Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Supreme Court votes down D. C. gun law

Supreme Court votes down D. C. gun law (Page 3)
Thread Tools
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2008, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I prefer a pump action, there's nothing that puts fear into the heart of a thief like the sound of cocking one of those in the dark.
Only pussies use shotguns on intruders. I use a samurai sword.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2008, 10:55 PM
 
*yawn*
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2008, 09:00 AM
 
The scary thing about all this is that 4 Supreme Court judges can't read plain English.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2008, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
*yawn*
Ha! Only you would feel the need to feign being unimpressed to an obvious joke.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2008, 02:39 PM
 
You misunderstand. I wasn't unimpressed with your joke, just your arguments in this thread.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 11:12 AM
 
Did someone state a preference for shotguns?
Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars - Yahoo! News


By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 1, 5:14 AM ET

HOUSTON - Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both praised and vilified for his actions.
ADVERTISEMENT

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but a defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths. Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified under the law.

After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings.
45/47
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 12:14 PM
 
I heard that Texas law permits this, even if it was a neighbor's property and not his own. The real issue was with the shooting itself. He shot them in the back... the exact circumstances are unknown, but the fact that they were shot in the back is pretty damning. Basically, how would someone who's threatening you have their back turned? Moreover, how would TWO people have their back turned to you if they were actually threatening?

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, I want gun owners to be able to defend themselves without hesitating for fear of being charged with a crime. On the other hand, how can you exonerate someone for shooting someone else in the back?

I'm strongly against forcing people who defend themselves to show that they had exhausted all other options or that they had tried to run, and I'm also against laws that criminalize gun defense when the attacker doesn't have a gun. The fact is, if someone attacks you, you don't know whether they have a gun or not, and if you don't react quickly they could disarm you. The police clearly don't have to prove anything. They pretty much have license to shoot (repeatedly) anyone they want, even if it's an unarmed innocent bystander who poses no threat to anyone. So I think civilians should at least be allowed to shoot anyone who attacks them even if not with necessarily lethal force.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno View Post
So I think civilians should at least be allowed to shoot anyone who attacks them even if not with necessarily lethal force.
that's the trouble. Every gun, regardless of caliber or whatever, constitutes lethal force. One of the first things you have to get used to when learning to defend yourself with a gun is that you are shooting to kill. Only the Lone Ranger shoots the gun out of their hand. And Gene Wilder, I guess.

If you point a gun at someone, you need to be comfortable with the idea that you're going to kill them. Therefore, don't point a gun at someone who doesn't need killing. If someone is breaking into my house, they need killing. Folks in Texas seem to understand that.

The Horn case was one of an old man defending himself against two men. By the time he shot, they had their backs to him, but the undercover cop on the scene called it a good shoot and I guess someone believed that story. Just prior to the shot, the dead guys had been rushing the old man as I heard it.

The real reason for the Horn controversy is that the two men killed were illegal (Colombian) immigrants, so LULAC and La Raza got up in arms about it.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 04:37 PM
 
I think you misunderstood my sentence structure. I understand that shooting at someone = lethal force. What I meant was that you should be allowed to shoot at an attacker, even if the attacker isn't necessarily capable of using lethal force against you. You can't require the person defending him or herself to check whether the attacker has a gun or not. Part of this is that even an unarmed person can kill another person given the opportunity. Bare hands are still capable of using lethal force.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno View Post
Bare hands are still capable of using lethal force.

Or they can more simply just take the gun from you.

I think one should always assume that someone trying to take a gun from you intends to use it against you.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
The Horn case was one of an old man defending himself against two men. By the time he shot, they had their backs to him, but the undercover cop on the scene called it a good shoot and I guess someone believed that story.
He wasn't defending himself, the thieves weren't even on his property. He called the cops, they asked him to stay put, but he didn't listen.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He called the cops, they asked him to stay put

Just a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure a dispatcher isn't a cop.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 03:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Did someone state a preference for shotguns?
Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars - Yahoo! News


I'm not in the least bit against someone defending their family and property, and using deadly force against an attacker on their own property.... but I'm shocked that that guy wasn't found guilty of murder.

As much as I can empathize with his being fed up by some dirtbags robbing his neighbor's house ( I remember it being said that it had happened repeatedly) and probably cheerfully hiding being the freakin' morons in this country that openly foster the idea that anyone who hops a border illegally should be allowed to break any law and commit any fraud they want- it's still not an excuse to shoot and kill two people who weren't breaking into HIS house, or directly threatening him.

I thought the 911 tape was pretty damning- it's clear that any danger he faced, he voluntarily put himself in the path of, since he was safely inside his own house when calling the dispatcher. I don't buy self-defense as anything other than manufactured- he elected, against the dispatcher's advice, to go out and confront the men.

I'm amazed that he got away with it, given the circumstances. Despite a sympathetic motive, I thought it was a pretty clear cut case of murder.

