[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;23018499]Yeah cause Mailmen kick in doors and windows[/QUOTE]
yeah cause I said or implied that
shooting someone over stealing a TV is punishable by death?
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018463]ITT: people justify attempted murder
if you don't KNOW his intentions then how could you possibly say it's okay to shoot him?[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the article?
[editline]06:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018553]yeah cause I said or implied that
shooting someone over stealing a TV is punishable by death?[/QUOTE]
Oh here we go [i]again[/i]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018463]if you don't KNOW his intentions then how could you possibly say it's okay to shoot him?[/QUOTE]
Their intention may be to murder you, in which case, you're screwed.
You people have too much faith in someone who is breaking into your home.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;23018576]Did you even read the article?[/QUOTE]
yes
did you
[QUOTE=Warhol;23018525]oh hey, im mr sandman
i take points WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion
christ people, these issues are not fucking black and white, use your heads[/QUOTE]
Good job on the capitalization buddy, almost made me think it was one of my posts.
C'mon man, how many honest, innocent reasons can you think of for breaking someones windows and attempting to kick in the doors under the circumstances presented here?
[QUOTE=The Vman;23018597]Their intention may be to murder you, in which case, you're screwed.
You people have too much faith in someone who is breaking into your home.[/QUOTE]
he's kicking down your door
where does that imply that he's gonna come in and murder all of you
you guys act like every intruder is a Ted Bundy
Oh hey, Look! [URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx#tab2"] Real information![/URL]
[QUOTE]The contrast between robbery and robbery-homicide in Australia is striking ([URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx#tab2"]Table 2[/URL]). Robberies were more likely to be committed in a community setting (52 per cent) or retail setting (30 per cent), whereas robbery-homicides were more likely to be committed in a residential location (55 per cent).
Of those robbery-homicides committed in a residential location, the motive (where it was known) was usually related to getting money (61 per cent) or drugs (16 per cent) and committed by either strangers (54 per cent) or friends/acquaintances (32 per cent). This suggests that there are possibly two types of robbery-homicide occurring in residential premises:
[LIST]
[*]those that are stranger invasion-type offences where the homicide is an unintentional side effect of the housebreaking; and
[*]robbery-homicides where the victims and offenders are known to each other and the homicide results from a possible "drug rip-off" or some other confrontation in relation to money.
[/LIST]
[URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx#tab2"]Table 2[/URL] indicates that a disproportionate number of robbery-homicide victims (when compared to robbery victims) were aged 45 years or older (48 per cent versus 21 per cent) and were male (74 per cent versus 65 per cent). Cook (1987) noted similar differences in his analysis of robbery-murder and robbery in the United States. He found that robbery-murder victims were considerably older than either robbery victims or non-felony homicide victims, and that the percentage of robbery-murder victims who were male was higher than the corresponding percentages of either robbery victims or non-felony homicide victims.
The current study reveals a number of other important differences between the two types of crime. The majority of robberies in Australia were unarmed (59 per cent), while only a quarter of robbery-homicides were committed by an unarmed offender. Firearms were used in a higher proportion of robbery-homicides (23 per cent) than in robberies (9 per cent). The comparative analysis also revealed differences in clearance rates for robbery and robbery-homicide in Australia, with robberies having a lower clearance rate (20 per cent) than robbery-homicides (76 per cent).
The present research replicates the results of Zimring and Zuehl (1986) who examined victim injury and death in urban robbery in Chicago, and found that a higher proportion of robbery-homicides (compared to robberies) occurred in a residential location, involved the use of a firearm, and were solved.
Following the examination of robbery and robbery-homicide in Australia, the additional offender variables derived from the NARMP, such as gender and age, were used to compare armed robbery and armed robbery-homicide. The results indicate that, again, males dominate both non-lethal and lethal armed robbery offences ([URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx#tab2"]Table 2[/URL]). There were, however, differences based on the age of the offenders. While most offenders of armed robbery - lethal and non-lethal - were aged between 15 and 34 years, the highest proportion of armed robbery offenders (non-lethal) were aged between 15 and 19 years (34 per cent). However, the highest proportion of armed robbery-homicide offenders were aged 25 to 34 years (28 per cent), suggesting that offenders of armed robberies that result in the death of a victim tended to be older than those offenders in cases where the victim was not killed.
The findings from the comparative analyses suggest that:
[LIST]
[*]crime homicides are different from other homicides; and
[*]robbery and robbery-homicide are different and while they can be seen as "endpoints in a continuum representing severity of injury" (Felson & Messner 1996, p. 536), other factors were found to differentiate between them.
