Bad Ass Dad

Off Topic
62

[quote]ultra_extreme wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Certified_nuttah wrote:
hamr different secnario all together i was talking if your home sleeping or awake for that matter and someone forces entry then they are fair game as they then pose a threat to me and my family. if any kid broke in to my place to smoke weed i would be surprised to be honest lets be sensible sure they can find a field of some disused building alot of effort to break in just to smoke weed, would probably give them a sound beating call the police and say he broke in while i was watching telly.

Yeah I see what you mean. But some people are that crazy that they would try and kill anyone on their property.
If someone legitimately comes onto your property and risks harming you then I have no objection doing what you think you need to do.

I see very few legitimate reasons anyone should be inside your house. It should be a clear global rule that anyone who enters the property of another without permision forfeits all rights to press charges for damages to person or property. If this was the case no kids would break into a house to smoke weed, cmon, if they could be killed or severely beaten? I think not. The rules should be, if its where you are sleeping then its self defence regaurdless of outcome. That way, to make it black and white like that, you can be sure the only people coming into your house unannounced are up to no good, or if not will probably be making it very clear vocally that they are in there and need help/dont mean any harm.

The legitimate counter argument is that if all burglars go into a house expecting violent agression, they will go in prepared to retaliate. And since the aggressor is more likely to be alert/awake, prepared physically and morally, and also armed, it would certainly lead to more murders as a result of burglaries being interrupted.[/quote]

Some kids are stupid. Notice in countries with the death penalty for light crimes people still break them? It would seem odd that you would suggest kids deserve death for being stupid.

63

Another argument against are the extreme cases:

  1. A guy abducts and rapes a girl then kills her, then breaks a window in his house and says she broke in. Any evidence to the contrary?
  2. I’m in a club and get drugged. In my stupor, I stumble home and having had my keys stolen, I break into the wrong house and get beaten to death by the occupier.
    This is why it’s kept at minimum force, because while some people do deserve to get beaten to death when they break in to your house, but some don’t.
64

I think that dad showed a lot more restraint than most would under the circumstances. At least he was alive when the police first arrived.

Another possible thought though, maybe the dad just strangled the guy to death but the police said they saw the guy alive and being restrained when they got there so the dad wouldn’t get investigated. I’d like to think there are cops out there with a bit of compassion and decency

Anyway, as a dad myself I’d just like to say well done to guy and feel proud for doing your job; keeping your kids safe

65

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
Another argument against are the extreme cases:

  1. A guy abducts and rapes a girl then kills her, then breaks a window in his house and says she broke in. Any evidence to the contrary?
  2. I’m in a club and get drugged. In my stupor, I stumble home and having had my keys stolen, I break into the wrong house and get beaten to death by the occupier.
    This is why it’s kept at minimum force, because while some people do deserve to get beaten to death when they break in to your house, but some don’t.[/quote]

I have a problem with these wild ass exceptions to the rule limiting the options available in the vast majority of situations. Ninjas dropping from the ceiling, dope smoking teenagers, abduction and rape, drunk neighbor. Simple rule: Castle Doctrine. You guys are fried.

66

Any way of tracking the guy down and giving him a special T-Magnum award for being a double-hard bastard?

67

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
Another argument against are the extreme cases:

  1. A guy abducts and rapes a girl then kills her, then breaks a window in his house and says she broke in. Any evidence to the contrary?
  2. I’m in a club and get drugged. In my stupor, I stumble home and having had my keys stolen, I break into the wrong house and get beaten to death by the occupier.
    This is why it’s kept at minimum force, because while some people do deserve to get beaten to death when they break in to your house, but some don’t.

