Getaway driver arrested for murder.

[Vixen]

Okay, let's start with this claim of yours;


Is there any reason that any rational person would believe that this claim is true? If this claim was true a person could kill someone with impunity even if the "intruder" was completely innocent of anything other than walking on the wrong plot of grass. It would not matter if there were multiple witnesses of good character and video that show the intruder was not a threat of any kind.

In other words it appears you are referring to "legal murder". Oklahoma's "make my day law", whatever that is, seems to be something completely different from what you claim it is.



Which post of mine contains an irrational claim?

You claim that this is 'irrational' but quite a few posters here have slapped me down and said any homeowner automatically has the right to shoot (and should do) if confronted by a home invader under exactly this law, or 'Castle law'. So in effect, the 'Make My Day Law' as some people here see it, is 'shoot first ask questions later'.

You are the first person to say one should enquire about 'good character' first.

Yet my suggestion of making a verbal challenge before shooting is 'irrational'.

<shrug>

 

[Resume]

Why? Because I'm not "Hard Enough"?

No, because you have no idea what they have in mind for you.

I do know this: if I got an AR-15 and I'm facing down 3 guys in a Hallway who don't have guns (and....by default are flanked), then I am a Living God who has the power of "Life" and "Death". I'll choose "Life" if I can...that's just me...a guy that knows that living with consequences is not trivial.

Good for you. Seriously. But none of us knows the exact reality of what happened in this instance. And I too have the experience of being in a life and death situation, in this case my own life. I will again reiterate this **** happens so quickly that you have a micro-second to react, and sometimes not even that long. All this hypothetical **** is nonsense.


ETA: Also, your conjecture comes from 20-20 hindsight. When things like this go down, you have no idea who's armed, who isn't, and who else might be lurking inside or outside. All you know is you're being confronted in your own space, and it could cost you your life if you react poorly.

 

[Resume]

Yet my suggestion of making a verbal challenge before shooting is 'irrational'.

<shrug>

A verbal challenge may just alert the perps as to the whereabouts of a target.

 

[arthwollipot]

Any crime for which the criminal doesn't show up armed, is a good general rule, I think.

And even then it can be justified.

Apparently, people who commit crimes have thereby forfeited their right to life, and you are available to deprive them of it.

How do you know that they do not have violent intentions? Can you take that chance, since they just broke into your home?

The record shows that the imminent threat portion is highly subjective, but ime an individual breaking into an occupied dwelling meets that standard.

You assume that any person who breaks into your home has violent intentions? You assume, at first glance, that the fact that someone has broken into your home that your life is in immediate and direct danger? Regardless of any other factors? My home has been broken into therefore my life is in danger and I must respond with deadly force. No ifs, buts, or maybes - someone breaking into your home has forfeited any rights they had and you must perforce kill them.

And yet you claim that it's "self-defense" and not vigilante extrajudicial execution.

Some weedy little thirteen year old armed with a pocket knife picks your lock and enters your home, looks up at you pointing your gun and regretting the life choices that brought him to this place, and you shoot him and kill him dead. No questions, no challenges, no second chances, this child must die because he is - apparently - presenting a direct and imminent threat to your life. Because castle doctrine.

What a violent and depressing world you live in.

 

[Jules Galen]

A verbal challenge may just alert the perps as to the whereabouts of a target.

C'mon mang...do ya' always need to look for an excuse to "pull the trigger"?

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

Omar Khayyám

 

[phiwum]

You claim that this is 'irrational' but quite a few posters here have slapped me down and said any homeowner automatically has the right to shoot (and should do) if confronted by a home invader under exactly this law, or 'Castle law'. So in effect, the 'Make My Day Law' as some people here see it, is 'shoot first ask questions later'.

You are the first person to say one should enquire about 'good character' first.

Yet my suggestion of making a verbal challenge before shooting is 'irrational'.

<shrug>

Which posters have said that?

 

[phiwum]

Apparently, people who commit crimes have thereby forfeited their right to life, and you are available to deprive them of it.

You assume that any person who breaks into your home has violent intentions? You assume, at first glance, that the fact that someone has broken into your home that your life is in immediate and direct danger? Regardless of any other factors? My home has been broken into therefore my life is in danger and I must respond with deadly force. No ifs, buts, or maybes - someone breaking into your home has forfeited any rights they had and you must perforce kill them.

And yet you claim that it's "self-defense" and not vigilante extrajudicial execution.

Some weedy little thirteen year old armed with a pocket knife picks your lock and enters your home, looks up at you pointing your gun and regretting the life choices that brought him to this place, and you shoot him and kill him dead. No questions, no challenges, no second chances, this child must die because he is - apparently - presenting a direct and imminent threat to your life. Because castle doctrine.

What a violent and depressing world you live in.

I don't own a gun, but there are situations in which one has reasonable fear for his life. Thirteen year olds can kill you, and you haven't the time to ask his age or whether he's packing.

Sorry, I'm on the side of the homeowner if nothing surprising arises.

 

[Ranb]

You claim that this is 'irrational' but quite a few posters here have slapped me down and said any homeowner automatically has the right to shoot (and should do) if confronted by a home invader under exactly this law, or 'Castle law'. So in effect, the 'Make My Day Law' as some people here see it, is 'shoot first ask questions later'.

You are the first person to say one should enquire about 'good character' first.

Yet my suggestion of making a verbal challenge before shooting is 'irrational'.

You are being evasive, again.