Not that I feel any great sympathy for the burglars- you deserve to get your ass shot being a dirtbag that preys on other people.

At least in Texas, maybe criminals will think twice about breaking into other people's property being a good idea.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 04:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I'm not in the least bit against someone defending their family and property, and using deadly force against an attacker on their own property.... but I'm shocked that that guy wasn't found guilty of murder.
I seem to remember looking at some US gun laws about a year back and IIRC in a lot of states it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in order to prevent any felony, whether it's on your own property or not.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 04:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure a dispatcher isn't a cop.
You're right: he called 911, they told him they'd send the cops and the operator told him to stay put.

He voluntarily put his life at risk and shot two men in the back. If they were running away from him, they weren't posing any danger anymore. It's amazing that there is no sense of proportionality in the American justice system for that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 04:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If they were running away from him, they weren't posing any danger anymore.
Disagree. Until they're locked up, dead or reformed they continue to pose a danger to everyone. What if he'd let them get away and the next house they did was your mom's, fatally injuring her in the process because she interrupted them?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
Disagree. Until they're locked up, dead or reformed they continue to pose a danger to everyone. What if he'd let them get away and the next house they did was your mom's, fatally injuring her in the process because she interrupted them?
He was pleading selfdefense not some hypothetical neighbor or my mom. Hypothetically, a lot can happen: the guy could have shot my mom by accident, too.

In any case, the cops were on their way, it was utterly unnecessary.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 09:55 AM
 
A lot can happen while "the cops are on their way."

Why did these guys have their backs turned? You're presuming it was because they were in retreat.
Why were they in retreat? Perhaps because an old man with a shotgun was preparing to fire.

Whether or not they were in retreat, they continue to pose a danger until the police arrive and apprehend them.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
A lot can happen while "the cops are on their way."

Why did these guys have their backs turned? You're presuming it was because they were in retreat.
Why were they in retreat? Perhaps because an old man with a shotgun was preparing to fire.

Whether or not they were in retreat, they continue to pose a danger until the police arrive and apprehend them.
The Police are reactive, not proactive. 99.99% of the time the Police act after the fact, rarely do they actually prevent a crime.

From last June
Subway Customer Fights Back - Videos - WTVJ
Police: Former Marine Shoots 2 Subway Robbery Suspects - Miami News Story - WPLG Miami
Customer Kills 1, Wounds Another, Police Say
POSTED: 6:52 am EDT June 28, 2007
UPDATED: 4:41 pm EDT June 28, 2007
PLANTATION, Fla. -- A retired United States Marine disrupted a robbery in progress when he shot two men who attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop, fatally wounding one of them, police said.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.

Lovell, 71, was the lone customer at the time. Police said he had a concealed weapons permit.

A witness who was about to enter the Subway at the time said he thought the shootings were justified.

"I think justice, you know, was served and a civilian was a hero for today," Sebastian Shakespeare said.

Police said Lovell, a retired Marine, wouldn't be charged.
I hope someone told her if her grandson wasn't committing an armed robbery he would not have been shot.
Former Marine's Actions Called Into Question - Miami News Story - WPLG Miami
Family Of Subway Robbery Suspect Says Customer Shouldn't Have Pulled Trigger

POSTED: 10:30 am EDT June 29, 2007

PLANTATION, Fla. -- The family of one of the men who was shot by a retired United States Marine while they attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop said the customer shouldn't have pulled the trigger.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.



Lovell, 71, was the lone customer at the time. Police said he had a concealed weapons permit.

Gadson's grandparents told Local 10 on Thursday that Lovell was wrong for pulling the trigger.

"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.

Her husband, Ivory Jones, also condemned the media for its portrayal of Lovell's actions.

"I don't condone what they did, (but) I definitely don't condone the news people making him out to seem like they're making a hero out of this man because he shot somebody down," he said.

But Lovell's neighbor said he made the right decision.

"He did the right thing," said Wendi Hill. "I mean, I was glad that it was them that got shot and not him."

Police said Lovell, a retired Marine, wouldn't be charged.
BTW, Retired Marine is the correct term. I work with several people who served in the Marines and they will tell you, there is no such thing as a "former" Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine.
( Last edited by Chongo; Jul 2, 2008 at 12:00 PM. )
45/47
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 12:40 PM
 
Wow, so I guess we have entered the precognitive justice era.

"I shot that guy running away from me, in the back!"

"Uh, that's not self defense, that's murder, dude."

"But WHAT IF he was on his way to rape your mother!"

"So then I'd be all for my mother killing the guy, but not you while he was running away from you."

"But WHAT IF anything else happened while he was running away from me? Ahah! Didn't think of that, did you?"

"You're right- I DID fail to run all the possible WHAT IF and anything COULD possibly maybe have happened scenarios through my mind! Not guilty! You're free to go! Good work!"



