Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on March 18, 2008, 01:31:31 PM
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns.intl/#cnnSTCVideo
This pretty much lays out the argument. Both women are talking about their own views and both have valid points. Thats where law and a constitutional amendmant comes into the picture.
My own belief is that people have the right to defend themselves with lethal force.
<edit> I was mildly suprised that CNN aired the pro gun argument.
-
agreed :aok
-
I agree as well.
For those that don't like guns, don't buy one.
Me, well I think I'll keep mine around. If the day ever comes that guns are outlawed completely, then I'll be an outlaw.
-
gun control is using both hands.
-
No..Gun control is hitting a crack head that just stole your tv in the head at 100 yards.
-
CNN must see the Heller writing on the wall and wants to get out in front of the curve. The pro gun control person selected was an airhead who sounded high and spoke in unsubstantiated, general "feelings." The pro second amendment person was articulate and provided multiple well reasoned points. Usually it is the other way around :)
Charon
-
No..Gun control is hitting a crack head that just stole your tv in the head at 100 yards.
Actually that's not gun control, that's murder. I hope you are joking because if you're not, you are the type of nutjob that gives anti-gun nutjobs fodder for their arguments.
-
Actually that's not gun control, that's murder. I hope you are joking because if you're not, you are the type of nutjob that gives anti-gun nutjobs fodder for their arguments.
Uh oh, Steve and I agree on something. Is the asteroid on the way to Earth to destroy life? :O
-
Are you serious?
It's not murder to keep your property from being stolen.
-
Are you serious?
It's not murder to keep your property from being stolen.
Actually, it may be murder, especially if you planned it in advance. Laws regarding the use of lethal force by civilians typically reserve that right to instances where a person's life is in danger. Merely defending objects does not generally permit the use of lethal force. To distinguish the difference between property that are belongings, and property that is your house and land, many states have a make my day law that allows a person to use lethal force against an intruder in their house (or occasionally even merely standing on their land) if there is even a hint of possibility that the land/home owner's life or the life of someone legitimately on that land or in the house is in jeopardy. But those laws are specific in intent, and do not justify shooting someone who is simply carting off your belongings.
Some law enforcement officers are permitted to shoot fleeing felons (they used to be obligated to shoot fleeing felons, but that requirement has not been enforced for some time to my knowlege) even if the fleeing felon is doing nothing but, well, fleeing. But even cops fully authorized to shoot people now hesitate to shoot anyone who is not a direct and immediate threat to someone. It's just not worth the hassle.
-
Eagle,
Unless you can show an imminent danger to the Officer or another person an Officer cannot just shoot a fleeing felon. Lately, even in cases of a definite danger such as a person trying to run down an Officer you can get in deep trouble by shooting at the driver.
-
Eagle,
Unless you can show an imminent danger to the Officer or another person an Officer cannot just shoot a fleeing felon. Lately, even in cases of a definite danger such as a person trying to run down an Officer you can get in deep trouble by shooting at the driver.
I think that is "now". "Then", some officers (not sure which agencies) were required to shoot any felon who tried to get away. Of course, that was back before you could become a felon for jaywalking three times (re: calif 3-strikes law).
-
Actually, it may be murder, especially if you planned it in advance. Laws regarding the use of lethal force by civilians typically reserve that right to instances where a person's life is in danger. Merely defending objects does not generally permit the use of lethal force. To distinguish the difference between property that are belongings, and property that is your house and land, many states have a make my day law that allows a person to use lethal force against an intruder in their house (or occasionally even merely standing on their land) if there is even a hint of possibility that the land/home owner's life or the life of someone legitimately on that land or in the house is in jeopardy. But those laws are specific in intent, and do not justify shooting someone who is simply carting off your belongings.
Some law enforcement officers are permitted to shoot fleeing felons (they used to be obligated to shoot fleeing felons, but that requirement has not been enforced for some time to my knowlege) even if the fleeing felon is doing nothing but, well, fleeing. But even cops fully authorized to shoot people now hesitate to shoot anyone who is not a direct and immediate threat to someone. It's just not worth the hassle.
And there are times when I think america is lost.
We're about due for a revolution.
-
And there are times when I think america is lost.
We're about due for a revolution.
