Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Meadmaker]

I wonder if he feels the same way about a cop? I mean, he's carrying a gun, and even driving around with it.

"Oh, but he's received training" will be the response.

The difference is the motive for having the gun.

When I see a cop with a gun, I know why he has the gun.

When I see you with a gun, I don't know why you have a gun, but it might be because you are a crazy S.O.B. who is on his way to the local school or post office to show the world your significance.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, it does. Even the law in your state (Alabama) agree. If the occupant fears for his safety, he has the legal right to shoot to kill.

Not so.

If a reasonable occupant would fear for his safety under the circumstances, he has the right to shoot to kill.

But a good lawyer couldn't hurt if it ever happens.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow. What an idiot. Loaded, with a round in the chamber he put his finger in the trigger guard, wasn't in a proper holster (one that encloses the trigger guard) AND with the safety off ?

I've fixed your statement to reflect reality.

 

[Lowpro]

Well triforce I can't say that it's not the law, but that the law is just unethical and shouldn't be there or at least be modified. I am not advocating that a homeowner cannot defend themselves in public or in private but leveraging lethal force with negligible evidence other than a fear that your life is in danger is too far to go for any citizen. Life is valuable enough that killing on a hunch like that is worth me at least trying to bring up why it's a stupid law. Lethal force isn't the only force and we should stop cultivating that sense of entitlement that you can kill someone in your home like that with so little demand for evidence. Hell if you actually use nonlethal force you can determine a better understanding of the nature of the crime. When you kill them, well the dead can't defend themselves.

And that law isn't going to stop anyone, homeowner or burglar from self defense. All it does is disenfranchise one after the fact. And even then trespassing doesn't translate to aggressor. On its own if the homeowner is the first to pull out a gun and initiate the conflict then he should be the aggressor...but dammit it's his home! I wonder if you're an aggressor if you beat some girl to hell and back in your home if you just claim she's trespassing and you're the homeowner. Hell you could shoot her and just say all that noise...

Oh and yes I've had my house broken into twice both with me in it. One was actually a family member who broke in to steal whatever he could to pawn. I called the police and scared him away. The second time was a weird one that scared the hell out of me late one night. They busted my door in but I had an alarm system so it went off. I know it's scary and both times I had no immediate idea who it was and what they were going to do. But the idea of meeting them with a gun and shooting them if I felt scared (which is REALLY easy to feel by the way and in no way is a true determination of whether you're in danger of your life) was not an option I considered. I do have a a can of bear spray and I've never used it on people.

 

[triforcharity]

You list your location as Alabama, mine is Florida, I have a strong suspicion that in Alabama you can indeed shoot someone breaking into your house and be fully fine on the "in fear of life or safety " thing. Not sure if you have castle doctrine and/or stand ground - both/either would also apply on that here.. I know you can in Florida.

See above. Of course, you're right. In fact, it's almost identical.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh trust me, I'm there with you my brother.

No kissy kissy over there you too.....I'm watching you!!

/ot

 

[triforcharity]

Good luck with that in court.

Mr. Sailors thought that applied to his driveway as well. He's charged with murder. Under Georgia law, that carries a penalty of death or life in prison.

I'll bet he plea bargains manslaughter, and they let him.

Even Georgia courts would agree. http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

Mr. Sailors was obviously wrong. Nowhere in the statute does it say anything about your driveway and a non criminal offense.

 

[RandFan]

No kissy kissy over there you too.....I'm watching you!!

/ot

 

[triforcharity]

Seriously, do you have any desire to engage in dialogue? Because running around calling everyone a "retard" is not really showing it.

Since I have not called someone a retard, your point is non-existent.

I have plenty of dialogue with people. But when asinine, ridiculous logic is used, I'll call someone on it.

 

[triforcharity]

It depends on what clearly threatened means and it's not really the same thing anyways. For example there's a fundamental difference in law on burglars robbing a store or a house. The law assumes the store burglar is only stealing and you cannot shoot them. For a home invasion the burglar is assumed to be pretty much the most murdery murderer in all of murderdome and is treated like such in defense for the homeowner. We should not foster that as an idea because it's not defense when there's so much uncertainty.

