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.
How is being prepared to protect one's self and family a Rambo like action? I'm not setting claymore mines with trip wires in the front yard. If no one breaches the exterior of my house then no one gets hurt. It's not a difficult concept. But if I find an uninvited person in my house then I will neutralize the threat. Yes, it is a threat to me and my family. Based on the law I get to assume the worst first and not wait until there is an action on their part.
Pathetic attempt at a Strawman - epic fail. NOBODY is talking about being prepared to protect, we are talking about Redneck Mouth-Breathers taking the law into their own hands and dispatching suspected criminals at will under circumstances where deadly force isn't warranted. Mere B & E doesn't meet the standard in most jurisdictions.
Don't try any more strawmen or red herrings on me, for I will call you out on every one of them.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful. But if such circumstances arise, and you do as you boast you will (and I doubt if you have the requisite courage to pull on an intruder), ... well you figure out what table in the courtroom I would like to be sitting at.
Pathetic attempt at a Strawman - epic fail. NOBODY is talking about being prepared to protect, we are talking about Redneck Mouth-Breathers taking the law into their own hands and dispatching suspected criminals at will under circumstances where deadly force isn't warranted. Mere B & E doesn't meet the standard in most jurisdictions.
Don't try any more strawmen or red herrings on me, for I will call you out on every one of them.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful. But if such circumstances arise, and you do as you boast you will (and I doubt if you have the requisite courage to pull on an intruder), ... well you figure out what table in the courtroom I would like to be sitting at.
The law in the state of MS considers him an intruder an allows me to protect myself and my family. Before that law went into effect I would have still done the same and taken my chances in court.
I absolutely have the courage and was fully prepared to do so. 15 years ago in an apartment we were visited by an intoxicated gentleman who would not believe me when I told him he had the wrong building. I was on the phone with the nice 911 operator when she asked me if I was armed. I replied in the affirmative. In fact I had a 125 grain jacketed hollow point in the chamber, safety off, hammer back and aimed at this guy through the window. Had the door he was kicking given way I would have used 6.6 pounds of force to pull the trigger and place a shot center mass. Repeat as needed.
After he was dragged to the police car and I answered all of the officer's questions, my wife remarked at how calm I was. Looking back there was no emotion at all. I had only one thing on my mind and that was keeping my wife safe. It was all business. I have figured out that I can easily suppress emotions in a stressful situation and focus only at the task at hand.
So if you shoot someone in clear daylight in front of 100 people you should be able to plead "not guilty"? No way... If you cant handle the punishment you shouldnt commit the crime. These criminals that blatantly commit crimes are cowards and use the judicial system to protect themselves.
Sure you should be able to plead it. Doesn't mean the judge or jury will agree with you.
Pathetic attempt at a Strawman - epic fail. NOBODY is talking about being prepared to protect, we are talking about Redneck Mouth-Breathers taking the law into their own hands and dispatching suspected criminals at will under circumstances where deadly force isn't warranted. Mere B & E doesn't meet the standard in most jurisdictions.
Don't try any more strawmen or red herrings on me, for I will call you out on every one of them.
A person in your house, per se, is NOT a threat, he is an intruder, and quite possibly peaceful. But if such circumstances arise, and you do as you boast you will (and I doubt if you have the requisite courage to pull on an intruder), ... well you figure out what table in the courtroom I would like to be sitting at.
You keep implying that if a person shoots an intruder in their house that the person will be convicted of a crime. I believe that is factually incorrect. First, in the states with castle doctrine laws, a person has the right to use deadly force against an intruder in the home, regardless in the intentions of the intruder. There are a few caveats, but for the most part it's an affirmative defense to murder and in many cases a prosecutor would not choose to indict.
In states without castle doctrine laws, you can use deadly force if you feel like your life is in danger. If you wake up in the middle of the night to find a stranger is in your bedroom and you shoot him, very few juries would convict for murder or assault. The average person is not expected to inquire about the intentions of the prowler, or check to see if he's armed. In general, you'd have to prove that you reasonably perceived your life to be in danger or that you were at risk for bodily harm, which would be easy under the circumstances.
No, insanity is believing that a criminal caught in the act of a crime should be treated as an innocent person. Innocent until proven guilty when one is accused of a crime they may or may not have committed is one thing but to be caught in the act and say your innocent is pure insanity and should be punished as such.
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).
"James Edward Loftis, 39, is facing murder charges in the deaths of taxi driver Guma Oz Dubar, 46, and his friend James Cody Newland, 32, on March 5 after they demanded he pay his fare following a ride home from a strip club.
"While Loftis has given police varying accounts of what happened that evening—once saying he invited the men in, while another time saying they barged into his home—several facts are not in dispute.
"Loftis admitted that he shot both men before dragging their bodies outside his house, where he placed them in a shallow grave and set them on fire along with his bloody clothes before burying them."
(My emphasis)
We'll probably have to wait on the police investigation for this one. I can't tell from the coverage what happened there.
Your position is indeensible, ludicrous and barbaric. One can't just murder someone for no other reason that he broke into a place. For example, you break into an old abandoned warehouse, you have no weapon. A security guard sees you inside the vast warehouse, and, unseen, draws his revolver and shoos you dead. You're a young guy looking out of curiosit, or for any historical relics left behind, In your world, he could be shot, tortured, doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
No, yours is indefensible.
Notwithstanding the body-burning because that's a different issue, the suit reflects exactly what gun-grabbers believe: that criminals shot by victims aren't given the opportunity to get away with it....er....due process.
Too bad their (and your) sympathy isn't directed towards the many victims surprised and accosted in their own damn homes by these dregs of humanity.
In Texas if you break into someones home, the law is clear that you have the right to shoot them until dead. its called the Castle Doctrine.
Not quite. Texas law presumes that breaking into your home (or other property under your control while you are present in it) is a threat to your life and limb. You have the right to end the threat, using force and deadly force (two different concepts). If the person dies as a result of your prudent use of force to end the threat, Texas law does not consider that a criminal homicide.
However, if the person were to fall down wounded and immobile from the first bullet--threat ended--and you continued to shoot him until he was dead, you would be charged with a criminal homicide. Obviously, that would be a matter brought out by evidence, such as forensics of the direction the subsequent bullets entered the body, eyewitness testimony, et cetera.
But if the law figures out that the threat clearly ended before the kill shot, you'd be charged with a criminal homicide.
One does not shoot a shoplifter in the back as he walks out of the store - proportionality!
Well, Texas law does appear to permit using "force" against the shoplifter if he does not drop what he stole while escaping, and "deadly force" if he resists the "force" -- his resistance to the "force" results in his becoming a threat to life and limb, and that subsequently permits "deadly force."
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.
Very messy
