Guy shoots neighbour in the dick for stealing his shit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;51145099]They don't work with it. They get worked by it. It's called the Justice Department. Either way I've said what I wanted to say and as someone recommended, I'll refrain from commenting this further.[/QUOTE] Cause Police are capable of teleportation.

dude was totally in the right for shooting him. like others have said before me, while he knew who the intruder was, he couldn't possibly fathom whether or not he was armed or with intent to hurt him. i know for sure that if i was armed i wouldn't ask him "oi mate are you plannin on doin any harm ye wee fella" and wait for an answer. he might have shot him in the dick but he's likely gonna survive so i don't understand this nonsense about 'taking a life' earlier were about

[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;51145026]Don't argue with americans and guns, it's not worth it.[/QUOTE] if someone were to repeatedly break into my home, after being warned, I wouldn't be taking any chances. American or not. Warnings didn't work, so I guess it's got to come to SOMETHING after seeing for how long that shitshow has been going on for btw the article doesn't imply it was an execution-style shot, more like the bullet happened to land on his groin, rather than his chest or anywhere else

It's a shame he had to get shot in the dick, there's not a lot of people I would wish that upon, but shit happens when you put yourself in these situations.

[QUOTE=aznz888;51143418]sounds like a very justified reaction, especially if it's already happened before. the dude was probably warned that he'd be shot previously too.[/QUOTE] Maybe not in the dick... [QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;51145026]Don't argue with americans and guns, it's not worth it.[/QUOTE] Yea, well it's a two way street.

[QUOTE=space1;51145194]Maybe not in the dick... [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NitronikALT;51145146] btw the article doesn't imply it was an execution-style shot, more like the bullet happened to land on his groin, rather than his chest or anywhere else[/QUOTE]

I hope that the homeowner was in fear for his safety and happened to hit the attacker's groin while aiming for center mass, because the wording of the article implies that he employed lethal force with intent to maim a non-violent intruder, and that's got civil suit written all over it. Maybe it's just bad journalism and the short article is trying to portray the homeowner as some Dirty Harry type, but if he deliberately shot the guy in the groin to 'teach him a lesson' then he's going to lose badly in civil court. That's not a legitimate use of lethal force; you use lethal force when your life is in danger and you shoot center mass to stop the threat.

[QUOTE=phaedon;51144288]So anyone committing a criminal act can be justifiably shot. Well, that's one way to deal with overpopulation, I guess. Has any of these posters who say "But you break the law, you get shot, that's just how it is." every time a thread like this pops up consider that there are places in the world where the requirements for self-defense are much stricter and they are still not flooded with murder and crime? The US has the highest crime rates in the western world despite it, so perhaps the whole legal framework stands to be criticized. Shooting a trespasser, a vandal, a fleeing criminal or an unarmed burglar only makes you less morally reprehensible because your laws say so.[/QUOTE] Basically the US generally holds this notion: If you are out on the street, and someone threatens your life, then you are justified in defending yourself. This isn't an unusual notion, yes? I imagine you can agree with this assessment. You have the right to protect your own life. Where it seems that we differ, is in that inside the home, many countries would still hold that standard. In the US, we deign breaking into an occupied home to be the act of someone who is particularly dangerous, stupid, or under the influence of something. As such, we, in some states, remove the requirement that you effectively determine their threat level, because we consider breaking into an occupied home to inherently be the act of someone dangerous. So where we seem to run into a communication error is at that point. Americans go "yeah, he deserved it" because Americans view breaking into a home as an inherently dangerous crime. To Americans, it is similar to having a knife pointed at you on the street. People from other nations go "he wasn't an immediate threat, so let him take your stuff". Both are valid stances that just have different logic trains behind them.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51144403]Alright, have fun pining away in a cell on your manslaughter charge, Mr. Freedom.[/QUOTE] I'd rather do time for manslaughter than die frankly. Or, if I had a family, have them get harmed in some way

[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;51145026]Don't argue with americans and guns, it's not worth it.[/QUOTE] Could just as easily say "Don't argue with Europeans and guns, it's not worth it"

