Jump to content

140 posts in this topic

Posted

Example from this weeks news: guy is selling stuff from his house. Buyer gets aggressive and asks for jewelry. Homeowner says it's in the bedroom, leads him there, pulls a pistol out of hiding and shoots the perp several times.

No problem, and he's lauded by the news & cops for scoring one for the good guys.

That's ridiculous. :angry: It's sad how little American culture has progressed from the days of the Wild West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's ridiculous. :angry: It's sad how little American culture has progressed from the days of the Wild West.

Look up the Castle Doctrine. Threaten someone in their home, its chattels (immediate area or structures), vehicle or place of business and your life can be forfeit.

From Wiki -

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Look up the Castle Doctrine. Threaten someone in their home, its chattels (immediate area or structures) or place of business and your life can be forfeit.

And again, that's ridiculous. Unfortunately American culture places very little value on human lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's ridiculous. :angry: It's proof how  American culture has developed from hollywood.

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Totally different cultures, this one being focused on the victims rights and less so on the criminals.

 

Which other cultures would you be referring too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What a ludicrous argument. You don't get to kill someone because you think they might be a threat later on. That's just a disgusting and way outdated view to hold.

 

Your argument is equally ludicrous. The robber was still armed. He was still a threat. Just because you run in one direction doesn't mean you can't turn around?

He's STILL in range to kill YOU.

 

I'm sure you'd feel perfectly safe seeing a criminal with a weapon as long as he isn't pointed in your direction. Right? :rolleyes:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He was still a threat.


No he wasn't. If he turns around, go ahead and fire away, its self defense then. If he's running away, he's not an immediate threat anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you just let him escape to victimize a neighbor, stranger or preemptively take out a cop he happens across just in case he'd heard an alert? Nope, ain't gonna happen. Actions have consequences. He goes down, now.

As to getting it from the movies, quite the reverse. The Castle Doctrine principles have been around since colonial times, nearly 350 years.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you just let him escape to victimize a neighbor, stranger or preemptively take out a cop he happens across just in case he'd heard an alert? Nope, ain't gonna happen. Actions have consequences. He goes down, now.

As to getting it from the movies, quite the reverse. The Castle Doctrine principles have been around since colonial times, nearly 350 years.

 

Sounds a bit like vigilantism to me and revenge. Best leave it to the professionals who have proper training. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

FYI US cops are 5+ times more likely to hit an innocent party than a civilian carrier is in a tactical situation. This because police training in the US is not what you think it is. Civilian licensees in general have more range time, more classroom training and are more accurate than police officers.

Many cops go several years between qualifications and then may only shoot 20-50 rounds and not shoot again until the next time. Civilians like me may shoot 100-300+ rounds a month in practice or on tactical ranges.

This is a huge problem, cited by DoJ and the FBI as a crisis, and exemplified last week by New York City cops who (wrongly) fired on a mentally disturbed but unarmed man. They missed him, hitting 2 women in the background. One woman was hit in the pelvis and the others lower leg was shattered.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

FYI US cops are 5+ times more likely to hit an innocent party than a civilian carrier is in a tactical situation. This because police training in the US is not what you think it is. Civilian licensees in general have more range time, more classroom training and are more accurate than police officers.

This is a huge problem, cited by DoJ and the FBI as a crisis, and exemplified last week by New York City cops who (wrongly) fired on a mentally disturbed but unarmed man. They missed him, hitting 2 women in the background. One woman was hit in the pelvis and the others lower leg was shattered.

 

Still I don't think citizens should be allowed to kill someone just in case they commit a crime some time in the future. Call me crazy I guess.

 

Also waiting for a reply to which cultures you were referring to with this:

 

"Totally different cultures, this one being focused on the victims rights and less so on the criminals. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

France / Europe is the usual comparison, though Canada could also apply since they don't have the Mexican border issues we have. Many of our worst gang issues are based in Mexico & Central America (MS-13 etc.)

As to killing, the chief of police was my instructor and he emphatically instructed us to "shoot to kill, wounded bears can still bite."
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

France / Europe is the usual comparison, though Canada could also apply since they don't have the Mexican border issues we have. Many of our worst gang issues are based in Mexico & Central America (MS-13 etc.)

As to killing, the chief of police was my instructor and he emphatically instructed us to "shoot to kill, wounded bears can still bite."

 

 

Wow that's a pretty big over generalisation to make regarding different cultures. 

 

It's pretty scary to think you aim to kill someone incase they commit a crime in the future. Sounds a bit like Minority Report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bullish*t. This is why Michigan has a fleeing felon rule.

He may not have been an immediate threat to the jeweler but he was a threat to his NEXT victim. Criminals being creatures of need, opportunity & habit that next victim would likely have been soon. Probably that night before an investigation even got started. Better to stop him NOW than pray he didn't hurt / kill someone on the next try.

Actually, to add on to this... most US states would charge the kid that got away with murder as it resulted in a death during a crime, even though the kid never took one step into the store or handled a weapon.  Want to commit the crime?  Then be prepared to pay any cost, including your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This. I can understand shooting somebody in the heat of the moment, especially if they pose a significant risk to somebody's livelihood, but it is another thing entirely to shoot somebody as they are fleeing the scene. Should they be charged with murder? Of course not, but they shouldn't escape without charge.

