|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted August 01, 2012 10:26 PM |
|
|
I don't see why he should elaborate on "Far west behavior". Far west is basically that the law enforcement is too weak to deal with criminals(usually organized), that there is no due process(usually a subset of the first part: A lone Sheriff can't assault a criminal gang without getting shot, so they can murder and not get "investigated"), and investigating every single harsh situation will lead to plot setups being a lot less common(For instance, fooling people to do something similar to suecide, and drug them to complete it).
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 01, 2012 10:27 PM |
|
|
|
In my country the power of the response to a threat has to be equal to the power of the threat to be considered legal. I.e. if you kill an unarmed burglar if he has broken into your house but hasn't tried to attack you or other people around you, you'll probably end up charged with some sort of murder. If the threat can genuinely be considered serious (he rushes at you with a knife or other weapon and pretty obvious intentions), then killing in self-defence can be justified. That's neat enough in my book.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2012 10:34 PM |
|
|
Pretty silly, if you ask me, because it means, if a burglar intrudes and says, "hand over your stuff or I beat you senseless", your option to defend your home is to excel in the kind of fight the burglar suggested.
In short - crap.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 01, 2012 10:38 PM |
|
|
|
Bollocks, you can point a tank cannon at him if you want and force him to stay down until the police arrives, you just don't have the right to kill him if you are not directly threatened.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 12:59 AM |
|
|
Elodin
Quote:
I advocate a shotgun with 00 buckshot for home defense. Some people prefer a gun like an AK47. It is not up to me to tell them what gun they can use to defend themselves or their family. Honest people won't commit crimes, with or without any weapon. Criminals will obtain the weapon they want regardless of any law that is passed.
I'm not asking you to tell someone what kind of weapon they need to use. I'm asking you your opinion on what advantage they hold for civilians, because you seem like someone who knows a lot about different kinds of guns. Clearly people must think they have some advantage over other options; otherwise nobody would buy --
Ah, forget it. This conversation is a microcosm of why it's impossible to have any kind of dialogue in this country about guns. As soon as it even appears that you may be questioning someone's right to own any weapon, this is what you get: defensive stonewalling.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 09:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bollocks, you can point a tank cannon at him if you want and force him to stay down until the police arrives, you just don't have the right to kill him if you are not directly threatened.
No, the bollocks part is on you, since you cannot USE the tank cannon: "I'm pointing a tank cannon at you, so down on the floor and don't move until the police arrives!"
"Don't be ridiculous. I'm just taking that notebook of yours and the money from the desk drawer, and then I'll leave. I'm not threatening you in any way, so if you shoot you go to jail for murder."
And at this point you are screwed. You can use your tank cannon only to try and whack him over the head, but it doesn't have any more value than that.
So if you are robbed, but not directly threatened, and you try and keep your stuff and thereby shoot the burglar, you end no different than an armed burglar breaking in who is surprised and shoots down the house owner.
Which is completely ridiculous.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 09:35 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:24, 02 Aug 2012.
|
You should really enlighten yourself before claiming stuff (yeah, I know that you are arguing for the argument's sake). Or apply some comprehension to what's being told to you. Maybe next you'll start explaining me how the legal system in my country works. 
OK, one last attempt to explain it:
- An unarmed burglar breaks into your house and tries to steal stuff. Somehow you are there as well and catch him red-handed. You also have a knife, a gun or some lethal weapon in general. The likelihood all this to happen exactly like that is irrelevant as we are talking about a situation when it actually happens exactly like that.
- The burglar either tries to escape or freezes on his place, in the latter case, say, because you have pointed a gun at him. If he obeys and doesn't try to attack you, you have NO right to kill him. If he runs away, again you have NO right to kill him. In both cases you are not threatened directly so you are not allowed to take the life of the perpetrator because he's committing a crime, even if this crime is affecting you - the state is dealing with the law enforcement, not you.
- If the burglar tries to attack you, you are in your right to defend yourself. If you don't know if he's armed or not but shoot him nonetheless, your actions will most likely be justified before the court.
