Gun laws in britain don't make it safer.

[jillio]

Well, that what happened with the social class in England. National Rifle Association - NRA Website Gateway showed that crimes in Australia went down when people can own guns. Sonn DC will allow people to own guns. too many crimes there.

The study by the NRA is self serving and distorted. Valid sociological research and criminology research shows the opposite. Crime does not go down with the increased ownership of guns or lowered restrictions on guns. In fact, it creates the circumstances that cause crime to go up, and to increase the chance that any crime committed will become a violent crime in nature. Both increased ownership and lowered restrictions bring us one step closer to anomie.

 

[Babyblue]

I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my home. I will shoot the intruder and ask questions later. After I call law enforcement of course.

 

[dreama]

I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my home. I will shoot the intruder and ask questions later. After I call law enforcement of course.

It must be nice to be able to do that without ending up in gail.

 

[Bottesini]

It must be nice to be able to do that without ending up in gail.

You end up in jail here too. You have to prove you had good cause and feared for your life.

 

[Babyblue]

You end up in jail here too. You have to prove you had good cause and feared for your life.

An intruder coming into an occupied home isn't there for a cup of tea.

So of course I would be in fear of my life.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

"I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

 

[jillio]

It must be nice to be able to do that without ending up in gail.

Well, if you have shot an unarmed intruder, then you may very well end up in jail. Its an matter of whether or not you are willing to risk it.

 

[Bottesini]

An intruder coming into an occupied home isn't there for a cup of tea.

So of course I would be in fear of my life.

Not to me. You have to prove it in your community to a jury of your peers, with all your closet skeletons aired.

 

[jillio]

Not to me. You have to prove it in your community to a jury of your peers, with all your closet skeletons aired.

Exactly. And proving that the intruder was there as a direct threat to your life as their intent is more difficult than you might think. Especially if said intruder was unarmed. That's why they make emergency service lines available. Call 911.

You would also have to show that you had no exit available from the situation, so don't plan on living in a house that has both a front door and a back door available to you.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, it is murder, or manslaughter depending on the circimstances. But that is exactly what your proposal amounts to when you demand the right to defend yourself in whatever way you choose is appropriate.

And if they are not armed, you do not. Belief that they ay be armed is not enough. But that is exactly what you are proposing. That just because you think someone might be armed, you have the right to shoot them.

Well, if you have shot an unarmed intruder, then you may very well end up in jail. Its an matter of whether or not you are willing to risk it.

Please educate yourself on "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" Doctrine. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted it. Pending states are Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming. However - your statements will apply for state like New Jersey. It's outrageous. Even if it's justifiable, I will still be treated like a murderer by cops and I have to hire a lawyer to defend myself which is why I have a number programmed in my cell phone for law firm specializing in this kind of case.

Obviously this raises a serious concern as this may be viewed as "trigger-happy" incident. Some states have not adopted "Stand Your Ground" fully but added "Duty to Retreat" statute... meaning you can be investigated and determined if it's justifiable. Without this statute - you're given an automatic legal blanket - a justifiable homicide.

As for your state which is Ohio... they adopted "Castle Doctrine" (no Duty to Retreat if at home). You have EVERY rights to shoot at unarmed or armed intruder on your property. If you prefer to ask question, shoot later.. go ahead. Some states extend it to cars. this is their law - (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9th, 2008. Section 2901.09)

And that contributes to the problem. If you put as much effort into effective solutions as you do into the solutions that have been shown to contribute to the problem we could actually reduce crime in this country.

The study by the NRA is self serving and distorted. Valid sociological research and criminology research shows the opposite. Crime does not go down with the increased ownership of guns or lowered restrictions on guns. In fact, it creates the circumstances that cause crime to go up, and to increase the chance that any crime committed will become a violent crime in nature. Both increased ownership and lowered restrictions bring us one step closer to anomie.

Not my problem. That's why I vote. They do it for me to fix this so-called sociological phenomena. Meanwhile - the solution is not an overnight fix and my life is still at risk.

 

[jillio]

Please educate yourself on "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" Doctrine. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted it. Pending states are Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming. However - your statements will apply for state like New Jersey. It's outrageous. Even if it's justifiable, I will still be treated like a murderer by cops and I have to hire a lawyer to defend myself which is why I have a number programmed in my cell phone for law firm specializing in this kind of case.

Obviously this raises a serious concern as this may be viewed as "trigger-happy" incident. Some states have not adopted "Stand Your Ground" fully but added "Duty to Retreat" statute... meaning you can be investigated and determined if it's justifiable. Without this statute - you're given an automatic legal blanket - a justifiable homicide.

As for your state which is Ohio... they adopted "Castle Doctrine" (no Duty to Retreat if at home). You have EVERY rights to shoot at unarmed or armed intruder on your property. If you prefer to ask question, shoot later.. go ahead. Some states extend it to cars. this is their law - (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9th, 2008. Section 2901.09)





Not my problem. That's why I vote. They do it for me to fix this so-called sociological phenomena. Meanwhile - the solution is not an overnight fix and my life is still at risk.

"not my problem" is the biggest contributor to the social empathy that creates the environment that increases crime.:roll:

And I suggest you check a few cases that have been prosecuted and ended in conviction for the shooter under the laws you cite.