Well, like I said, despite the fact that I feel no sympathy whatsoever for a couple of predators that were destined to get themselves killed anyway, I still think that particular shooting was wrong, and we should have just a teeny bit higher standard for justifiable homicide.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 01:15 PM
 
If I read that story correctly, they were in his yard.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly valid to shoot an intruder in the back if they're on your property. One thing with criminals - if you scare them off some of them come back later with their friends, just to "do" you. You bring 'em down and you bring 'em down good, right there. The consequences of not doing so could be lethal.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
If I read that story correctly, they were in his yard.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly valid to shoot an intruder in the back if they're on your property. One thing with criminals - if you scare them off some of them come back later with their friends, just to "do" you. You bring 'em down and you bring 'em down good, right there. The consequences of not doing so could be lethal.
They turned around b/c he came out with a shotgun. Prior to that they had been advancing on him. Also, they knew he was a witness to their activities -- who would assume that they WOULDN'T come back at some point to "tie up loose ends"?

Again, the only controversy down here was because it was a white guy who shot two non-white folks who turned out to be illegals. If Horn had been a black guy shooting two white guys this wouldn't have even made the paper. No Quannell X, no marches, etc.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
They turned around b/c he came out with a shotgun. Prior to that they had been advancing on him. Also, they knew he was a witness to their activities -- who would assume that they WOULDN'T come back at some point to "tie up loose ends"?
People tend to run away from guns and not towards them. He chased them away, the cops were on their way and their deaths were unnecessary.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
If I read that story correctly, they were in his yard.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly valid to shoot an intruder in the back if they're on your property. One thing with criminals - if you scare them off some of them come back later with their friends, just to "do" you. You bring 'em down and you bring 'em down good, right there. The consequences of not doing so could be lethal.
If you listen to the 911 call the guy made, he was in his house when he saw the two men next door breaking in his neighbors house- the two intruders probably had no idea he was even home. He states his motive (fed up) and intention to go shoot the guys (premeditated). He then goes out to confront the guys, interjecting himself into the situation, and kills the guys.

The self-defense argument just doesn't hold water once you've openly stated your intention to go inject yourself into a situation that's not directly threatening you, and stated your intentions to use deadly force. Any self-defense argument after that point stinks as purely manufactured.

And sorry, the "just kill every crook, even if they aren't on your property to begin with or else they MIGHT come back and get you" is once again, a bit too what-if for my tastes. I guess I'm just old fashioned in that I don't think we should actually have citizens carrying out precognitive death sentences for crimes that don't even warrant the death penalty in the first place.

And for the record, I could give two squats about what race any of the parties were. That the victims were illegal aliens encouraged to be here because they've been fed a line of crap that America is a free for all where we don't enforce any of our laws does play a role in lessening my sympathy even farther though.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 05:38 PM
 
Crash, your post above doesn't hold water because of one simple fact: they were on his, not his neighbour's, property when he popped them.

As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason - regardless of race, nationality, immigrant status, gender, sexual preference, colour of hair, etc..

If a man can't defend his own property in any way he sees fit, then you have a country which is heading for trouble.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
Crash, your post above doesn't hold water because of one simple fact: they were on his, not his neighbour's, property when he popped them.

As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason - regardless of race, nationality, immigrant status, gender, sexual preference, colour of hair, etc..

If a man can't defend his own property in any way he sees fit, then you have a country which is heading for trouble.
Unfortunately, it's your post that doesn't hold water. If he hadn't gone outside to play Johnny Law, as he was instructed not to, they wouldn't have known he was there and wouldn't have come after him. He made a decision, contrary to police instructions, to take matters into his own hands, and thus make himself a target of the thieves. He also shot them in the back, so it seems obvious to me that they were in retreat. He's a cold blooded killer. It's quite obvious that there was some sympathy for him from the grand jury, and that the law wasn't the only factor in his not being charged.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 07:35 PM
 
contrary to 911 dispatch, not police dispatch. There is a difference.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
contrary to 911 dispatch, not police dispatch. There is a difference.
Yes, there's a difference, but it doesn't change the fact that he decided he was going to be judge, jury, and executioner, and took the law into his own hands. I guess if you don't mind someone shooting you in the back because they've decided that you don't deserve to live, then the ruling would make sense to you. I prefer to live in a somewhat more civilized society, where there are more clearly defined boundaries. I'd like to believe that we don't live in the Wild West anymore.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Jul 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM. )
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 10:10 PM
 
There are clearly defined boundaries, Karl. Someone on your property who shouldn't be on your property? Then it's acceptable to shoot them (whether it's in the face, back, leg, arm whatever). Period.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
There are clearly defined boundaries, Karl. Someone on your property who shouldn't be on your property? Then it's acceptable to shoot them (whether it's in the face, back, leg, arm whatever). Period.
Except that it's not. "Someone on your property who shouldn't be on your property," as you put it, is never going to be a legal defense for shooting someone. In all cases, there has to be at the least a belief that the person was intending harm. Usually there's a much higher standard that that. Try shooting and killing a kid who throws a frisbee into your yard and goes to get it, and see how that works out for you, in the UK or US.

