View Full Version : Not Again
The times I see this sort of story.
Police left mother at home with intruders (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411382&in_page_id=1770)
Listen up folks of the U.K you got a intruder in the house, ring the police up and if they fob you off ring them back and say don't worry about my report I have just killed them. The police will be round before you can count to 50. And when they ask you, "You told us you killed the intruder" your answer "You told me you had no police in the area to help me."
Simple. ;) :smug: :know:
http://myspace-823.vo.llnwd.net/00448/32/87/448817823_l.gif
:up:
yup that farmer who shot the intruder in his farm house is quietly becoming a national hero..the more the merrier..
^^
yer Tony Martin.
Quietly becoming a national hero after spending several years inside :nope:
An absolute travesty of justice.
More on that here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29)
^^
yer Tony Martin.
Quietly becoming a national hero after spending several years inside :nope:
An absolute travesty of justice.
More on that here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29)
cheers that's the fella...
the link is a good one too thanks for that..
this is a great comparison...
this story regarding the attitude towards the pscyhos...er sorry the poor unfortunate"morally challenged"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6063746.stm
and the victims who finally get tired of putting up with it..
Martin was imprisoned in Highpoint prison, Suffolk. When he became eligible for parole and early release the Parole Board rejected his application; probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm
no holidays for the victim then...
as for the sub human slime he shot....good riddence to bad rubbish
as the old saying goes...it's a plain as the nose on your face
Just read that article CB... that little tosser looks like a model citizen doesn't he? :roll:
mitigating circumstances asside (ie. he was with family on holiday so he probably wouldn't have done a runner) there's no way he should have been allowed to leave the country when bailed pending further action over a murder/homicide charge.
And yet if it had been you or I there'd be a lengthy remand period spent in the slammer.
Forget young offenders institutes, what that little git needs is a public flogging in the stocks at his home town where everyone can villify him for what he's done and give him a few slaps, then pack him off to military borstel where some propper squaddy hardnuts can work him over and teach him some manners and respect, then maybe if he's lucky he can return having earned the privilage to live amongst the rest of civilised society. And if that doesn't work, send him to Afganistan or some other sweatty hairy armpit of the world- you wanna fight and kill? How do you fancy your chances against fanatics who will figh back, Craig?
And if he should happen top get toasted by an IED... well, I'm sure only his family will miss him - kind of like the relatives of the guy he and his mates kicked to death.
/rant. :oops::roll:
:yep: beggars description ...he and many others like are nothing short of dangerous anti-social psychopaths...i don't see any other way to view them...they kill without warning or provocation..without reason or consciounce and for their own amusement...if this is called "normal" these days then we really are screwed....
and they are breeding like rabbits...think on...
Tony Martin should be put in charge of law and order, he would get though the dead wood no trouble. :up:
NefariousKoel
10-19-06, 02:55 PM
My favorite part of NRA magazine to read is the news articles involving various criminals being "dissuaded" from various crimes by citizens armed with guns.
I can almost hear 3 stooges music in the background after the "... the burglar immediately fled the home and broke his leg in his haste jumping over the balcony.." or "learned that he shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight" and other such good wholesomeness.:up:
SUBMAN1
10-19-06, 03:57 PM
Steed, why isn't anyone doing anything about this over there?
-S
This original story is sad to hear. I hope they never have to go through anything like that again.
This is why some Americans own firearms. Self protection when the police aren’t available. Despite what many may think, America isn’t all cites with a cop on every corner. There are many rural areas where police could take an hour or more to reach. That’s why you have to be able to protect yourself, in a responsible manner.
I just read the story of Tony Martin for the first time and I’m appalled. I can’t understand how he could be found guilty of anything other than protecting his life and property. I’m not aware of the entire incident or all of the circumstances, but it sure sounds like a mis-carriage of justice.
The law in the US says that you are not authorized to use deadly force against anyone unless your life is in imminent danger and there is no other alternative. However, I don’t think there is any judge or jury that would convict you of shooting someone burglarizing your home in the middle of the night.
Reminds me of why Americans love John Wayne:
http://www.alljohnwayne.com/shootist2.mp3
http://www.alljohnwayne.com/shootist3.mp3
Short sound clips from The Shootist, The Duke’s final (and best) movie.
The times I see this sort of story.
Police left mother at home with intruders (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411382&in_page_id=1770)
Listen up folks of the U.K you got a intruder in the house, ring the police up and if they fob you off ring them back and say don't worry about my report I have just killed them. The police will be round before you can count to 50. And when they ask you, "You told us you killed the intruder" your answer "You told me you had no police in the area to help me."