Well, even back in the wild-west days, there were only a few laws on the books authorizing people to kill thieves. Horse and cattle theft were notable in that laws were passed explicitly making these crimes punishable by death. But stealing a spare wagon wheel or a hammer from the toolshed... I don't know if that would be a legit shooting even 200 years ago.
-
Yeah and one could also own slaves and marry a 12y old girl. Oh those were the days!
-
In Texas you can shoot someone that is stealing your property and unarmed.
Strip(er)
-
_____________________________ __________________
The recent case of Joe Horn in Texas last November comes to mind. Mr. Horn saw two illegal immigrants burglarizing his neighbor's home one night. He called police right away, but they failed to show up in time. Rather than let the burglars get away, Mr Horn confronted them, and killed them both with 3 shotgun blasts. Both fleeing men were shot in the back.
Here is a post about this story that cites Texas law:
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/03/joe-horn-and-justification/
Here is the original ABC News story about it, including a tape of his call to 911 ( where you can hear him shooting the men ):
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3880630
Here is a link to a news story when it was discovered that both criminals were illegal aliens from Mexico:
http://vigilantejoe.blogspot.com/
And here is a recent local news story from last week about the current investigation:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6013534
The District Attorney has put a lot of effort into investigating this shooting, and plans to bring it to a grand jury within a few weeks. Mr. Horn has been forced to hire an attorney at great expense, and now faces the risk of criminal prosecution.
Legal experts say that this is a "dream case" for a defense attorney, and that it would be impossible to get a conviction against Mr. Horn. But if the case does go to trial, his legal costs will probably bankrupt Mr. Horn, who is 61 and retired.
So tell me, is it really worth it to shoot someone in such a scenario? Both Mexicans were unarmed and fleeing.
_____________________________ _________________
-
<edit> I was mildly suprised that CNN aired the pro gun argument.
Didnt see the clip you posted but I for one was surprised when one of the CNN newsmen said.
"Like the gun advocates like to say You will take away my right to own a gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."
I had to doublecheck to make sure It really was CNN I was hearing this on LOL
-
"gun control is using both hands."
LOL! :aok
-
_______________________________________________
The recent case of Joe Horn in Texas last November comes to mind. Mr. Horn saw two illegal immigrants burglarizing his neighbor's home one night. He called police right away, but they failed to show up in time. Rather than let the burglars get away, Mr Horn confronted them, and killed them both with 3 shotgun blasts. Both fleeing men were shot in the back.
Under Texas law I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction.
-
Under Texas law I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction.
If it were at night I'd agree. Texas law does not allow for what this guy did. Still, I think every thief should steal at risk to his/her life.
-
If it were at night I'd agree. Texas law does not allow for what this guy did. Still, I think every thief should steal at risk to his/her life.
I disagree
From Sig's first link
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
And not to mention the fact that of the three EYE witness to the event 2 are dead. All he needs is one jurror to have reasonable doubt.
EDIT: From his last link, legal experts aren't even sure if they can get an indictment let alone a conviction.
The state's castle doctrine gives homeowners the right to protect themselves and their property using deadly force. That includes a business, car, or home. The law was changed in September of last year. Homeowners no longer have to try and get away
-
I never looked for myself so that law has either been revised or the training I got several years ago for my CC license misled us. They specifically told us the law allows you to protect your belongings but that you can't shoot someone who is running down the street with them. Perhaps that was their interpretation.
-
I think there is a general movement towards the Castle Doctrine.
Briefly, from Wiki,
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 -- i.e. 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 a felony
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit 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
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.
It doesn't cover shooting someone running away from you in any state as far as I know.
I think about 15+ states have some sort of Castle doctrine or no retreat law.
-
If the person has broken into your house, and have stolen something, then there are two of those conditions you met in order to fire upon them.
-
IN the case of somebody running away from you which is the scenario you talked about you lack this particular condition.
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
It's at the top of the list.
-
The criminal has made an attempt to get into the home (albeit successfully), has committed burglary and is committing a felony.
Castle Doctrine permits me to blow his head off.
-
Again there were 3 witnesses to this act.....2 of them are dead. I'm not saying I agree with what this guy did but I agree with some of the news writers that the DA will have a hard time getting an indictment....let alone a conviction. They have been investigating this for 4 months now and nothing.....
-
There are a few things I reckon that I value enough to shoot someone for ~ a tv ain't one of them.
p.s. thanks for posting the video. I am pleasantly surprised that CNN showed the pro gun arguement as well.
