened.

Finally, deadly physical force is justified (at least in AL) if you reasonably believe someone is using or about to use physical force against you or your family during the commission or attempted commission of a burglery in your home. The burglar does not have to be using deadly physical force. If a burglar breaks in and starts tieing your wife up with a rope, you are justified in using deadly physical force. You are not required to retreat as stated above.

In Colorado we have the "Make my Day" law. If someone breakes into your home and you "FEEL" that that person is an immediate threat to your family or home feel free to place his head all over your wall. There is of course more to this law but we have been given the proper oppertunity to protect ourselfs here with out the fear of punishment for just that. Hell, i had a sheriff in the rural town I live in tell me that if I shot someone on my property just drag in the house and they wouldn't even do an investigation.

One more thing. The act we're debating is not murder. Even in the original case it wasn't murder, it was manslaughter. Use deadly physical force to describe the act.

'i had a sheriff in the rural town I live in tell me that if I shot someone on my property just drag in the house and they wouldn't even do an investigation. '

- That's.. a joke, right?

About 1/2 joke 1/2 serious. Out on these farms and ranches the cops have better things to do. If it was your mom you shot then yes of course they will take all proper proceedures. If it was just some stranger, fuck it, HE was in the wrong. There are still some places The American West still servives.

The farmers where I live fire loads out of a shotgun filled with rocksalt.

Talk about learning a valueable lesson.

If the robbers never went in his house to rob, that 15-16 years old gy would still be alive now. Law always tries to protect criminals and thats what pisses me off.

Here in Canada, a robber could nearly hurt himself while trying to enter your house and sue you because it wasnt safe.

This is wrong on so many levels.

According to the law, yes. In court, things often turn out differently.

Personally, I don't want to kill anyone. But I'd sure like to be able to shoot their kneecaps without fear of the law. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that in real life. Lawyers twist things.

I'd love to side with the farmer (been there, running people off the family farm with the pickup), but killing someone ain't a good thing. If it can be avoided (and in this case, it seems like it could have been avoided) then i'd have trouble excusing it.

Even out in the boonies, you had better be able to show the intruder had criminal intent or no valid reason for being on your property. If the sheriff for example found a car with a flat on the road outside the farm and no apparent criminal intent, you can bet he would investigate and your ass could very well be grass. Also, there had better be signs of forced entry or some other indication that the intruder was not a "guest" at the house.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what the "Make my Day" law actually allows. My brother is a criminal lawyer for the State of Colorado and he has shared some interesting stories since it passed.It is not as clear cut as you imagine.

If someone has forced entry into your home, there is no doubt you are allowed to use deadly force. But the cops are careful to check out the possibility of the law being used as cover for homicide. It has been tried on a number of occasions, so most cops thoroughly check out the situation before you are off the hook.

In the situation Halo described, I have little doubt the farmer would have been convicted in the US as well. Had the farmer actually shot the thieves inside his home during the commission of the robbery then it would be a different case.

Mirdorr I meant wrong as a statement of error; not wrong as in morally wrong. I'm completely in favor of the use of deadly force to protect your dwelling and your family.

Heh. I didn't take it to mean morally wrong, though my post kinda looks like it.

Shooting someone in the back as they run off is borderline. Especially if you cannot see who they are.

Setting up a trap, like someone described is absolutly asinine.

When it comes down to it, I don't care who breaks in, be it a 16 year old coke junkie, or a cop without a warrant, they will meet the same fate. NOTHING gives anyone the right to break into your house, and threaten your family.

Now with Halo's mugging, IF you felt they were going to kill you, then it would be your choice to use deadly force. They could have very easily done so, but thankfully most muggings are just for cash, which oviously is not worth your life, or in some peoples eyes, their life.

I am the father of 2 girls, now if i hear someone breaking into my house there is no way of knowing what that person or persons wants. It could be some kids looking for something to steal, could be some freak looking to rape my wife and daughters. I will shoot if they are coming IN. If on the other hand i come home and see someone running away i won't shoot them in the back.

In the US and im sure most other parts of the world you have the right to protect yourself and your family. As i stated above you have no way to know what an intruder intends. Lets face it most people that break into homes and rob you more than likely are looking for cash for drugs so you also have to factor in is this person hi on something.

I have read some very interesting stuff on criminals in the past. Most have started off with simple B&E and moved up or down as the case may be from there.


Found an interesting artical about the uses of deadly force. Deadly Force (http://www.recguns.com/Sources/JudUse2.html)

To really piss folks off...

Baltyn get ready.

If someone breaks into your house I would urge you NOT to kill them. Maybe just hurt them bad enough so the cops can get them. As a correctional officer Criminals = job security. So from now on can I get everyones promise not to critically injure people commiting crimes against you?

As far as I'm concerned, by breaking into someone's house you are voluntarily forgoing your right to life, liberty, and the hope of ever walking again. You've given the home owner carte blanche to do as he will with you. Granted, the law may not side with the homeowner depending on the circumstances, but that's of no comfort to a would be thief's body.

It's also of no comfort to the homeower who ends up in jail.

Hey, Halo, what do you think would have happened if the farmer had simply shot them in the leg or the butt? Would the police still have gone after him?

bah that aint going to piss me off, and im sorry anyone who breaks into my house while im there with my wife and kids is going to have .44 reasons to go to the hospital

I catch anyone in my house in the middle of the night who I think poses a threat to me, my girlfriend, or my daughter -- they're getting a .40S&W slug (and another and another until they drop).

I catch someone out on my porch trying to steal my bicycle, I'll shout at 'em and try to scare 'em off before I look for a baseball bat.

There's a difference.

Someone who is running away is not a threat. If they are on their way in its a whole other story. You dont know if they are there to hurt you,so then you can cal it self defence.

'Hey, Halo, what do you think would have happened if the farmer had simply shot them in the leg or the butt? Would the police still have gone after him? '

- Honestly? I'm not sure. It's kind of a big thing in this country lately. Recently, on a bus of the evening time, a drunk man was advanding on 2 school girls. A guy on the bus confronted him and ended up punching him. Aparantly he hit him in a rather sensitive area, and the drunk died. The killer, however, was not sentenced, and the judge actually branded him a hero. So complete opposite outcomes to similar situations. Except of course, in this case the result of force applied wasn't intended (to my knowledge).
So I'm not sure. I think the police would have gone for him, but I honestly don't think he'd have been done for it.

Get this, though. The second burglar (to the situation I described originally) tried to sue the farmer for traumatic stress. Heh.