Simple. ;) :smug: :know:
He he..:lol:
Yahoshua
10-19-06, 05:59 PM
Not to mention that in the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that LEOs' aren't obligated to protect the general public.
Case documents here:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Other incidents and info here:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
This is why I'm NEVER unarmed at any point and time.
SubSerpent
10-19-06, 07:00 PM
This is a story that even I am appalled by. That's saying a lot since most know me as someone who doesn't believe in war and the taking of other lives.
I view this as a HUGE break down in government policy over there in England. How is this guy guilty? He would not have killed ANYONE had the robbers not invaded his home. He was in bed asleep when they broke in and I think having a torch put to your face in the darkness is grounds for "imminent threat" to life and limb. He obviously couldn't see if the robbers had a knife or gun and were about to hurt or kill him, so what was he suppose to do? Was he suppose to be shot or stabbed first? Remember, these robbers broke into HIS home in the middle of the night.
Laws need to change and that is serious! Laws need to be written like, "Intruders Beware" and "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again". I am VERY MUCH against people breaking into homes in the middle of the night. I believe that in itself is grounds to lead someone to feel that their life is in danger.
I've seen horror stories of situations like this misfire on the innocent WAY TOO OFTEN. There was a story of an old woman who shot a criminal in his back (killing him) as he tried to steal her TV and jump out of a window. She was charged with 1st degree murder and was locked up forever. There was a story about a father who walked in on a man raping his teen aged daughter on her bed. The father hit the man over the head with a bat and was also charge for 1st degree murder. There was a case of a man who came into a home one night and shot a man's wife in the bed right next to him. The man jumped out of bed, grabbed his own gun and fired at the intruder, hitting him in the back. The intruder died and the man was charged with 2nd degree murder.
All of the above are true stories of real life people and I find it very appalling how any one of them were found guilty of anything! Maybe the old woman who shot a thief as he was going out the window might have gone a bit overboard since her life was in no danger, but still a 1st degree murder charge is a bit much on her as well. The only reason why she was charged with that was because she stood her ground in court and stated that she would shoot the man again if she had a chance. This led the jury to believe she was not fit in the mind and thus she ended up with the maximum sentence. However, I like to look at it this way. Would she be in prison right now had the thief NOT broke into her home? Probably not. Would the thief still be alive today had he not broke into her home? Most likely. This has led me to conclude that the thief brought his fate unto himself by breaking into the old woman's home. Therefore I don't believe she should have ever been found guilty of any crime at all, regardless that she shot him or would shoot him again if that situation ever happened again.
SUBMAN1
10-19-06, 07:06 PM
...However, I don't think there is any judge or jury that would convict you of shooting someone burglarizing your home in the middle of the night...
The simple fact that they are in your home gives you valid reason to think that you life/well being are in danger, so I think you are correct.
-S
there is a golden rule...:hmm:
the law is usually more severe towards those who respect it than those who do not...this is IMO a primitive human response towards those who have agreed to submit their will to the benifit of the whole...which subconciously is viewed as weakness..this allso explains the attraction of crime...which conversely subconciously is seen as strength...
un fortunately this tends to mean that when a normally law abiding citizen
finds him/herself in court the law has an orgasm and can't resist indulging in a very basic unsightly and entirely unjust power trip...
it is this basic inversion of principles that needs investigating and setting right...
Yahoshua
10-19-06, 10:34 PM
Here's what you need Subserpent:
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
While firearms may not be legal in England anymore, perhaps there are some schools on swordsmanship? (That'd make a REALLY interesting legal situation right there). I don't think there's much chance of it passing though.
Ahh yes, the Florida Castle Doctrine, probably the single dumbest piece of legislation ever to pass in that state- no wait, Florida lawmakers are the same geniuses who passed "Terri's law" (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/03laws/ch_2003-418.pdf) perhaps the only law ever written to effect only one person!:doh: Anyway, they really hit a home run of stupidity with the self defense law, which allows use of deadly force, without requirement for attempted retreat (and therefore not requiring needless bloodshed) based upon perceived threat of severe bodily harm. I suppose that means that if I am walking down the street and somebody appears to be preparing to punch me in the face, if I'm in Florida, I can blow him away with my firearm of choice. It makes me proud to be a citizen of the Great State of Illinois, where it illegal to carry concealed weapons, and you can only shoot someone if they have entered your dwelling and there is no other choice.
http://www.usflagdepot.com/images/States/il.gif
:up:
Tchocky
10-19-06, 11:26 PM
I like it at home, where you're just not allowed to shoot anyone. It makes things simpler.
