Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Shoot looters on sight?
Yes 132 51.76%
No 112 43.92%
I'm too wishy-washy to have an opinion. 11 4.31%
Voters: 255. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2017, 10:23 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 4,499,419 times
Reputation: 3981

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
LOL

Bless your heart.

Last I checked, state and federal laws are the rules to which one abides by regardless of what religion one practices or preaches.

Rule of the land is through statutes and penal codes.
Last I checked the Bible wasn't the rule of the land... nor is the Torah or Quran whatever text Wiccan Mormon etc religions follow...


And the word is then. Not than.

Laws (state and federal) > morals. Every single time. Try winning a court case based on what is written in religious text. Let me know how that works out for you.

Okay. And the tile if this thread was should you be able to shoot looters. Well that transcends into state law. Let me ask you based on your handle can you indescripmaetly shoot someone based on your perception that they looted some property.

When I lived in NJ that defense would not fly. Perhaps times have changed.

 
Old 08-30-2017, 10:52 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,501,337 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
Okay. And the tile if this thread was should you be able to shoot looters. Well that transcends into state law. Let me ask you based on your handle can you indescripmaetly shoot someone based on your perception that they looted some property.

When I lived in NJ that defense would not fly. Perhaps times have changed.
LOL

So you are admitting your religious views don't hold up in court and that once again your argument is invalid? But would it fly in New Jersey if you claimed some scripture in the bible says you could? Of course not...

I live in Florida. I posted Florida's state law multiple times. You chose not to read it blatting it's a wall of text copy paste... you decided to run your mouth about religion...

State Law says if they not only try to steal my stuff or break into my house or threaten harm or threaten life of others you can. Stand your ground and castle doctrine ruled vehicles as an extension of your domicile, that's home by the way. So it also applies to car jackers. Forcible felonies extends to rapists, home invaders, etc... If you studied the law like you do the bible, this wouldn't be an issue for you to comprehend. As a police officer once told me "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, it's your responsibility to know them and follow them, it's my job to enforce them."

Go back and re-read what I had posted for laws

My perception-someone's trying to gain access into house. I am within the law to threaten use or even use deadly force to deter. Someone tries to steal either of my trucks I am within the law. Even breaking into the truck. Once again. Go back and read what I had posted. This is not only a castle doctrine state, it's a stand your ground state. No duty to retreat what so ever... I've posted the laws, now it's your turn to understand them. I can't do that for you...

Let's see what NJ state law says.
Quote:
2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Section 2C:3-4 - Use of force in self-protection.

Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 2C:3-4 (2013)

2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

b.Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(1)The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a)To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

(b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

L.1978, c.95; amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.
Yup, looks like an intruder can be shot dead in your house...
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:03 PM
 
3,564 posts, read 1,924,330 times
Reputation: 3732
Can't imagine wanting to kill someone over a TV or truck.
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:05 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 4,499,419 times
Reputation: 3981
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
Can't imagine wanting to kill someone over a TV or truck.

Hey. It's a disaster situation. Shoot away and claim it was looting.
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:09 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,501,337 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
Can't imagine wanting to kill someone over a TV or truck.
One was 58k (in the background) the other 72k (my work truck)


Not a matter of want/desire.
Matter of I wasn't born with an issued police officer to protect what's mine 24/7
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:14 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 4,499,419 times
Reputation: 3981
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
One was 58k (in the background) the other 72k (my work truck)


Not a matter of want/desire.
Matter of I wasn't born with an issued police officer to protect what's mine 24/7
Is this some kind of pathetic brag post?
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:23 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,501,337 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
Is this some kind of pathetic brag post?
Ones 58k ones 72k. Would you happily hand the keys over to some undeserving miscreant? Maybe you would... Jesus will miracle you a new one with 5 miles on the odometer too! By the time the cell phone towers have been restored maybe they'll find it in some chop shop 3 states away or in a shipping crate off to some country far far away...

Blood and sweat bought em. So what I have insurance. That's not going to replace either of them. The half ton was paid off back in December.
Big Bertha has 38k left to go at 1200 per month. The bank gets paid, I'm out 34k...
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:26 PM
 
3,564 posts, read 1,924,330 times
Reputation: 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
Is this some kind of pathetic brag post?
Appears so
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Ones 58k ones 72k. Would you happily hand the keys over to some undeserving miscreant? Maybe you would... Jesus will miracle you a new one with 5 miles on the odometer too! By the time the cell phone towers have been restored maybe they'll find it in some chop shop 3 states away or in a shipping crate off to some country far far away...

Blood and sweat bought em. So what I have insurance. That's not going to replace either of them. The half ton was paid off back in December.
Big Bertha has 38k left to go at 1200 per month. The bank gets paid, I'm out 34k...
You'd have to pay me a lot more than $34,000 to shoot someone.
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:30 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 4,499,419 times
Reputation: 3981
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Ones 58k ones 72k. Would you happily hand the keys over to some undeserving miscreant? Maybe you would... Jesus will miracle you a new one with 5 miles on the odometer too! By the time the cell phone towers have been restored maybe they'll find it in some chop shop 3 states away or in a shipping crate off to some country far far away...

Blood and sweat bought em. So what I have insurance. That's not going to replace either of them. The half ton was paid off back in December.
Big Bertha has 38k left to go at 1200 per month. The bank gets paid, I'm out 34k...

Christ. I'm not impressed with any off it. Basic stuff that anyone would have insured. You seem to have a and unusual love affair with some of it.
 
Old 08-30-2017, 11:34 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,501,337 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
Appears so

You'd have to pay me a lot more than $34,000 to shoot someone.
130k sitting in my driveway... most houses sell for that down here...

It's not a brag post. That's the logic post.
The work Truck is a very valuable tool. Goes through the swampy access road to the dump that resembles the whoops section of a dirtbike track that a standard height truck would bottom out on. With the amount of electronics in these things nope... not hearing warranty coverage denied due to off roading.

Was either that truck or a dump truck which in Florida, gets a much higher insurance premium. It was cheaper to buy a 20 foot dump trailer (dump trailer is covered by trucks insurance) than the dump truck.
Plus dump trucks don't have air conditioned leather seats and Bose stereos. Or sunroofs.

And you'd gladly hand the keys over....
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top