You claimed in part; "Apparently, this state has a 'Make My Day' law, which means you can shoot any intruder to smithereens with impunity." I want to see some evidence that this is true. Has anyone in the state of Oklahoma ever been able to shoot any intruder with impunity? As far as I know in Oklahoma whenever an identified individual has shot someone, they were either arrested and/or indicted for the incident or there was actually a reason for their actions which led to no charges being filed. This would be the opposite of what you claim.

Instead of supporting your claim, you deflect by bringing up the claims of others as if what they said has anything to do with how you do or do not support the claim you made.

 

[Resume]

C'mon mang...do ya' always need to look for an excuse to "pull the trigger"?

No "mang", not at all. I never want to be in that situation, since I have been in such a situation. It wasn't hypothetical but real-time, truly life-threatening, right down to where my body was to be dumped. A case of mistaken identity, a mistake that would have lead to a kidnapping charge for the three individuals. So it was determined the best bet was to kill me for their mistake.

No hypotheticals, no ******** assumptions, real life, and real death. And it all happened so quickly, I had no chance to even retreat.

 

[Jules Galen]

No "mang", not at all. I never want to be in that situation, since I have been in such a situation. It wasn't hypothetical but real-time, truly life-threatening, right down to where my body was to be dumped. A case of mistaken identity, a mistake that would have lead to a kidnapping charge for the three individuals. So it was determined the best bet was to kill me for their mistake.

No hypotheticals, no ******** assumptions, real life, and real death. And it all happened so quickly, I had no chance to even retreat.

Sounds like you survived. You, survived...right? (I mean, this is not from the "Spirit World, or something?)

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't own a gun, but there are situations in which one has reasonable fear for his life. Thirteen year olds can kill you, and you haven't the time to ask his age or whether he's packing.

Sorry, I'm on the side of the homeowner if nothing surprising arises.

The "shoot first and ask questions wait it's too late because they're dead" side?

 

[Resume]

Sounds like you survived. You, survived...right? (I mean, this is not from the "Spirit World, or something?)

What's your point?


ETA: I survived not through the good graces of the ******** that abducted me, and were going to slit my throat and dump my body, but through sheer, dumb luck. As it was sheer, dumb luck to have walked into this situation in the first place. Now, what was your point?

 

[BStrong]

Apparently, people who commit crimes have thereby forfeited their right to life, and you are available to deprive them of it.

You assume that any person who breaks into your home has violent intentions? You assume, at first glance, that the fact that someone has broken into your home that your life is in immediate and direct danger? Regardless of any other factors? My home has been broken into therefore my life is in danger and I must respond with deadly force. No ifs, buts, or maybes - someone breaking into your home has forfeited any rights they had and you must perforce kill them.

And yet you claim that it's "self-defense" and not vigilante extrajudicial execution.

Some weedy little thirteen year old armed with a pocket knife picks your lock and enters your home, looks up at you pointing your gun and regretting the life choices that brought him to this place, and you shoot him and kill him dead. No questions, no challenges, no second chances, this child must die because he is - apparently - presenting a direct and imminent threat to your life. Because castle doctrine.

What a violent and depressing world you live in.

First of all, the better example to cite would be a developmentally disabled 12 year old that was simply traumatized by bullying and sought refuge on my front lawn, only to be brutally murdered by me using a belt fed machine gun at cyclic rate, after which I'd empty a S. & W. .500 magnum through what was left of the poor victims head. Pleas keep your strawman scenario's rooted in reality.

Actually, I'm very content,

You've made it clear that you would be happy to throw the dice in any situation where you encounter a potential threat.

Have at it.

 

[phiwum]

The "shoot first and ask questions wait it's too late because they're dead" side?

Sure, if they've broken into my home, this might be a reasonable, cautious response to protect the lives of my family and me. The alternative might be "ask questions wait it's too late because I'm dead."

Sometimes, as a result of this notion of self-defense, people die who literally don't deserve to die. That's a shame. The alternative is worse, I think.

Again, this approach to self-defense is perhaps more clearly sensible in an armed society, like the U.S. But this isn't a gun rights thread, thank God, so we needn't discuss that point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wait - killing someone is now "reasonable and cautious"?

The ****? What the hell kind of dystopian hell-world are you people living in?

 

[Tony Stark]

Wait - killing someone is now "reasonable and cautious"?

The ****? What the hell kind of dystopian hell-world are you people living in?

One where people don't want to bet their lives that people who committed a felony by breaking into their homes won't hurt them. I, for one, care infinitely more about my life and the lives of my loved ones than I do about of the life of some home invader(s).

 

[phiwum]

Wait - killing someone is now "reasonable and cautious"?

The ****? What the hell kind of dystopian hell-world are you people living in?

I don't live in a hell world. I don't own a gun or anything more offensive than a hockey stick. Some people live in worse environs and want the ability to defend themselves.

Were I the subject of a break in, my options would be limited. Even the hockey stick is on the garage.

 

[Resume]

I think it would be reasonable and cautious to keep the **** out of other's homes, especially when wearing ski masks and carrying weapons, just in case your intentions aren't clear.

 

[Jules Galen]

What's your point?


ETA: I survived not through the good graces of the ******** that abducted me, and were going to slit my throat and dump my body, but through sheer, dumb luck. As it was sheer, dumb luck to have walked into this situation in the first place. Now, what was your point?

Make better friends.

 

[Jules Galen]

I think it would be reasonable and cautious to keep the **** out of other's homes, especially when wearing ski masks and carrying weapons, just in case your intentions aren't clear.

See...you are already showing the proclivity to make better friends.

Now...isn't that better?