|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 14, 2011 14:27:21 GMT -5
To be fair, don't Texan home defense laws allow you to chase down someone to the ends of the earth and put a bullet in them and ach family member they have just for setting foor on so much as your neighbour's property?
(Hyperhbole, for the uninitiated)
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jul 14, 2011 14:27:48 GMT -5
Zie my ass. Also, zir my ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perturabo on Jul 14, 2011 15:36:56 GMT -5
Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? One of the more corrupt counties of California. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2011 22:51:35 GMT -5
Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? I don't know what I think of that. Here in Michigan the castle laws were changed a bit ago. It used to be "retreat to the farthest place possible and only shoot if your life is directly threatened". Now there's no retreat needed...and don't shoot the perp outside or in the back. Yeah, I think that's potentially silly. But, on the other hand, it could be potentially good. I think reasonability is the key for a working legal system, otherwise any system wil be stupid whatever laws are written. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2011 23:04:02 GMT -5
Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? I don't know what I think of that. I repeat my citation of Joe Horne, shooting two robbers over property (that wasn't even his own) after being told repeatedly to stand down by cops is disturbing.. the fact that it was Texas and they were Mexican (and the fact that the time elapsed between "move, yer dead" and -bang bang bang bang- was about 3 seconds). Lethal force for protection of property is fucked up in pretty much any civilized society. I remember it raising a huge ruckus over the castle laws... as well as making me even more cynical of my fellow man. See, I don't know. I think it's okay to shoot someone if they're deliberately damaging your stuff and you tell them to stop, it's okay to threaten them until they go away. If you do this, it will escalate the situation. Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? One of the more corrupt counties of California. Lol, Cali. World's nth largest economy, can't even run it's own government |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 15, 2011 0:27:49 GMT -5
Here in Michigan the castle laws were changed a bit ago. It used to be "retreat to the farthest place possible and only shoot if your life is directly threatened". Now there's no retreat needed...and don't shoot the perp outside or in the back. Yeah, I think that's potentially silly. But, on the other hand, it could be potentially good. I think reasonability is the key for a working legal system, otherwise any system wil be stupid whatever laws are written. As a cop once told me, remember the three "s"... Shoot Shovel Shut up |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 15, 2011 2:05:19 GMT -5
As a cop once told me, remember the three "s"... Shoot Shovel Shut up The saddest thing is, in South Africa where we have a violent crime rating rivaling war torn countries, if you kill a criminal that was attacking you, you get into much more trouble than they would. Especially if they survive. It has reached the point where the police tell victims of crime to go and dump the body in a ditch somewhere while they look the other way. The police dont really want to do all the extra paper work just so that someone who was truly defending themselves gets into more trouble than the criminals would (even if the criminal had already killed say that persons family member). (note that this is in self defense, not for the execution style killing in this threads case.) |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 2:37:10 GMT -5
As a cop once told me, remember the three "s"... Shoot Shovel Shut up The saddest thing is, in South Africa where we have a violent crime rating rivaling war torn countries, if you kill a criminal that was attacking you, you get into much more trouble than they would. Especially if they survive. It has reached the point where the police tell victims of crime to go and dump the body in a ditch somewhere while they look the other way. The police dont really want to do all the extra paper work just so that someone who was truly defending themselves gets into more trouble than the criminals would (even if the criminal had already killed say that persons family member). (note that this is in self defense, not for the execution style killing in this threads case.) Well, uh. Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 15, 2011 8:09:09 GMT -5
Depending on what happens during a robbery in the US, the criminal, or his relatives should he die, can sue YOU.
One case that sticks out in my mind was a shop owner that was repeatedly being robbed after closing. He figured the guy was coming in through the skylight and rigged a trap to catch him. The perp came back, got killed in the trap and his immediate family sued the shop owner and won.