The important bit is that there has to be a genuine and direct threat so you do not take the law into your hands and apply your version of justice just because your home is being robbed. There.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 11:55 AM |
|
|
And you should use your brain instead of barking up trees. I did understand you the first time, but there is no reason to change my answer - the points are the same, and if you don't see them, I can't help it.
It means, basically, that I have no right to try and stop a burglar fleeing with my stuff (why SHOULD he freeze, when I threaten him with a gun?), because I'm not threatened.
Don't you see that?
The burglar grabs stuff and tries to get away. If I come up with a gun and tell him "FREEZE!", and he just flees on, I can only call the police, since I have no legal means to stop him - I can't shoot him, obviously.
So my goods are GONE, no matter what.
Which means, if I WANT to protect my goods, I have to keep a couple of weapons for every opportunity and must guess, whether burglar is armed or not and if so, how. Because, if he's unarmed, a baseball bat will do the trick, since I can try and whack him senseless, not killing him, protecting my goods.
Of course, if I come up with the bat or some pepper spray, he might pull a weapon indeed, and if it's a gun, I'm screwed.
If I pull a gun instead, burglar laughs at me, tells me he's unarmed and that he'll now be away - if I shoot him I'll be guilty of murder, and in that case I'm screwed again.
So basically I - as the one who's robbed - have to REACT. The BURGLAR has total initiative and determines the "level of violence" that is allowed - which is fine for the burglar, but not for me.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It means, basically, that I have no right to try and stop a burglar fleeing with my stuff (why SHOULD he freeze, when I threaten him with a gun?), because I'm not threatened.
Don't you see that?
Fortunately in Texas you don't have to stand by and let people steal your stuff if they claim they are unarmed. A home invader is by definition (to a rational person) a threat to your well-being.
Quote:
Which means, if I WANT to protect my goods, I have to keep a couple of weapons for every opportunity and must guess, whether burglar is armed or not and if so, how. Because, if he's unarmed, a baseball bat will do the trick, since I can try and whack him senseless, not killing him, protecting my goods.
I find the idea that people should have to have a selection of home defense weapons and make the correct "guess" as to how the home invader is armed to confront a home invader with the "correct" implement to be a preposterous idea.
Ha!!!!!!!! You will be dead when you chose the baseball bat.
You pick up the bat. He pulls out a gun. You are dead.
You pick up a bat. He is a blackbelt in 7 martial arts. Or he is just much stronger than you. You are dead.
You are old. You pick up a bat. He kicks your butt and chokes you to death.
Liberals are so intent on protecting a person who is in the act of committing a crime that they are quite willing for the victim of the crime to die. I find that to be very sad.
Quote:
So basically I - as the one who's robbed - have to REACT. The BURGLAR has total initiative and determines the "level of violence" that is allowed - which is fine for the burglar, but not for me.
The home invader took his initiative when he invaded my home. Now its my turn. And I'll chose the shotgun every time. He can claim he is unarmed all he wants. He is a criminal who invaded my home, I'd be a fool to take him at his word and an even bigger fool if I decided to fist fight him or go at him with a baseball bat when I have a gun.
When I turn my gun on him if he lays down on the floor and does everything I tell him to he'll probably survive until the cops arrive. In Texas if he tries to flee with my stuff I have a right to defend my property with deadly force. If he makes any sort of aggressive move whatsoever I am justified in shooting him.
Clicky
Quote:
Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 01:32 PM |
|
|
|
Where did I say that you are not allowed to stop him? I said that you have no right to kill him if you are not directly threatened but you sure as hell can do whatever you can to prevent the theft of your belongings, including threatening to shoot him and eventually even shooting him in the leg for example. As long as you are not intentionally, deliberately trying to kill him, your actions can be justified.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 02:25 PM |
|
|
Try to STOP a burglar with a shotgun. Chances are that he'll bleed do death, even if you aim at the legs.
