Gun laws in britain don't make it safer.

[jillio]

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.

First of all, are you certain that this is what occurred, or are you just going on what someone else has told you occurred. Best to get all of the facts.

The case, in the U.S. would be decided on the individual substantiated facts of the case.

 

[jillio]

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.

Yes, Jiro, it is up to you to decide whether to shoot or not. That is the whole point. If you accept that responsibility, you also accept the responsibility for the consequences of your decision...which may very well be jail.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, Jiro, it is up to you to decide whether to shoot or not. That is the whole point. If you accept that responsibility, you also accept the responsibility for the consequences of your decision...which may very well be jail.

Yes that will be the case if the evidence points to execution-like kill. Like I said - a vigilante and I strictly, vehemently do not support "trigger-happy" or "execution-like" or "John Wayne" type of action when defending yourself. Remember people - Personal Responsibility! Be responsible and be trained!

 

[Babyblue]

Not in the state Florida.

You can shoot them.

We have laws to protect us here.

 

[jillio]

Yes that will be the case if the evidence points to execution-like kill. Like I said - a vigilante and I strictly, vehemently do not support "trigger-happy" or "execution-like" or "John Wayne" type of action when defending yourself.

But that's the point. According to the precedents, it doesn't have to be an "execution like kill." Just evidence of excessive force.

 

[Jiro]

But that's the point. According to the precedents, it doesn't have to be an "execution like kill." Just evidence of excessive force.

There are many scenarios that can happen. You stated a case that the thug was killed stealing a property... and I assume he did not pose a threat to homeowner's life in any way.

But for the sake of argument - I think we all are talking about intruders posing a threat to our well-being in our own homes but I believe most of us would not really shoot at somebody running away with our laptops.

 

[Babyblue]

But that's the point. According to the precedents, it doesn't have to be an "execution like kill." Just evidence of excessive force.

The intruder done went pass the excessive force when they broke into your home.

And how can a person retreat with their children? In separate rooms.
I rather to live with knowing I shot someone, possibly killing them than knowing they harmed my children.

 

[Jiro]

The intruder done went pass the excessive force when they broke into your home.

And how can a person retreat with their children? In separate rooms.
I rather to live with knowing I shot someone, possibly killing them than knowing they harmed my children.

You are perfectly within legal rights to do so. What Jillio speaks of is entirely different scenario where nobody's life was endangered.

 

[jillio]

You are perfectly within legal rights to do so. What Jillio speaks of is entirely different scenario where nobody's life was endangered.

Jiro, the point that I am trying to get across to you is that you are telling people they are within their rights to do so when the reality is that the law and a court may very well decide something entirely different. You cannot tell people that. The only thing you can tell them with any accurracy at all is that if they decide to shoot, they also, in that instance decide to accept the consequences of that shooting, and that those consequences may very well be negative and out of proportion to the benefit.

 

[Babyblue]

You are perfectly within legal rights to do so. What Jillio speaks of is entirely different scenario where nobody's life was endangered.

Okie dokie.

Home invasion?

or just someone taking off with the kid's bike?

I'm sure they're some situation where shooting is not needed.

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, the point that I am trying to get across to you is that you are telling people they are within their rights to do so when the reality is that the law and a court may very well decide something entirely different. You cannot tell people that. The only thing you can tell them with any accurracy at all is that if they decide to shoot, they also, in that instance decide to accept the consequences of that shooting, and that those consequences may very well be negative and out of proportion to the benefit.

We have common sense. We wouldn't shoot at someone stealing a thing who pose no threat to us. These laws such as STAND YOUR GROUND and CASTLE DOCTRINE support my statements. I have not said anything misleading. You speak as if we cannot defend ourselves because we will be held liable for it. DUTY TO RETREAT would support your statement in other scenario. Most of us know this topic is about our life being in danger and we're perfectly within in our legal rights to take whatever the means it takes.... but unfortunately I can't say the same with confidence in other states like NJ.

 

[Jiro]

Home invasion?

Yes where your life is in danger. That was my main argument.

or just someone taking off with the kid's bike?

that was jillio's argument. I know we have common sense not to shoot at someone over that... However in some states - you can.. which is why some people called it a draconian law because that law was originally designed to protect ranchers from whoever and problem is... this type of law is so broad that it even included bicycle... just about ANYTHING on your property. IMO - I do not support that.

That's why some vigilantes like Minutemen (just a few bad eggs) can legally shoot at illegals crossing on their property.

 

[dreama]

I wouldn't support anybody killing just for theft. No way.

But cases where someone had good reason to feel their life is endangered. I'd be ok about that. Like the case Reba gave yesterday about the woman who got raped then got a gun so next time she wouldn't have to put up with it again.

What about cases where nobody gets killed or even hurt but a gun is drawn (even a toy one) and the person gets done for that?

 

[Jiro]

I wouldn't support anybody killing just for theft. No way.

But cases where someone had good reason to feel their life is endangered. I'd be ok about that. Like the case Reba gave yesterday about the woman who got raped then got a gun so next time she wouldn't have to put up with it again.

What about cases where nobody gets killed or even hurt but a gun is drawn (even a toy one) and the person gets done for that?

In America - the law has already been updated that if using a toy gun as a real weapon.. you will be charged the same as the real gun. For example - the law was updated after the bank robbers used toy guns. Technically it's not a real gun so the robbers cannot be charged as ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (Deadly Weapon). They think they got so clever with that so that they can be charged with lesser criminal charge.

So yes you're fine. If they used ANYTHING - even fake knife or fake gun... it's still a weapon because it's what they want you to think. Their intention was to make you think they're using real weapon and they will be charged same for criminals with real weapons (assuming they lived after you shot them) because it was their intention to commit the crime with deadly weapon.

 

[dreama]

? In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

I was thinking of this case.

 

[Jiro]

I was thinking of this case.

oh well. gun's illegal in UK so... it's tough call.

 

[dreama]

oh well. gun's illegal in UK so... it's tough call.

I know that. I wouldn't be able to have a gun anyway even in the USA.

I am just curious as to how gun laws worked in USA. In what sinario they would be accepted?

For example if someone was out alone and someone came and harrrassed them. If they fired a gun at the ground (not to kill just to scare them off) would they be prosecuted?

 

[sara1981]

that not makes me really surprise in London,England.My boyfriend also lives in London,England he know about laws of guns and knives but i dont think he carry guns and knives of his own!

The police officers can carry guns very careful of rightful in London,England and im sure officers always careful carry guns when work and also off duty as officers must have approve badge in London,England its so important anywhere in USA and foreign officers.

My uncle can carry his guns at work but he dont carry guns during off duty officers he know laws he work for correction officers.

 

[Babyblue]

I know that. I wouldn't be able to have a gun anyway even in the USA.

I am just curious as to how gun laws worked in USA. In what sinario they would be accepted?

For example if someone was out alone and someone came and harrrassed them. If they fired a gun at the ground (not to kill just to scare them off) would they be prosecuted?

Yes possibly if the person was. Simply harassing them and then if the "person that was harassing" reported it. the victim could be charged with discharging a firearm.

But that depends on how you define harassment.

 

[Jiro]

I know that. I wouldn't be able to have a gun anyway even in the USA.

I am just curious as to how gun laws worked in USA. In what sinario they would be accepted?

Very difficult to say. This is 50 states with their own laws. It depends on where you live.

For example if someone was out alone and someone came and harrrassed them. If they fired a gun at the ground (not to kill just to scare them off) would they be prosecuted?

Same as above.