I think the key things in those situations are the ones the judge/jury looks at: Weapon vs. no weapon, and the fact that the man was advancing on the 2 girls, whereas the 2 kids were running away from the farmer.

I'm not surprised the surviving kid is suing (sp?). Our civil court system is so wacked over here that we kind of assume that's gonna happen.

I know. No offense but I'm bloody grateful the trend hasn't caught on over here.
The second burglars claim was dismissed though.

The trend?

Have I missed the newest burglar shooting fad?

I think he meant the trend of blaming the victim?

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

'The trend?
Have I missed the newest burglar shooting fad? '

- To sue people.

Twat.

If they are in my house and armed I will shoot them running or not. If unarmed they get a warning shot. Anyresponse other then running or dropping to the ground will get them shot.

I would rather take my chances with a jury than a criminal. Uninvited armed people in my house will be shot. Front back side is not important.

Halo, fuck off. As evidenced by the other response, nobody knew what you were talking about (as usual).

And now that we do, the question remains: Litigation is some sort of new fad?

Oh, and (damned edit), for what it's worth, do you enjoy re-posting topics what we've hashed to death that you know are going to end up (3-4 pages from now if not sooner -- mark my words) into some sort of discussion about voilence and culture?

Do you honestly not know what most of us think about shooting intruders yet?

'As evidenced by the other response, nobody knew what you were talking about '


- Rofl, I hit a nerve.
So one response dictates what everybody else thinks? Oh palimax. You should have just not bothered posting.

..and the question remains. Litigation is some sort of new fad?

two different posts,

in the town my parents live in the sheriff did say, if someone breaks into the house and in the process of shooting them they fall out, drag them back in shoot them again, then clean up the mess outside and call him.

In the city I live in, the sheriff would prefer we not use deadly force, but if the intruder is in the house what ever force is neccessary to protect yourself and your family is legal. now he also pointed out that if you shoot the person 20 times(ergo switch clips) your gonna be in trouble.

On a side note, a friend of mine was charged with assault, after three guys jumped him outside a bar. because he broke 2 of the guys legs and 1 guys ribs and nose. The DA pointed out that his Martial arts training(hes not a black belt) made him better able to use force to protect himself. 3 on 1 and he couldnt break legs or ribs to protect himself. on the other hand the police officer pointed out that had he called the police right then, he wouldnt have been charged because he called them and the three wouldnt have had time to get thier stories straight. sad world where someone can assualt you or break into your house and sue you because you hurt them.

Reminds me of a joke I'd heard a while back:
The American Hat-trick: Being overweight, ignorant and fond of litigation.

Anyhow, for all of the people who are talking about shooting someone they find in their home- I hope you don't leave the door open.

If your door is open, anyone can walk in- and there isn't anything wrong with it, since no effort was made to keep them out.

Your door does not have to be locked (though in my opinion anyone who does not lock their doors is an idiot) but it does have to be closed.

Edit- the point is: unless you made an effort to keep someone out of your house, you can't fault them for being there. Yes, most reasonable people won't walk into somebody else's house, but there are those who don't play with a full deck or don't have the mental capacity to know better (children, those with disabilities, etc).

Thats why you dont shoot, till you get a positive ID.

That way if the kid looks like a retard with drool dripping out of his mouth, and wearing a bicycle helmet while trying to break in, its obvious Halo has strayed off his property again.

"If your door is open, anyone can walk in- and there isn't anything wrong with it, since no effort was made to keep them out"

The laws in my state don't support your position amhorach.

First, Self defense is defined:

A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

Then the entering of a dwelling:

The "make my day" statute creates certain additional rights of self defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

So to sum it up for you. If they come in my house without invitation, door open or not, and I suspect they are going to commit a crime against me or my family, I have every right to use any force necessary to stop them including killing them. That's how it is here in Colorado anyways, thank god :)

That way if the kid looks like a retard with drool dripping out of his mouth, and wearing a bicycle helmet while trying to break in, its obvious Halo has strayed off his property again.Wait, are you saying shoot or don't shoot. :)

I don't think it's right to shoot someone who is breaking into your home if you don't see the person as an immediate threat, as in he's armed or whatever.. I guess that's why I like dogs.. put a sign up that warns for the dog, if the person breaks into your home and get's attacked by your dog.. no one can really blame you since you were warning for it.

Quite a few years ago now me and my ex had a few friends that weren't the most sane of people.. having them show up at the door with an axe screaming about something that neither of us had a clue about was always fun.. but thanks to our dog.. no one ever really dared to do anything...

Therefor my point of this is.. dogs own, heh.. sure you can be charged for having a dangerous dog (especially here in Sweden) but.. it's on your property and if you have a proper warning.. not your fault really.

//Izola

I would agree with you if I lived in Sweeden Izola. But, as we are constantly reminded by our European friends, the crime rate in the US is quite a bit higher. We have gangs, drug addicts, etc., etc.

If someone comes into my house and I don't know them, I am not going to hesitate to see if perhaps their friendly. I am going to assume, for the safety of me and my family, they want to do me harm and will defend my home....going to be hard with out a gun though :rolleyes



Don't like dogs much and haven't been able to convince my nearly dead cat to attack :(

....that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling,
So to sum it up for you. If they come in my house without invitation, door open or not, and I suspect they are going to commit a crime against me or my family, I have every right to use any force necessary to stop them including killing them. That's how it is here in Colorado anyways, thank god

If your door is open, it is very difficult to prove unlawful entry- unless you put some scratch marks on the lock. The *police* can enter a dwelling with an open door and not be subject to the requirements of a warrant in some cases.

For instance: Your front door is wide open, and the four year old who lives next door walks in. Do you *REALLY* think you can shoot and kill them just because they walked into your house uninvited?

Your *SECOND* paragraph touches on the real issue- if you suspect they are going to commit a crime against you or your family you have the right to defend yourself and your family. This holds true if you are in your house, in another's house or walking down your street.
Look at the example above- Now, change that to.. say someone who looks like me, and I have a crowbar, and you might have a valid reason for shooting.

We can also see, however, that the mere comission of a crime isn't sufficient reason to use deadly force (no matter how much you might want to). Do you have a right to kill an accountant who skims money from you? They committed a crime against you, but I'd say you have no right to use force on them at all, as they are not presenting a clear and present danger to you.
(edit: fixed shoddy grammar)

Dogs are the best deterrent IMO. That being said, I still want to have the legal option to use lethal force if a drug crazed psycho chops down my front door with a fireaxe or is otherwise behaving in violent fashion and trying to force entry into my home. My first line of defence would be to call the police. My second is a firearm. My third is any available heavy object.