 

People have the right to defend themselves up to the point where the assailant is fleeing the scene.

So if I stab you once, then run away, it's not self-defense anymore? 

 

If someone robs you once and knows you won't do anything, what is to stop them from coming back?

 

I agree with you to a point, but there's already too much crime, and it won't get any better because so many get away with it. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No he wasn't. If he turns around, go ahead and fire away, its self defense then. If he's running away, he's not an immediate threat anymore.

 

On what planet is an armed criminal who has just seconds before committed a felony NOT a threat??? :s

 

You didn't respond to the question: do you honestly feel safe with an armed felon in the vicinity as long as he isn't pointing the weapon at you anymore?

 

How about the fact the felon may very well fire on a police officer responding to the crime in progress.

 

How would your conscience going to be knowing you had a chance to take out a criminal that later killed someone leaving the scene?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He got what he deserved. He tried to rob a store using a shotgun and might have killed the owner - and then got away with it, leaving the victim's family devastated while he enjoyed his illgotten gains . European laws favor of the criminals over the victims so much that it sickens me. We could use some US-like laws, and not this watered down "humane" bull that protects the criminal and not the victim.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So if I stab you once, then run away, it's not self-defense anymore?

It's not self-defence if you're not defending yourself. It really is that simple. If they're fleeing the scene then it's not self-defence; if they return to the scene then that's a different matter entirely.

 

If someone robs you once and knows you won't do anything, what is to stop them from coming back?

Nothing. But that's something to deal with when the situation arises. You can't simply shoot somebody because of what they might do, otherwise you'd have people shooting anybody that looks suspicious.

 

Self-defence is an important right that is not only biologically natural but morally justified. The issue is when people go beyond simply defending themselves and take justice into their own hands. It is for the police to find, arrest and prosecute the people involved. However, I fundamentally reject the notion that somebody committing a crime forfeits their right to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you just let him escape to victimize a neighbor, stranger or preemptively take out a cop he happens across just in case he'd heard an alert? Nope, ain't gonna happen. Actions have consequences. He goes down, now.

As to getting it from the movies, quite the reverse. The Castle Doctrine principles have been around since colonial times, nearly 350 years.

 

Statistically speaking, he won't do any of that, and he would very likely never use that gun, even on the guy he was robbing.  As you even just stated, you hold a colonial-era view that's disgusting in the 21st century.  You're as bad as criminals out there.  To pile it on, clearly these 'principles' haven't solved the root issues they were meant for as they've been around so long and we still have these problems.  It's amazing that people like you can't figure out that that shit isn't going to fix our society, and really only make it worse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

European laws favor of the criminals over the victims so much that it sickens me.

No it doesn't. European laws strike a balance between the rights of the victim and the perpetrator, a balance that differs to the vigilante-style of justice seen in the US. People are entitled to defend themselves but will be prosecuted if their reaction is disproportionate to the threat, which is only fair.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, to add on to this... most US states would charge the kid that got away with murder as it resulted in a death during a crime, even though the kid never took one step into the store or handled a weapon. Want to commit the crime? Then be prepared to pay any cost, including your life.

Precisely correct - a co-conspirator can be charged in his partners death, by cop or citizen, as an instigator of the initial crime.

As to disproportionate threat; if someone threatens with any potentially lethal weapon (hammer, pry bar, club, blade, especially gun....) and a citizen responds with lethal force by any means how is that disproportionate? If he escapes odds are he'll do it again, perhaps killing an innocent incapable of defense. The law says citizens can stop them now before they harm others - their own actions have forfeited many of their "rights." THEY started it.

Fine with me.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Totally different cultures, this one being focused on the victims rights and less so on the criminals.

 

It's not about protecting criminals.

 

You can't shoot someone. Period. That's the law. It's the same law for criminals and other people. The only time you can shoot someone is when your life (or the life of someone else) is in immediate danger.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As to disproportionate threat; if someone threatens with any potentially lethal weapon (hammer, pry bar, club, blade, especially gun....) and a citizen responds with lethal force by any means how is that disproportionate?

A proportionate response to being threatened with a potentially lethal weapon is to respond with a threat to use a potentially lethal weapon, not to immediately kill them. The situation obviously differs when guns are involved, as there is an imminent and genuine threat to life, but that's not an issue most people in European countries have to deal with. The most important thing to consider in any armed robbery is that the only thing being lost is possessions, which any responsible individual or business has covered with insurance. In that case it is best to simply hand over whatever is demanded and then report the incident to the police to follow-up on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've got nothing for a thief, one less piece of dirt running around robbing people at gunpoint.  I hope he gets acquitted.  Blaming and prosecuting the victim will only make other shop owners hesitant to protect their livelihoods for fear of retribution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A proportionate response to being threatened with a potentially lethal weapon is to respond with a threat to use a potentially lethal weapon, not to immediately kill them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.