[quote]chillain wrote:
– apologies if this was already posted –
[/quote]
Please keep this in the Martin/Zimmerman thread.
While there have been a couple mentions in this thread, we’ve done a good job NOT bringing that noise here.
This thread is NOT about that bullshit.
[quote]DSSG wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Kill them all[/quote]
and who might ‘them’ be? [/quote]
Gingers[/quote]
Why can’t we ever have a blonde apocalypse? I demand a blonde apocalypse!
[/quote]
The only problem is they dont know where to place this sammich holder.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
You are not permitted to shoot someone just because they are in your home, even if you were able to access your properly stored firearm and lock and load in time to do so. You need to be able to show that they posed a credible threat of grievous bodily injury or death to yourself or others in your home at the time that you shot them. [/quote]
I don’t know man, this one bothers me.
I don’t feel it is safe to hang around and ask the person breaking into your home what their intentions are. The only assumption that is 100% is they intend to do you harm, and to end the threat.
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
I agree the place where the altercation takes place is important.
Where is the line different in public v in the home for you?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Kill them all[/quote]
and who might ‘them’ be? [/quote]
Gingers[/quote]
I’d fear for my life if I was here
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[/quote]
I believe the people that I’ve spoken to.
You don’t have to.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[/quote]
I believe the people that I’ve spoken to.
You don’t have to. [/quote]
I guess that is the difference of living in semi rural/suburbs vs large cities. I read in the paper quite often of criminals being apprehended because someone was home and the perp fled the scene only to be apprehended soon after. It is very rare to read about someone continuing the home invasion and being either successful or fended off.
As much as you believe the media create hysteria, I believe the gun lobby does the same thing.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[/quote]
I believe the people that I’ve spoken to.
You don’t have to. [/quote]
I guess that is the difference of living in semi rural/suburbs vs large cities. I read in the paper quite often of criminals being apprehended because someone was home and the perp fled the scene only to be apprehended soon after. It is very rare to read about someone continuing the home invasion and being either successful or fended off.
As much as you believe the media create hysteria, I believe the gun lobby does the same thing. [/quote]
When shit like this happens this close to your house… What the gun lobby says is moot man.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[/quote]
I used to know a few people who did this pretty specifically. They would scope out houses based on location- set back from the road with good coverage and distance from neighbors, knock on the door and blow right through who ever answered. Not your typical sick little junkies either, but 250-270 lbs., with no qualms about hurting people.
Fortunately one guy offed himself by overdose, and unfortunately the other is serving life for aggravated murder because he killed someone in the course of a bank robbery.
They might be unusual, but people like that are out there.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]
What would be the burden of proof for “legitimately fear”?
As in, what would the prosecution have to show in order for your statement that you “legitimately feared” was false?
[/quote]
I would imagine that the circumstances surrounding the situation plus common sense would dictate this.
Example:
Someone steals your car, you run out to find them backing out of your driveway. Shooting them and claiming self defense = BS
Someone breaks into your house, has a weapon and you shoot them when you confront them = legitimate
Something like that.
Does that make sense?[/quote]
Very much makes sense. So you don’t think deadly force is justified in defense of personal property? (The car?)[/quote]
Not in the scenario that I described.
If I’m in the car and an armed criminal tries to carjack me then yes.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think it is pretty easy.
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]
Ya, but how do you prove or even define legitimate fear? Is there a different standard for women, children, cowards, etc…[/quote]
Proving that you were scared for your life?
Come on buddy [/quote]
Do you think it is easy to prove you are scared for your life? People still doubt Zimmerman was scared for his life.
130 lbs guy breaks into your house at 2 AM
Two people are home
Person A: 200lbs former Marine
Person B: 120lbs woman
who is scared?
The answer is: A, A & B, B, or neither. You really don’t know because it’s 100% personal and dependant on the situation.
So how exactly do you justify your blanket statement?[/quote]
I don’t care how big or small you are. If you break into my home, I am going to execute you with extreme prejudice and let my dogs gnaw on your corpse. You don’t fucking break into another man’s home. That is just stupid and asking to be killed. And anyone who lives in a place with extreme gun control laws and has the ability to move is an idiot.
And you don’t have to just fear for your life. You can fear for the life of your spouse or children and be justified in ending them. Your home is where you should be safe and be able to brutally maim and kill anyone trying to endanger that safety.
[/quote]
It’s the risk you take when you decide that other people’s shit belongs to you. And seriously, how much time do you think you have in a situation to assess whether or not you can whoop a man’s ass?
Criminals don’t think like we do. They just don’t they walk into those situations with a completely different mindset. Goal number 1 for them is to not get caught and do anything necessary to make sure they don’t.
If somebody breaks into your house and you don’t assume they mean you harm, you will be a statistic. And don’t think the click of a gun will scare them, all you did was give away your position.
It’s very much a case by case thing.
In some situations, the wise thing to do may well be to use non-lethal force if possible OR even run!!!..though, that could be a big mistake if the person who is attacking you is holding a knife, gun etc.
I’d also say, contrary to what a few posters have said here, in british law their is NO duty to retreat from an attacker or even a POTENTIAL attacker (abolished in ‘common law’ quite some time ago).
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The public’s conception of what self-defense is and when it applies is vastly different than the legal definitions are and how they are applied and argued in court.
Seriously, most of the times you think it’s self-defense, it’s not. You’ve got to be more or less cornered, with no ability to retreat, and you’ve got to understand use of force continuums - if a guy spits on you, you can’t shoot him. If he’s on top of you trying to stab you, and you wrestle the knife away and boot him in the ribs and he’s on the ground moaning, if you stab him, it’s murder.
Seriously, go to this site and read if you’re really interested in this…
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defenseexplained.htm[/quote]
Irish again things are a little different in Texas and the South[/quote]
Yup, we have the right to defend ourselves. I’d love to visit NY, but I won’t live in those anti-self protection states. Fuck that. Like I said, gun laws protect the criminals. They ensure little resistance to their crimes.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The public’s conception of what self-defense is and when it applies is vastly different than the legal definitions are and how they are applied and argued in court.
Seriously, most of the times you think it’s self-defense, it’s not. You’ve got to be more or less cornered, with no ability to retreat, and you’ve got to understand use of force continuums - if a guy spits on you, you can’t shoot him. If he’s on top of you trying to stab you, and you wrestle the knife away and boot him in the ribs and he’s on the ground moaning, if you stab him, it’s murder.
Seriously, go to this site and read if you’re really interested in this…
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defenseexplained.htm[/quote]
Irish again things are a little different in Texas and the South[/quote]
Oh I understand that the laws vary greatly. I’m coming from the northeast, and the rules here border on ridiculous - my liberal brethren have no concept of the real world in this instance.
That being said, it’s good to know just in case you’re visiting somewhere where the laws are far different than shoot-first Texas.[/quote]
Texas actually has more restrictive gun laws than GA. The most liberal gun laws are in Utah.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
I have a really hard time buying this. I’m sure it is dependent on location ie… Detroit vs the burbs, but in the vast majority of cases if they find out someone is home they GTFO.
[/quote]
I believe the people that I’ve spoken to.
You don’t have to. [/quote]
I guess that is the difference of living in semi rural/suburbs vs large cities. I read in the paper quite often of criminals being apprehended because someone was home and the perp fled the scene only to be apprehended soon after. It is very rare to read about someone continuing the home invasion and being either successful or fended off.
As much as you believe the media create hysteria, I believe the gun lobby does the same thing. [/quote]
When shit like this happens this close to your house… What the gun lobby says is moot man.
[/quote]
I know they are out there I really just had issue with the 9 out of 10 statement.
From reading that article it doesn’t sound like a gun would of helped them. I am not btw anti gun, especially for home defense.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Here’s one locally from a couple of months ago- http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/bethel-park-store-owner-kills-attacker-685365/
In a given situation, I don’t know how judicious I’d be in use of force to stop someone either in my house or presenting a threat to my wife or son. They would probably end up severely injured or worse. There have been a number of cases in the past few years of home invasions or attempted robberies turning into home owner shooting the intruder and nothing comes of it. PA adopted some form of a Castle Doctrine last year, I think, but even prior to that police weren’t charging people who faced a legitimate threat with deadly or potentially deadly force. If they live, they are also charged with what ever crimes were being committing at the time.
On the philosophical side of it- I’d have to look at the action. If it is in the heat of the moment, a person is being attacked through no fault of their own and serious harm is imminent- They should do what ever is necessary. If it’s just a face punching contest and they’re butt hurt about loosing so the person either draws a gun or gets a gun and starts shooting- that is a crime. In my opinion there isn’t anything more aggressive or premeditated than a home invasion and deadly force is perfectly justified in those circumstance. Nothing particularly to do with fear, just that no one should have to tolerate that.
[/quote]
It breaks down like this, with the capacity for deadly force comes increased responsibility. You have to be beyond reproach when it comes to having used your weapon. Any situation your are presented with, escape is the best policy if possible. There is no such thing as road rage, there is no provoking of any kind. If you are using deadly force it’s because your alternatives were slim to none. You never start anything and even if you are wronged, you let it go, the responsibility is far greater than most petty situations you may end up in. On the other hand, if you have the means to protect yourself or others, you have that moral duty to do so.