Very few criminals try breaking into a home without at least a screwdriver or crowbar, both of which have been used to murder people before. Hell, some sickos prefer strangulation and may not even be armed. If the person is acting violently and ignoring obvious warnings, then chances are he is out to hurt you and you had better be prepared to defend yourself appropriately.

If the person is acting violently and ignoring obvious warnings...

Warnings such as:

Two bright flashes, two loud bangs, dizziness, vomiting, uncontrolled urination, bleeding out the ears, difficulty breathing, heart palpatations, weakness, poor bowel control, and a sucking chest wound.

(Sounds like the side-effects of some of those allergy medications they sell on TV.)

I'd consider that fair warning.

I'd say that someone in your domicile against your permission should be all it takes. Depriving you of property (from car to that leftover Chinese food in the back of the fridge) should be an immediate "just cause" for whatever force you feel like applying. I'd REALLY like a "Live Capture" clause that allows you to keep the person (until you want to get rid of them because you're out of dog-food and water) for whatever purposes you desire.

"That's right, Joe. I'll let you go next week, but only AFTER you finish putting up that fence and cleaning the toilets. Lip off again and it's the cattle-prod. AM I BEING CLEAR!? Teach you to touch another man's Egg Foo Young..."

Ahhh, all those free mowed lawns and cleaned garages.

I'd REALLY like a "Live Capture" clause that allows you to keep the person (until you want to get rid of them because you're out of dog-food and water) for whatever purposes you desire.

That made me think of that famous "Pulp Fiction" scene in the back room. Heh.

Anyway, I live in Colorado too (Hi Osgilliath and Ailwon) and personally, I am in full agreement with the idea that any amount of force is justified against and unlawful or unwarranted intruder into one's home.

How would one determine ANY person's intent upon entering their home? "Hi, are you here to kill me/rape my wife/steal my stuff? If so, please sign this contract stating that you are here to do harm to me or my family or steal my stuff. Thanks."

Sorry. Doesn't work that way. If a person seems to be a threat to me WITHIN MY OWN HOME, no matter the circumstances, I should be in all rights justified to use whatever force I deem apropriate to resolve the situation - including deadly force.

--Cen

By acting violently, I mean things like:
Breaking glass windows
Breaking a door open with brute force
Shooting off a lock
Splattering your guard pooch
Making verbal threats
Brandishing anything that could be used as a weapon

By ignoring warnings I mean things like:
Continuing to break in regardless of alarms going off
Continuing to break in regardless of the owner shouting to go away, etc.


If it's a 10 year old kid trying to sneak in to swipe your TV, then I am a little less tolerant of just blowing him away because he is in your house. Common sense needs to prevail here. If it is your typical crack addict, then by all means bust a cap on him.

I believe if someone is on your home robbing you, you should have the right to shoot them.


Scenario:

Someone has just broke in to your house, it is night time you have a wife and kids who you love very much. You wake up, you hear a noise, you don’t think it is your kids, you feel your life and your family’s lives are in danger. You decide to grab your gun, you are quietly moving thought your house, you come across someone going thought you things he has a small light, the rest of the lights are off in the house, at this point your adrenalin is maxed out you start to shake, your heart is pumping very fast. You point the gun at him, what do you do? Do you wait for him to turn around and notice you, or do you say something? He turns around quickly because he is startled; the room is dark you can only make out that it is a dark figure; in this sudden movement did he pull a gun? Have you already been shot? Have you shot at this figure already? Maybe he is running away? What would you do?

At this point all the people that say you should not shoot, have probably never had a real adrenalin rush, or ever feared for their lives and the lives of their family. If you where put in that situation you would end another life.

I my self would probably say, HANDS IN THE AIR! and if they did anything but put their hands right in the air I would shoot them dead.

If they noticed me before hand and made any movement I would shoot them dead.

Any static’s, like most burglars don’t carry guns, mean nothing. Someone has invaded your house and put you in a situation to defend your home.


When I hear stories like a robber slips and falls while robbing someone’s house, sues the home owner and wins makes me sick to my stomach.

Or if someone is charged with manslaughter ( or murder 2 like stated above ) because they killed someone in their home while being robbed because he did not have on weapon or a weapon in their hand is stupid also.

They are giving the criminals to many rights.

What you are describing falls under fearing for your life and life of your family. That means shooting is a reasonable response.

Different scenario:

You wake up to hear someone in your kitchen. You get up to check it out and surprise your ten year old neighbor trying to boost your 8 inch TV, having snuck in through an unlocked window. He has no business being in your home and he is certainly committing a crime. Do you blow him away right there and then? I would not.

It all depends on how you perceive the situation....is there a threat to your family's safety or is it a low danger situation? If it has a probability of danger, then I feel you are within your rights to respond violently. If it is a misdemeanor being perped by a minor with no apparent weapon, then I expect the homeowner to exercise a little restraint and resort to non lethal means. If the brat pulls a gun, smoke him.

some breaks in to your home at night you will get very protective and defensive of your family. untill you know it is unarmed kid you will think of the worst case scenario when it happens.

/agree

'and the question remains. Litigation is some sort of new fad? '

- I hate playing "catch-up". Oh definately. I can already feel the trend oozing out of the west. To sue someone was a very rare deal, even 5 years ago. Now we're littered with ad's and all that malarkay. Just like therapy, really. The entire 'my shrink' trend is kind of infecting the population slowly. My aunty is going to "see a therapist" about her husband's recent death. I mean - what the hell? That's something you see on Ally Mcbeal.

Nah, on Ally McBeal it's much more complicated: she'd go see a shrink because she couldn't understand why she never had a long lasting relationship; after all, she always slept with 'em on the first date and never hesitated to tell them they weren't as good as whats-his-name who married a hotter less-wacked-out woman.

people watched that show?

No, I never bought the special edition box set on DVD.
*looks around*

No sirrey.

No Gokuu never "watched" the show..

he was too busy making guest appearences on it as "the Dancing baby"

i was popular for like 5 seconds =( gimme my time!

I personally believe that you NEVER have the right to kill someone unless you are in direct danger of your life aswell. Means you have a sicko trying to shoot you or attack you with a knife. And I mean attack. Not holding it in his hands.

I personally consider everyone shooting someone breaking into his house a murderer. Sure its not right to break into someone's house. But that doesn't justify killing him. If I am stealing your wallet in a bar you're not allowed to kill me either. Its wrong, but doesn't justify murder.

