open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Self defense law: Joe Horn (Texas) vs Tony Martin (UK)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Kel'Taran
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:09:00 - [31]
 

The one and only time my house has been broken into the dogs did their jobs admirably and the perpetrator fled with out gaining access. I of course called 911 it took over 30 minutes for an officer to arrive and when he got there his first words to me were "Have you already cleared the house". I told the officer that yes i already had done his job for him and he proceeded to fill out paperwork.

You can be dang sure that if said person had actually gained access to the interior of the house he would have been facing the barrel of a colt 45. Said firearm would not have discharged unless the person refused to comply with the orders to put their hands above their head and get down on their knees and instead chose to advance at me. Baseball bat, knife, tire iron, what not they would have been on the receiving end of a slug.

No one is telling you that you have to be armed, it is a choice and if your choice is to call law enforcement and hope they arrive before anything really bad happens to you or your family that is also your choice. In either case you have to be able to live with the choice you make and personally I would rather have to live with knowing i defended my families lives instead of having to live with having harm done to them because someone was looting for kicks and took things to far.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:28:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Alpheias

LOL. You really got sensationalism down, ever considered working for a tabloid?


No, I live in a major US city; it's not sensationalism. Go to youtube and search on "home invasion." There are a lot of people who will post their security cam footage of break-ins.

In my area during the summer vacation from school we have to worry about kids getting involved in gangs and performing home break-ins. A guaranteed way to get your door kicked in is to leave an empty flatscreen TV box out by the street for the garbage. We have kids collecting for non-existent school sports programs, who are actually casing your house. We have had instances where the phone line was cut and the power was turned off before a break-in. We had a suspicious pair of alarm salesmen going door to door asking people if they had a wireless alarm system. There have been sexual assaults in nearby neighborhoods. Ad nausem.

For the coup de grace, police response times from 911 calls have gotten worse due to the weak economy causing the city to reduce police budgets.

You can choose your acceptable level of risk. However, I wouldn't be too critical of other people's ideas of acceptable risk until you know more about their situation.


On the positive side:
Working with the cops and local officials, hiring off-duty police, having a neighborhood watch, going to court as a group to let the judge know the neighborhood is watching the trial and sentencing, and generally letting the perps know that folks are alert has made a big dent in the problem.



Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:39:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Ayieka
Originally by: Blacksquirrel

The problem is you dont know peoples intent, if they're blitzed outta their mind on PCP or if they are carrying something. Yeah if it's some kids under the age 16 they probably only need a severe beating (Stupidity should hurt) but even the simplest weapon thats not a gun can kill or maim, and not all kids are ****ing harmless after all. Also in those situations people in their homes are scared ****less, and in more of a reactionary state than a analytical one.


if you're unable to make a rational decision in a situation like that, theres no point in owning a deadly weapon for self defense.


I doubt you've ever been in a life threatening situation. If so things dont go by the book or dont have time to go by the book. Re read the "reactionary" part. If a person has never been trained on how to handle XYZ situations biology kicks in IE fight or flight. Thus they simply react.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:02:00 - [34]
 

I prefer the Texas thing. I had a friend who was taking a shower at her boyfriend's apartment, 2 of his employees broke in to rob the place, found her in a towel when they broke in and ****d her, tied her to a chair and beat her to death. If a neighbor had seen them break in and had a gun and did what that guy did, she'd still be alive today.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.10 23:02:00 - [35]
 

I live in Texas and Joe Horn is more than welcome to be our neighbor.

Our actual neightbor is a Harris County deputy sheriff and we've had plenty of talks about home invasions and self defense. His advice was that if you ever have to shoot someone breaking into your house, wait about 10 minutes to call 911 while they bleed out. A 10 minute difference will mean nothing forensically but it's means a lot in terms of survivability. When the police do arrive, make sure you toss out a few lines about being scared (which you will be) and being afraid to make any noise or even move just in case there are questions about the delay later on (maybe a neighbor heard the shots and called in).

You really don't want a home invader surviving. Really any time you have to use deadly force you don't want the other person to survive. The living can sue. And even though they'll surely lose, it's going to cost time and money.


Lithalnas
Amarr
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.10 23:18:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I live in Texas and Joe Horn is more than welcome to be our neighbor.

Our actual neightbor is a Harris County deputy sheriff and we've had plenty of talks about home invasions and self defense. His advice was that if you ever have to shoot someone breaking into your house, wait about 10 minutes to call 911 while they bleed out. A 10 minute difference will mean nothing forensically but it's means a lot in terms of survivability. When the police do arrive, make sure you toss out a few lines about being scared (which you will be) and being afraid to make any noise or even move just in case there are questions about the delay later on (maybe a neighbor heard the shots and called in).

You really don't want a home invader surviving. Really any time you have to use deadly force you don't want the other person to survive. The living can sue. And even though they'll surely lose, it's going to cost time and money.




a retired upstate NY officer told me, "three shots 3rd button down." but on the other hand I read an article in the NRA magazine that said the average court cost of shooting someone in your own home is about $100k after lawyers and whatnot.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.08.11 00:50:00 - [37]
 

Everybody should own a gun.

As soon as my girls turn 12, they learn how to shoot.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.11 01:12:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I live in Texas and Joe Horn is more than welcome to be our neighbor.

Our actual neightbor is a Harris County deputy sheriff and we've had plenty of talks about home invasions and self defense. His advice was that if you ever have to shoot someone breaking into your house, wait about 10 minutes to call 911 while they bleed out. A 10 minute difference will mean nothing forensically but it's means a lot in terms of survivability. When the police do arrive, make sure you toss out a few lines about being scared (which you will be) and being afraid to make any noise or even move just in case there are questions about the delay later on (maybe a neighbor heard the shots and called in).

You really don't want a home invader surviving. Really any time you have to use deadly force you don't want the other person to survive. The living can sue. And even though they'll surely lose, it's going to cost time and money.



wow. so uh, i don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.08.11 01:18:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I live in Texas and Joe Horn is more than welcome to be our neighbor.

Our actual neightbor is a Harris County deputy sheriff and we've had plenty of talks about home invasions and self defense. His advice was that if you ever have to shoot someone breaking into your house, wait about 10 minutes to call 911 while they bleed out. A 10 minute difference will mean nothing forensically but it's means a lot in terms of survivability. When the police do arrive, make sure you toss out a few lines about being scared (which you will be) and being afraid to make any noise or even move just in case there are questions about the delay later on (maybe a neighbor heard the shots and called in).

You really don't want a home invader surviving. Really any time you have to use deadly force you don't want the other person to survive. The living can sue. And even though they'll surely lose, it's going to cost time and money.


Oooh! I get it, you buy guns because your police are corrupt and incompetent like all the other police around the world!




Xirin
Posted - 2011.08.11 01:28:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Gleefully written post about people being killed make me sad.
Right or wrong, the happiness you seem to find in the death of others is pretty disgusting.


THIS

Crap like this is why I'm embarassed to call myself human...

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.11 01:52:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley

Oooh! I get it, you buy guns because your police are corrupt and incompetent like all the other police around the world!




A) A lot of you dumbasses are failing to understand a very simple concept.
A thief (in Texas, or anywhere) only has to do one very easy thing to avoid being shot. DONT BREAK INTO HOUSES/BUSINESSES, especially if people might be home. If thief is killed while committing an aggressive crime such as burglary, that is his OWN lookout, nobody elses. You smash that window, break that lock, you are essentially signing a waiver that says you accept full responsibility for any horrific thing that could happen to you.

B) Making sure an intruder is dead is only good common sense. I'm not sure lawsuits from an injured criminal is the first thing I'd be worried about. I'd be more concerned about him (or his criminal pals) coming back for revenge later. They know where you live, and your name has now been plastered all over the media.

C) Killing the sort of person that would break into an occupied house and terrorize normal people is a charitable act. It is simply setting him free from a wasted life. The equivalent of finishing off an animal struck on the highway. Just remember that and be happy for them when you read about it in the paper.


Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.11 01:58:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr

C) Killing the sort of person that would break into an occupied house and terrorize normal people is a charitable act. It is simply setting him free from a wasted life. The equivalent of finishing off an animal struck on the highway. Just remember that and be happy for them when you read about it in the paper.



so you're saying that if someone is put into the position where they feel they need to break into a house to get by, its charitable to kill them?

Aniete Hetheres
Posted - 2011.08.11 02:04:00 - [43]
 

It's ok, all you people who believe that lethal self defense is wrong, you don't have to do anything, you are free to tremble in the corner while they steal your hard-earned possessions, and do vile things to your wife/daughters. You're free to hate me for the way I think, and the guns I own, and the fact that I'm willing (and being in the Army Reserves, trained at least more then the average citizen), to protect your assets, lives, and physical well-being with lethal force if necessary.