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51145452]Could just as easily say "Don't argue with Europeans and guns, it's not worth it"[/QUOTE] What about the Asians? And the Africans? And the Australians? South Americans? The Antarticans? Is it worth to argue with them over guns now, eh?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145468]What about the Asians? And the Africans? And the Australians? South Americans? The Antarticans? Is it worth to argue with them over guns now, eh?[/QUOTE] Its willful ignorance to deny that the majority of this conflict in ideology is between Europe and North America. On that though, smothering argument between any of us is stupid and only serves to increase tension.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51143773]No they don't. They deserve jail time, not getting castrated by a gun. There are much better ways this could have been handled.[/QUOTE] While I agree with you, it takes a real special kind of dumbass to break into a house after being warned with a gun several times in the past [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] Maybe more of a moral dilemma but some US states legally allow trespassers to be shot the second they force entry Also, relevant [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCDY5XhZng[/media]

[QUOTE=Teratoma;51145502]Its willful ignorance to deny that the majority of this conflict in ideology is between Europe and North America. On that though, smothering argument between any of us is stupid and only serves to increase tension.[/QUOTE] I was being completely and utterly sarcastic. I'm well aware that this discussion is mainly between those in the Western world (Australians get involved in these discussions a lot). I'm not going to get involved any further.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145513]I was being completely and utterly sarcastic. I'm well aware that this discussion is mainly between those in the Western world (Australians get involved in these discussions a lot). I'm not going to get involved any further.[/QUOTE] Then what exactly was the point of that post? [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] We won't abuse you I promise.

[QUOTE=Teratoma;51145519]Then what exactly was the point of that post? [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] We won't abuse you I promise.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145513][B][I]I was being completely and utterly sarcastic.[/I][/B] I'm well aware that this discussion is mainly between those in the Western world (Australians get involved in these discussions a lot). I'm not going to get involved any further.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Loriborn;51144310]Truly the response of someone whose likely never been mugged at gunpoint or been home when a potentially armed person has broken into your home, destroyed your sense of safety, and attempted to steal belongings you've likely spent years working to afford, or worse yet, are irreplaceable. Just bend over and let it happen. Being a victim means you don't have to worry about random people saying you did something morally dubious to someone in the act of doing something "morally reprehensible." [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] Our self defense laws are in place because of our crime; or self defense laws are not causing crime. Once the wealth inequality issue in the US is solved, we can ween off the need for home defense, until then, it's a necessary evil.[/QUOTE] hello, i've experienced multiple break-ins and i'm not a murderer yet the same neighbour already broke in multiple times, why didn't he just report it to the police

[QUOTE=Teratoma;51145519]Then what exactly was the point of that post? [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] We won't abuse you I promise.[/QUOTE] First of all, it was to make a shite joke. There was no other point other than to make a shite joke. Second, I'm reminded why PMs are superior in all ways to public comments on others profiles; so I don't get 'smart' replies from other people who've read them.

[QUOTE=elowin;51145533]hello, i've experienced multiple break-ins and i'm not a murderer yet the same neighbour already broke in multiple times, why didn't he just report it to the police[/QUOTE] Break-ins are fucking scary. Some of us don't like taking the chance. [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145542]First of all, it was to make a shite joke. There was no other point other than to make a shite joke. Second, I'm reminded why PMs are superior in all ways to public comments on others profiles; so I don't get 'smart' replies from other people who've read them.[/QUOTE] Ha, made you come back. Now go away.

You're only further proving my point and why discussing this issue is pointless.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145585]You're only further proving my point and why discussing this issue is pointless.[/QUOTE] You've discussed nothing, you can stop playing the martyr now.