 

[Jiro]

"not my problem" is the biggest contributor to the social empathy that creates the environment that increases crime.:roll:

Lady... please. :roll: Like I said - I vote. What do you want me to do? Worry about everybody's problem? poverty? child abuse? road rage? unemployment? I voted and paid my tax. I've done my citizen duty. Now it's that person's job to fix it. meanwhile - it's my citizen's rights to protect myself on my property. You should not die from your own home. Why do you care about thugs more than yourself? It's shocking.

And I suggest you check a few cases that have been prosecuted and ended in conviction for the shooter under the laws you cite.

a "few"? Sorry shit happens. In most cases - it's justifiable.

 

[jillio]

Lady... please. :roll: Like I said - I vote. What do you want me to do? Worry about everybody's problem? poverty? child abuse? I vote and I paid my tax. I've done my citizen duty. Now it's that person's job to fix it. meanwhile - it's my citizen's rights to protect myself on my property. You should not die from your own home. Why do you care about thugs more than yourself? It's shocking.

Please refrain from making false interpretations of what I say. It destroys your credibility. While it may be your right to protect yourself, it is not your right to kill an unarmed intruder. Protecting yourself falls under various different categories. If you haven't employed the least fatal way of protecting yourself, your decision to shoot will not hold up in court. There are numerous legal precedents to show that this is the case.

Nice you see that you abdicate responsibility for the world in which you live so easily. No wonder this country is in the situation it is. "Ain't my job, man!


a "few"? Sorry shit happens. In most cases - it's justifiable.

Your definition of justifiable is different than the one the law uses, obviously. Unfortunately, when one is on trial for manslaughter, it is the law that has the influence. I doubt seriously that they call and ask for your assessment prior to making the charges.

 

[Jiro]

Your definition of justifiable is different than the one the law uses, obviously. Unfortunately, when one is on trial for manslaughter, it is the law that has the influence. I doubt seriously that they call and ask for your assessment prior to making the charges.

again - please educate yourself on Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Doctrine. You speak of Duty To Retreat. Not all states adopted that.

 

[jillio]

again - please educate yourself on Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Doctrine. You speak of Duty To Retreat. Not all states adopted that.

And Duty to retreat supercedes the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Doctrine. Obviously, I am not the one that needs to educate themselves.

 

[Jiro]

And Duty to retreat supercedes the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Doctrine. Obviously, I am not the one that needs to educate themselves.

Yes that is correct. But as for states without Duty To Retreat... you're within your rights. Please link me a couple of cases that have found homeowners guilty of manslaughter/murder even under those laws because what I've found are the cases where the homeowner chased and shot the intruder outside his property. I do not support such action. To me - that homeowner is nothing but a vigilante. But I support it when it's within your property. Beyond that... you're fucked and you deserve to be in jail. That's my stance.

 

[jillio]

Yes that is correct. But as for states without Duty To Retreat... you're within your rights. Please link me a couple of cases that have found homeowners guilty of manslaughter/murder even under those laws because what I've found are the cases where the homeowner chased and shot the intruder outside his property. I do not support such action. To me - that homeowner is nothing but a vigilante. But I support it when it's within your property. Beyond that... you're fucked and you deserve to be in jail. That's my stance.

Duty to Retreat does not have to be written into the books for the concept to apply.

There was a case in the town in which I live just recently. The man doing the shooting has been convicted of manslaughter. It was found that firing a gun at someone stealing property and killing them was excessive force.

 

[dreama]

You end up in jail here too. You have to prove you had good cause and feared for your life.

Well take the case where youths were throwing bricks through this old ladies window. She fires off a gun at the ground to scare them off and they call the police. She ends up with 6 months in jail. What would happen in USA?

Also the case described in the article where the old man who was burgled shoots and ends up in jail. What would happen in USA?

I'm just curious.

 

[Jiro]

Duty to Retreat does not have to be written into the books for the concept to apply.

There was a case in the town in which I live just recently. The man doing the shooting has been convicted of manslaughter. It was found that firing a gun at someone stealing property and killing them was excessive force.

What a goddamn vigilante (the shooter). I do not support that either. Sounds like the thug was attempting to run away with the property and the vigilante shot him. I do not support that and that doesn't really fall under those laws I've mentioned. I would never do that. But you digress... we're not really talking about that "excessive force."

The BIG picture is that you are WITHIN your rights to defend your property from intruder and it's up to YOU to shoot or not. In MANY cases - the killings are justifiable as most occurred inside homes. But if it occurs outside your home but on your property... it's very tricky and yes it is possible that you may be jailed for manslaughter. You are GUARANTEED to be imprisoned in states with DUTY TO RETREAT.

 

[Jiro]

Well take the case where youths were throwing bricks through this old ladies window. She fires off a gun at the ground to scare them off and they call the police. She ends up with 6 months in jail. What would happen in USA?

Also the case described in the article where the old man shoots and ends up in jail. What would happen in USA?

I'm just curious.

interesting.... I don't know. It really depends on where you live and it largely depends on District Attorney. It's 50-50. I need to know more about that incident.

There was a case where Houston man killed 2 robbers at his neighbor's home. He was praised as a hero but I have a very mixed feeling in this. He dialed 911 and told them that robbery was in progress. He told the dispatcher that he has a shotgun and asked if he should stop this. The dispatcher said ABSOLUTELY NOT and wait for police to arrive. But he ignored dispatcher and said - "fuck this.. i'm not going to let them get away with it" and killed them. I do not support this and as a District Attorney - I would prosecute him for manslaughter for taking the matter in his own hands when his life wasn't in danger.