You can even jail me afterwards, if you like.

You should know however, that I have your safety in mind, as well as my own. I hope to never be in a situation where I am forced to make such a decision, I've never witnessed a home invasion, or been a victim of one. If I ever do, though... I'm armed, and ready to respond. I don't care if the perpetrators intent is to merely take your "stuff". I have no way of knowing what they are prepared to do, and neither do you. In an uncertain situation like that, the only valid response is the one that will eliminate the threat. If I see someone in danger, I will respond. It's in my nature, and also a programmed response by my parents and the training I've had. To see someone in danger and not do the most you can to protect them, with deadly force if necessary, is truly immoral by my standards.

I do not advocate murder, I would prefer to disable the invader, rather then kill. That way they can go to jail, if the justice system works properly (which it sometimes doesn't). Besides, they might be able to turn themselves around, and make some kind of meaningful contribution to society, given the chance. At the very least, they will have a nice scar to remind them of what happened that night. Might give them pause, and reconsider their lives.

On a side note, my go-to weapon is a Mossberg 500 Thunder Ranch, as far as home defense is concerned. It's kept loaded and unlocked at all times, because a locked/empty gun is nothing but a club. The first two shells are loaded with low powder and rock salt, to hopefully scare them off or incapacitate, rather then kill. After those? Slugs. If two shots isn't enough, 4 slugs will be. If 4 slugs isn't enough, I was dead to begin with, as well as anyone I may have been trying to protect.

So yeah, I'm totally fine with all of you not owning guns or being willing to defend yourselves. I'll do it for you. It's what makes the world work. Those able and willing to do things, and those not able or willing telling those who are what to do.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.11 03:34:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Bart Starr on 11/08/2011 03:46:19
Edited by: Bart Starr on 11/08/2011 03:38:15
Forced to break-in and steal? Don't make me laugh, this isn't the Warsaw Ghetto we are talking about. Anybody who is stealing to make ends meet in modern welfare states (such as the USA, and especially Europe) simply does not choose to earn an honest living. If they compound those bad life choices by injuring those that DO earn an honest living, they deserve any misfortune that befalls them.

Yes, I take a pretty hard stance when it comes to criminal activity.

Why? Major contributing factor:
Back when I was in college, I used earn extra money working at a Godfather's Pizza. Owned my own car, so I would make deliveries, cook and sometimes close up the store at night. Once the semester started, I quit.

A month later that store was robbed by someone named Barry Anderson. Keith, working alone, was forced into the walk-in freezer, robbed, and shot twice in the head.

Many of you probably have no idea what a shock like that feels like. The realization that it could have EASILY been me, for no reason, that September night. It really snaps you out of your safe, somewhat sheltered, middle class worldview. Soon after, I was on a first name basis with the owner of Alaska Shooter's Supply.

****And last, on the subject of 'finishing off' home intruders. As Jada said earlier, its a very good idea to insure an intruder is dead, for a variety of reasons. Should a loved one of mine be killed in the process, I'd sure as **** better be dead too.

Because 'finishing off' won't involve a gunshot. It would involve my backyard, a jerrycan of gasoline, and a matchbook. Evil or Very Mad

EDIT: Even if that 'loved one' was may dog. Scratch that - ESPECIALLY if it was my dog. Hurt my dog, you burn.

Inappropriate comments removed. Zymurgist

Kara Books
Posted - 2011.08.11 03:52:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Edited by: Bart Starr on 11/08/2011 03:46:19
Edited by: Bart Starr on 11/08/2011 03:38:15
Forced to break-in and steal? Don't make me laugh, this isn't the Warsaw Ghetto we are talking about. Anybody who is stealing to make ends meet in modern welfare states (such as the USA, and especially Europe) simply does not choose to earn an honest living. If they compound those bad life choices by injuring those that DO earn an honest living, they deserve any misfortune that befalls them.

Yes, I take a pretty hard stance when it comes to criminal activity.

Why? Major contributing factor:
Back when I was in college, I used earn extra money working at a Godfather's Pizza. Owned my own car, so I would make deliveries, cook and sometimes close up the store at night. Once the semester started, I quit.

A month later that store was robbed by someone named Barry Anderson. Keith, working alone, was forced into the walk-in freezer, robbed, and shot twice in the head.

Many of you probably have no idea what a shock like that feels like. The realization that it could have EASILY been me, for no reason, that September night. It really snaps you out of your safe, somewhat sheltered, middle class worldview. Soon after, I was on a first name basis with the owner of Alaska Shooter's Supply.