It's almost as if you're harassing me over a little joke I made because you read a conversation between me and another user about how I have a different opinion on guns than quite a number of Americans and you decided to be cute about it by saying 'oh no we won't abuse you over it.' So yes, I have discussed it. And I specifically said I didn't want to discuss it any further, but I really do not enjoy being called out for little things such as this, so I guess I'm giving you want you want. Oh and by the way, I would have replied to your little snide comment on my profile if you actually enabled comments on your profile. For this case I am perplexed as to why this man did not go to the police despite the fact that the same guy broke into his house multiple times. I am glad I live in a country where the police generally aren't armed and the populace also generally isn't armed and if they are they have to register for it. Is that what you wanted? I'm aware I'm paranoid about being abused over my political opinions. But it's happened to me before, specifically on this issue of guns and a person who I thought was a friend ended up hating me because I challenged their precious little opinion on it. Someone also tried to abuse me over Steam once over something as well on this forum, so yeah, I think I have a reason to not want to discuss this.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51145607] For this case I am perplexed as to why this man did not go to the police despite the fact that the same guy broke into his house multiple times. I am glad I live in a country where the police generally aren't armed and the populace also generally isn't armed and if they are they have to register for it. Is that what you wanted? I'm aware I'm paranoid about being abused over my political opinions. But it's happened to me before, specifically on this issue of guns and a person who I thought was a friend ended up hating me because I challenged their precious little opinion on it. Someone also tried to abuse me over Steam once over something as well on this forum, so yeah, I think I have a reason to not want to discuss this.[/QUOTE] I argue just because I think arguing is fun. Whether we like it or not people's opinions can and will be different. Sometimes its better to agree to disagree. If someone becomes overtly hostile to you just because you have different opinions then fuck em. I can understand where you're coming from, and I respect that opinion. I believe it is wrong still, but that's just how things are.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51144431]The argument of the thief potentially being armed and dangerous is a valid one, but this is just disgusting. A human life is worth more than your TV.[/QUOTE] I'm honestly really tired of this argument cropping up every time some idiot of a robber pushes his luck one step too far and ends up getting shot for his troubles. Let's agree on one thing: stealing is a bad thing to do especially if you're stealing for the sake of getting rich. Most robbers seem to have this idea that 'if people aren't going to be careful with their stuff, it's okay for us to take it for ourselves.' Other robbers seem to have the idea that it's fine by them to beat up, intimidate, or murder people for their money and goods, and that's even worse. One problem with people who argue that no harm should be done to a home invader or thief in the process of taking somebody else's stuff, especially if they choose to threaten the lives of the home's occupants or rightful owners of whatever they stole, is that they always talk in terms of hindsight that 'hey the robber might've been just there to steal, and didnt deserve, in our eyes, the disproportionate retribution of being shot.' My question is, why would you put your life into the hands of an invader who might very well choose to take it? People have a right to defend their homes and property. Theft isn't just the loss of goods and money taken in abstract: If somebody's living paycheck to paycheck, they're gonna starve for a month. If somebody loses their vehicle, especially if they arent done paying the EMI for it, there's another problem. And then, on the same note, suppose it's the only way they could travel to work without hugely inconveniencing themselves? And what if a company's monthly payroll gets stolen by thieves when others depend on that money to survive? thefts have long term consequences as well as short term, which is what many people fail to understand. Having your home broken into and your life put at risk by an invader has real psychological consequences, ditto for being mugged for your stuff. And don't even let me get started on if one of your relatives or family members happens to be injured or lose their lives as a result of a mugging or robbery, especially if it's gone pear shaped. It's all very well to talk about moral decisions and whether something is morally right or wrong when you haven't experienced the same problems for yourself. It's always better to be able to protect yourself in case an invader comes calling instead of believing naively that they're just going to take your things and go away without causing further trouble. Personally, while I too believe that violence is only an option when all other options have failed, I'm not stupid enough to put my life in the hands of some lowlife's shreds of a conscience. I stand by the truth of the statement that bad choices can lead to bad consequences. If you live by the sword, you're gonna die by it one day.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51143773]No they don't. They deserve jail time, not getting castrated by a gun. There are much better ways this could have been handled.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I wouldn't wish losing a dick to even the worst kinds of criminals. Also article wasn't very specific about the actually injury to his groin so hopefully he still has his cock and at least one of his balls.

Damn it feels good to not live in America

[QUOTE=riki2cool;51146142]Damn it feels good to not live in America[/QUOTE] Yeah this totally happens all the time everywhere in america. Please don't act as if that's the case.

[QUOTE=riki2cool;51146142]Damn it feels good to not live in America[/QUOTE] Because you make your living as a home invader?

[QUOTE=riki2cool;51146142]Damn it feels good to not live in America[/QUOTE] Norway had the biggest mass shooting ever perpetuated by a lone gunman 5 years ago, don't act like it's the epitome of all american problems.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51145370]I hope that the homeowner was in fear for his safety and happened to hit the attacker's groin while aiming for center mass, because the wording of the article implies that he employed lethal force with intent to maim a non-violent intruder, and that's got civil suit written all over it. Maybe it's just bad journalism and the short article is trying to portray the homeowner as some Dirty Harry type, but if he deliberately shot the guy in the groin to 'teach him a lesson' then he's going to lose badly in civil court. That's not a legitimate use of lethal force; you use lethal force when your life is in danger and you shoot center mass to stop the threat.[/QUOTE] This is why shooting to wound is not a thing you're supposed to do. Either you're in fear for your life, in which case you shoot to kill, or you're not in fear for your life, in which case you do not shoot at all. Sometimes after a fatal shooting you'll hear people say "Couldn't he just shoot him in the leg or something?". No you can't because that's maiming or torturing someone. It implies that since you do not feel the need to kill this person, you are just shooting them to inflict pain.