Where I live now, it's more dangerous. I get a perverse kick out of the "how did this happen" brigade after every school shooting. My favourite is the "arm the teachers" crowd, what a messed-up bunch of people
simple really --->the teenage pressures that exist everywhere + lots of guns, easily available to said teens.
Yahoshua
10-20-06, 12:36 AM
Well Bort, you could move to China where all firearms are banned from being in civilian hands and only the police and gov't is allowed to own them.
And it's not as if I have time to ask the man who is breaking into my home in the odd hours of the morning to say:
"Mr. Burglar, are you here to kill me and rape my family members and steal my property? Could you wait so I can dial 911 for a minute to see if I'll get to talk to a person and not a machine?"
Why should I retreat when I'm in MY own home?
And I agree with you on your last post Tchocky. School security should NOT be part of a teachers' profession, leave that to people who are better suited to it.
Kapitan
10-20-06, 03:51 AM
Any person who steps on my property be aware that you will be turned into a lollypop (AK47 plugged up the anus and mounted on my wall)
madDdog67
10-20-06, 09:07 AM
Bort, I think I can speak for most of the people of FL when I say, if it bothers you so friggin' much, STAY THE ******* OUT OF FLORIDA! :D
Why do you guys in the nanny states spend SO much time worrying about laws in other states? Is it the typical liberal/elitist mentality that says other people can't govern themselves?
Your "shootout at the OK Corral argument--the Brady Campaign and the VPC's incessant mantra--never happens. It didn't happen when they started "liberalizing" conceal carry laws (40 states and counting now :rock:), and it didn't happen when FL passed the Castle Doctrine law. Why should you have to flee from someone who's intent on harming you? In the event you do shoot someone, you still have to prove you were in fear of your life...you can't just shoot somone because they yell at you in traffic....it's not a license to kill, the VPC's claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
You know the best part of Florida's law? Well, it's that the lowlife/lowlife's families can't sue the shooter *if* the shoot is judged to be on the up and up. That's friggin' GREAT. No more trying to turn the bad guys into some sort of "poor misunderstood" youth, yada yada yada, and making life miserable for some poor schmuck who's only defending him/her self.
IceGrog
10-20-06, 09:31 AM
* Bort']the self defense law, which allows use of deadly force, without requirement for attempted retreat (and therefore not requiring needless bloodshed) based upon perceived threat of severe bodily harm. I suppose that means that if I am walking down the street and somebody appears to be preparing to punch me in the face, if I'm in Florida, I can blow him away with my firearm of choice.
I never really thought to highly of Florida, but my attitude of them is changing to a more positive one.
SUBMAN1
10-20-06, 09:38 AM
Not to mention that in the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that LEOs' aren't obligated to protect the general public.
Case documents here:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Other incidents and info here:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
This is why I'm NEVER unarmed at any point and time.
This is along similar lines as what happened in England:
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
Talk about licking balls, hairy ones at that :nope::down:
Yet I bet they'd have soon 'acted' if the women had refused to pay their taxes or something.
The way they say it, it makes out like the women were demanding that the fuzz sit outside their house 'just incase' somebody tries to be bad to them, as opposed to comming to the rescue of a person/persons who are actually being attacked right there and then.
How do some of these public officials sleep at night... and especially the solicitors who fight these sorts of cases; there's a special place in whatever hell you believe in for them and their ilk.
"it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
might want to remember that...next time your saluting the flag..
SUBMAN1
10-20-06, 01:00 PM
"it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
might want to remember that...next time your saluting the flag..
I do. Makes me buy a bigger gun and I salute the country that allows me and my fellow countrymen to do such things!
-S
fair enough:yep:
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?
serve and protect whom exactly???
and the government it-self by that statement has no resposibility to protect or serve anything or any one but it self..
SUBMAN1
10-20-06, 01:14 PM
fair enough:yep:
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?
serve and protect whom exactly???
and the government it-self by that statement has no resposibility to protect or serve anything or any one but it self.. It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect the country. Always has been. That is even part of the second amendment.
Besides, if the citizens are not req to protect the country, than who is? The government is also the citizens.
-S
SUBMAN1
10-20-06, 01:20 PM
fair enough:yep:
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?
Here is one more thing in relation to the UK:
Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.
IceGrog
10-20-06, 02:16 PM
fair enough:yep:
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?
in the US they are supposed to enforce the law, which in some cases does come down to protecting the citizen, but all citizens should have the right to protect themselves, which brings up the gun thing again
Bort, I think I can speak for most of the people of FL when I say, if it bothers you so friggin' much, STAY THE ******* OUT OF FLORIDA! :D
Why do you guys in the nanny states spend SO much time worrying about laws in other states? Is it the typical liberal/elitist mentality that says other people can't govern themselves?