-
Laser, have you taken a CCW course?
I'm thinking you haven't.
The first thing they drill into everyone here is that you can only use deadly force if you reasonably believes that the use of the deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person.
Our statute is
Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
It varies slightly from state to state but most states have this provision. Some states allow deadly force to stop a forcible felony but not all. Best to know your state's law before you pull the trigger.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing a jury that a guy running away with your TV set posed such a threat in a non-forcible felony state.
Personally, I'm not going to kill anyone over a stolen TV set even if my state law allowed it. YMMV.
-
not to mention it is extremely poor form to shoot someone in the back :confused:
-
What if they are running down the street with your heart medicine they just stolen, and you would die without it?
NUTTZ
-
If it was prescribed by a doctor, just get a new prescription. Then you won't die.
-
I would go for a leg shot I guess.......heart meds can be the difference tween life and death :rock
-
Agree with Toad. I've taught a number of CCW classes, and in addition to what he mentioned, you legally and morally are obligated to retreat if you are able, so long as it won't jeopardize you or another innocent parties safety.
Yeag is right too, shooting somebody in the back in a non-battlefield situation is poor poor form. Also, is somebody is stupid enough to give you their back, you should IMMEDIATELY be following the Time - distance - cover rules of a gunfight and be moving to better/some cover, as well as doing a tactical or emergency reload of your weapon if required.
I hope this guy gets off, I'm no fan of B and E, but IMHO technically he is guilty of the very least of using extremely poor judgment.
The flip side of the argument I guess is that in the dark he can argue that it's very hard to tell if his opponents were armed (not sure if they were, didn't read the articles), and back shooting them when given the opportunity could have been a "oh my god I was scared they were coming back, or getting friends, or more/bigger/some guns from their car etc". He still should have moved to cover first and re evaluated his situation. Then he wouldn't be in this mess.
-
Are you serious?
It's not murder to keep your property from being stolen.
Yes it is.
Life is more valuable than property, stuff, gadgets and any consumer product.
-
I have to agree with Laser here. Someone trys to take off with my stuff, I'm dropping them with 2 to the chest and 1 to the head.
I'll protect myself and my property with lethal force. Besides anyone who steals lost his value of life in my book. A crook is a crook is a crook. Take em out and be done with it.
-
shooting in the back is poor form unless... the guy is still a threat.. it would be really poor form to not shoot him in the back if he was just running for cover in order to reload.
It is always a judgment call..
lazs
-
Besides anyone who steals lost his value of life in my book. A crook is a crook is a crook. Take em out and be done with it.
Stealing a loaf of bread was a hanging offense in the England of the 1800's.
Would you kill a man for stealing a loaf of your bread?
-
Stealing a loaf of bread was a hanging offense in the England of the 1800's.
Would you kill a man for stealing a loaf of your bread?
If he breaks into my house, or truck to steal my loaf of bread, you bet I'll drill him. A THIEF is a THIEF. The dollar amount of whatever they are taking DOES NOT MATTER. If they are willing to break into my home or vehicle to take what does not belong to them, they shouldn't be surprised when I as the owner of said items decide to NOT let them take it, and if I have to shoot them to keep my property from being taken away from me then I will.
Will I shout a warning?? NOPE. Only warning they get is the click when the safety goes off, after that it's going to get real loud real quick.
If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it. Nothing you can say will change my mind about it. I will not be a victim. That's my choice and I stand by it.
-
So I guess if some 18 year old swipes a penny off your porch table, you'd drill him in the back as he ran away?
In some states, maybe yours, I suppose you'd be cleared for a legal shoot. Not in mine though.
If I did live in a state that allowed that, I still wouldn't shoot. YMMV, but I'm not pulling the trigger unless there's a life in danger. As you have your code, I have mine. In the end we all have to live with ourselves. I'd be pretty unhappy with myself if I killed a man over a loaf of bread.
-
Yes it is.
Life is more valuable than property, stuff, gadgets and any consumer product.
No, no it isn't. This guy doesn't respect you, your life, your hard work, or anything else you do.
So why should you respect the idea that he doesn't need another hole in his head?
-
I look at it like this Toad, if someone is willing to come onto my property, into my home, to take something that isn't theirs, then what else are they willing to do? I don't go walking into someones home or onto their property without being invited, so why should I let someone into my home or on my property uninvited? I shouldn't, and if someone does then I have a right to defend myself and my property. I'm not some nut job that is just waiting for the chance to shoot someone. That's the last thing I want to do, but I won't hesitate if the situation ever happens either.