****And last, on the subject of 'finishing off' home intruders. As Jada said earlier, its a very good idea to insure an intruder is dead, for a variety of reasons. Should a loved one of mine be killed in the process, I'd sure as **** better be dead too.

Because 'finishing off' won't involve a gunshot. It would involve my backyard, a jerrycan of gasoline, and a matchbook. Evil or Very Mad

EDIT: Even if that 'loved one' was may dog. Scratch that - ESPECIALLY if it was my dog. Hurt my dog, you burn.

Inappropriate comments removed. Zymurgist


Thats a pretty touchy story, let me just say, Add some animal fat to that jerrycan.

And that's why we don't have riots, while the idiots questioning our American beliefs now have Muhammad as the most popular last name and Violent waves of rioting on their streets.

Kijo Rikki
Caldari
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2011.08.11 04:10:00 - [46]
 

I'd just like to point out we have riots after we win Super-bowls, World Series or NBA Finals, on a fairly regular basis. We take that very seriously.


Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.11 04:53:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley

Oooh! I get it, you buy guns because your police are corrupt and incompetent like all the other police around the world!




There is a saying: When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.11 05:10:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Ayieka

so you're saying that if someone is put into the position where they feel they need to break into a house to get by, its charitable to kill them?


I don't know about charitable, but it is a justifiable one. Doesn't matter either way because one, I won't be asking and two, I don't care. Their "needs" do not give them the right to break into our home.

The moment someone decides to break into our home is the moment they have decided to forfeit their lives. It wasn't me or my fiance making that decision for them. We don't want them in our home. We don't look forward to cleaning up the mess afterward. That's a decision they've made and imposed on us.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.11 05:47:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Aniete Hetheres

So yeah, I'm totally fine with all of you not owning guns or being willing to defend yourselves. I'll do it for you. It's what makes the world work. Those able and willing to do things, and those not able or willing telling those who are what to do.



^^ This. ^^ Pacifism only works if someone else is willing to defend you.

And before you bring up Ghandi or MLK, civil disobedience or passive resistance only works against a society with a conscience.

Both men were protected by the collective conscience of the UK/US society that they were protesting against. In contrast, a conscienceless society such as WWII Germany would have executed both men and their followers without hesitation.


baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.11 06:28:00 - [50]
 

I wonder if the OP knows Tony shot those two in the back as they were running away?


Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.11 07:30:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 11/08/2011 07:31:45
Possibly not.

He may also not know that Tony Martin was seen by many eye witnesses talking about his plan to shoot the invaders in local pubs at various times before before the event.

He did definately shoot one of the burglars in the back (the other got hit in the leg, not sure which facing) as he was fleeing the scene. It isn't legally self-defence if you aren't in fear for your personal safety and it would be difficult to argue that an unarmed man running away from you when you open up with a shotgun represents an immediate threat to you, as he would have to for it to be self defence to employ lethal force.

This is why he did time. It wasn't pure self-defence; it was a premeditated shooting of some thieves. The bragging in local pubs clearly shows the mens rea and this was enough for a murder charge.

If Mr Martin had kept schtum about his intentions and just got on with it he may well have been able to plead self-defence and succeed (of course this would have involved telling lies to the rozzers which is naughty in the extreme), but the fact is he gimped himself by telling folk what he was going to do.



Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.11 08:26:00 - [52]
 

Yes, I did know that. However, Martin stated that he was
A) blinded by a flashlight, and
B) he shot into the darkness, so he had no idea which direction his assailants were facing.

The surviving thief may have told another story, but he (and his extended family) cannot be considered credible, due to his status as a repeat offender.

Really, it doesn't matter. They broke into an occupied home and CHOSE to put themselves into jeopardy. Whether or not they are a 'threat' is for the homeowner to decide. Martin's action provided a valuable public service. Its just a shame he wasn't as efficient as Joe Horn.

Its interesting, though - if Martin truly 'ambushed them' in cold blood, as the gypsies alleged, how is it that anyone survived to tell the tale? I would think Martin could have easily chased down a man with shredded legs crawling on his belly - and finished him off. In fact, it would have saved him a lot of trouble, had there been no surviving witnesses.

But I digress, motive, armed, child or not, planned or not - none of it matters. The deaths came about simply because the gypsies killed themselves by making a fatally bad decision - breaking into the home of an armed citizen.

