Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2017, 09:11 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 07:45 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  We may have a misunderstanding here.

I didnt claim somebody needs to strip search burglers, before he can decide on how to defend himself. I do however object to the general notion that it should be ok to "mow down people who break into your house". I am sceptical, nothing more or less, as to if the owner of the house/gun reacted in a proportional way to what the the burglars did. I simply do not have enough information on this event.

Did they threaten to stab him with the knife? Did he return head shots? Did he possbly just went panic and, by mere accident, inflicted deadly woulds to the burglars? Was it too dark for him to judge the situation? I am willing to give him benefit of doubt in face of imminent danger. I am not willing to give anybody carte blanche to shoot and kill, on purpose, burglars.

Where i live, police isnt allowed to shoot and kill someone just because he is a burglar, and i dont think anybody should be allowed to. The three guys were thieves, criminals, and certainly were willing to inflict harm on their victims (by carrying a knife), and they were certainly very stupid for risking their lives in a country like the US, where everybody has a gun.

but

(reference to the death penalty thread), that doesnt automatically mean they deserve to die or be shot, certainly not without a trial. At least not on purpose. Thats what gun license is about too, the responsible handling of those weapons.
They deserved to be arrested and sentenced to jail. And the owner of the house/gun needs to be investigated if he acted (or if it could have been expected og him given the situation, was it probably dark? etc.) in a proportional manner. Anybody who rejects the death sentence and thinks its ok to kill burglars has conflicting beliefs imho.

Thieves dont deserve death. Their lifes arent automatically forfeit because they break into somebodys house, even if they carry a knife. Only if they threatened the house owner. Please dont pretend i am a SJW or soft on criminals, i have explained that i dont have much sympathy for those thieves.

I have played out this incident in my mind countless times.

If you have broken into my home I will immediately assume the very worst and I will defend myself and my family with deadly force. No questions asked.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
06-04-2017, 09:16 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 07:45 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  We may have a misunderstanding here.

I didnt claim somebody needs to strip search burglers, before he can decide on how to defend himself. I do however object to the general notion that it should be ok to "mow down people who break into your house". I am sceptical, nothing more or less, as to if the owner of the house/gun reacted in a proportional way to what the the burglars did. I simply do not have enough information on this event.

Did they threaten to stab him with the knife? Did he return head shots? Did he possbly just went panic and, by mere accident, inflicted deadly woulds to the burglars? Was it too dark for him to judge the situation? I am willing to give him benefit of doubt in face of imminent danger. I am not willing to give anybody carte blanche to shoot and kill, on purpose, burglars.

Where i live, police isnt allowed to shoot and kill someone just because he is a burglar, and i dont think anybody should be allowed to. The three guys were thieves, criminals, and certainly were willing to inflict harm on their victims (by carrying a knife), and they were certainly very stupid for risking their lives in a country like the US, where everybody has a gun.

but

(reference to the death penalty thread), that doesnt automatically mean they deserve to die or be shot, certainly not without a trial. At least not on purpose. Thats what gun license is about too, the responsible handling of those weapons.
They deserved to be arrested and sentenced to jail. And the owner of the house/gun needs to be investigated if he acted (or if it could have been expected og him given the situation, was it probably dark? etc.) in a proportional manner. Anybody who rejects the death sentence and thinks its ok to kill burglars has conflicting beliefs imho.

Thieves dont deserve death. Their lifes arent automatically forfeit because they break into somebodys house, even if they carry a knife. Only if they threatened the house owner. Please dont pretend i am a SJW or soft on criminals, i have explained that i dont have much sympathy for those thieves.

There are no laws in the US that require someone to react to a threat proportionally. Here either the use of deadly force is justified or it isn't. Generally speaking the litmus test for justified is if a reasonable person would feel their (or someone else's) health or life is in danger. What's reasonable is obviously subjective, but many states have laws that say if someone has broken into your home while you are there it is reasonable to assume they are a threat.