Hell, over in Flint a bar got robbed. The perps came in through the bathroom ceiling (cut a hole) and tried to clear out the booze. On the way out they bungled and collided mid air as both jumped from the roof. One landed and ran off, the other smacked his head against a concrete table and was knocked out. He's now trying to sue the bar owner for having those concrete tables out back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 8:14:28 GMT -5
Depending on what happens during a robbery in the US, the criminal, or his relatives should he die, can sue YOU. One case that sticks out in my mind was a shop owner that was repeatedly being robbed after closing. He figured the guy was coming in through the skylight and rigged a trap to catch him. The perp came back, got killed in the trap and his immediate family sued the shop owner and won. Of course, "lying in wait" is one of the grounds of Murder 1, and that's pretty much what he did. I'm not saying that the crooks should get away with it or have a right to steal, but this was clearly more premeditated than the case we're talking about here, where the guy got life. It's kind of funny, though, in a country where you assume the risk for anyone who dies during the commission of your crime (Felony murder) that we still have instances where you're not expected to assume the risk for your own death. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 15, 2011 8:26:00 GMT -5
Depending on what happens during a robbery in the US, the criminal, or his relatives should he die, can sue YOU. One case that sticks out in my mind was a shop owner that was repeatedly being robbed after closing. He figured the guy was coming in through the skylight and rigged a trap to catch him. The perp came back, got killed in the trap and his immediate family sued the shop owner and won. Of course, "lying in wait" is one of the grounds of Murder 1, and that's pretty much what he did. I'm not saying that the crooks should get away with it or have a right to steal, but this was clearly more premeditated than the case we're talking about here, where the guy got life. It's kind of funny, though, in a country where you assume the risk for anyone who dies during the commission of your crime (Felony murder) that we still have instances where you're not expected to assume the risk for your own death. I know, but to me, if you're going to intrude into someone's home or business and steal, you've given up your rights to safety. Personally that's where I get lost in that case. The cops couldn't do anything, how many times must this guy be robbed and have his life turned on end? In 2006 in Wisconsin a perp broke into a doctor's house. The doctor challenged him and he ignored it. So the doc went back to his room and grabbed a handgun and returned, challenged the perp and this time shot him once in the back when he didn't leave. The perp was shipped off to the hospital, then to jail The court claimed no wrong, but the law does not allow deadly force to protect property (your life must be directly threatened). So the perp sued from behind bars. The law offered no protection to the doctor |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 15, 2011 9:47:50 GMT -5
Well, "directly threatened" can be a funny thing. It can get a bit tricky. For example, a young man breaks into Ranger Joe's place. Joe, a former Ranger, grabs a Louisville Slugger or a roll of quarters and subdues him. The man in Joe's house is less of a threat than, say, in Smurfette's. She might be more prone to grab a Winchester and load up some #1 buckshot. Same guy, same crime, but different victims make for different levels of threat.
To the OP. I think life is a good sentence. If he had unloaded five, ten, or 19 into the guy without reloading, then there would be grounds for self defense. It would be a stretch, but with extenuating circumstances like adrenaline and others mentioned, I could see it. It was when he went back for another gun, that to me says he was thinking rationally enough to know it was overkill. Hell, if he had gotten the other gun, had it aimed at the guy's head, not fired a shot, and waited for the cops to show up, I'd still be ok with that. But that's not what happened. And this is coming from one of the very few pro gun people here.
|
|
|
|
Post by danarth on Jul 15, 2011 10:14:32 GMT -5
So the kid involved was 16 and did something really stupid, and now he'll never have a chance to redeem himself or make anything better of his life or to help anyone else, just because this pharmacist decided he had the right to play Judge, Jury and Executioner.
One might be forgiven for having a lack of sympathy for the pharmacist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 10:17:34 GMT -5
So the kid involved was 16 and did something really stupid, and now he'll never have a chance to redeem himself or make anything better of his life or to help anyone else, just because this pharmacist decided he had the right to play Judge, Jury and Executioner. America's #1 fetish. Just barely ahead of torture porn (By whicch, I mean Jesus dying on the cross) |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 15, 2011 10:19:29 GMT -5
If he had unloaded five, ten, or 19 into the guy without reloading, then there would be grounds for self defense. I'm fine with somebody emptying a magazine in self defense, as long as lethal force is acceptable. Odds are good only 1 or 2 bullets will actually hit from most shooters. It's also the methodology police departments practice. There is also that, for most shots, the assailant is not stopped with a single bullet (especially from a handgun). That bullet might kill, but they can still do shit before they're completely dead. But, again, firing upon a downed assailant, not good. The goal is to remove the threat. An unarmed teenager with a bullet in his head is not much of a threat. |
|