I may be alone with this opinion, but generally people are much too scared nowadays. Its just fear. Yes people get killed while somoen breaks into their house. It happens. Like once every 1000 times a house gets robbed and someone is home. Really. Fear is whats the problems. Ok thats not the topic.

Anyways. I do not accept shooting anyone as ok as long as your life is not in direct danger. Its murder imo.

No you fucking pussy.

Fear is not the problem.

RESPECT AND COMMON SENSE ARE.

Dude, Halo, you are so gay(no offense bowler)!

anyway:


But I'd sure like to be able to shoot their kneecaps without fear of the law.


I garauntee you that if someone broke into my house and was enough of a threat for me to use one of my firearms they would not live to sue me for suffering and/or mental anguish.

I personally believe that you NEVER have the right to kill someone unless you are in direct danger of your life aswell. Means you have a sicko trying to shoot you or attack you with a knife. And I mean attack. Not holding it in his hands.
Problem there Taino is your banking your Reaction time is greater than that persons Action time.

For example..

You are on a street in a unfamilar part of town at night.. You are in your mid 40s.. not as fast as you used to be, but still able. You, being concerned about the dangers in this particular place decided to carry a handgun with you.
Suddenly a man come out from darkened doorstep.. he is weilding a large hunting knife, he demands your wallet.
He seems not right, his eyes are glossed over, his motions erratic, definitly high.. Most likely Crack, Meth or Illy.
he demands your wallet.. You have nothing really important in it.. so you toss it over.. Not wanting to kill this guy over some credit cards you can just cancel. Then he demands your Watch.. Big deal.. just a cheap knock off anyway..
He is enjoying the power he thinks he has with you.. edging closer, knife pointed and held ready.. 7ft, 6ft, 5ft... he demands your wedding ring...

If you draw your gun.. you better be goddamn ready to use it.. He isnt rational.. he might keep coming...

What do you do Taino?

If I lived where you do Taino, I might agree. However, I don't. In the USA things are different, as you have often pointed out.

If someone breaks into my home, and my family is upstairs sleeping, I am not going to wait to see if they mean me harm or not.

"Means you have a sicko trying to shoot you or attack you with a knife"

Trying doing that in the friggan dark...excuse, yes you, do you mean to kill me and my family?

......LOADING PLEASE WAIT

"And I mean attack. Not holding it in his hands"

If he is in my friggan house with a deadly weapon...he dies, end of story. I'm not going to wait and see if he suceeds in jumping me first...I'm sorry man, but that is just plain niave.

...and your damn right I'd be scared if a stranger was in my house late at night...damned scared.

"Like once every 1000 times a house gets robbed and someone is home"

If that is true...not saying it is or isn't, I have more of a reason to kill him. WTF is he in my house for while I'm home...and don't say by mistake. They case pretty well and know when people are home or not.

"I do not accept shooting anyone as ok as long as your life is not in direct danger"

IMO, if someone is in my house, univited, late at night...my life is in danger.

A couple people have noted that the criteria seems to be "if your life is in danger." The law here, and most places, permits the use of your firearm to defend yourslef AND OTHERS from imminent potentially deadly threats, rape, and arson against OCCUPIED structures.

"Well, your honor, he had a cigarette lighter, and *someone* might have been living in that concrete storage shed."

'Dude, Halo, you are so gay'

- The extent of Crist0's wit, ladies and gentlemen.
Absorb it while you can. It's quite remarkable.

And LL, this isn't a western. I'm sure, well - I hope - most people don't walk around with a gun in a holster, ready to draw :P

Hey Palimax! I thought you commented that this thread was useless? Please stop posting in this useless topic! Thanks! It's crap and boring! Thanks!11one!11two11!

Hey Palimax! I thought you commented that this thread was useless? Please stop posting in this useless topic! Thanks! It's crap and boring! Thanks!11one!11two11! A quick review of this thread reveals I said no such thing.

It is, however, just a re-hash of the same old thing, yes, and I find myself correcting the same old errors. While I don't think the THREAD is useless, I do think that it's silly for you to bring something up for "discussion" that you don't have much interest in having open dialog about.And LL, this isn't a western. I'm sure, well - I hope - most people don't walk around with a gun in a holster, ready to draw :PI live in Arizona, where our gun laws (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/arizona) let me do things like wear my gun, in it's holster on my hip, and do something like... ...go to the grocery store!

It's an option I think I've only exercised a few times - and then only out of principle.

Most of us gun owners know this feeling, but, don't you hate when the police pull you over for... ...anything, speeding, bad window tint... ...something... ...and the first thing you have to do is stick your hands out the window and say in a nice calm voice "Officer, you might want to know that I have a gun in my posession."

They're 99% cool about it, but it's never fun to say. :(

My final bump to this thread...

The overwhelming nunmber of people replying to this thread seem to agree with what the law is in this state for the use of deadly force when protecting your home.

www.azleg.state.az.us/Ari...p?Title=13 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13)

Title 13, chapter four:13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.And 13-405 is the part that reminds us you have to STILL be in fear of your life (406 is in fear of someone ELSES life).13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

most people don't walk around with a gun in a holster, ready to draw

Well.. Where do you suppose people carry guns?
most people have belt holsters, they usually carry in the small of the back, or on the hip.
If you find yourself in a precarious situation.. I would hope you would be ready to draw..

But thats not my arguement anyway.. thats your boy Tainos arguement.. he says its only right to use lethal force while, or a split second before, being attacked.
So if I combine your two arguements its basically:
Its only okay to defend yourself when you couldnt possibly have a weapon..
..........

My opinions :

So I can run around robbing peoples homes, but so long as I run away, it's okay, right?

Agree completely to the message behind this, Should the actual criminal who was committing the crime at the time not be whom the emphasis lies on?

Example : Story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3047899)

As a result of this case the farmer has had the majority of the media attention on him, rather than the fucks who came to his farm to steal his bike, this in itself is flawed. Surely if you chanced upon someone stealing your equipment while you had a shotgun in your hands you could use that shotgun? What other option do you have, say hi as they are loading your bike onto their truck and walk away? What right do they have to be there? None, and stealing your shit? Fuck off. So he does in fact, use this shotgun and what is the result? He changed one young criminal's life.

In the Kaikohe District Court yesterday Hati said through his lawyer Doug Blaikie that the October 20 ordeal had changed his life and he had vowed to steer away from crime.

One less fuck clogging up our prisons, this could be used as a deterrant in iteself, because with the high petty theft rates a small rap on the fist and a tiny jail sentence isnt enough. So imo grab your gun, put up a sign "I catch you stealing my shit, i'll fill you with bullets" and good luck to the idiot who dares approach your house with ill intent in mind.