I have a problem with these wild ass exceptions to the rule limiting the options available in the vast majority of situations. Ninjas dropping from the ceiling, dope smoking teenagers, abduction and rape, drunk neighbor. Simple rule: Castle Doctrine. You guys are fried.
[/quote]
I do see where you’re coming from loose tool, but I have to disagree. The second one is a bit out there, but I think the first would be more common than you’d expect. I do like the castle doctrine, and I will say that I will apply it to my house (if I can ever afford one in the UK), but I cannot condone it becoming law because there are always nutters who will abuse it. There was a case in the UK where some kids broke into a crack-shot farmer’s farm and he shot one of them in the back of the head as they ran away. I think this is too extreme, as he could have aimed for the legs. There’s a fine line to walk to preventing burglary and causing harm.
However, I will say, legal or not, when the police got to my house after I’ve found a perv in my daughter’s room with a knife, he won’t be in one piece.

68

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
ultra_extreme wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Certified_nuttah wrote:
hamr different secnario all together i was talking if your home sleeping or awake for that matter and someone forces entry then they are fair game as they then pose a threat to me and my family. if any kid broke in to my place to smoke weed i would be surprised to be honest lets be sensible sure they can find a field of some disused building alot of effort to break in just to smoke weed, would probably give them a sound beating call the police and say he broke in while i was watching telly.

Yeah I see what you mean. But some people are that crazy that they would try and kill anyone on their property.
If someone legitimately comes onto your property and risks harming you then I have no objection doing what you think you need to do.

I see very few legitimate reasons anyone should be inside your house. It should be a clear global rule that anyone who enters the property of another without permision forfeits all rights to press charges for damages to person or property. If this was the case no kids would break into a house to smoke weed, cmon, if they could be killed or severely beaten? I think not. The rules should be, if its where you are sleeping then its self defence regaurdless of outcome. That way, to make it black and white like that, you can be sure the only people coming into your house unannounced are up to no good, or if not will probably be making it very clear vocally that they are in there and need help/dont mean any harm.

The legitimate counter argument is that if all burglars go into a house expecting violent agression, they will go in prepared to retaliate. And since the aggressor is more likely to be alert/awake, prepared physically and morally, and also armed, it would certainly lead to more murders as a result of burglaries being interrupted.

Some kids are stupid. Notice in countries with the death penalty for light crimes people still break them? It would seem odd that you would suggest kids deserve death for being stupid.[/quote]

Thats out of context. Those countries you mention are extremely poor. Often there is death or mutilation for theft yet it occurs, well of course it does! When someone is starving they, in the immediacy, wont care. In america and the UK and other developed nations we have EDUCATION and it is mandatory. Sure it doesnt stop crime but it DOES elevate most people, at least in their awareness of right and wrong and of consequences. Kids are stupid sure but they are aware. Whats more, i think in the west, as opposed to these barbaric semi 3rd world countries to whom you refer, we have a somewhat greater attachment to life. Even the poorest guy can get food and shelter and some spare change, even the chance at a job and to change his life around, he has hope. Thats the difference, we dont deal day to day with life and death, not even on the bottom rung of the ladder, in the countries you reference, to live or to die, it means NOTHING. So my point is that if the penalty for every crime in the west was death, it would drop MASSIVLEY, whereas the same would not be true in many 3rd world countries.

69

[quote]ultra_extreme wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
ultra_extreme wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Certified_nuttah wrote:
hamr different secnario all together i was talking if your home sleeping or awake for that matter and someone forces entry then they are fair game as they then pose a threat to me and my family. if any kid broke in to my place to smoke weed i would be surprised to be honest lets be sensible sure they can find a field of some disused building alot of effort to break in just to smoke weed, would probably give them a sound beating call the police and say he broke in while i was watching telly.

Yeah I see what you mean. But some people are that crazy that they would try and kill anyone on their property.
If someone legitimately comes onto your property and risks harming you then I have no objection doing what you think you need to do.

I see very few legitimate reasons anyone should be inside your house. It should be a clear global rule that anyone who enters the property of another without permision forfeits all rights to press charges for damages to person or property. If this was the case no kids would break into a house to smoke weed, cmon, if they could be killed or severely beaten? I think not. The rules should be, if its where you are sleeping then its self defence regaurdless of outcome. That way, to make it black and white like that, you can be sure the only people coming into your house unannounced are up to no good, or if not will probably be making it very clear vocally that they are in there and need help/dont mean any harm.

