 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Or it results in trigger happy folk who shoot anything - including burglars who surrender when looking at a full loaded gun pointing at them. |
So what? He shouldn't be in your house to begin with. If you simply wait for the cops, he'll sit in prison for six months, tops, and then rob someone else.
On the other hand, if you ****ing shoot his ass, he won't rob anyone again, ever. So **** the mother****er. If he's ****ing stupid enough to be a criminal, he deserves to get his ass shot off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
So what? He shouldn't be in your house to begin with. If you simply wait for the cops, he'll sit in prison for six months, tops, and then rob someone else.
On the other hand, if you ****ing shoot his ass, he won't rob anyone again, ever. So **** the mother****er. If he's ****ing stupid enough to be a criminal, he deserves to get his ass shot off. |
I hope you never get drunk enough that you enter the wrong house at night.
It happened to a former co-worker of mine. She was shot dead before she could say a word.
There but for the grace of God go I. I've been drunk, very drunk before, dropped off or taken a cab home. I could have tried to enter or enter an adjacent apartment, the doors all look the same in an alcoholic stupor.
Such is the result of your notions. Shoot first, ask questions later. 100 guilty persons escaping is a small price to pay for the life of an innocent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
cool - interesting stuff guys 
The reason for the bbc article and the comments by the head of Police was because of a number of recent murders by burglers in london.
At the momment we are allowed to use 'resonable force' to protect ourselves, but this is extremely vague - and in cases like the ones mentioned in the article, if in the the uk you get attacked in your own home by an intruder carrying a knife for example, if you used a baseball bat to knock the guy out, or try to smash his knife weilding hands; you would not be using 'reasonable force' in most cases.
Here its like you have to be a total victim to get any protection from the law, and sadly in the case's of the two recently murded men, their aggressors were prepared to use way over 'reasonable force' to try to rob them.
I agree with Urban Ranger when he was saying about the problem with very free gun laws is that you can end up in an arms race with the burgler. He will carry a gun into your house, just in case you have one.
Still i like the texan approach - in atleast if you are the intruder you know what your actions could cost you.
Still the story of wondering into the wrong house in texas while drunk is rather sobering!
Its a difficult one to call, and probably why our laws in the uk are so pathetic in this respect.
Still i know what i'd do in a burgler incident, with our current laws.
For one thing i wouldn't call the police. I'll try to talk the guy down, basically tell him that unless he leaves he wont be leaving at all.
So he has a choice, and if he thinks its bull, thats his problem.
If he has a gun(which is actually quite rare in the uk, outside of streetgangs and drug dealers), then i'll just have to take a differnt approach.
Ok i'll be taking the risk of facing a long prison sentence if it goes wrong, BUT my view is that someone with intent to threaten those close to me, or myself in my own home - doesn't deserve to walk this earth. I dont go poking around in their homes, as is the case with most decent people.
I'm hopeing the news laws we may get in the uk get a bit closer to this, without going as extreme as is the case in texas(with guns etc), atleast we should start to protect the victims of crime without the cost of innocent life(and as in the case of the two murderd men in the article, the damage done to young kids who now have no father).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Hmm... death for breaking and entering seems a little harsh.
I see it as more a problem of public ignorance than weakness of the law. Most people just don't understand - indeed, are never taught - their rights and obligations.
It is permissible to use reasonable force to defend your home or property. It is thus permissible to use deadly force if life or lives are in danger - you'll still get investigated but the inquest should rule it as "lawful killing" and it will never reach court. If it does and you are found guilty, it should be easy to successfully appeal, assuming you didn't go over the top (sowing your garden with landmines, using a flamethrower or similar).
Trouble is, most people don't know this, don't think about it. Including the cops.
No wonder lawyers make so much money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I hope you never get drunk enough that you enter the wrong house at night.
It happened to a former co-worker of mine. She was shot dead before she could say a word.
There but for the grace of God go I. I've been drunk, very drunk before, dropped off or taken a cab home. I could have tried to enter or enter an adjacent apartment, the doors all look the same in an alcoholic stupor.
Such is the result of your notions. Shoot first, ask questions later. 100 guilty persons escaping is a small price to pay for the life of an innocent. |
Those are the consequences of drinking, and not being able to control it - or at least the possible consequences. You accept certain risks when you drink, and one of those is doing something stupid and taking the consequences. If you commit a crime, you'll still go to jail after all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
He's out of jail now, and is being championed by those who think shooting burglars is groovy. He's also costing the taxpayer rather a lot of money in police protection to stop friends and family of the dead burglars from killing him. |
Oh, and isn't that what the police are ****ING for? You know, stopping criminals from shooting innocent people?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
The point is any burglar entering a house is going to shoot anybody inside the house on sight under such a hypothetical scenario. |
Except that the obvious fact is that in the US, not every burglary - or anywhere near every one - ends in a murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Not necessarily, but shooting someone who breaks into your house is a perfectly reasonable response to the breaking and entering. You have a right to protect yourself from reasonable danger, whether perceived or actual. Just because the person who broke in made a mistake doesn't mean that your right to shoot him suddenly goes away - you have no idea who the person is or why he is there, yet the courts recognize that it is reasonable for you to perceive that you are in a great deal of danger and as such you are allowed, at least in the state of Texas, to take reasonable steps to protect yourself. Those steps include shooting someone who is inside your house.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Nor is mine, but in this case my moral code is upheld by the Texas government.
To directly answer your question - Yes, I think it is perfectly appropriate to shoot someone who breaks into your house, regardless of circumstances.
If you know it's a drunk person who means no harm and is trying to get home, then by all means you shouldn't shoot them, but you really have no way of knowing that (without asking and giving yourself away).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2004 23:26
|