How not to claim self defense when using a gun.

[TITAN308]

I'm not seeing where he did that. All I see is him indicating that he thinks it should be considered murder under the law unless they pose a threat of imminent harm from which you cannot retreat, which is a completely valid suggestion, whether or not you personally agree with that. What you two did steps over the line to actually attack him via circumstantial ad hominem.

lmao please stop

[zhero]

what do you think bullets are made out of? they are not magical

i could throw a bullet at you faster than it would fall down to earth via gravity

you can throw it fast enough to land a Texas legislator in the OR?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/us/tex...ead/index.html

[Elba]

In conclusion, if you can walk away, but choose to stay then you are the person escalating the situation, you are the person endangering lives and morally you are partly at fault for any harm that comes to you, your family or the other person. And the laws in a civilized society would reflect that.

[Alvito]

Moron. At least shoot the car or something. So you know what you're hitting.



What goes up, must come down. Bullets shot into the air can still kill people if they land on someone.

You would be surprised how many people just think that bullet never comes back down and if it does is no longer a deadly projectile.

[Stormdash]

It's an entirely reasonable presumption that someone who has already illegally entered your home is a danger to you. You don't get many of those "home invasion to play backgammon" stories.

Again, free people are not gazelles, and while they may decide to retreat, it's an obscenity to place a legal burden on them to do so -- anywhere, but certainly not in their own home.

There is no reason to fear this will happen if you can remove yourself from the situation. Only when you are trapped are you reasonable to be afraid.

In your home, it's a reasonable legal presumption to make. Even in the obsolete and artifactual premise requiring retreat "to the wall", your home IS the wall to which we all retreat, isn't it?

And yes, every human life has the same worth. You don't subscribe to human rights and humanitarian ideals? Do you think criminals are subhuman?

You are working hard to make the simple, complicated. Who should bear the risk of loss? Who should be considered to have put themselves in harm's way? In a transaction between anyone doing something illegal and anyone doing nothing illegal, who should the law assume at first blush is the person putting themselves in danger? The criminal, obviously. Obviously.

[Torgent]

That's about the response I expected.

It's Titan. When guns are mentioned, he knows best. There's no telling him facts or anything else, he's not interested in those. He goes off whatever pops into his head and everyone else is a criminal because they don't advocate executions.

[TITAN308]

That's about the response I expected.

His own words:

Well, you are trying to justify murder. This is not merely about opinion. If you truly think this way you are a danger to society.

He continues to ignore the law of the country in question and then goes on to assert we are a danger to society.

But by all means, because he shares your ideals (correct me if I am wrong) continue to white knight for him.

- - - Updated - - -

It's Titan. When guns are mentioned, he knows best. There's no telling him facts or anything else, he's not interested in those. He goes off whatever pops into his head and everyone else is a criminal because they don't advocate executions.

No, shooting someone invading your home in America is not murder. It is not fact.

If you want to take me out of context fine, but you aren't fooling anyone.

[TwoNineMarine]

As I said above, if you leave they are no threat. And no I have never had someone with a weapon in my home. The only weapons I've actually ever seen up close were in police officer's holsters. We don't fear armed invaders in Germany because people have no guns to harm us with and we have less violent crime.

And yes, every human life has the same worth. You don't subscribe to human rights and humanitarian ideals? Do you think criminals are subhuman?

I believe human rights only applies to citizens who don't go out and try and rape/murder other citizens. If you decide that you can go murder someone so you can easily steal their shit or whatever then your life is forfeit.

So in regards to criminals who rape/murder yes I believe they are subhuman.

I don't think petty theft and what not makes you subhuman. But I think that if you enter someone's home uninvited you have to be prepared with the fact that they may defend themselves. They can't read your mind. If you are in their home, especially if you have a weapon of any kind, they have to assume that you aren't there to be friends.

[Alydael]

Do you? That is amusing, I always thought the US law found it unconstitutional for people to having to pay for an ID card.

Why do I mention this? Because over here in the EU I'm forced to buy my new ID card every 5 years, while my driver's license is valid permanently for life. It seems in the US they just got you people paying the same we have to for our ID cards, but they pinned it on your driver's licenses instead.

It's just basically a scam for the government to make more money off of you. Why would you need a new card unless you somehow got an identity change? They don't even update you picture, they keep using the same one.

As for the whole self defense firearm thing. That worker in the story is lucky they didn't hit anyone. The thieves were already leaving (or seemed to be), I doubt any judge would have granted self defense on that.

There should be a class you take about laws and safety when you buy a firearm. Someone who possesses a gun for "self defense" should full well understand the law and liability. They should also send you updates when the laws change so that you stay informed.

[Stormdash]

No, shooting someone invading your home in America is not murder. It is not fact.

Well, it certainly could be, but the evidentiary requirements for proving it will be different if the putative victim was in the home illegally.