Redflare
Caldari
Black Metal Armory
Slammer's Republic
Posted - 2011.08.11 08:34:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Redflare on 11/08/2011 08:38:45
Edited by: Redflare on 11/08/2011 08:38:24
Edited by: Redflare on 11/08/2011 08:35:24
Edited by: Redflare on 11/08/2011 08:34:50
OP's obvious racist inclination is obvious. Hey, aren't the first criminals white? Oh, gosh, but the second group of obvious criminals are dirty, slimy, black Colombians. Ew, we don't want our precious white hands near them. (Now the white thing doesn't apply to me, as I'm not white... but that's beside the point.)

Anyway, without bothering to look into this for myself, and trying my best to ignore racism as a reason, and while relying solely on the information the OP provided:
*Martin reacted in a sensible manner. We don't have the details from the confrontation. (Edit: ok, we do.) Regardless, nothing else prevented break-ins #1-10. Hoorah for Martin.
*The media tends to act like a bunch of morons in such cases. This is interesting, as they hit the attention-button of their demographic twice: once, in the visual bias the OP mentioned, and again in crushing the wounded thief's attempt at another act of stupidity and selfishness.
*Joe Horn is a complete moron. If the thieves are leaving, you do not shoot them! (Texas law provides for his right to shoot them, however... right?) You can tell only some details from the event and the way it took place. You can tell a lot by the adjectives and language used by Horn and the OP (in other words, each is a racist moron).

I'll comment on the second half of your post:
*"Patriots" tend to be morons in quite a number of ways. When there is a sensible choice and an idiotic-but-patriotic one, they have doubts about the sensible choice at best!
*Law provides for very little, and too much, interpretation. As the OP points out, Texas lets you shoot intruders. Completely sensible when they are going to harm you (or something else). Entirely pointless when you have a good record of the intruders as they're leaving. (Let the police handle it from there.) Slightly more sensible if the police are unreliable. In this case, the patriotic moron has no reason to shoot them; they would likely be caught afterward. (Perhaps the OP was trying to draw a connection between multiple break-ins and capital punishment as a glorious solution? You moron!)

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.11 08:59:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Yes, I did know that. However, Martin stated that he was
A) blinded by a flashlight, and
B) he shot into the darkness, so he had no idea which direction his assailants were facing.

Are you suggesting that the retreating thief had the forethought to keep the light of his torch (we don't have flashlights here in the UK) shining into the face of Mr Martin as he turned and ran from his lead-based doom?
Originally by: Bart Starr

The surviving thief may have told another story, but he (and his extended family) cannot be considered credible, due to his status as a repeat offender.

Last time I looked it wasn't legal to make assumptions about the credibility of a witness based purely on previous "form". Previous convictions can be taken into account in a court of law, but only by the beak when it comes to sentancing after a successful conviction.
Originally by: Bart Starr

Really, it doesn't matter.

The law would say that it does indeed matter. Possibly you meant that it doesn't matter to you?
Originally by: Bart Starr

They broke into an occupied home and CHOSE to put themselves into jeopardy. Whether or not they are a 'threat' is for the homeowner to decide. Martin's action provided a valuable public service. Its just a shame he wasn't as efficient as Joe Horn.

Its interesting, though - if Martin truly 'ambushed them' in cold blood, as the gypsies alleged, how is it that anyone survived to tell the tale? I would think Martin could have easily chased down a man with shredded legs crawling on his belly - and finished him off. In fact, it would have saved him a lot of trouble, had there been no surviving witnesses.

But I digress, motive, armed, child or not, planned or not - none of it matters. The deaths came about simply because the gypsies killed themselves by making a fatally bad decision - breaking into the home of an armed citizen.


You're right; Mr Martin could easily have chased them down and executed them, but perhaps even he had some misgivings about such a course of action.

Also right the deaths came about as a result of a bad decision. Several bad decisions, or so it owuld appear to me, on the part of various folk.

I'm not going to debate the moraility of gunning down thieves, but simply restate that this wasn't self defence in it's truest legal sense which is why Mr Martin enjoyed his extended holiday (we don't have vacations here either) at the expense of HMPS.



Marwood Ford
Posted - 2011.08.11 09:56:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Yes, I did know that. However, Martin stated that he was
A) blinded by a flashlight, and
B) he shot into the darkness, so he had no idea which direction his assailants were facing.

The surviving thief may have told another story, but he (and his extended family) cannot be considered credible, due to his status as a repeat offender.