[/LIST]
There are a number of competing factors that could account for the differences observed between robbery-homicide and robbery. The fact that robbery-homicides were more likely to involve victims aged 45 years or older (of which 44 per cent were aged 65 years or older), is in line with research on the victimisation of older persons that suggests older people may be targeted because they are perceived to offer little resistance to offenders. Due to their increased vulnerability as a function of age - declining physical strength and agility, prospects for post-injury recovery and chances of survival after an attack - older persons may be viewed as "soft targets" or "easy marks". As a result, older persons would be far more likely to be fatally wounded when robbed (Fox & Levin 1991; Maxfield 1989).
While firearms were one of the least commonly used weapons in both robbery and robbery-homicide, the higher use of firearms in robbery-homicide may increase the risk of lethal injury. Zimring (1991) refers to this as the "instrumentality effect". According to this explanation, the likelihood of serious injury or death increases with the lethality of the weapon. Hence, when weapons such as firearms are used, there is a greater likelihood that the victim will be killed than when other weapons or physical force are used (see also Allen 1986; Cook 1980, 1985, 1987, 1990; Felson & Messner 1996; Skogan 1978). This would explain why the greater use of firearms in a robbery-homicide contributes to a higher proportion of deaths than in a robbery.
Differences in clearance status could also be explained in terms of the priority of the police investigation and the seriousness of the offence. The investigation of a robbery-homicide by police will be accorded much higher priority than the investigation of a robbery, mainly because of the nature and seriousness of the homicide component. In terms of severity of response, the criminal justice system may also respond to the robbery-homicide on the same level as other homicides (being the most serious offence), and non-fatal robberies on a less serious level.
Another factor that cannot be discounted is that the death of the victim during a robbery or some other crime may result from differential motivational patterns of the offender. Cook (1987) views the death in these cases as a by-product of the robbery. Some robbery-homicides may be "accidents" that occur because the victim offers resistance to the offender and the offender impulsively reacts with deadly force. Other robbery-homicides result from the offenders' deliberate plan to rob and kill the victim (involving the acquisition of an appropriate weapon). For some robbery-homicides the robbery may be incidental to the homicide, occurring after the victim is killed. The offenders' motivation is paramount to understanding and responding to this type of violence.
[/QUOTE]Oh Hey! A Table: [URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx#tab2"]Table[/URL]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018639]he's kicking down your door
where does that imply that he's gonna come in and murder all of you
you guys act like every intruder is a Ted Bundy[/QUOTE]
And you act like every intruder is barney the dinosaur.
[QUOTE=The Vman;23018662]And you act like every intruder is barney the dinosaur.[/QUOTE]
uh, no I don't
how does kicking down a door justify murdering someone
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018679]uh, no I don't
how does kicking down a door justify murdering someone[/QUOTE]
For all you know it's a serial killer, so yeah, it's justified.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018639]he's kicking down your door
where does that imply that he's gonna come in and murder all of you
you guys act like every intruder is a Ted Bundy[/QUOTE]I think that it's implied he'll hurt you when he [B]KICKS DOWN THE FUCKING DOOR[/B].
[QUOTE=Warhol;23018525]oh hey, im mr sandman
i take points WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion
christ people, these issues are not fucking black and white, use your heads[/QUOTE]
Get out. Nobody likes you on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018614]yes
did you[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Because I was replying to your statment:
[quote]if you don't KNOW his intentions then how could you possibly say it's okay to shoot him?[/quote]
Because you seemed to miss this part
[quote]When one of the suspected burglars kicked open a window, the boy grabbed a rifle and fired. Both burglars then fled, officials said.[/quote]
In which, the burglars were aiming to steal from the house. Kid fought them off.
And then you said
[quote]shooting someone over stealing a TV is punishable by death?[/quote]
Well that's Castle Laws for you in action. Don't break into peoples houses because if the home owner is there and he/she is armed, you are at their mercy. Not to mention this will serve as a massive deterrent to other criminals, they will risk their lives if they try to break into someones house, a risk that most will not be willing to take.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;23018763]Don't break into peoples houses because if the home owner is there and he/she is armed, you are at their mercy.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/ads/rating/tick.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018553]yeah cause I said or implied that
shooting someone over stealing a TV is punishable by death?[/QUOTE]
he's a 15 year old kid home alone with his 12 year old brother scared shitless by someone kicking in his doors and windows.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018463]
if you don't KNOW his intentions then how could you possibly say it's okay to shoot him?[/QUOTE]
Because he's breaking into a scared 15 year old's house. I wouldn't have shot him at that point but I can see why it happened.
[editline]12:53AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018679]uh, no I don't
how does kicking down a door justify murdering someone[/QUOTE]
He didn't die.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;23018679]uh, no I don't
how does kicking down a door justify murdering someone[/QUOTE]
It justifies it because it isn't their fucking door, and by entering it with you in the house, they have committed a crime which can fuck their lives over if they get caught, and witnesses can ensure that happens. So they will hurt or kill the victim. Also, people who commit crimes in the suburbs or places like that usually aren't people looking for food for their poor starving family, they want more shit, and you have it. Criminals aren't poor romantic souls, they're morons who want money for their next fix.
TL;DR: Some Facepunchers think we live in a dream world where burglars kick in your door because they want to give you candy and presents.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;23018964]TL;DR: Some Facepunchers think we live in a dream world where burglars kick in your door because they want to give you candy and presents.[/QUOTE]
This man
He speaks the TRUTH!
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;23018618]Good job on the capitalization buddy, almost made me think it was one of my posts.
C'mon man, how many honest, innocent reasons can you think of for breaking someones windows and attempting to kick in the doors under the circumstances presented here?[/QUOTE]
it's not a matter of innocence.
If the second Korean war kicks off, I'm joining.
But anyway, to the point.
The laws in Michigan are fucked up. If someone tries to break into your house, succeeds, and then, say for example, trips over your chair and breaks their leg, they can sue you.
This is why my grandfather, who was a vet from WWII, told me one thing that will stick with me til the day I die.
"If someone intrudes your house, you'd better put a couple shots of molten lead in their skull, else they walk away and take everything you own."(court,suing,etc.) Wiser words have never been spoken.
[QUOTE=Superstormj;23019150]
The laws in Michigan are fucked up. If someone tries to break into your house, succeeds, and then, say for example, trips over your chair and breaks their leg, they can sue you.
This is why my grandfather, who was a vet from WWII, told me one thing that will stick with me til the day I die.
"If someone intrudes your house, you'd better put a couple shots of molten lead in their skull, else they walk away and take everything you own."(court,suing,etc.) Wiser words have never been spoken.[/QUOTE]
Your grandfather is amazing.
I can already see how this is going to go down, the burglar sues the dad, the boys get taken away and the one who shot them goes to juvi.
It's a fucked up world.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;23018964]TL;DR: Some Facepunchers think we live in a dream world where burglars kick in your door because they want to give you candy and presents.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6973/dog.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Superstormj;23019150]If the second Korean war kicks off, I'm joining.
But anyway, to the point.
The laws in Michigan are fucked up. If someone tries to break into your house, succeeds, and then, say for example, trips over your chair and breaks their leg, they can sue you.
This is why my grandfather, who was a vet from WWII, told me one thing that will stick with me til the day I die.
"If someone intrudes your house, you'd better put a couple shots of molten lead in their skull, else they walk away and take everything you own."(court,suing,etc.) Wiser words have never been spoken.[/QUOTE]
atta boy, fucking put a price tag on human life
you fucking people have no concept of human life, do you. You would willing murder another human fucking being because he's taking your fucking maerial possessions. you can buy another one.
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
also, just to spite you, i'd fucking support the DPRK in the second korean war.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23019412]atta boy, fucking put a price tag on human life
you fucking people have no concept of human life, do you. You would willing murder another human fucking being because he's taking your fucking maerial possessions. you can buy another one.[/QUOTE]
Oh, quit acting like life is so sacred. Men like the man who was shot don't accomplish anything in their life, the only effect of him dying is slightly more peace in that area, less food consumption, and depressed family members.
Everyone dies, Warhol, it's the choices we make that decide when that will happen. This man made a bad choice and as such, was hurt. He's lucky he isn't dead.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23019412]atta boy, fucking put a price tag on human life
you fucking people have no concept of human life, do you. You would willing murder another human fucking being because he's taking your fucking maerial possessions. you can buy another one.
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
also, just to spite you, i'd fucking support the DPRK in the second korean war.[/QUOTE]
defending your property != having to murder them
[QUOTE=Warhol;23019412]atta boy, fucking put a price tag on human life
you fucking people have no concept of human life, do you. You would willing murder another human fucking being because he's taking your fucking maerial possessions. you can buy another one.
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
also, just to spite you, i'd fucking support the DPRK in the second korean war.[/QUOTE]
You are stupid and wrong.
Why do people in this thread keep implying that using weapons to defend your property mean you're going to use them to kill?
Where the fuck is the thread about the old woman who was badass enough to point-blank shoot the burglar with her shotgun?
That was so awesome when I read that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.