Oh I agree that not everyone falls into Sailor's category but Sabretooth definitely does in my opinion because he'd kill somebody on a weak assumption. Like I said before if someone comes in gun in hand or makes verbal threats to actually kill you/rape your wife that's a lot more of a tangible intent. At that point the burglar wrote a check and now he's about to cash it. Breaking into a house however is not a check worth killing for. You cannot strawman their intent in other words.

I understand what you're saying. However, someone entering my house is absolutely assumed to be a threat to my life, and rightfully so.

I'm not sure what you mean by strawman their intent. Can you elaborate?

 

[triforcharity]

Not so.

If a reasonable occupant would fear for his safety under the circumstances, he has the right to shoot to kill.

But a good lawyer couldn't hurt if it ever happens.

And in Georgia, it's assumed that someone in your house, unlawfully, is assumed to a threat to a person's safety and life.

And I absolutely agree with the lawyer thing. It's a good idea, and I have one on retainer if I ever am in that situation. Hopefully it's never something I have to cash in on.

 

[triforcharity]

The difference is the motive for having the gun.

When I see a cop with a gun, I know why he has the gun.

When I see you with a gun, I don't know why you have a gun, but it might be because you are a crazy S.O.B. who is on his way to the local school or post office to show the world your significance.

Ok, that makes sense. You're right.

 

[Lowpro]

I understand what you're saying. However, someone entering my house is absolutely assumed to be a threat to my life, and rightfully so.

I'm not sure what you mean by strawman their intent. Can you elaborate?

As in it's the shooter who projects intent on the trespasser and can basically assume maximum threat with very little effort or requirements to just shoot someone dead. Basically killing without sufficient evidence and instead projecting cause onto them. They make a strawman bad guy out of someone who doesn't necessarily telegraph their intent (if they do, say they DO brandish a gun, or they shout "I'm going to kill you and wear your skull as a hat and use your scrotum as fuzzy dice on my rearview mirror" then it's a much more valid strawman obviously). Hell Sabretooth made it even worse by just shooting for essentially trespassing.

I just don't see why entering your house means the assumption must be a threat to your life when it's demonstrably not actually a threat to your life. I know you don't like hearing it it takes more than how you feel to assess when there actually IS a threat to your life. Killing over an assumption (One we seem to love fostering for home defense) should not be allowed it's just unethical on its face and I don't see why everyone seems to disagree I really don't. I don't even see how you could arrive to such a conclusion like validating killing someone because they're in your home and you are afraid of something you don't know and we codified that into law! That needs a serious reevaluation.

As I said before guns just make it worse because guns work so well at killing. If it was the same situation and instead of shooting the guy you instead beat him to death with a baseball bat by swinging at his head until it caved there would be some weird looks. That's intent to kill, not to defend yourself. At least with a bat you can knock a guy out, but a gun it doesn't have that it just pretty much bleed and maybe die. No, do it nonlethally. No killing just because of that assumption. You can break a bone, taser, bear spray them the whole shebang...but killing them is not a course of action you should consider a positive action unless actual danger is present that warrants killing them (ie. scrotum dice).

 

[Giz]

As in it's the shooter who projects intent on the trespasser and can basically assume maximum threat with very little effort or requirements to just shoot someone dead. Basically killing without sufficient evidence and instead projecting cause onto them. They make a strawman bad guy out of someone who doesn't necessarily telegraph their intent (if they do, say they DO brandish a gun, or they shout "I'm going to kill you and wear your skull as a hat and use your scrotum as fuzzy dice on my rearview mirror" then it's a much more valid strawman obviously). Hell Sabretooth made it even worse by just shooting for essentially trespassing.

I just don't see why entering your house means the assumption must be a threat to your life when it's demonstrably not actually a threat to your life. I know you don't like hearing it it takes more than how you feel to assess when there actually IS a threat to your life. Killing over an assumption (One we seem to love fostering for home defense) should not be allowed it's just unethical on its face and I don't see why everyone seems to disagree I really don't. I don't even see how you could arrive to such a conclusion like validating killing someone because they're in your home and you are afraid of something you don't know and we codified that into law! That needs a serious reevaluation.

