Printable View
in America they have some states that belive if someone breaks into your house, you have the right to shoot them dead on the spot. the rest of the states believe you must run or use no more force than the intruder, ie if the intruder has a knife, you could not use anything more than a knife to stop them from harming you or your family. what are your views on the situation?
We are going to have to be very careful with this thread, as the site tries very hard to distance itself from any type of violent behavior, 'justified' or not.
That being said, the concept of using 'no more force than the intruder' is going to be very difficult to apply in a courtroom. While on the surface, the two weapons may be compared side by side; however, it's impossible to tell in a dim or dark area whether what the intruder is holding is a CO2 pellet gun or a stolen service revolver. I can hardly imagine in that situation saying, 'oh well hang on just one sec, I see that you are far out-gunned; shall I get my duelling pistols out so we can settle this like gentlemen?'.
I would not want to live with having killed someone, no matter what the reason. There is a certain hubris to it, and it sits badly with me on moral grounds. I think the equal force idea is intended to say that in an emergency situation, one should use the absolute least force necessary to prevent injury to the home occupants.
Here in Washington they are very liberal about using deadly force. If they are inside the house its completely justified. If someone has made a verbal threat against you and you feel immediately threatened you are allowed to use deadly force. I've had 2 opportunities to use deadly force and elected not to. One was a break in of a business and I happened to be there with my 45. The guy chased me with a 2X4. I just got in my truck and dialed 911 and blocked the driveway. The 2 guys were stealing food and I just didn't think stealing food was a death penalty reason.
If someone broke into someones house I think that the victim has every right to shoot the robber. They should have thought about that shit before they went into someones house and posed a threat to their family.
The equal force idea is a nice one, but it doesn't work in reality. The idea that if someone has a knife, you can defend yourself with a knife is just plain idiotic. You are a law abiding citizen and he is a streetwise criminal. The facts of the matter are he is likely to kill you. It is your house, if someone comes in and threatens you with a knife I think you have every right to shoot the bastard in the face. You did not ask him to come and threaten you, so why should you have to defend yourself with the same level of threat?
That being said, if the threat is less serious (like a guy running off with a tub full of food as per the example above) then I don't feel that person deserves death. I guess what I'm getting at is I agree with proportional force, but I think this should be exercised in a manner of "if he threatens death (ie carrying a lethal weapon), you can respond in any manner that could result in his death" or "if he threatens injury of some kind (non-lethal) you may respond with injury (ie if someone comes at you with a 2X4 you could wing a bat at him or something)".
That is my opinion on the topic.
(homeowner confronts intruder in house) why excuse me kind sir, while you have managed to break into my home wielding a deadly weapon, alas your firearm is vastly inferior to mine. please take this gun of equal size and caliber, (hands gun to criminal) and let us have a fair du....BANG (homeowner drops dead)
if someone were to break into my house, i'd laugh at them.
if they pulled a knife on me, i would disarm them and laugh even harder.
If they pulled a gun, i would die of hysterical laughter before they could pull the trigger...
and if i didnt die, i'd disarm them.
Then i'd chat with them and laugh about life and prevent them from stealing anything... n_n
You are living in a fantasy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
This isn't the first thread in which he's proven that he is detached from reality. I sincerely hope that he gets it together before he either gets hurt or hurts someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevoCWN
The perpetrator is the causal agent. He set the chain of events in motion and is responsible for what may happen, even his own death. In my weapons training, we were not taught to shoot to kill, rather you shoot to stop. The target is the center of body mass with the objective of achieving a hit or hits. When you are in a stressful situation your fine motor skills are diminished and your ability to shoot in a pin-point fashion is greatly compromised. I would not want to live anywhere that didn't allow me to defend myself and my own.
At least in the USA you have some rights to defend your property, in the UK we have none at all.
A recent case locally had a burglar suing a home owner because he tripped on a loose paving slab in her garden and broke his wrist when he fell, he got awarded £1,800 for pain and discomfort as it was ruled she should not have had a loose slab.
I could list loads of such cases but sufficient to say we in the UK have no rights to defend what is ours.
Having said that if I catch someone in my house I am going to use the maximum force available to defend myself and property, of that there is no doubt and I'll worry later about having broke the law.
NCM
Have a look at this from Australia, the burglars mother even manages to sue the householder for thousands, just like in the UK.
Teen wins $50,000 damages after breaking into home - smh.com.au
im all for protecting your property under any circumstances, people shouldnt be trying to rob, harm, or damage others on their property's
here in south houston(pasadena) a man killed robbers that robbed his neighbors house afew months ago, texas courts just ruled and let him go free of charge
if someone robs you here in america and you shoot/harm but dont kill the robbers, they can come back and sue here also, its pretty messed up how robbers/people that harm others can come back to sueQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrewman
Someone get found INSIDE my house uninvited and I don't know that someone..........that someone is dead. Pure and simple.
And as for the "Equal force" issue, the cops shoot alleged perps who brandish knives on a regular basis.
The Gov't itself has NUKED other countries for using conventional bombs on us.
This whole "excessive force" thing is absurd. If someone comes at me, I can only assume that they mean me or mine harm. In MY personal security class, they teach to shoot, follow the perp to the ground while continuing to fire until the offender is no longer a threat (IE: on the ground). They teach that IF you are gonna shoot, shoot to kill.
If criminals had it in thier minds that there is a greater than 50% chance of them dying in your house, more criminals would think twice about commiting burglary. They should be more afraid of US than of the courts, 'cuz the judicial system is a joke and they know it! As it sits now, the criminals know that there is a very small chance that the homeowner will even put up resistance, much less harm them. That is wrong!!! The criminal element needs to be very afraid to break into the sanctity of our homes before we can get a handle on crime. I beleive that we should have the right to be able to shoot someone inside our homes (if we are so inclined), no questions asked. Obviously the threat of a small stretch in prison isn't much of a deterrent.
I, personally, believe thoroughly in peace thru SUPERIOR firepower. We have a really large and intimidating dog, and it is WELL known that we have weapons, are trained and willing to use them. So far, several houses in our area have been hit, thankfully ours is not one of them.
I am not advocating violence for every situation. That would be up to the homeowner. But I do advocate having the right to use deadly force to defend our homes, property and loved ones without too much oversight. Thats not to say we should be able to shoot the edison man for reading the meter, rather we should be able to defend or homes and property in whatever manner we choose from those who would do us harm or deprive us of our property. There should be an inquest to determine the validity of the incedent or shooting, nothing more.
2 points here....Quote:
Originally Posted by RevoCWN
1st, in Mississippi, they don't have to be inside the house to shoot them, they only have to be on your property, and you don't have to drag them inside the house after you shoot them.
2nd, with having served 22 years in the Coast Guard, and that being the *ONLY* military service that is a federal law enforcement agency, I was told the following by a federal magistrate;
If you have to shoot somebody, then empty the entire clip/magazine into them. When the judge asks why you put 14 rounds into the perp, you answer "In the heat of the moment, and being in fear of my life, I kept pulling the trigger until the hammer fell on an empty chamber."
Under NO circumstances do you reload!! First, after emptying the magazine, the threat will be gone. either the perp has hauled ass, or he/she is dead....either way the threat has ended. Second, to reload, consitutes "pre-meditation", and your gonna go to jail.