First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.
ASWnut101
10-20-06, 03:27 PM
* Bort']
First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.
Well I can speak for Florida as it IS my home state. Why wouldn't someone like when people have the legal right to carry? People who usually carry a gun legaly are their for self protection. People who don't carry legally, criminals in paticular, are there to rob you. What is so scarry about a perfectly legitamite person carrying a gun? How is it so scarry? I'd fell safer when I'm around citizens who legally carry weapons. They're more likly to shoot the person tring to kidnap you than sit there and freak out over the kidnapee with a gun. Florida's gun laws are protecting people, not making the place a "Wild West" State. And yes a .357 will do perfectly fine in quick justice making. What are you suggesting? That you call the police? Normal response time is about 3 minutes average....thats more than enough time for a criminal to do his work. You should be feeling safe.
I would just like to say the biggest number one criminal in the U.K. is
The Motorist or better known as the car owner. :damn:
madDdog67
10-20-06, 03:38 PM
* Bort']Bort, I think I can speak for most of the people of FL when I say, if it bothers you so friggin' much, STAY THE ******* OUT OF FLORIDA! :D
Why do you guys in the nanny states spend SO much time worrying about laws in other states? Is it the typical liberal/elitist mentality that says other people can't govern themselves? First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.
The state of FL passed a law that, apparently the legislature and the majority of citizens are quite happy with. Whether or not you think it sensible isn't important...but you seem to equate the right of self protection to vigilantism, in a manner that I can't fathom. Obviously, the states of Fla, VA, and a host of others disagree with your view as well, since they've all *eased* the requirements for their citizens to carry concealed if they choose to do so, whether or not they've implemented a Castle type law of their own.
You opined earlier about how stupid you thought the FL law was, which is certainly within your rights, but you're implication then, and in again in this post, is that there is something wrong with Florida's approach...the term "vigilante action" is a dead givaway. Your tone seems to be, "any other state that does it differently is too stupid to know any better"...or did I read too much into it?
And it's a .45, thank you very much. One in the pipe, 13 in the mag, 13 more in the spare mag. I won't even tell you what's in the trunk of my car. :stare:
I won't even tell you what's in the trunk of my car. :stare:
What, a bazooka? :D I didn't know concealed carry went that far...
You opined earlier about how stupid you thought the FL law was, which is certainly within your rights, but you're implication then, and in again in this post, is that there is something wrong with Florida's approach...the term "vigilante action" is a dead giveaway. Your tone seems to be, "any other state that does it differently is too stupid to know any better"...or did I read too much into it?
I just think that, unless all other options have been exhausted, use of lethal force should not be authorized by any state. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not calling the entire state of Florida stupid, but I am saying that they may be misguided in the course of action they have pursued in the name of personal protection.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat, which I believe carrying a concealed weapon makes far more likely. People make mistakes in charged situations, even without firearms being part of the equation, and lets face it, there are plenty of people out there that neither you nor I would want carrying guns in public around our families, whether it is legal or not. :huh:
madDdog67
10-20-06, 04:36 PM
* Bort']I won't even tell you what's in the trunk of my car. :stare:
What, a bazooka? :D I didn't know concealed carry went that far...
You opined earlier about how stupid you thought the FL law was, which is certainly within your rights, but you're implication then, and in again in this post, is that there is something wrong with Florida's approach...the term "vigilante action" is a dead giveaway. Your tone seems to be, "any other state that does it differently is too stupid to know any better"...or did I read too much into it?
I just think that, unless all other options have been exhausted, use of lethal force should not be authorized by any state. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not calling the entire state of Florida stupid, but I am saying that they may be misguided in the course of action they have pursued in the name of personal protection.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat, which I believe carrying a concealed weapon makes far more likely. People make mistakes in charged situations, even without firearms being part of the equation, and lets face it, there are plenty of people out there that neither you nor I would want carrying guns in public around our families, whether it is legal or not. :huh:
no bazooka lol...actually the only thing in my trunk usually is my subwoofer...but it's a Kicker, not a Bazooka. :D
Even in the states that grant them, a Concealed Carry permit isn't a license to shoot people willy nilly...and the fact remains that it's only the honest, law abiding folks who go through the trouble of getting a permit...the bad guys don't worry about stuff like that. I really don't think the removal of the requirement to flee is that big of a deal, personally...you'd still have to answer for murder charges if you just haul off and shoot someone for no reason.
