U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-17-2015, 09:40 PM
 
2,852 posts, read 2,852,994 times
Reputation: 1172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
I have actually talked to lawyers about this. Long story short, you are better off legally if no one gets shot.

If someone gets shot, there will be legal proceedings. If you do shoot an intruder in your home, there is the possibility you may have to sell or take out a 2nd mortgage on your home to pay for your legal defense against criminal and/or civil charges. I always tell gun owners that. Every state's self defense statutes say you have the right to use deadly force in reasonable scenarios. The judge and jury will determine "reasonable."

The worst case scenario legally is this: a drunk college student, in his stupor, mistakenly enters your house. You shoot this person who was not not a threat. Killing someone for trespassing is not "reasonable" use of force. He has no criminal record and has strong character witnesses. Maybe you live in a gun friendly state and somehow you avoid a manslaughter conviction, but that's not the end. His family has money so they lawyer up - they will come after everything in civil litigation. This actually happened in the college town I lived in Texas. I could get into racial issues too - if you shoot a middle class white person with no record for trespassing it's likely things won't be good for you. The "lost drunk" scenario is actually much more statistically likely than some kind of aggressive invasion of your home.

Oh, and if you're negligent with your firearm and a neighbor or friend's kid gets shot while at your home.... Katy bar the door.

That's why I bought a Taser, because after reading the self-defense statutes and talking to a lawyer - non lethal defense is FAR MORE protected legally than lethal. The laws essentially say that non lethal force is completely justified if there is an intruder in your home. Lethal is not. Lethal has that qualifier of "reasonable."

A 2006 case in my state where a man shot and killed his brother in law after said brother in law rammed a car into the defendent's car and pointed a weapon at him was still convicted of murder. The case went to the state supreme court before being overturned; he's out of jail but I bet his lawyers got a pretty penny. That was in a case where the defendent was acting pretty clearly in self defense -- the questionable aspects of it involved the "history" he had with the victim which looked like he wanted to kill the guy.

If you shoot someone, that is just the beginning. Home invasions are rare and home invasions where the criminal intent is to murder the occupants are even rarer. Really, the chances of that are less than being struck by lightning. Having a loaded weapon in your home puts your ownership of that home at risk if anything goes ca-ca with the weapon. And people are protecting against what? The 1 in 10,000 chance that some evil person will storm into your home in order to kill you and your family? I gave that a lot of thought when I bought my first house.
That advice is absolutely horrible with the exception of, depending where you live, there will be a criminal inquiry.

In almost all states a person breaking into your house is ripe for being shot without the homeowners being charged.

Kids playing with your gun shouldn't happen, but criminal negligence is not a norm.

A taser is perhaps the WORST self defense weapons out there. Non-lethal force is only a good idea if you have lethal force to back it up and the single shot means that you take one person out of the equation for as long as the batteries will work. That, of course, is less then the time it takes the police to show up. It also leaves you open for their friends to beat you to death.

As for your 1:10,000 statistic:
~315,000,000 guns in the US, conservatively.
Between ~800,000-2,500,000 defensive firearm use in the US.
~156,000 negative results from a gun (includes suicide (2/3rds of gun deaths IIRC), accidents, and maleficence.

Guns have a very net-positive result on society. To claim otherwise is a fallacy. To steer people to a taser is very bad advice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2015, 10:57 PM
 
5,071 posts, read 3,340,796 times
Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
That advice is absolutely horrible with the exception of, depending where you live, there will be a criminal inquiry.

In almost all states a person breaking into your house is ripe for being shot without the homeowners being charged.

Kids playing with your gun shouldn't happen, but criminal negligence is not a norm.

A taser is perhaps the WORST self defense weapons out there. Non-lethal force is only a good idea if you have lethal force to back it up and the single shot means that you take one person out of the equation for as long as the batteries will work. That, of course, is less then the time it takes the police to show up. It also leaves you open for their friends to beat you to death.

As for your 1:10,000 statistic:
~315,000,000 guns in the US, conservatively.
Between ~800,000-2,500,000 defensive firearm use in the US.
~156,000 negative results from a gun (includes suicide (2/3rds of gun deaths IIRC), accidents, and maleficence.