As I said before guns just make it worse because guns work so well at killing. If it was the same situation and instead of shooting the guy you instead beat him to death with a baseball bat by swinging at his head until it caved there would be some weird looks. That's intent to kill, not to defend yourself. At least with a bat you can knock a guy out, but a gun it doesn't have that it just pretty much bleed and maybe die. No, do it nonlethally. No killing just because of that assumption. You can break a bone, taser, bear spray them the whole shebang...but killing them is not a course of action you should consider a positive action unless actual danger is present that warrants killing them (ie. scrotum dice).

Or you could put the blame on the person who broke into an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night. Don't want the occupants to fear the worst... then don't break in somewhere that's occupied.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Or you could put the blame on the person who broke into an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night. Don't want the occupants to fear the worst... then don't break in somewhere that's occupied.

It's a good bet that when you're changing the subject from what the entirely predictable and unnecessary consequences of a person's actions are, to some metaphysical story about "blame" or "fault", that you're trying to justify something unjustifiable.

 

[triforcharity]

So, it's unjustifiable if I shoot you as you enter my bedroom after kicking in my front door?

Horse ****.

 

[Ranb]

If I'm not there, then obviously I cannot respond with any force at all. That sounds like a stupid question, but perhaps you just worded it wrong.

I said not in the house; I didn't say not there.

Ranb

 

[Lowpro]

So, it's unjustifiable if I shoot you as you enter my bedroom after kicking in my front door?

Horse ****.

Are you shooting a tazer, nonlethal round, mace or bear spray or other debilitating irritant?

How about instead a nightstick, baseball bat or other dense object that can incapacitate a person? Just don't kill them to kill them that's the problem. There is a fundamental difference between shooting a gun meant to kill and using nonlethal force to incapacitate however it seems the latter receives very little reinforcement; people just want to kill criminals even if their crimes are altogether benign but why take that chance?

There's many ways to deal with an intruder and shooting them isn't the only option and the fact that it's the first option you may consider (keeping in mind all my previous posts; don't want you trying to restart the same crap) is telling about your value on life. I know you like yours and those you may be protecting but choosing to end somebody when their crimes don't warrant death in law anyways (I'm sure you'll spin it as legal to use deadly force in the home blah de blah but I am referring to actual arbiters of law behave ie police; those who have a monopoly on authorized force) and they have yet to commit any crime that does you aren't effectively defending your life because it's not in tangible danger. You want the result to be your safety right? There are many avenues to do that but killing, while effective is also excessive and not fair to the crime. Even citizens should temper their reactions fairly, especially ones who own guns. Even you should agree to that.

But I remember when I went to a shooting range and I was firing at a target and I remember the instructor boasting the ranges for a proper kill shot (center mass, he's great good job *pats back* getting a great job for killing just seems weird). They don't want guns used as a deterrent they want you to kill with them and they excite you with success at a target range. They teach you how to kill with them not when you should. Again that kill or be killed attitude still makes no sense...

 

[Giz]

A and they have yet to commit any crime that does you aren't effectively defending your life because it's not in tangible danger.

When is your life in tangible danger? When a stranger has broken into your house and is advancing threateningly towards your bedroom? Or is it only legitimately threatened once Jack the Ripper has handed you a notarized writ of murderous intent? I mean, someone who breaks in with an axe might just be a stray woodcutter looking for a sharpening tool (which he thinks you keep under your daughters bed)... shouldn't rush to judgement!

But I remember when I went to a shooting range and I was firing at a target and I remember the instructor boasting the ranges for a proper kill shot.

I'm curious, what does "boasting the ranges for a proper kill shot" mean? (My local firing ranges appear not to have been offering this, doubtless valuable, service).

 

[ben m]

They don't because if something does happen, the lawsuits would be crippling.

Just like the gun you keep at home. You shouldn't keep one there because if something bad does happen, the lawsuits would be crippling you or a member of your household is dead.

I don't see why you want to risk that. Because you're afraid of robbers? Your gun makes any given robber more likely, not less likely, to shoot you. The stats in the paper shows this very clearly.