Look at the crime rates of permit holders .vs the general public, and the permit holders are much much less likely to commit a crime, in every comparison that I've ever seen. And, seriously, real world stats just don't bear out the gunfight at the OK Corral mentality that the VPC always says will follow the easing of CC laws, and now the Castle Doctrine.
Yahoshua
10-20-06, 06:11 PM
...even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm....
Those firearms will guarantee your rights. Blood was spilled to get them, and it will cost only a few hundred dollars worth of deterrence to keep it.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...
So if a knife-wielding criminal breaks into my home, it would be disproportionate for me to respond with a firearm?
Along the same lines, is it disproportionate for a LEO to respond with a .45 against an armed and dangerous criminal armed with a .22?
It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect the country. Always has been. That is even part of the second amendment.
Besides, if the citizens are not req to protect the country, than who is? The government is also the citizens.
Yes, agreed. And although we're doing a ho-hum job of it, Switzerland is what the United States should be like. Where the population of the United States itself is a standing army. Criminal problem solved right there, since everyone will have the discipline necessary to being a law-abiding citizen.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...
So if a knife-wielding criminal breaks into my home, it would be disproportionate for me to respond with a firearm?
Along the same lines, is it disproportionate for a LEO to respond with a .45 against an armed and dangerous criminal armed with a .22?
I don't think you understand what I meant by that. By acting in a manner disproportionate to the threat I meant using lethal force to confront a likely non lethal one. Its the same rules police officers follow, they are only allowed to shoot if their life or that of another is in danger. Weaponry and caliber have nothing to do with it. I fear that an untrained civilian would be unable to understand the proper way to react, which is one of the major reasons I oppose concealed carry and the Florida castle doctrine. If you absolutely must carry a weapon in order to protect yourself, I would suggest a tazer or pepper spray, both of which disable attackers without killing them.
SUBMAN1
10-20-06, 11:05 PM
My 2 cents - This is the good 'ol USA. Don't like it, leave. Its not like we are holding a gun to your head to make you stop from leaving or anything! :p
-S
My 2 cents - This is the good 'ol USA. Don't like it, leave. Its not like we are holding a gun to your head to make you stop from leaving or anything! :p
My suggestion to you, is to learn how to have a proper idealogical conversation with someone else without telling him to leave the country he was born in and loves dearly. I can honestly think of few other things more offensive than what you just said. You may wish to reconsider what this country and your fellow countrymen means to you, I hope it is more than just a place where everybody who disagrees with you should leave.
madDdog67
10-21-06, 11:06 AM
* Bort'][quote]Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...
I don't think you understand what I meant by that. By acting in a manner disproportionate to the threat I meant using lethal force to confront a likely non lethal one. Its the same rules police officers follow, they are only allowed to shoot if their life or that of another is in danger. Weaponry and caliber have nothing to do with it. I fear that an untrained civilian would be unable to understand the proper way to react, which is one of the major reasons I oppose concealed carry and the Florida castle doctrine. If you absolutely must carry a weapon in order to protect yourself, I would suggest a tazer or pepper spray, both of which disable attackers without killing them.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, there is nothing in these laws that give a CCW holder permission to shoot anyone unless his/her life, or the life of someone else, is in immediate danger. If I shoot you for cutting me off in traffic, I will no doubt (deservedly so) be charged with murder. If you cut me off, then jump out of the car and come at me with a metal pipe, and I shoot you, I won't be charged with murder...the metal pipe is a lethal weapon, and I can say with sincerity that I felt my life was in danger when you came at me with the pipe...all you need is one good hit with it, I go down, then I'm completely at your mercy...you could beat me to death with the pipe quite easily. *You*might want to risk your life by trying to mace some PCP/crack crazed, pipe weilding yahoo intent on doing you grevious bodily harm, but I'm gonna choose 230gr of FMJ, thank you...I trust its stopping power a little more.
You *personally* might think this is using disproportionate force, but the states with CCW laws don't, obviously. Once again, that fact that 80% of states in the US have concealed carry laws, it's a fairly well established principle that grants citizens the right to protect their own life. Now, if you think shooting a man who comes at you with a knife/club/pipe is unfair, somehow, just head down to the local morgue and check out a few stabbing/bludgeoning victims...they're just as dead as they would be had they been shot.
EVERY shooting like this is investigated, and if the DA/powers that be have the slightest notion that things are hinky, they can/will bring charges against the shooter, as well they should. But, in the end, if the state sanctions it, it can't be "vigilantism" by definition.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.