That doesn't give you carte blanche to shoot someone in back while they are running away, or execute them while they sit passively in the floor obeying your commands. It does however give you the right to use whatever force is at your disposal to stop them should they act aggressively. Notice I said stop them not kill them. That's important because it is never OK to try to kill someone, but it is OK to use deadly force in order to stop them. If they die as a result then sorry but shit happens.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
06-04-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(05-04-2017 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If two people commit a robbery, and one gets killed by a cop or a guard, is the other robber charged with the murder of his co-perpetrator ?
Yes.
(05-04-2017 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Never heard of it ...
I bet I could find a case.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 11:46 AM)f stop Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If two people commit a robbery, and one gets killed by a cop or a guard, is the other robber charged with the murder of his co-perpetrator ?
Yes.
(05-04-2017 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Never heard of it ...
I bet I could find a case.

It isn't unusual.

I don't agree with murder charges in this type of case for the same reason I don't agree with murder charges for drunk drivers that kill people. Murder requires intent to kill, there was no intent to kill. Manslaughter yes. Murder no.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
06-04-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 09:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 04:30 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  One was armed with a knife, and the owner shot all three dead?
I am all with the owner having a right to defend himself, but i am skeptical as to if he may have overreacted. In this case he, probably, should face some charge too.

Principle of proportionality, ya know. Big Grin

I definitely cant support your notion that it (may) be justified to "mow down" 3 guys with a knife with your gun.
I dont cry much about the 3 dudes, they pretty much knew very well what could fact them in a country with more firearms than people.

So, what exactly would you do in that situation? Consider

Whack em, stack em, bury em by moonlight...

Tongue

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 02:54 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 09:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 04:28 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  I agree with pretty much everything but the murder charge. I think it should be Involuntary Manslaughter.

Just Google® "felony murder".

And that's why I'll never get into law.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 05:34 AM)SYZ Wrote:  As per his usual performance, Earmuffs is having trouble keeping up LOL.

This bizarre case was discussed more than a week ago HERE under the topic "Strange Legal Case".

It's a pity that people such as Earmuffs fail to read through earlier threads in their haste to mouth off with an obscenity-laden and unnecessary new thread.

Can the mods please combine the two threads. Thumbsup

Yeah...and combine all the Trump threads and all the gun threads and all the other threads that have anything similar in them.

It's all earmuff's fault, of course, because everyone else here reads every single post, every thread, and this sort of nonsense doesn't ever happen to any other forum member.

It's a travesty and must be remedied.

From now on, anyone who posts a thread that has ever...in the history of the forum...been mentioned they should be on the naughty list with their ability to start threads curtailed.

Dodgy

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
06-04-2017, 04:51 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 09:16 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Generally speaking the litmus test for justified is if a reasonable person would feel their (or someone else's) health or life is in danger. What's reasonable is obviously subjective, but many states have laws that say if someone has broken into your home while you are there it is reasonable to assume they are a threat.

In my state the litmus test is, have they crossed your threshold?

So if you shoot a robber, invader, potential assailant, etc., here, make sure they fall inside you home, and all is copasetic. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 05:05 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(06-04-2017 06:06 AM)whateverist Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 04:30 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  One was armed with a knife, and the owner shot all three dead?
I am all with the owner having a right to defend himself, but i am skeptical as to if he may have overreacted. In this case he, probably, should face some charge too.

Principle of proportionality, ya know. Big Grin

My only problem with that is two against one. While it might be nice if we all were as proficient at hand to hand as Bruce Lee, most of us aren't. If I fail to acquire such skills and then three people break into my home, after I've justifiably shot the one that was armed, what am I supposed to do with the other two? Throw myself on their mercy? "Sorry guys. I really should've kept up with the self defense lessons. That's no ones fault but mine. You're not armed so I won't shoot you. I'd rather you not rob or harm me but don't worry, I'm putting this gun away."

Big Grin

I agree with just asking them nicely if they are armed. Nice boys like that would tell the truth, wouldn't they? Also, ask them if they wandered into the wrong house by accident. It's not like they're armed and scared of getting caught or identified to police.

I'll bet they'd appreciate some nice warm cookies and glass of organic milk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
07-04-2017, 03:04 AM
RE: Strange legal case
*just realizes he has stumbled into a discussion about guns with the yank portion of TTA*













*starts backing up slowly towards the door* Tongue

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: