Stand Your Ground

Bauber · July 17, 2013, 4:07pm

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Not sure what state you live in batman, but I know tons of cops and every single one has said put them down for the count if they break into your home. No warning shots, no heads up, you shoot for center of mass and end them.

Properly stored firearm? I keep multiple loaded throughout the house ready to rock and roll. What world or communistic government do you live under where the criminals have to be given the benefit of the doubt when in your home unwarranted? My home is my sanctuary, the place where my family and I should feel safe. Anyone breaching that uninvited gives up their right to life.

sam_sneed1 · July 17, 2013, 4:08pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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?

[/quote]

If he beat him to death or shot him during a fight afterwords, I say self defense. If the psycho was laying on the floor incapacitated and then he shot him to finish him, then I’m not so sure. Reminds me of this story that happened at the train station I use every day:

I’m usually on that platform but didn’t witness that crime. It’s scary thinking about fighting a dude on a train platform when either one of you can get thrown on the tracks. I think at that situation any scuffle could put your life in danger.

IMO, no. They break in, all bets are off. I have a wife and kid to protect and we have just a front door and side door. There is no easy exit from our bedroom. I’m an IT guy so I have bunch of visible cameras, motion activated floodlights and a solid alarm system as a deterrent/early warning system but once they’re in the house, fleeing is not a viable option. I live in a populated NJ city halfway between Newark and Paterson and even though police response time is about 5 minutes tops (I’ve called before), that’s 5 minutes to long.

I don’t agree with killing someone over property if your life is not in danger (if they are not actually in your home). The example of shooting to kill out the window at a person stealing your car is a bit heavy handed IMO. Even a drug addicts life is worth more than my car. I wouldn’t want my neighbors doing that either. There is literally only 5-10 feet between you and your neighbors house.

Hell_Billy · July 17, 2013, 4:11pm

[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]

Generally speaking if someone is in your home while there is a occupant there, they mean to do harm. Despite the Circle jerk mentality that the general public has the criminals are dumb because they are criminals, Offenders are not they do there homework to see if anyone is actually there, breaking in while an occupant is home is proof enough that they are willing to kill or injure said occupant.

While i am unsure of Canadian storage laws, and i understand the need to keep firearms locked out of the reach of children and increasing the difficulty of there theft. It is generally a bad idea to keep them all locked away and useless, for self defense purposes you always need to have a firearm in your personal control. Personally i always keep mine either on my hip, ankle, or on a holster rigged to my bed while im sleeping.

Bauber · July 17, 2013, 4:12pm

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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?

[/quote]

If he beat him to death or shot him during a fight afterwords, I say self defense. If the psycho was laying on the floor incapacitated and then he shot him to finish him, then I’m not so sure. Reminds me of this story that happened at the train station I use every day:

I’m usually on that platform but didn’t witness that crime. It’s scary thinking about fighting a dude on a train platform when either one of you can get thrown on the tracks. I think at that situation any scuffle could put your life in danger.

IMO, no. They break in, all bets are off. I have a wife and kid to protect and we have just a front door and side door. There is no easy exit from our bedroom. I’m an IT guy so I have bunch of visible cameras, motion activated floodlights and a solid alarm system as a deterrent/early warning system but once they’re in the house, fleeing is not a viable option. I live in a populated NJ city halfway between Newark and Paterson and even though police response time is about 5 minutes tops (I’ve called before), that’s 5 minutes to long.

I don’t agree with killing someone over property if your life is not in danger (if they are not actually in your home). The example of shooting to kill out the window at a person stealing your car is a bit heavy handed IMO. Even a drug addicts life is worth more than my car. I wouldn’t want my neighbors doing that either. There is literally only 5-10 feet between you and your neighbors house.[/quote]

Well if they are attempting to steal my car on my property, I am going confront them weapon aimed at them. Then if they don’t leave quickly they are getting a lead infusion. Anyone on your personal property attempting to steal, cause you harm, commit unlawful acts is an idiot. It is your property that you work hard for, care for, live on. Pathetic excuses for human beings. I don’t think their life is worth a pound of my dogs shit, if that is what they are doing.