And not only is it legally wrong, it's unquestionably morally wrong. Or let me put it this way: Try killing that kid on your lawn and see how that sits with your god.

But I will say this: Whoever thought of spelling out the word "period" at the end of a sentence, as if it gave it greater weight, should be shot.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2008, 10:35 PM
 
Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted similar statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 01:15 AM
 
I wouldn't shoot them in the back at close range, but if I had shotgun in hand I sure would pepper them at 50 yds. It wouldn't kill them, but they'd be digging shot out of their asses for a month.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 02:08 AM
 
Unless you are very, very good, you are always shooting to kill. You never know just where your shot will hit, especially if it's a shotgun. A piece of something might sever a major artery and kill them anyway, even if you fired a shotgun from long range. Also, I doubt there are many home defense situations where you're shooting at long range. You're unlikely to be in enough danger to warrant shooting someone if they're 50 yards away (unless they're shooting at you), and you are at a much greater risk of accidentally hitting someone else.

Police are trained to shoot accurately enough to disable or injure someone without necessarily killing them. But if you're ever shooting someone, you must assume you will kill them. There is no guarantee that a shot in the leg will not kill someone. Conversely, there's no guarantee that shooting someone in the chest will kill them. People have even survived gunshot wounds to the head.

If you're shooting at a person, it had better be because you consider them a danger to yourself. Your immediate concern is not whether they live or die, but whether you're able to prevent them from hurting you or someone else. In short, shoot first and ask questions later.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 10:29 AM
 
Yes, I am that good (with a pistol and rifle). Sure, a shotgun is a different beast entirely, however, given that I keep #8-9 shot in it*, 50 yds is plenty of range for it to be non-lethal. Though, it will break the skin and sting quite a bit.



*and this particular gun's modified choke.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, I am that good (with a pistol and rifle).

"One... Two... Three... Four... Five... Six... Seven...

Heh. Oswald was a fag."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 09:41 PM
 
who here owns a gun and what?

no guns for me
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
There are clearly defined boundaries, Karl. Someone on your property who shouldn't be on your property? Then it's acceptable to shoot them (whether it's in the face, back, leg, arm whatever). Period.
So, if my neighbor walks on my lawn, I can shoot him? I don't think so. You obviously don't understand the Castle Doctrine; you can't just shoot someone because they're on your property. You have to have clear and convincing evidence that your life was in danger. You miss the point of the entire discussion to begin with. Once again, He was told not to interfere, and he had no business doing so. His property and life were in no danger whatsoever. He made a conscious choice to play John Wayne, when law enforcement authorities had already been notified. Slowly now; He did the right thing by notifying authorities. Other than that he had no business interfering in the situation.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2008, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
So, if my neighbor walks on my lawn, I can shoot him? I don't think so. You obviously don't understand the Castle Doctrine; you can't just shoot someone because they're on your property. You have to have clear and convincing evidence that your life was in danger. You miss the point of the entire discussion to begin with. Once again, He was told not to interfere, and he had no business doing so. His property and life were in no danger whatsoever. He made a conscious choice to play John Wayne, when law enforcement authorities had already been notified. Slowly now; He did the right thing by notifying authorities. Other than that he had no business interfering in the situation.
I'm actually glad we live in a country where it is possible to defend against illegal behavior and trespass.

Re-read your wiki link.

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378I.htm is the law to which the Wiki page links. Wiki says 'no duty to retreat.'

The man told the dispatch that he believed deadly force was necessary. The intruders had committed a felony, and were now on his property. Did he draw them to his property by doing something other than locking his doors and staying inside his home with the lights off and curtains drawn? It doesn't matter.

I want neighbors who will confront criminals committing crimes in my neighborhood. I want to be that neighbor to my neighbors. This is how you make a neighborhood a nice place to live. If we all act as cowards, let criminals do what they will, then we're going to have a crime problem that grows, not lessens. When felons know they'll be confronted, possibly by deadly force, they have to re-evaluate how badly they want to commit crimes. Yes, I absolutely want to live in a community that defends itself.

I do not own a firearm. My neighbor does. You're right if you presume that I'm relying on him. He's advised me that it's my right in NC to own a firearm and I need not inform any state or local government about it.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2008, 02:56 AM
 
And you can bet that people in that guy's neighborhood are going to think twice before they try to rob someone again. That's part of the whole idea behind private gun ownership and laws that allow the use of force against intruders. It's not only to stop crimes in progress, it's also to prevent them before they happen by making it not worth the risk to criminals.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,