Defense of Home
POSTED BY: StillFlyin
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:32
VIEWED: 10548
PAGE 3 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Could it be possible that any of these convictions were warranted because they were the excessive use of force?
I would accept that possibility if you will accept the possibility that that does not apply to every case.
Define excessive use of force. If someone is going to attack me, tells me so, and then we sit down and talk about the ground rules for our fight then we have an agreement as to what constitutes excessive force. If he just attacks me then I have to assume that he is going to try to kill me in which case NO amount of force is excessive.
Quote:
I've got no love for the idea of burglary...and its a particularly invasive frightening crime. But it's not just done by the very dangerous, it's done by the young and stupid and its done by the desperate(which could be very dangerous but not neccesarily suicidal).
And how do I know what category they fall into? Once again if they are interested in talking it out ahead of time...but rarely is that an option.
Quote:
Given a choice, the person with the home should be the one left standing if somebody were going to get hurt, but I want to know that somebody wasn't killed unnecesarily.
I agree, but the way the law was before the homeowner could not defend themselves without risking legal retaliation. I would rather have the right to fight back and risk excessive force then the right to cower and be killed.
Quote:
I want to know that the person with the gun didn't overreact...a gun is usually a pretty good deterrent in and of itself without having to discharge.
True, but once again, in an unknown situation who is to decide what contitutes overreaction? If someone is attacking me I have to assume that they intend to kill me, otherwise I run the risk of being killed myself.
Quote:
What about a perceived threat now though? What if you just thought somebody was looking to harm you. He came too close, too threateningly...his dimeanor too angry. Does the new law force a situation where you had to be attacked? Or is it just enough to think you are?
Not sure, and that is a good point, technically whenver you feel threatened it is a case for assault, and that will probably be a situation that the lawmakers will have to deal with sooner or later.
Quote:
I do want to be pragmatic about this...not so compassionate that I give the person breaking the law a pass at the expense of law and order and the citizen's own safety. So far though, there's nothing about this bill that I think makes people safer...I think it does the opposite, actually.
Are you planning on threatening anyones life? Then there shouldn't be any reason to worry about it. This law is almost certainly more likely to save your life then end it, unless you act against someone with criminal intent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter.
A P.S. to my comment on this, should we be proud of a system that puts victims in jail because of technicalites?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isn't the point here that self defence is a defence from charges of murder or manslaughter. People still go to trial, still face a jury and would still have to prove that they acted to defend themselves. It's not like you can just tell the cops it was self defence and walk. Also I'm assuming that the Florida law still has an appropriate force requirement, so if a 6ft man with a busted lip claims he shot a 5ft man because the smaller man punched him it will be hard to make a self defence claim work in court.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
A P.S. to my comment on this, should we be proud of a system that puts victims in jail because of technicalites?
No...
But not too long ago there was a case where a guy got pissed off because he's been burgled several times. It happened again and he came down stairs and shot a kid in the back with a shotgun while the kid was running away.
He played the big victim card because he was just defending his property. I'm sorry there's a big difference between defending oneself and shooting someone in the back while they're running away.
To be fair there's also been cases where burglars have sued the home owner because they injured themselves 'on the job' so to speak, but if you don't make it clear too people that they have to do everything to get away before they even think about using deadly force you get people shooting each other in the back.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But not too long ago there was a case where a guy got pissed off because he's been burgled several times. It happened again and he came down stairs and shot a kid in the back with a shotgun while the kid was running away.
He played the big victim card because he was just defending his property. I'm sorry there's a big difference between defending oneself and shooting someone in the back while they're running away.
True, and that is a darker-side-of-gray area there. But once again, if you are going to commit a crime you should be prepared to face the consequences. The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...
Quote:
To be fair there's also been cases where burglars have sued the home owner because they injured themselves 'on the job' so to speak...
Which is completely ridiculous.
Quote:
...but if you don't make it clear too people that they have to do everything to get away before they even think about using deadly force you get people shooting each other in the back.
Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No one should break into another's home without EXPECTING to slip on a skate, be bitten by a dog, trip on an unfinished science project, or be shot by a nervous aggrivated bi-polar insomniac.
Am I just trippin' here?
Just say no, I won't be a d**k Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PIRATENEWS
I take it that you are not going to answer my Communist Manifesto question?
So that makes me right and you WRONG.
Again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...
And if he hadn't decided to shoot people in the back he wouldn't of gone to prison
.Robbing a house hardly warrants a death sentence, a prison term perhaps, but not a death sentence.
Quote:
Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?
If the choice is shoot people in the back or run away then yeah.
When people pickup a weapon in these situations most often you find that the weapon is used against them. If you don't want to get hurt the best thing to do is make you presence known and ensure the intruder has a clear exit path.
It's just like cornering an animal, they'll try to flee and if your between them and freedom they'll flee through you.
I've practiced various martial arts since the age of five, I'm well aware that if someone hits me I don't get to break their neck. Point is it doesn't matter whether your weapons are your hands or a Glock 9mm, lethal force is always the last resort and only used when it's you or them and you don't have the opportunity to escape.
Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All for it.
NY/NJ/CT Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s pretty much the way I see it should be. Unfortunately, I think to many criminals are expecting homeowners to roll over and die, or possibly just cower in the corner. There was a story I read in the news several years ago about a woman who had her house invaded and was attacked by a man who expected to rape her, instead she latched onto his sensitive side and explained things to him in a way that will probably make it impossible for him to ever become a father. Which killed two birds with one stone. I don’t know if that was the best thing to do, because she could have gotten killed, but I do know that if there was ever a deterrent for rapist that had to be it.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No one should break into another's home without EXPECTING to slip on a skate, be bitten by a dog, trip on an unfinished science project, or be shot by a nervous aggrivated bi-polar insomniac.
Am I just trippin' here?
I think I would have advised her to have just gotten a gun and shot the guy, but her way worked too.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME