[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176204]shooting someone who isn't an imminent threat to you or others (bodily harm) is a retarded idea. you can't legally shoot someone just because they broke into your house brohound.[/QUOTE]
Any instance where you life is in immediate danger you should have a right to shoot. Most home invasions happen at night, you will most likely have no idea how many of them are there and there is going to be a pretty good chance that they are going to be armed.
Some areas have castle doctrines in place that makes it legal to use deadly force against people who break into your property.
In nearly every home invasion, its either going to end in the homeowner becoming the victim because he/she was unable to defend themselves, or the homeowner actually decided to do something about it and fight back. If everyone sat idly by while people ransacked their houses, the entire country would be a hive of scum and villainy, with law abiding citizens cowering in fear against those who take their property.
[QUOTE=FoxwolfJackson;22176222]Agreed. I still want to know what's so great about keeping illegal immigrants here. What's to stop every single Tom, Dick, and Harry from coming into the country illegally? Overcrowding issues aside, how will we be able to spot terroristic threats on home soil.
We had 9/11 happen to us at the current (albeit lax) levels of immigration security. Imagine if we lowered them even further![/QUOTE]
I don't think we're advocating for open borders.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176230]breaking into house =/= threatened
they have to act in a manner that makes you fear for you or someone else's life
that doesn't mean someone breaking into your house and looting a TV justifies you shooting them[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see you say that if somebody ever does that to you. Ever heard of armed robbery?
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22176253]Some areas have castle doctrines in place that makes it legal to use deadly force against people who break into your property.[/QUOTE]
no, they don't. castle doctrine relates to imminent bodily harm. it doesn't state you can shoot people who are trespassing on your property.
you guys are so misinformed it's pathetic.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22176253]Any instance where you life is in immediate danger you should have a right to shoot. Most home invasions happen at night, you will most likely have no idea how many of them are there and there is going to be a pretty good chance that they are going to be armed.
Some areas have castle doctrines in place that makes it legal to use deadly force against people who break into your property.[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Most don't carry weapons, because if caught with one it makes the sentence much more serious.
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176262]I'd like to see you say that if somebody ever does that to you. Ever heard of armed robbery?[/QUOTE]
then you're justified in shooting them
but a person simply breaking into a house does NOT justify someone shooting them - a person breaking into a house =/= armed robbery
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176262]I'd like to see you say that if somebody ever does that to you. Ever heard of armed robbery?[/QUOTE]
Armed robbery =/= burglary
[editline]01:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176281]then you're justified in shooting them
but a person simply breaking into a house does NOT justify someone shooting them - a person breaking into a house =/= armed robbery[/QUOTE]
You beat me to every single response here
Either way, If someone breaks into your house, are you going to be thinking about the Robber's rights, or your family and property?
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176308]Either way, If someone breaks into your house, are you going to be thinking about the Robber's rights, or your family and property?[/QUOTE]
Then you point the gun and tell him to leave. You don't shoot though. What's the problem here?
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176308]Either way, If someone breaks into your house, are you going to be thinking about the Robber's rights, or your family and property?[/QUOTE]
you're going to hopefully respond appropriately and not get trigger happy just because they broke in and wanted to steal a TV
now if they are armed and or threaten you then that's a different story
not all people who break into houses are coming in to rape and murder everyone in the household.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176281]then you're justified in shooting them
but a person simply breaking into a house does NOT justify someone shooting them - a person breaking into a house =/= armed robbery[/QUOTE]
Yes it does. They should not have been in your house. You can shoot them. Killing them is different. However where I live you don't take that risk of thinking they may not have a gun. You go in with the intent that they want to take your stuff if you get in their way they will shoot you. This is Central Florida I am talking about not Minneapolis, MN(home of the bleeding heart liberals).
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176273]no, they don't. castle doctrine relates to imminent bodily harm. it doesn't state you can shoot people who are trespassing on your property.
you guys are so misinformed it's pathetic.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine[/url]
Sorry about referencing Wikipedia.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
* The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
Merf, this law is simple:
"We're paranoid fuckheads disliked by the media, therefore we're doing a pointless dictator bullshit legislation to make people feel safe, since nobody suspects a dictatorship when the cops bursts in, looking for colored people..."
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22176339][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine[/url]
Sorry about referencing Wikipedia.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
[B]* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home[/B]
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
* The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)[/QUOTE]
Leon, look at one line below what you bolded
[QUOTE=Vinze;22176346]Merf, this law is simple:
"We're paranoid fuckheads disliked by the media, therefore we're doing a pointless dictator bullshit legislation to make people feel safe, since nobody suspects a dictatorship when the cops bursts in, looking for colored people..."[/QUOTE]
That makes it sound like the Spanish Inquisition. Go read the Bill.
that doesn't mean shooting someone who's stealing your TV
In general,[B] one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:[/B]
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;22176331]Yes it does. They should not have been in your house. You can shoot them. Killing them is different. However where I live you don't take that risk of thinking they may not have a gun. You go in with the intent that they want to take your stuff if you get in their way they will shoot you. This is Central Florida I am talking about not Minneapolis, MN(home of the bleeding heart liberals).[/QUOTE]
if they were not an imminent threat (bodily harm) to you or someone else and you shot them then you're fucked
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176380]Leon, look at one line below what you bolded
That makes it sound like the Spanish Inquisition. Go read the Bill.[/QUOTE]
You'll never expect it.
wikipedia isn't really a reliable source for laws
find me the statute that says you can kill someone if they broke into your home and stole a TV
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176391]if they were not an imminent threat (bodily harm) to you or someone else and you shot them then you're fucked[/QUOTE]
In Florida you can blow someone away for Breaking and Entering alone. Since someone breaking into your house with you in it incites imminent fear that the burglar could possibly kill you.
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176391]if they were not an imminent threat (bodily harm) to you or someone else and you shot them then you're fucked[/QUOTE]
In your opinion, what qualifies as an "imminent threat (bodily harm)"?
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176414]wikipedia isn't really a reliable source for laws
find me the statute that says you can kill someone if they broke into your home and stole a TV[/QUOTE]
Check the sources if you don't believe it.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;22176331]Yes it does. They should not have been in your house. You can shoot them. Killing them is different. However where I live you don't take that risk of thinking they may not have a gun. You go in with the intent that they want to take your stuff if you get in their way they will shoot you. This is Central Florida I am talking about not Minneapolis, MN(home of the bleeding heart liberals).[/QUOTE]
No, the governor of Minnesota is an ignorant conservative bankman, and to think that a city simply full of liberals would elect him is hilarious. Maybe downtown is liberal, but the suburbs definitely are not.
Don't bother arguing I've lived here all my life. Don't assume so much, don't pull examples out of your ass, and don't use overused terms like "bleeding heart liberals", because it gives us the connotation that you are a typical sheep in the heard of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh. We don't call you "neo-con nazis" or other equally provocative names. Use real facts to make logical arguments.
Sorry to sound like a douche but you're so misinformed and ambiguos that it makes me rage.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - TH89))[/highlight]
Using liberal as a insult is old hat, really.
[QUOTE=Glaber;22176380] Go read the Bill.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you go read the Gates?
[sp]Yes, I am taking the piss on you capitalizing a regular word.[/sp]
texas is basically the only state you'll get away with shooting someone over stealing your TV
a guy shot two people in the back and killed them as they were running away with his property and he was never charged
[QUOTE=Nyaos;22176440]You're a fucking idiot, the governor of Minnesota is a fucking ignorant conservative bankman, and to think that a city simply full of liberals would elect him is hilarious. Maybe downtown is liberal, but the suburbs definitely are not.
Don't bother arguing I've lived here all my life. Don't assume so much, don't pull examples out of your ass, and don't use overused terms like "bleeding heart liberals", because it gives us the connotation that you are a typical sheep in the heard of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh. We don't call you "neo-con nazis" or other equally provocative names. Grow up, and use real facts to make logical arguments.[/QUOTE]
I lived in Crystal, MN for 10 years of my life, and Coon Rapids for the first 6. The school system shoves liberal doctrines down children's throats from day one. The state is a liberal state. Just because the governor is a conservative doesn't mean anything.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22176417]In your opinion, what qualifies as an "imminent threat (bodily harm)"?[/QUOTE]
an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
someone threatening to kill you with a gun pointed to your head
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22176473]texas is basically the only state you'll get away with shooting someone over stealing your TV
a guy shot two people in the back and killed them as they were running away with his property and he was never charged[/QUOTE]
The [URL="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM"]Florida law[/URL] equates forcible entry to imminent threat of harm, and so you can get away with defending yourself with deadly force far sooner than having a TV stolen.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;22176493]The state is a liberal state. Just because the governor is a conservative doesn't mean anything.[/QUOTE]
Because why be rational when you can contradict people and recite anecdotes?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