The legitimate counter argument is that if all burglars go into a house expecting violent agression, they will go in prepared to retaliate. And since the aggressor is more likely to be alert/awake, prepared physically and morally, and also armed, it would certainly lead to more murders as a result of burglaries being interrupted.

Some kids are stupid. Notice in countries with the death penalty for light crimes people still break them? It would seem odd that you would suggest kids deserve death for being stupid.

Thats out of context. Those countries you mention are extremely poor. Often there is death or mutilation for theft yet it occurs, well of course it does! When someone is starving they, in the immediacy, wont care. In america and the UK and other developed nations we have EDUCATION and it is mandatory. Sure it doesnt stop crime but it DOES elevate most people, at least in their awareness of right and wrong and of consequences. Kids are stupid sure but they are aware. Whats more, i think in the west, as opposed to these barbaric semi 3rd world countries to whom you refer, we have a somewhat greater attachment to life. Even the poorest guy can get food and shelter and some spare change, even the chance at a job and to change his life around, he has hope. Thats the difference, we dont deal day to day with life and death, not even on the bottom rung of the ladder, in the countries you reference, to live or to die, it means NOTHING. So my point is that if the penalty for every crime in the west was death, it would drop MASSIVLEY, whereas the same would not be true in many 3rd world countries.[/quote]

I don’t care if the crime rate would drop. Death penalty is rediculous. I would have been sentenced to death hundreds of times, and yet I have never committed a crime that has had a negative effect on others.

70

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
Another argument against are the extreme cases:

  1. A guy abducts and rapes a girl then kills her, then breaks a window in his house and says she broke in. Any evidence to the contrary?
  2. I’m in a club and get drugged. In my stupor, I stumble home and having had my keys stolen, I break into the wrong house and get beaten to death by the occupier.
    This is why it’s kept at minimum force, because while some people do deserve to get beaten to death when they break in to your house, but some don’t.

I have a problem with these wild ass exceptions to the rule limiting the options available in the vast majority of situations. Ninjas dropping from the ceiling, dope smoking teenagers, abduction and rape, drunk neighbor. Simple rule: Castle Doctrine. You guys are fried.

I do see where you’re coming from loose tool, but I have to disagree. The second one is a bit out there, but I think the first would be more common than you’d expect. I do like the castle doctrine, and I will say that I will apply it to my house (if I can ever afford one in the UK), but I cannot condone it becoming law because there are always nutters who will abuse it. There was a case in the UK where some kids broke into a crack-shot farmer’s farm and he shot one of them in the back of the head as they ran away. I think this is too extreme, as he could have aimed for the legs. There’s a fine line to walk to preventing burglary and causing harm.
However, I will say, legal or not, when the police got to my house after I’ve found a perv in my daughter’s room with a knife, he won’t be in one piece.[/quote]

Are you talking about this guy?

71

Firstly no one wins a fight. Minimum force means minimum force, you attack me I hit you once and disable you that’s minimum force I continue to hit you after your disabled I am then assaulting you. you break into my farm I disturb you and you run off and I shoot you in the back and you die that is murder, you are running away and are no longer a threat. Some one enters your house and smokes pot you attack them and your guilly of assault. Its the law of the land and sometimes the law is an ass, but sometimes it just protects you.
Lets hope the kid and the kids father are both fine and do not suffer to much from this ordeal. My best wishes are with them. good luck cheers Spud

72

Loose tool, I apologise, I obviously misheard the story, the old man was not charged in the end. But say my story is true, say the farmer is a trained gunman, used to pressure and could have shot a burglar in the legs, but instead chose to shot him in the back of the head, is that acceptable?

73

[quote]Typhon wrote:
I think that dad showed a lot more restraint than most would under the circumstances. At least he was alive when the police first arrived.

Another possible thought though, maybe the dad just strangled the guy to death but the police said they saw the guy alive and being restrained when they got there so the dad wouldn’t get investigated. I’d like to think there are cops out there with a bit of compassion and decency

Anyway, as a dad myself I’d just like to say well done to guy and feel proud for doing your job; keeping your kids safe
[/quote]

Great point about the cops. I would hope there are good cops out there like that. I can see it.