Rights for criminals : What the fuck. These people by breaking the law, should automatically forfeit their protection by it. Thats like shooting a stranger in the street and then that stranger preventing his friends from retalliating, wtf that doesnt happen. Should they get rights? no.

Example : happy robber 01 comes into a house, steals a TV and is never caught. This fucktard now has a fresh new TV. Lets all turn to crime yay free TVs.

By reacting with physical violence, it acts as a strong deterrant from ever commiting an illegal act again.

Just my views.

Grumblin ~ Prophet.

I can't remember where I heard this one, but I think it sums it up nicely.

Better to be judged by 12, than carried by six.

this is not a fucking role based game, this is real life, you can kill or be killed in one second and never even notice what just went on.

He is enjoying the power he thinks he has with you.. edging closer, knife pointed and held ready.. 7ft, 6ft, 5ft... he demands your wedding ring...

If you draw your gun.. you better be goddamn ready to use it.. He isnt rational.. he might keep coming...
You assume he is carrying a leathal weapon, you assume he is approaching me. You assume he is threatening me. You assume there are no other people around, its a dark corner.
In this specific case I would (if I had one) shoot a warning shot to his feet when he gets maybe as close as 10 feet to me. And if he keeps approaching and keeps it all up, yes I would shoot. Would try not to kill him, but I would shoot. But this does represent a direct danger to my life, doesn't it? Kinda supports my point.

If he is in my friggan house with a deadly weapon...he dies, end of story.
There's also a huge difference between "he is carrying a deadly weapon" and "he is in my friggan house". Most burglars don't carry deadly weapons. For example those kids that got shot in Halo's first post. How do you define in the dark whether a person carries a deadly weapon? If you are damn sure he got one, then its something I would understand, if you would shoot. I personally believe turning the light on, or yelling at him first may be wise. That way you find out whether he runs away or attacks you. You'll have enough time to shoot if he attacks you as you were pointing the gun at him already anyways. But 99% of the burglars will run away. And they will never return.

thats your boy Tainos arguement..
Can't you keep the mockery and insults away just for once? It would be so great to just have a discussion, once.
And don't combine 2 arguments of 2 different people. I said it dozens of times (and its simply common sense) that even if Halo is a friend of mine, I do not share his opinion. What would you say if I mixed up your opinion with the one of random american people just like that? Please answer Halo's argument and answer my argument if you want, but don't mix it up.

Thank you.


In the USA things are different,
I wouldn't go as far as "in the USA". Actually I believe that just in some certain places the danger is much higher. Do you live in NYC or LA?

Fear is not the problem.
Fear is the fact why people immediately shoot when there are dozens of other, unviolent ways of solving a problem. That's why I personally believe this all has a lot to do with fear.
When you see in TV every single day all over, again and again how people got killed by burglars (yes it does happen. On the whole planet prolly once a day, however, there must be made around 10000 burglaries a day all over the world), then you have this picture in your head. You get scared of burglars and immediately expect them burglars to be very violent, to be ready to kill you, you actually even expect them to be here to kill you!
And your fear, your will to shoot, is much much higher.

thats your boy Tainos arguement..
Thats not an insult.. or a dig.. Its american slang for "friend"
But thats beside the point.

I set up the situation intentionally. The person with the knife had NEVER actively attacked you. But he did pose a significant THREAT.

You dont have children that depend on you for safety and security, when you do.. I believe that your view would change.
Assume your woken up in the middle of the night. A noise downstairs.
Two years ago a family in a nearby town was murdered by a burgler that was never caught.
You grab your weapon.
You go downstairs.
You see a figure in the shadows backlit by light and in his hand you can see a shape that looks like a gun.
You have a choice to make..
Is the life of your family WORTH taking a chance?

IMO.. no.. the sane, rational, moral man has the overriding duty to protect his family. All other considerations are a FAR FAR second.
Even if the odds of the man coming upstairs and killing your family are 1 in 1000, its still unacceptable.

The 2 scenarios reflect different levels of threat and responsibility. Each is affected by the other when the choice to employ deadly force is made.

What about you yell at him?
Then you will see whether he runs or not. if he doesn't run, you didn't lose anything and can shoot. If he runs, you did not have to kill a human being. How's that?
Its also no rocket science.

And once again, the example Halo made does not really comapre to the example you make here L2. We get closer and closer to a "its kinda ok to shoot" moment. But having somoen fleeing from your ground is in no way ever a situation to shoot someone. A person that does this is a murderer. Nothing else.

Most burglars don't carry deadly weapons.

Taino what would be your definition of a "Deadly Weapon"??
Crowbar? Screwdriver? Knife? Gun? ANYTHING can be used as a deadly weapon. So if he has ascrew driver and get close enough to you i can guarenty he could plant it in some part of your body. Ll is 100% correct once you have kids your outlook on things will change.

What about you yell at him?

:rollin


Man I am going to have to visit your country when I get down on my luck because basically you are telling us its ok for me to come into your home and take what ever you have as long as I don't put you in danger and hell thats even up in the air.


Ibudin

I will defend my kids at all costs, I know so, but I will not kill another person unless I see absolutely no way to avoid it.
Yes also a screwdriver can be deadly, but do you think its ok to kill someone that is in your house maybe checking your drawer downstairs in the living room and holds a screwdriver that he used to open your door?
I do not consider it ok to kill such a person. He deserves punishment, he deserves to go to jail, but if this is all he does, then he does not deserve to die. No way.
I would not shoot at such a person unless he clearly is either attacking me or approaching me close enough to jump me. First he would get is to be yelled at. If he then decides to run away, fine. If he decides to attack me, he'd get a bullet.
This is how I would do it.

And for your information, I have been robbed. Someone broke into my appartment, I was home. And the moment he realized I was at home, he ran away, scared like shit. Its not as if this situation would be new to me.

Ibudin. Yelling at him will make him aware that he has been spotted. So he has a choice. Either he flees or he attacks me. If he flees its ok, if he attacks me, he gonna eat a bullet.
What's the incredibly funny thing about this?
Maybe yelling is the wrong word, but I would "make him aware of the fact that I am present, I seen him and I hold a gun pointed at his ass". Does that fit you any better?

Its not ok to rob me. But I or better, we in our country don't kill people just because they steal. Must be very hard to understand this principle.

Must be very hard to understand this principle.

I am not attacking you Taino your intitled to your opionion but if must be hard for you too understand that we have great respect for ones property in the US and if someone chooses to break that respect he can expect some hot lead up his ass..he forgives all his rights when he breaks into your personal dwelling.


Ibudin

Yes and its this kind of thinking that I do not share.
You may not take someone's life if your life is not in danger either. This is nothing else then normal. Common sense.
But I also understand how common sense gets forgotten rather fast in some situations. Which doesn't make it right tho.

And thanks for not attacking me. Guess I am also guilty of "being touchy". Kinda gets you there when every word you say on a forum is being turned aorund and being used against you for years... :x

"if he attacks me, he gonna eat a bullet."

Not going to give him the chance to feed me a bullet sandwich Taino.

Bsides that, I don't own a gun (nor want to) so I would be using a sword or something else in self defense. But even if I did, I'm under no obligation to give that intruder the first chance to kill me, not when I have my families life on the line.

I don't live in LA or NY, I live in Denver.....we have our gangs, drud addicts, serial rapists, pediphiles, etc..etc...as well.

Taino-

By making the thief aware of your presence, you are exposing yourself to greater risk. If they had a shotgun, they'd only have to shoot in the general direction they heard a noise using 00 shot to have a fairly good chace of ruining your day (and possibly ending your life).

To *you* this is acceptable- you weigh your life almost equal to that of the person in your house holding the weapon. I certainly hope you'd at least try to gain some sort of cover and concealment before you tried this stunt.

I can't say with 100% certainty what I'd do in that situation (since I have never been in it), but my life is far more important to *me* than giving a burgler a chance to flee if they broke into my house.

They made *their* choice to roll the dice with their lives when they decided to do a little B and E with a deadly weapon.

knife pointed and held ready.. 7ft, 6ft, 5ft...


Just a little something to point out here, if I remember correctly the rule about how close someone has to be with a knife for you to respond with deadly force is something like 21 feet. It's been a very long time since I looked at anything on this but I know 7ft is far too close.

And this is the point Im getting to Taino..

When your young single and on your own.. yes.. you define your own morality and duty to some extent. You can make choices, such as yelling to scare a burgler away.

When you have other people for whom you are responsible.. you no longer possess the same choice.. You CANNOT give the burgler a chance.
Just as much as "shouting" at him may scare him to run off it may also startle him into turning around and firing. Bullets have minds of their own.. could hit you, could go through the ceiling into a loved ones room, could sail out the window into a neighbors apartment.

The point is.. the Risk is no longer YOURS to take in that situation. You cannot gamble with the odds or place your personal moral assumptions over your Duty and Obligations.

But seeing as you are single and have nobody dependant on you. The risks are now yours to take.

How does this tie in? Well.. it goes against the statement you made about ONLY being right to attack when someone is in the process of attacking you.
That is obviously a personal choice made by the luxury or your lack of obligation...

So if anyone breaks in your house, no matter why, no matter whether he got a weapon, no matter whether he represents a real threat to you or anyone else, then he deserves to die. Is this your point?
I just try to understand.

You know, it also happens (rarely, but it does) that someone enters your house thinking its his. My neighbour also once was standing in my appartment going "oh shit, wth.. wrong floor" as he was drunk once. Same happened to my friend with his old neighbour that isn't the fastest anymore.

By the way, I own no gun myself. I would also take a sword or so to defend myself. I was just bringing up examples of "whats if's".


EDIT: I might want to add if I happen to find a burglar in my appartment, I can clearly see a gun in his hand and he looks as if he'd use it, then I will shoot first, without warning. Will try my best to not kill him, but I will shoot. But I will not just shoot on a random person being in my house.

So if anyone breaks in your house, no matter why, no matter whether he got a weapon, no matter whether he represents a real threat to you or anyone else, then he deserves to die

You are asking different questions here.
The first is "Does someone deserve to die because they are in the wrong place"
The second is "Do I have a right to shoot someone"
The third is" What are the limits of those rights"

"Deserve" is a strong word. To me, people deserve whatever they choose for themselves. If you *break* into my house (as stated above) you've already rolled the dice with your life.

As for "walking into my house by mistake" it would be impossible. I keep my doors locked at all times (I grew up in NY) and I live in a single family home. You'd have to break in. As stated above, once you've made the CHOICE to BREAK INTO my house, you've taken a gamble with your life.

Just a little something to point out here, if I remember correctly the rule about how close someone has to be with a knife for you to respond with deadly force is something like 21 feet. It's been a very long time since I looked at anything on this but I know 7ft is far too close

Bingo..

In corrections we are tought this EARLY on. If some dumbass is inside 21 feet of you with a weapon it will take less then 3 seconds to be with in striking range. If this is a situation inside a home you MUST be the one to react first or you face a SIGNIFICANT risk of being a victim. There for if someone was in my home at night in the dark with out my explicit consent they WILL be dropped. period. Ill ask questions if he lives. Same goes at work. Some chomo comes after me with a shank. His ass will be dealt with with extreme prejudice if he does not drop me first. I will be going home at the end of shift one way or the other and I will be waking up with my wife next to me in the morning. End of story.

Ok, let's take a completely opposite scenario here.

Someone is in your house. He's 16 years old. He dropped out of school and can't get a job. His mother, the only parent, is trying everything she can to set him on to the right path. It's tough. He begins shoplifting small things. He's beginning to hang out with the wrong crowd. He knows he's doing the wrong thing but his circumstances are stacking up against him and he can't seem to do anything right. One evening, he's pressued and pushed by the wrong crowd to rob 20 quid from a random house. He goes in to the house.
The man upstairs, let's call him KKeauric (he's uhm, hungarian, yeah) hears a noise. He grabs his 2 barreled shotgun, runs downstairs, the kid panics and freezes in his footsteps as a grown man thunders down the stairs, see's the intruder, and blasts his head to pieces.

Crime isn't black and white. Even "scum" who are doing the "wrong" things don't deserve their brains all over the wall without a second thought.
You could do about 50 things in this situation that would suffice in the place of blowing the kid's head apart. Yell, shout, warning shot, agrresive moving, shuve the barrels up his nose, hit him with a baseball bat. But blowing the person's head apart at first glance because he's somewhere where he shouldn't be, is, eh.

Not the way I would handle things. Oh nos, that doesn't sound manly and heroic?

Thank yegods.

On the other hand, Charly the serial rapist sneaks in through the kitchen window and rapes Halo's wife, his grandpa and his cat and then walks out the front door while Halo sits in the corner sucking his thumb and praying for the bad man to stop.