Really, it doesn't matter. They broke into an occupied home and CHOSE to put themselves into jeopardy. Whether or not they are a 'threat' is for the homeowner to decide. Martin's action provided a valuable public service. Its just a shame he wasn't as efficient as Joe Horn.

Its interesting, though - if Martin truly 'ambushed them' in cold blood, as the gypsies alleged, how is it that anyone survived to tell the tale? I would think Martin could have easily chased down a man with shredded legs crawling on his belly - and finished him off. In fact, it would have saved him a lot of trouble, had there been no surviving witnesses.

But I digress, motive, armed, child or not, planned or not - none of it matters. The deaths came about simply because the gypsies killed themselves by making a fatally bad decision - breaking into the home of an armed citizen.



And a court of law considered the evidence and disagreed with you. What you think happened has very little relevance to anything.

Nerath Naaris
Pink Winged Unicorns for Peace Love and Anarchy
Posted - 2011.08.11 17:55:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I live in Texas and Joe Horn is more than welcome to be our neighbor.

Our actual neightbor is a Harris County deputy sheriff and we've had plenty of talks about home invasions and self defense. His advice was that if you ever have to shoot someone breaking into your house, wait about 10 minutes to call 911 while they bleed out. A 10 minute difference will mean nothing forensically but it's means a lot in terms of survivability. When the police do arrive, make sure you toss out a few lines about being scared (which you will be) and being afraid to make any noise or even move just in case there are questions about the delay later on (maybe a neighbor heard the shots and called in).

You really don't want a home invader surviving. Really any time you have to use deadly force you don't want the other person to survive. The living can sue. And even though they'll surely lose, it's going to cost time and money.




In most CIVILIZED countries, this would be considered murder....

Aniete Hetheres
Posted - 2011.08.11 18:31:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Aniete Hetheres

So yeah, I'm totally fine with all of you not owning guns or being willing to defend yourselves. I'll do it for you. It's what makes the world work. Those able and willing to do things, and those not able or willing telling those who are what to do.



^^ This. ^^ Pacifism only works if someone else is willing to defend you.

And before you bring up Ghandi or MLK, civil disobedience or passive resistance only works against a society with a conscience.

Both men were protected by the collective conscience of the UK/US society that they were protesting against. In contrast, a conscienceless society such as WWII Germany would have executed both men and their followers without hesitation.




Well well. I left this thread yesterday expecting to return and see myself getting flamed and trolled and here I see someone actually agreeing with me, at least partially. Will wonders never cease. Of course you are correct stoicfaux, pacifism will only ever work with the presence of non-pacifists to protect them. No matter how kind and giving a person is, there is always someone that isn't that will try to hurt them or take from them. Call it a symptom of a diseased mind, a product of a cruel society, or a chemical imbalance in the brain, whatever. All I know is, there is always going to be a need for people to stop them from doing it.

I wish it weren't true. But it is, and will continue to be until such time as we have some kind of 'cure' for people that will instill work ethic, morals, and decency. Until such time, you are going to need neighbors like me, and institutions like the military and police forces that are going to protect you. You know what they say, wish in one hand and **** in the other...

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.11 18:46:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 11/08/2011 19:13:35
Originally by: Nerath Naaris


In most CIVILIZED countries, this would be considered murder....


My definition of civilization respects the right to self defense, private property, and consequences for criminal behavior. I suppose if you live in a country populated by geldings, you might disagree.

Kraven Stark
Caldari
Atavism Industries
Posted - 2011.08.11 18:51:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Nerath Naaris
In most CIVILIZED countries, this would be considered murder....


If the quoted type of thinking were provable, it would be considered some for of manslaughter in the U.S. as well. You definitely have a right to protect yourself and your home, but to let someone sit there for the sake of dying is just as despicable if not more so than that person breaking in.

At the end of the day you do not know what drove that person to choose you. It could have been someone just looking for a way to get his next fix or it could be someone who is desperately trying to do things, the wrong way, to get their life where it needs to be.

As soon as the person no longer presents a threat, you should do everything you can to help ensure they do not die or at the very least get help on scene so that someone else can.

But back to your point, expecting civility from humans can be a bit of a crap shoot.

Zyck
Greater Order Of Destruction
Black Legion.
Posted - 2011.08.11 18:59:00 - [60]
 

I think I should move to these countries where I can break into peoples houses, threaten them and their families, steal anything I want, and never be worried about anyone raising a finger to fight back. Sounds great!


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only