SkyzykS · July 17, 2013, 4:12pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I think I understand where you are coming from. The tricky part is when you extend this principal beyond your self or immediate surroundings. I’ve never stopped a rape or kidnapping and can’t accurately predict what I would do, but drawing down on someone may not be required. Acts like that are violent, but they are also carried out on people who are not capable of reciprocation. What may be required to stop something like that could very well be much less than deadly force.

I don’t carry a gun for some very good reasons. Main ones being a very bad temper and a proven tendency to solve problems by using violence. You don’t even actually need a gun to apply deadly force anyways. Hands, feet, bricks, half an axe handle- Just about any blunt object will due.

sam_sneed1 · July 17, 2013, 4:20pm

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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?

[/quote]

If he beat him to death or shot him during a fight afterwords, I say self defense. If the psycho was laying on the floor incapacitated and then he shot him to finish him, then I’m not so sure. Reminds me of this story that happened at the train station I use every day:

I’m usually on that platform but didn’t witness that crime. It’s scary thinking about fighting a dude on a train platform when either one of you can get thrown on the tracks. I think at that situation any scuffle could put your life in danger.

IMO, no. They break in, all bets are off. I have a wife and kid to protect and we have just a front door and side door. There is no easy exit from our bedroom. I’m an IT guy so I have bunch of visible cameras, motion activated floodlights and a solid alarm system as a deterrent/early warning system but once they’re in the house, fleeing is not a viable option. I live in a populated NJ city halfway between Newark and Paterson and even though police response time is about 5 minutes tops (I’ve called before), that’s 5 minutes to long.

I don’t agree with killing someone over property if your life is not in danger (if they are not actually in your home). The example of shooting to kill out the window at a person stealing your car is a bit heavy handed IMO. Even a drug addicts life is worth more than my car. I wouldn’t want my neighbors doing that either. There is literally only 5-10 feet between you and your neighbors house.[/quote]

Well if they are attempting to steal my car on my property, I am going confront them weapon aimed at them. Then if they don’t leave quickly they are getting a lead infusion. Anyone on your personal property attempting to steal, cause you harm, commit unlawful acts is an idiot. It is your property that you work hard for, care for, live on. Pathetic excuses for human beings. I don’t think their life is worth a pound of my dogs shit, if that is what they are doing.
[/quote]

I understand where you’re coming from and am very protective about people on my property. Trust me, if someone even lingers in front of my house on the sidewalk(and I live and a very busy street) I go out and speak to them. But there is a reason car thieves don’t get the death penalty when they are convicted.

pat · July 17, 2013, 4:34pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
True and I agree.

I dont know if I would ever be able to live in those types of conditions.

How heavy is the Police where you are at? I mean can you basically see a cop every where? [/quote]

Unless you’re really out in the boonies - i.e. South Jersey or the Pine Barrens - the police are extremely capable with a very good response time here. We have the highest population density in the nation, so it kind of has to be, and although I’m always a ballbreaker of cops, I really do have to commend them for how well taken care of this state is.

But that’s always the reason why I say carry laws should be state-dependent, and not federally-dictated… in West Texas or Alaska, it could be hours before the one cop in your county can get to you. Limiting gun possession in a place like that is dangerous to the populace.

In New Jersey though, guns aren’t part of the culture, and even though I grew up with scumbags of the best kind, rarely was any mention of a gun made in relation to street violence unless you were in the ghetto. But that was a different type of violence.

I have to say it would be strange for me to live in a place where everyone was carrying pistols. So I can understand your feelings haha.[/quote]

That’s great, the police can get there while the body is still warm.

pat · July 17, 2013, 4:42pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I think I understand where you are coming from. The tricky part is when you extend this principal beyond your self or immediate surroundings. I’ve never stopped a rape or kidnapping and can’t accurately predict what I would do, but drawing down on someone may not be required. Acts like that are violent, but they are also carried out on people who are not capable of reciprocation. What may be required to stop something like that could very well be much less than deadly force.

I don’t carry a gun for some very good reasons. Main ones being a very bad temper and a proven tendency to solve problems by using violence. You don’t even actually need a gun to apply deadly force anyways. Hands, feet, bricks, half an axe handle- Just about any blunt object will due.
[/quote]

If you have propensity towards temper or violence, you definitely should not carry. I think every woman of reasonable temperament should carry at all times. Women are often targets precisely because they are less capable of defending themselves. Any woman who lives alone and does not have a gun is nuts. Of all citizens, women need to carry the most. They spend more time with kids and are always more vulnerable than a man. A little deadly force to even the playing field can go a long way to stem the violence against women. I pretty much demand my wife carry at all times. My daughter will carry when she is of age, that’s not going to be optional for her.