On the other hand, your mum's put out of the hooker business, she panics and turns to burglary to support her son Zehn who runs an animal-porno rental store in San Fransisco, with an average of one customer a day by the name of Crist0.
Your mum robs my house, but I'm awake wanking over your sister. I see her, smack her head in with a frying pan, beat the shit out of her with a curtain pole, handcuff her to the radiator, and charge your friends 2 dolla' for 5 minutes.

See - I made a funny!

Heres the thing Halo.

Would I feel bad? hell ya.. Id feel all sorts of awful.
But the bottom line is.. if you are in my house without permission, and I dont know you...
I am going to kill you.

Everyone has a sad story, everyone has problems.
However my compassion ends when you violate the sanctity of my home.
I cannot, will not, take even the slightest chance with the life of my wife and my son.
And thats what that kid who crawled the the window is.. a threat, I cant see it any other way. He represents someone that made a conscious decision to take what does not belong to him... Maybe just property.. maybe not.. I dont know and I dont care, he crossed the threshold.
Maybe, possibly, I there was some way I could be ABSOULTLY SURE (not sure what that is) that the kid didnt have a gun, then he would just get treated like a curve ball that didnt curve with my alumium baseball bat.

But, NEVER shoot a fleeing person, never attack someone trying to get away, even if he is holding your jewelry box and a bag full of your money. ALWAYS try to call 911 first whenever possible.
If someone is trying to get away.. cool.. Its not "stuff" im concerned about.

BTW though.. In that kind of situation.. I would be MORE inclined to shoot a 16 year old than an older (40s) man. See the thing is, Kids dont think, probably getting his "Gangster" on, probably doesnt even know that a straight burglry will only get him about 5 years, but a burg with a weapon will get him about 20-25.
Older guys usually know this..and they arent unpredicable and erratic like a 16 year old.
Ive seen 16 year who've do some fucked up things, Murder, Rape, assaults, torture...

'But the bottom line is.. if you are in my house without permission, and I dont know you...
I am going to kill you.'

- Mhm, not so much the bottom-line as the differing line I guess. Which is what both arguments can be brought down to.
Now ya had to go and bring age up didn't ya :P

'I would be MORE inclined to shoot a 16 year old than an older (40s) man. See the thing is, Kids dont think, probably getting his "Gangster" on, probably doesnt even know that a straight burglry will only get him about 5 years, but a burg with a weapon will get him about 20-25.
Older guys usually know this..and they arent unpredicable and erratic like a 16 year old.
Ive seen 16 year who've do some fucked up things, Murder, Rape, assaults, torture...'

- Ok, I don't understand. You'd be more inclined to shoot someone who wasn't sure of what they were doing, then someone who was? You're basically citing that if the intention is there, then that's better than if it isn't.
I would very much disagree. Lack of intention most certainly would indicate less aggression. Besides, 16 year olds make mistakes. You make the most mistakes growing up. You'd prefer to end a 16 year old's life, who has yet to live, then a 40 year old, who has lived? (Eh, that felt wrong saying it).
Ya know what I mean.
Crime remains shades of grey through age, as well as any other factor.

Don't get me wrong LL, I see your point. And if I had a family to protect I would think I would agree with you more then I do now, but the bottom line for me wouldn't change. I don't feel everyone's out to do the worst.
Silly pacifist I am.

On the other hand, your mum's put out of the hooker business, she panics and turns to burglary to support her son Zehn who runs an animal-porno rental store in San Fransisco, with an average of one customer a day by the name of Crist0.
Your mum robs my house, but I'm awake wanking over your sister. I see her, smack her head in with a frying pan, beat the shit out of her with a curtain pole, handcuff her to the radiator, and charge your friends 2 dolla' for 5 minutes.

LMAO, thats hilarious. And yes It'd be funny too if he used other names (like mine).

Someone is in your house. He's 16 years old. He dropped out of school and can't get a job. His mother, the only parent, is trying everything she can to set him on to the right path. It's tough. He begins shoplifting small things. He's beginning to hang out with the wrong crowd. He knows he's doing the wrong thing but his circumstances are stacking up against him and he can't seem to do anything right. One evening, he's pressued and pushed by the wrong crowd to rob 20 quid from a random house. He goes in to the house.


Shit, do all people who break into homes in the UK spout of their life story in a fraction of a second when caught?

Inbetween cups of tea.
Aye.

Ok, I don't understand. You'd be more inclined to shoot someone who wasn't sure of what they were doing, then someone who was? You're basically citing that if the intention is there, then that's better than if it isn't.


See, the point isnt "punishment".. im not trying to bring justice or anything.. Im trying to keep my family safe. A young person represents more unpredicabilty, more irrational behavior. And yes.. more frightened..
Being afraid causes violence, being afraid is why Im going to kill the person in the first place.
The difference is.. Im backed into a corner in a situation I didnt create.
Human response to Fear is "Fight or Flight"

If I try to scare this kid.. and he has a weapon. How do I know which response he is going to take?
Can I gamble the lives of my family on that?

Teenagers are too unstable.. hell. a persons brain doesnt stop growing until mid twenties or so.. when a person reaches their maxium level of intelligence. (most physists work is done in this time)
I have heard a theory that I agree with that says Kids are half retarded for the most part.

Too many factors makes the younger the person the greater the risk.

Hell.. look at Liberia

'If I try to scare this kid.. and he has a weapon. How do I know which response he is going to take?'

- The kid's more likely to pee himself then a 40 year old, who if you tried to scare him, is most likely going to see through it and wallap you one.

- The kid's more likely to pee himself then a 40 year old, who if you tried to scare him, is most likely going to see through it and wallap you one



Just Like this 15 year old heh? (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun02/47955.asp)

Bottom line is..stay the hell out of my house if you don't belong.


Ibudin

Okay, I'm slow about catching up on reading the forums...

If you break into my house, you're bought and paid for. Make no mistake, read that as DEAD. DRT = Dead Right There.

If you break into my house while I am gone, you have committed 2nd degree burglary which is a misdemeanor(burglary of an unoccupied residence), and I have insurance in case you managed to steal something.

If you break into my house while I am home, you have committed a felony. You have committed 1st degree burglary (burglary of an occupied residence) which is a FELONY and is punishable by life imprisonment with no parole.

I own several weapons, specifically hand guns, shotguns, rifles and even a 30 caliber carbine with 30 round clips. I am an avid hunter and go hunting several times a year. I do not kill indescriminently. What I kill winds up on the table as food.

I am an excellent shot, and believe in following the training I received. If someone breaks into my home, and they would have to break in, I keep my doors locked at all times as well, they will be shot. I have two daughters and a young grandson who stay with me very frequently.

