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.
That may be your stance, but its not the law or practice in any democratic, developed country on the globe today. Fortunately, individuals do not make their own laws. Self defense: you can fire your weapon only if your life or the life of your family were in immediate danger. For those who don't understand: you cannot kill any person just because he is (or looks like) a criminal, has a bad character, has been incarcerated, etc, etc. The only condition is if your life was under threat.
Thank you for articulating so well, a civilized-person's perspective. So many people here, presumably attempting to out-law-and-order everyone else, have sunk into the same sort of grossly-disproportional barbarity that drives the enemy in the war against terror where children have their hands cut off for stealing a crust of bread.
They give real conservatives, real men and women of principle and proportion, a bad name with their grossly-over-the-top positions.
Way too many nut-cases here. The OP didn't even want to wait for a criminal act, but stated that Once (the criminal) decides to commit a crime (I guess he is a mind-reader).
One of the quickest ways for our rights to be "infringed" would be for a bunch a nut-cases executing people in circumstances where only property is in jeopardy, where no threat of violence or severe harm exists against innocents.
Thank you for articulating so well, a civilized-person's perspective. So many people here, presumably attempting to out-law-and-order everyone else, have sunk into the same sort of grossly-disproportional barbarity that drives the enemy in the war against terror where children have their hands cut off for stealing a crust of bread.
They give real conservatives, real men and women of principle and proportion, a bad name with their grossly-over-the-top positions.
Way too many nut-cases here. The OP didn't even want to wait for a criminal act, but stated that Once (the criminal) decides to commit a crime (I guess he is a mind-reader).
One of the quickest ways for our rights to be "infringed" would be for a bunch a nut-cases executing people in circumstances where only property is in jeopardy, where no threat of violence or severe harm exists against innocents.
Sorry, you were either the nut case here or you live in a fantasy world if you think that someone in the middle of the night can safely and reliably recognize if someone is just there to steal their VCR or if they are there to do deadly or are willing to do deadly harm to get that VCR.
I am reasonable and peaceful person. I don't like violence. But I don't like people who choose to violate other people.
While they do not deserve to die, the person who is being violated does not deserve to be in that moment of danger where they don't know why this stranger is in their house and what this stranger is willing to do to them.
People like you so easily and self-righteously pontificate about these matters because you don't deal in this world. You don't deal with criminals. You don't deal with trauma. You do not deal with the realities of this world.
Of course, no one should be violated because of their thoughts or whatever. This isn't Minority Report. You can only be judged and tried for what you have actually done. But if you are stupid enough and evil enough to violate someone's sanctuary, then I can't help what's going to happen to you next.
Once you step out your door, the world doesn't give you any guarantees. The one place you should feel safe in your own home. I have a very strong belief in the safety and sanctity of the home. And I have very little sympathy for those who would choose to violate it.
the homeowner was within his rights, to do what he did, to a point. once he burned the bodies, and buried them that was committing a felony, tampering with evidence, etc.
How was he within his rights? He took a cab home from a strip club. Upon arriving at home, he told the cab drivers he didn't have the fare on him. The cab drivers followed him inside the house. He told them to wait while he got the money. He went into the bedroom, but instead of getting money, he got a gun, and shot the two men to death. Then he left the house (maybe to hide the taxi-cab?), and when he returned he burned his victims and then buried them. How was he within his rights?
Sorry, you were either the nut case here or you live in a fantasy world if you think that someone in the middle of the night can safely and reliably recognize if someone is just there to steal their VCR or if they are there to do deadly or are willing to do deadly harm to get that VCR.
I am reasonable and peaceful person. I don't like violence. But I don't like people who choose to violate other people.
While they do not deserve to die, the person who is being violated does not deserve to be in that moment of danger where they don't know why this stranger is in their house and what this stranger is willing to do to them.
People like you so easily and self-righteously pontificate about these matters because you don't deal in this world. You don't deal with criminals. You don't deal with trauma. You do not deal with the realities of this world.
Of course, no one should be violated because of their thoughts or whatever. This isn't Minority Report. You can only be judged and tried for what you have actually done. But if you are stupid enough and evil enough to violate someone's sanctuary, then I can't help what's going to happen to you next.
Once you step out your door, the world doesn't give you any guarantees. The one place you should feel safe in your own home. I have a very strong belief in the safety and sanctity of the home. And I have very little sympathy for those who would choose to violate it.
Pontification noted and dismissed.
Until you know they are threatening you or someone else, you are not allowed to use deadly force in most jurisdictions. The immorality of murdering someone who is stealing your VCR is obvious to all sane people
BTW, I am employed in a LEA and carry a nice bright (and heavy) gold badge, so I think my bona-fides are well established.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
So if I'm being chased by someone trying to stab me in the middle of the night and I come upon your locked house looking for refuge or to hide and I admittedly break the law by breaking in in a panic, it's okay to kill me on sight?
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
He was completely within his rights to shoot them when they invaded his home. That's the whole point of gun rights, self protection How on earth could he have known they weren't armed? The criminals are very unlikely to please stand still for a body patdown. If you wait for them to draw a gun, well, it might be too late by then.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
Yea I agree with your stance
And furthermore the "victims" family should be thankful after all the homeowner provided a free all expense paid cremation.
some criminals' families are just not very grateful
He was completely within his rights to shoot them when they invaded his home. That's the whole point of gun rights, self protection How on earth could he have known they weren't armed? The criminals are very unlikely to please stand still for a body patdown. If you wait for them to draw a gun, well, it might be too late by then.
The burying thing's kinda weird, but meh...
Considering that they were the taxi drivers that drove him home from a strip bar, and that they didn't "invade" his home, but rather followed him into the house because he didn't have the money on him to pay his fare, and that he told them to wait while he went to get the money from his bedroom, but then returned with a gun instead, I don't see how he was completely within his rights.
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.
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.