Father: I think he’s dead.
Cop: Nope, I saw him moving.
Father: Really.
Cop: You bet I did. wink, wink

74

Dre it all in the wording of statements and evidence that you can find and or be bothereed to look for. I arrested a lady for murder of her partner she had suffered systamic abuse for years and had finally snapped when her old man had brought a group of lads home for a party because they bought the beer, she was the party, 2 knifes in the heart ended said party.

She got 2 years probation no goal time, she confessed to me all writen down “all legal like” as I said the laws an ass sometimes sometimes it actually works and protects you, must of had something in my eye that night, wink wink. cheers Spud

75

[quote]Spud wrote:
Dre it all in the wording of statements and evidence that you can find and or be bothereed to look for. I arrested a lady for murder of her partner she had suffered systamic abuse for years and had finally snapped when her old man had brought a group of lads home for a party because they bought the beer, she was the party, 2 knifes in the heart ended said party. She got 2 years probation no goal time, she confessed to me all writen down “all legal like” as I said the laws an ass sometimes sometimes it actually works and protects you, must of had something in my eye that night, wink wink. cheers Spud[/quote]

You have restored some of my faith in humanity. Good job.

76

There is a lot of decent people out there but some times the system beats them down. I like to think most people have got it in them to stand up and be counted when it really counts. cheers Spud

77

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
What about if a kid breaks into your property because they thought no one was home and they wanted to smoke weed. Do you have the right to shoot and kill them?[/quote]

Yep. My home is my castle, you break something you die.

78

[quote]Xeneize wrote:
I’m glad the dad took out the trash.[/quote]

LOL

79

[quote]Makavali wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
What about if a kid breaks into your property because they thought no one was home and they wanted to smoke weed. Do you have the right to shoot and kill them?

Yep. My home is my castle, you break something you die.[/quote]

if someone enters my dwelling with a weapon or intent to cause harm to anyone, they will be greeted with the force required to neutralize and restrain them.

here in VA, we have a legal “duty to retreat” even within our own homes e.g. running to a more secure room and locking yourself there instead of facing the aggressor.

I don’t agree with that, and my friends on the police force have indicated that if someone is in your home you are not likely to be prosecuted, as long as you don’t do something ill-advised like shoot them in the back as they are fleeing the premesis.

I still think the dad is completely justified in his actions, if he knew he had killed the guy he would’ve let go I think.

the federal prison system is great for giving sex-offenders a dose of their own medicine though…

80

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:
Loose tool, I apologise, I obviously misheard the story, the old man was not charged in the end. But say my story is true, say the farmer is a trained gunman, used to pressure and could have shot a burglar in the legs, but instead chose to shot him in the back of the head, is that acceptable?[/quote]

“Shoot to wound” is a dangerous and naive concept advocated by those who learned about guns and shooting from Hollywood. If deadly force is warranted, then the only reasonable shot is to center of mass and head.

I don’t care how crack a shot that farmer is on the range, put him under the extreme stress of a home invasion and physiological forces take over and the possibility of a deliberate shot to a moving limb to wound is a virtual impossibility.

No legitimate lethal force training that I know of teaches shoot to wound.

81

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
OrcusDM wrote:
Loose tool, I apologise, I obviously misheard the story, the old man was not charged in the end. But say my story is true, say the farmer is a trained gunman, used to pressure and could have shot a burglar in the legs, but instead chose to shot him in the back of the head, is that acceptable?

“Shoot to wound” is a dangerous and naive concept advocated by those who learned about guns and shooting from Hollywood. If deadly force is warranted, then the only reasonable shot is to center of mass and head.

I don’t care how crack a shot that farmer is on the range, put him under the extreme stress of a home invasion and physiological forces take over and the possibility of a deliberate shot to a moving limb to wound is a virtual impossibility.

No legitimate lethal force training that I know of teaches shoot to wound.[/quote]

My instinct would be to shoot the crotch. Guaranteed to take a man down.