I mean, are they really expecting from you, that you take care not to kill the thief in trying to protect what is yours? Aim to the leg, as if you were an Olympic Champion with a pistol or whatever?
I think, that is just UNREASONABLE. You have no obligation to care for a burglar whatsoever. If someone breaks into your house, you hear him, lurk with a bat behind a corner and hit him in the head - if you've hit too hard and shatter his skull, tough luck. If you shoot him, and he bleeds to death, before police and docs are there, tough luck.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 02:37 PM |
|
|
Sounds so easy. But the laws take care of LIFE, not matter burglar or not. If you are allowed to hit in head with a baseball or shot with Kalashnikov just because someone is in your house, HOW THEN you can make the difference between planned assassination ie you tell someone you don't like to come home then kill him, and self-defense?
Law is there to prevent rampage and exploits. If you kill someone, you should be charged. Then in court, you show your arguments and facts and eventually get out if in your right.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 02:49 PM |
|
|
Practically speaking, absent bizarre circumstances, it would not be worth it to try and prosecute someone for defending his or her home. A jury will be far more sympathetic to someone who was just trying to protect his home and life over someone who created the danger by breaking into the home and attempting to commit crimes there.
On a more political level, it would be stupid. A lot of judges are elected. Most people who vote have somewhere they call home. In the event the judge or jury found a person guilty of manslaughter for defending their home, that judge's reelection campaign just got a LOT harder.
As to the planned assassination angle, that only works in a couple of scenarios.
1) You expressly invite someone to your home with the intent of killing them and then do so. That's 1st degree murder if proven.
2) You're home is booby-trapped. For example, you leave a bathroom window open. The window is just above a tiger-pit full of poorly fed Bengal tigers. If someone goes in through that window and is eaten, then the planner gets tried because he planned for someone to die in such a comical fashion. Again, 1st degree murder.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 02:56 PM |
|
|
|
In Europe (I hope all), judges are not elected by people, justice is independent of politics. And your example is not defining what is actually a threat. For example, the guy who shot the salesman thought he was a threat to his life, he is saying that. I don't see much sympathy towards him. Of course, the other was not a burglar, but I guess people as Elodin will shot first, investigate after.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 03:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In Europe (I hope all), judges are not elected by people, justice is independent of politics.
Justice is never independent of politics. Just because the judges do not have to worry about reelection, it does not make them unaccountable.
Quote:
And your example is not defining what is actually a threat. For example, the guy who shot the salesman thought he was a threat to his life, he is saying that.
That's where the guy is going to lose the case. It will be up to the fact finder to determine whether or not he was justified in his belief of fear. A reasonable person would not find there was any threat of a steak salesman or whatever he was selling.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 03:08 PM |
|
|
|
On the moral aspect I fully agree with you, but I also fear that giving the right to kill after own appreciation is going to spawn hundreds of George Zimmerman like.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 03:26 PM |
|
|
In a self defense situation there is only one place you should ever aim for. Center of mass. Don't try to get a head shot, shoot off his left pinkie, or shoot him in the leg. You are not a sniper sitting off in the distance with all the time in the world to make the shot and you can't afford to miss. Point ( no need to aim) your shotgun towards his chest/stomach and you won't miss and he won't be a threat to you after you pull the trigger.
____________
Revelation
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 07:16 PM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 08:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You pick up the bat. He pulls out a gun.
You pull out a tank.  Unless he has a helicopter in his backpack, you win.
Quote:
You pick up a bat. He is a blackbelt in 7 martial arts. Or he is just much stronger than you. You are dead.
No amounts of belts of any martial art will save you from a baseball bat, knife, baton, or, in fact, any weapon at all.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 09:34 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 21:56, 02 Aug 2012.
|
Finland does not hold the knife in pocket.
Ju-Jutsu is training in Karate, Kung-Fu, Aikido, Judo, boxing and wrestling. I do not know America, but the police officers, security guards, etc learn Ju-Jutsu in Europe. Orange belt is quite sufficient.
Ju-Jutsu Yellow&Orange belt are training knife saves
|
| |
|
|