If you break into my house, I will not fire a warning shot. If fire a warning shot, then I have comitted a felony. I have discharged a firearm and endangered the lives of my neighbors. If I fire that weapon at the intruders feet, the hard concrete floor under the carpet will very likely ricochette the bullet and could kill my next door neighbor in his sleep.
If you break into my house and I am home, I will not yell at you, you probably have something in your hand you could use as a weapon. After all, you DID have to BREAK into my home in the first place. You will die.

Do I like this? No. Why do I feel this way? Society has been twisted and manipulated to the point that if I fire a warning shot, I am guilty of reckless endangerment. If I wound you, I can be sued for causing you pain and suffering, EVEN THOUGH you committed a FELONY in the first place. Our state laws and our district attorneys have taken a hard line on this issue... if you break into someone's home while they are there, you are fair game.

I'm sorry that society has come to this. I feel sorry for the underpriviledged juvenile delinquent who has personal problems, but he should be looking for counseling or help rather than making a life or death decision.

Life is not fair, get used to it.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm)

So.. You see that while the largest majority by FAR is 18-30, with the weight being at the 18-25 year old end of the spectrum, you also see a LARGE percent of the that murder offenders as under 18.

think about that a second.. with a good chunk (10%) of the total coming from basically a period of about 4 years, 14-18. What you have is an inordinate amount of homicides coming from a pretty small minority..

I dont know how you think these go down.. but whatever movies you watched or vision you had in your head... forget it..
The guy breaking in desperate, scared, probably strung out since about 95% of residential burglaries are drug related, in the dark.. No matter WHAT the age..
The homeowner is scared, groggy from just waking up.. in the Dark.

Shit happens, The best way to gain control of the situation is to end it.. otherwise you are taking risks and allowing things to spin out of control and to the next level.
You dont look to hit the ball back to the other guys court and HOPE he does the rational thing..
You drop his ass and end it.

The kid's more likely to pee himself then a 40 year old, who if you tried to scare him, is most likely going to see through it and wallap you one

L2's point is, I think, that teenagers are so erratic at times, that he's just as likely to piss his pants as he is to try to empty a clip into L2.

A kid stupid enough to break into a house to rob somebody isn't likely to suddenly start possessing common sense when he runs into someone. IMO, he's likely to panic and act even more irrationally (and possibly dangerously).

Most people wouldn't take the chance when the "danger" factor comes into play. I wouldn't.

I guess it is all about where you live then.
Kids in this country don't walk around with guns at the ready.

Oohh.. gun culture. I guess it DOES have an affect eh.

A kid stupid enough to break into a house to rob somebody isn't likely to suddenly start possessing common sense when he runs into someone. IMO, he's likely to panic and act even more irrationally (and possibly dangerously).

Extend this into armed robbery. People are trained not to alarm, disagree with or resist armed robbers. There are many, many reasons for this, but top among them are:

1) The best way to get out safely is to give them whatever they want and let them get away. Then call the police. This is what everyone involved thinks will happen. If you deviate from this, the criminal may panic or get upset.

2) If you *do* cause them to get upset and panic, there is no telling what will happen. Once the fight or flight reflex is engaged, people might run, piss themselves or empty a clip into you. Go, go, Amydala!

The same things can be applied to someone breaking into your house. It is there *expectaton* to get in, steal some shit and get out in most cases. Once you break that expectation, all bets are off.

I dont know Amorach..

A break into someones house is a whole other level than a street mugging.
The street mugging is neutral ground.
Your house is a sanctum. Its where your family resides..
After the street mugging.. you can go home and be safe, same cant be said about a home burglary.

Agreed on all points, L2

However, I was using the armed robbery extension to illustrate why "shoot first, ask questions later" might be the way to go in your own house.

If it is shown that armed robbers are more likely to harm when things go unexpectedly, the same thing *MIGHT* apply to armed burglers in your house.

oic..

gotcha

I personally do not care if they are 15 or 50, you break into my house while i am home with my wife and kids you are going to have a bad case of lead poisoning end of story. At 15 kids know right from wrong. Breaking into someone house= wrong

Surprised a kid going through my DVD/CD collection one night. He had almost all of them in a shopping bag and looked like he was getting ready to grab my jukebox CD player and scoot. The laser bouncing off the glass on the stereo case stopped him in his tracks. While he was kneeling on the floor, legs crossed behind him, hands behind his head, waiting for the cops to come, he pissed himself. Cops told me if he had even twitched, i could have shot him dead on the spot, and there wouldnt be a thing anyone could say about it. As it was, the kid, 19, turned out to have robbed 11 houses before mine. I ended up $1800 bucks richer, and the kid, who cares, hopefully hes rotting in jail. Once someone hits that age, and hasnt figured out right from wrong, they wont.

Hamek Eisenfaust
Lord Protector
Final Destiny
Ayonae Ro

Dwarves with guns? How could you aim it with those little stubby fingers of yours Hammy? :b

Unfortunately it has come to my attention that in sweden you can't use more violence than what the court can later redeem as "for the moment necessary" or "under the circumstances understandable". On the whole, what it means is that I have to stop striking when the assailant is on the ground, and that kicking his kneecaps to splinters might come back to haunt me.

However, as per normal, lying in court usually gets you off the hook on most stuff.

"I'm sorry, I really am, I was just trying to push him with my foot... it really wasn't my intention to smash his testicles into a bloody pulp", "I was simply trying to fend myself, I had no idea collar bones snapped that easilly", "Knees? I was just trying to kick him on the shin so I could run away".

And so forth.

I don't own a firearm... on the whole though, it is my belief that anyone who enters another person's home without the clearest of intentions (HELLO, ANYBODY HOME, I'M COMING INSIDE, I NEED TO TALK TO YOU etc) should expect to face the risk of being met by gunfire. Especially if it's a family home. Hell, if one day my kids are sleeping in the room next to mine and I hear a window shatter I'm shooting first and asking questions later.

And shooting people in the back is a-ok in my book as long as you can prove that they were illicitly exiting your premises.

Recently there was a similar incident in Florida involving a 16 year old.

It was the boys birthday and he and his friends, garbed in black, were playing a game of ding dong ditch at 1am. The boy first knocks on a window, then the door of a mans home. The boy stands at the door like a fool. The man looks out the peephole and sees a 6'2 person in all black standing at his front door and shoots him.

just goes to show that Florida has the highest per capita level of stupidity in the entire nation..

Hell.. Fark.com even has a "florida" label