[TITAN308]

Well, it certainly could be, but the evidentiary requirements for proving it will be different if the putative victim was in the home illegally.

I'm having a hard time considering any situation where an active invasion is occurring where it could result in murder and not homicide.

I mean maybe delivering an anchor shot to someone you have shot already might qualify. LOL (well it would, but good luck proving it)

[Elba]

I believe human rights only applies to citizens who don't go out and try and rape/murder other citizens. If you decide that you can go murder someone so you can easily steal their shit or whatever then your life is forfeit.

So in regards to criminals who rape/murder yes I believe they are subhuman.

I don't think petty theft and what not makes you subhuman. But I think that if you enter someone's home uninvited you have to be prepared with the fact that they may defend themselves. They can't read your mind. If you are in their home, especially if you have a weapon of any kind, they have to assume that you aren't there to be friends.

I don't think you understand what human rights are. You can't lose those. They are universal. And wow, you actually believe there are people who are subhuman. My country used to think that too. You probably know how that ended. Wow.

Again, free people are not gazelles, and while they may decide to retreat, it's an obscenity to place a legal burden on them to do so -- anywhere, but certainly not in their own home.



In your home, it's a reasonable legal presumption to make. Even in the obsolete and artifactual premise requiring retreat "to the wall", your home IS the wall to which we all retreat, isn't it?



You are working hard to make the simple, complicated. Who should bear the risk of loss? Who should be considered to have put themselves in harm's way? In a transaction between anyone doing something illegal and anyone doing nothing illegal, who should the law assume at first blush is the person putting themselves in danger? The criminal, obviously. Obviously.

Whats with all the animal comparisons? We are humans, capable of reason. We don't, or at least shouldn't, act on primitive fight or flight reactions.

In any situation you should take the action that has the least risk for human live. If you can retreat and don't you are putting yourself in danger. Are you willing to die over a TV? Are you willing to let your wife be raped over an Xbox? Are you willing to murder over some piece of electronic? Are you that poor? Don't you have insurance?

[Stormdash]

I'm having a hard time considering any situation where an active invasion is occurring where it could result in murder and not homicide.

I mean maybe delivering an anchor shot to someone you have shot already might qualify. LOL (well it would, but good luck proving it)

Get the drop on an invader, disarm him and capture him, then execute him on general principle, that would still be murder.

[Stormdash]

Found an example -- Minnesota man doing life w/o parole for murder of two teens in his home. He had left his garage open as a honey trap, they burgled, and he lay in wait and killed them. It was his intention that they enter illegally and to kill them if they did.

[Elba]

Yup.

All I am saying is that if you can avoid killing somebody you have the moral obligation to do so. If you kill somebody, out of free will, if you don't absolutely have to, no other alternatives possible, than that is morally murder. Legally it is of course a different matter, sadly.

If you value human life, and any intelligent life form with a working conscious should, then there is no shame in retreating.

[TITAN308]

Get the drop on an invader, disarm him and capture him, then execute him on general principle, that would still be murder.

Well I wouldn't consider it still an "active" invasion in this instance, so yea it would be murder with no doubt.

[Stormdash]

There was a huge thread about that here when it was a current event.

Yep, and I think it was a close case in many ways, but the "hunting" metaphor was clearly compelling to the jury. I was then and still am troubled by a legal theory that requires criminal conduct be an... animal instinct you can tease into submission, though. Fact remains, if nobody ever goes full scum and burgles that guy's house there is nobody for him to kill.

[oxymoronic]

I don't think you understand what human rights are. You can't lose those. They are universal. And wow, you actually believe there are people who are subhuman. My country used to think that too. You probably know how that ended. Wow.



Whats with all the animal comparisons? We are humans, capable of reason. We don't, or at least shouldn't, act on primitive fight or flight reactions.

In any situation you should take the action that has the least risk for human live. If you can retreat and don't you are putting yourself in danger. Are you willing to die over a TV? Are you willing to let your wife be raped over an Xbox? Are you willing to murder over some piece of electronic? Are you that poor? Don't you have insurance?

not murdering them over my possessions, killing them to send a message to anybody else that may break in. bring that heat cause u know i will. cant believe people dont think like you do? well i have to stomach weak liberal fucks all the time, im sure you stomach my message of dont fuck around here.

[TITAN308]

snip

Tell you what, I'll apologize if he does.

I won't hold my breath. :P

[oxymoronic]

Found an example -- Minnesota man doing life w/o parole for murder of two teens in his home. He had left his garage open as a honey trap, they burgled, and he lay in wait and killed them. It was his intention that they enter illegally and to kill them if they did.

horrible jury and white kids if i remember right. not to mention one was a female, so yeah that shit right there fucks up jurors minds. kids, white and female = gg to the old white man