Guns have a very net-positive result on society. To claim otherwise is a fallacy. To steer people to a taser is very bad advice.
^^ Has a selective attention span.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,416 posts, read 27,973,592 times
Reputation: 7250
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Bless your heart. I guess you can't help it. You totally miss the point that GZ was on his back with someone on top of him. But then again you believe that TM is a poor victim of White racism. Nuff Said.
Show me where I posted that!

Seriously, if the races were reversed, I would still be disappointed in the jury's decision.

Now let's get back to that hallowed "celebrity" opinion ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 01:59 PM
 
38,353 posts, read 15,373,194 times
Reputation: 16924
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
If someone gets shot, there will be legal proceedings. If you do shoot an intruder in your home, there is the possibility you may have to sell or take out a 2nd mortgage on your home to pay for your legal defense against criminal and/or civil charges. I always tell gun owners that. Every state's self defense statutes say you have the right to use deadly force in reasonable scenarios. The judge and jury will determine "reasonable."
What you said isn't necessarily true. What happens next is highly dependent upon the state and locality where you live. If you are in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine law on the books, you are pretty much shielded from both civil and criminal proceedings. i.e. It will never get to a judge and jury. For example NC G.S. 14-51.2(b)
A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force,
I agree with you on the part about general personal defense. This is why I said, in my numerous posts on this, that the best way to defend yourself is to do everything you can from having to shoot a gun including, not owning one. But if circumstances warrant it, then, shoot to kill.

Last edited by WaldoKitty; 01-18-2015 at 02:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Clovis Strong, NM
3,374 posts, read 4,561,246 times
Reputation: 1953
If lightsabers and blasters became reality, he'd probably go off the rails on them too!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,245 posts, read 3,406,033 times
Reputation: 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
What you said isn't necessarily true. What happens next is highly dependent upon the state and locality where you live. If you are in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine law on the books, you are pretty much shielded from both civil and criminal proceedings. i.e. It will never get to a judge and jury. For example NC G.S. 14-51.2(b)
A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force,
I agree with you on the part about general personal defense. This is why I said, in my numerous posts on this, that the best way to defend yourself is to do everything you can from having to shoot a gun including, not owning one. But if circumstances warrant it, then, shoot to kill.
You still have to be justified in using deadly force. Not even castle doctrine will protect you against unjustified use of deadly force.

It all depends on the situation. I've read up on a number of these cases and they're all different. Sometimes the shooter knows the victim - then you have to question if things went down the way the shooter said. Sometimes the victim has a criminal record and was likely burglarizing the house which does give you the right to shoot and then you take the shooters word for it. Sometimes the victim has no criminal history and then you have to wonder about the motivations for the shot.

Criminal trespass does not necessarily equal justified self defense, even in state like Texas which is quite lenient on justifiable homicides, whether or not the person was committing a sufficiently bad enough crime is key (pretty much any burglar can be shot in Texas, but is the person you shot a burglar?).

I have never been arrested or committed a crime worse than speeding. I'm also a respected member of my community with numerous people that would testify in court to that effect. Let's say I'm on a hike, get lost, and come across a ranch house. I go to it in order to ask to use their phone. The owner does not have the right to shoot me even though I'm trespassing and either the injured me or my grieving family would sue that rancher for millions. He would have a very hard time proving in court that my intention was to damage his person or property and justifiably shot me.

Long story short is that gun owners have to use their weapons responsibly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 04:19 PM
 
38,353 posts, read 15,373,194 times
Reputation: 16924
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
You still have to be justified in using deadly force. Not even castle doctrine will protect you against unjustified use of deadly force......Let's say I'm on a hike, get lost, and come across a ranch house. I go to it in order to ask to use their phone. The owner does not have the right to shoot me even though I'm trespassing and either the injured me or my grieving family would sue that rancher for millions. .....
You can create hypothetical situations all day long but you have made the jump from what we were talking about, self defense, to someone committing murder. Most people are not going to murder someone in cold blood simply because they asked to use a telephone. The prosecutors know this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 04:35 PM
 
741 posts, read 682,955 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
You fail to understand that the Bill of Rights isn't a salad bar that you can chose which one you like and which one you do not like. I persons individual right to speak out is the same importance as the individual right to own a firearm to protect themselves and is of the same importance as to be free from wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

Even the Supreme Court has stated, "We do not know of any tiering of constitutional rights" (Heller vs DC). It is not my false equivalency, it is your inability to rationalize that the 2nd Amendment carries the same weight as the First and if you are so callous to allow infringements based upon personal belief instead of the written document then it has a very slippery slope effect upon the rest of your rights.

From a first hand account of the NYC process that people want. Again think about it being applied to any other rights:
No, its your inability to comprehend that the 1st Amendment does not grant you right to shout fire in a crowded theater no more than the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to put a $100 Handgun vending machine on the grounds of an elementary school.

All of these things CAN AND WILL BE restricted to degrees of reasonableness.

The Supreme Court is regularly called on to rule on issues that involve proportionality. Idealogues don't even understand that proportionality exists. To them, everything is absolutism. The Supreme Court agrees with me, not you. When even Justice Scalia clearly articulates circumstances in which gun rights can be curtailed, your position of "no regulations, ever" is on the thinnest possible ice.

Since you are playing 'expert', though, answer me this.
Did the decisions in Heller and McDonald open the door to manufacture new fully automatic weapons?
Can you file a Form 1 with the BATF right now for an M16 and they will approve it on '2nd Amendment' grounds?

Normally I don't argue with ideologues who subsust on 'theories' rather than reality but safe to say, your position is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment guarantees many things. It does not guarantee that firearms cannot be regulated. They just can't be infringed and even then, some of them CAN INDEED be infringed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 04:47 PM
 
741 posts, read 682,955 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
You still have to be justified in using deadly force. Not even castle doctrine will protect you against unjustified use of deadly force.

It all depends on the situation. I've read up on a number of these cases and they're all different. Sometimes the shooter knows the victim - then you have to question if things went down the way the shooter said. Sometimes the victim has a criminal record and was likely burglarizing the house which does give you the right to shoot and then you take the shooters word for it. Sometimes the victim has no criminal history and then you have to wonder about the motivations for the shot.

Criminal trespass does not necessarily equal justified self defense, even in state like Texas which is quite lenient on justifiable homicides, whether or not the person was committing a sufficiently bad enough crime is key (pretty much any burglar can be shot in Texas, but is the person you shot a burglar?).

I have never been arrested or committed a crime worse than speeding. I'm also a respected member of my community with numerous people that would testify in court to that effect. Let's say I'm on a hike, get lost, and come across a ranch house. I go to it in order to ask to use their phone. The owner does not have the right to shoot me even though I'm trespassing and either the injured me or my grieving family would sue that rancher for millions. He would have a very hard time proving in court that my intention was to damage his person or property and justifiably shot me.

Long story short is that gun owners have to use their weapons responsibly.
Details are all that matter.
You have to worry about ideologues playing eLawyer since they believe that laws rest on saying specific magic words that release you from liability.

Its not whether you SAY you "felt in fear for your life".
Its whether or not a jury of 12 people believe your fear was credible.

Here's a few imbecile 'concealed carriers' who thought that simply saying "I FELT IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE!!" would magically get them off the hook for a bad shoot. They're in prison now.

Ex-Flagler Beach Cop Juratovac Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison in Attempted Murder of Flagler Firefighter | FlaglerLive

Michael Dunn Sentenced to Life Without Parole for Loud Music Killing - NBC News

This 'ex cop' will be joining them in the sodomy party shortly.

State of Florida vs Curtis Reeves
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,245 posts, read 3,406,033 times
Reputation: 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You can create hypothetical situations all day long but you have made the jump from what we were talking about, self defense, to someone committing murder. Most people are not going to murder someone in cold blood simply because they asked to use a telephone. The prosecutors know this.
True, but my point was self defense is not all-encompassing. You've got to fear for your life and it all depends.

There was this case in Montana and proves you can't just shoot a petty criminal on your property.

Self-defense fails in Montana man’s murder trial | WINK NEWS

Although this one was extreme in that the homeowner baited burglars. He clearly wanted to shoot a burglar, because he could have just called the police and had the kids arrested that trespassed in his garage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top