SkyzykS · July 17, 2013, 5:00pm

[quote]pat wrote:

If you have propensity towards temper or violence, you definitely should not carry. I think every woman of reasonable temperament should carry at all times. Women are often targets precisely because they are less capable of defending themselves. Any woman who lives alone and does not have a gun is nuts. Of all citizens, women need to carry the most. They spend more time with kids and are always more vulnerable than a man. A little deadly force to even the playing field can go a long way to stem the violence against women. I pretty much demand my wife carry at all times. My daughter will carry when she is of age, that’s not going to be optional for her. [/quote]

You’re telling me!

I have two nieces at Virginia Tech. The older one was a freshman when the first massacre occurred, and the younger a freshman when the second one happened. Both in direct proximity to the events. My brother taught them both how to use revolvers, slide action pistols, and several different types of rifle after the first one, yet they are prohibited from carrying or possessing on campus.

My younger niece had some amazing phone-shots of the shooter entering the building across from her-which would have been easy pickins with any rifle.

Bauber · July 17, 2013, 5:10pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I think I understand where you are coming from. The tricky part is when you extend this principal beyond your self or immediate surroundings. I’ve never stopped a rape or kidnapping and can’t accurately predict what I would do, but drawing down on someone may not be required. Acts like that are violent, but they are also carried out on people who are not capable of reciprocation. What may be required to stop something like that could very well be much less than deadly force.

I don’t carry a gun for some very good reasons. Main ones being a very bad temper and a proven tendency to solve problems by using violence. You don’t even actually need a gun to apply deadly force anyways. Hands, feet, bricks, half an axe handle- Just about any blunt object will due.
[/quote]

If you have propensity towards temper or violence, you definitely should not carry. I think every woman of reasonable temperament should carry at all times. Women are often targets precisely because they are less capable of defending themselves. Any woman who lives alone and does not have a gun is nuts. Of all citizens, women need to carry the most. They spend more time with kids and are always more vulnerable than a man. A little deadly force to even the playing field can go a long way to stem the violence against women. I pretty much demand my wife carry at all times. My daughter will carry when she is of age, that’s not going to be optional for her. [/quote]

So agree with this. My fiance before she passed had an enhanced carry and had taken multiple classes. Carried a glock 40 and she was a good shot lol.

For my house I prefer to exit with this. Have a trijicon scope on it now too with enhanced night vision. I live in the middle of nowhere, so I don’t have to worry about collateral damage. Either this or my MP5 and sidearm in tow.

pat · July 17, 2013, 5:27pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

If you have propensity towards temper or violence, you definitely should not carry. I think every woman of reasonable temperament should carry at all times. Women are often targets precisely because they are less capable of defending themselves. Any woman who lives alone and does not have a gun is nuts. Of all citizens, women need to carry the most. They spend more time with kids and are always more vulnerable than a man. A little deadly force to even the playing field can go a long way to stem the violence against women. I pretty much demand my wife carry at all times. My daughter will carry when she is of age, that’s not going to be optional for her. [/quote]

You’re telling me!

I have two nieces at Virginia Tech. The older one was a freshman when the first massacre occurred, and the younger a freshman when the second one happened. Both in direct proximity to the events. My brother taught them both how to use revolvers, slide action pistols, and several different types of rifle after the first one, yet they are prohibited from carrying or possessing on campus.

My younger niece had some amazing phone-shots of the shooter entering the building across from her-which would have been easy pickins with any rifle.

[/quote]

Information nobody needs to know unless there is a perpetrator full of holes laying in front of them, then they can say they had a firearm against the rules. Technically, the rules of private property do not override the law. You can still carry in a ‘no firearms allowed’ establisment if you have a license to do so, at least in GA. Again, nobody has to know and if there are no incidents nobody ever will. Giving a loaded maniac a totally gun free zone to pick off anyone he please is ludicrous to me. It leaves everybody wide open to a homicidal maniacs wildest imagination without the fear of retaliation. People who shoot back ruin these assholes plans ususally.

pat · July 17, 2013, 5:29pm