Would you allow a woman to get raped if you have the means to stop it? Would you allow the ice cream man to steal kids? No, you put your big boy pants on and draw your weapon. Citizens are the first line of defense. Cops only come to clean up the mess. How frequently do you think a cop is present at the commision of a crime? Like, never.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The public’s conception of what self-defense is and when it applies is vastly different than the legal definitions are and how they are applied and argued in court.
Seriously, most of the times you think it’s self-defense, it’s not. You’ve got to be more or less cornered, with no ability to retreat, and you’ve got to understand use of force continuums - if a guy spits on you, you can’t shoot him. If he’s on top of you trying to stab you, and you wrestle the knife away and boot him in the ribs and he’s on the ground moaning, if you stab him, it’s murder.
Seriously, go to this site and read if you’re really interested in this…
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defenseexplained.htm[/quote]
Irish again things are a little different in Texas and the South[/quote]
Oh I understand that the laws vary greatly. I’m coming from the northeast, and the rules here border on ridiculous - my liberal brethren have no concept of the real world in this instance.
That being said, it’s good to know just in case you’re visiting somewhere where the laws are far different than shoot-first Texas.[/quote]
Good point.
I dont believe I would ever travel carrying to the north east, that would be inviting trouble.
[/quote]
You really can’t travel carrying in some of these states. In New Jersey it’s impossible to get a concealed or open carry license unless you’re a cop more or less. I don’t mind that either, but self-defense situations involve a lot more than just guns. That’s why I tell people they should understand it on a wider level.
[/quote]
Yeah, NJ is fucked up. Even if you are a cop you can only carry FMJ ammo. I don’t understand the point of that at all.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Martin/Zimmerman thread got me thinking. (Please keep comments specific to that case in that thread.)
What defines self defense? Do you agree with the legal definition?
When can you claim it? When can you not?
What is the bare minimum in “harm” for it to be justified? Threat? Actual physical harm? Significant physical harm?
Examples for discussion:
http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22840286/man-accused-of-pulling-toddler-into-nyc-surf
Do you think the Uncle would have been justified if after he caught the man he had shot him?
If someone breaks into your home, is there a time when deadly force isn’t justified?
If someone steals your car, can you use deadly force to protect your personal property? What if you were in it at the time?
[/quote]
Taken from the Code of Alabama.
“A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.”
Generally you can claim a SYG defense in Alabama if you enter a situation where a reasonable person believes that there life is in danger. The key phrase here is reasonable person, your not justified in shooting the jehovas witnesses that come to your door even if you personally believe that there door to door proselytizing is a cover to kidnap people for a Satanic cannibalism ritual, because thats not something a reasonable person wwould beleive even if you personally think your life is in danger.
will kid Thinking someone stalking you would not be justification for a SYG defense while getting hit in the face would be. A SYG defense would be invalid for someone who initiated physical contact, and for all intents and purposes whoever initiates physical contact is the aggressor. Whether the aggressor is armed or how old or big he/she is doesn’t really matter because any altercation can result in death.
As far as castle law goes if someone breaks into your house, you are justified in using deadly force provided they do not have the legal right to be there. A castle law defense would get much more complicated if for example a married couple were separating and the wife changed the locks on the door and refused to allow the husband to get his things, and as a result the husbands breaks in and the wife shoots him, that would almost certainly not be covered under castle law because although the husband broke in both parties have a legal right to be in the house.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
im?
If someone breaks into your home, is there a time when deadly force isn’t justified?
[/quote]
Im sure in less civilized states such as California or New York you are not justified duty to retreat and all. In Alabama however you do so at your own peril, we have a castle law which doesn’t force residents to retreat. Less than deadly force is generally asking for trouble as well as a civil suit. When using less than deadly force you open yourself up to criminal charges involving excess force, as well as paying for there medical bills. Anything less than deadly force may end up with you protecting your t.v. just to lose your house.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
You are not permitted to shoot someone just because they are in your home, even if you were able to access your properly stored firearm and lock and load in time to do so. You need to be able to show that they posed a credible threat of grievous bodily injury or death to yourself or others in your home at the time that you shot them. [/quote]
I don’t know man, this one bothers me.
I don’t feel it is safe to hang around and ask the person breaking into your home what their intentions are. The only assumption that is 100% is they intend to do you harm, and to end the threat.
I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.
[/quote]
Agree. A reasonable person would feel for their life the instant someone broke into their home while they were inside. The first reaction is “this person is here to abduct/rape/kill/harm my children.” Nobody breaks into someone’s home to bake them a cake.