I have caught people breaking into my truck and garage before. I didn't have to shoot on those occasions because as soon as those idiots saw me and my gun, they dropped what they had and ran away. At least the guy breaking into my truck did. The kids I caught in my garage had no where to go except through me and my 12gage. That wasn't going to happen and they and I knew it. My wife called the cops and I turned them over to the police when they arrived. I had my property, and no one got hurt. All is good in the world. Had they tried to run off with my property when I was standing right there, yes I would have shot them to prevent the theft of my property, and been justified in doing so.
But in both of those cases I never said a word to the punks. I racked the action on my shotgun and when they turned around they were looking down the barrel. No need to say anything at that point.
-
As I said, in your state I assume you would be on safe legal ground.
Not so in Kansas, where I live. Even if it were allowed here though, I wouldn't shoot someone over a TV set. It's just not in my personal code.
You're entitled to your own code and views, of course.
-
First off, I just want to say that everyone has brought up valid points. I do believe that human life is a very precious thing that should not be taken lightly. At the same time I believe that the only thing that keeps criminals at bay is deterance. If a criminal knows he can break into your house, steal your belongings, and the worst he will get is maybe a years worth of three hots and a cot, cable TV, state sponsored education, and the chance to learn the tricks of the trade from the baddest of the bad, then where is the deterance? On the other hand, if he knows theres a chance that by breaking into my house he may be confronted with lethal force, which house do you believe he will decide to visit?
-
Actually that's not gun control, that's murder. I hope you are joking because if you're not, you are the type of nutjob that gives anti-gun nutjobs fodder for their arguments.
not in texas!
new laws past not to long ago say that if you feel like you cannot recover your possessions by reasonable means, you may use deadly force to retain those possessions. in other words if a crack head steals my tv and can run faster than me , i have the right too slow him down a bit!
-
i believe life is very precious, and thats one thing we Americans have forgotten, GOD wants us to love one another, and we certainly don't do that, in the bible it talks about leaving the food that has dropped off your vine where it lays for the homeless and the hungry. but we have lost all, or gave up our love of the creator, i know most of you don't want to hear about GOD, and thats the point i make. people have done evil acts in GODS "name" and then other people blame GOD for those acts, we have free will. we will all stand before the almighty, and imagine what kind of argument you can give him over shooting someone for steeling a loaf of bread, or how about those that have distorted his word and made people forget about him, when this country was made it was based on GODs law, the first paragraph in the constitution basically says all man are equal, that we have unalienable rights, the pursuit of happiness, freedom from oppression, cant quit remember the rest but i hope you get my point, we are so far away from that now, its sad. this is supposed to be a free country but yet our prisons are full of drug users, but on the other hand our government has forced people to drug there kids, they say they want us to be "safe" and pass all these laws to keep us that way, yet booze witch killz over a hundred thousand people a year is legal, even served on our highways "state liqueur stores"
every one has the right to protect himself, but yet i was in prison with an individual who was doing life for killing a man that had broken into his house in the middle of the night, this person heard a noise, came downstairs grabbed a kitchen knife confronted the thief who also had a knife, he cut the thief's throat killing him. he got a life sentence.
people have distorted the bible, the whole idea of Christians being weak is absurd, the turn the other cheek is NOT about physical violence, it says we are to live with men to the best of our ability... if you are a true Man of GOD there is no fear in you, it is your duty to stand up for those that cant do it for them selves . but yet in our days we have pastors rapping boys. They are not gonna be happy when they face GOD.
Guys i know alot of you think i am nuts, cuz, ive said GOD talks to me, but what ever, think how you want but i think he has probably tried to talk to most of you. any ways ive spouted way more than i probably should have.
peace
Paul
-
every one has the right to protect himself, but yet i was in prison with an individual who was doing life for killing a man that had broken into his house in the middle of the night, this person heard a noise, came downstairs grabbed a kitchen knife confronted the thief who also had a knife, he cut the thief's throat killing him. he got a life sentence.
If that were the case, then I say that the judge who imposed this sentence needs to have a long look in his direction.
-
the few times I was in jail I never met a man who was guilty.
I do agree that we don't need drug users in jail and we don't need public schools drugging our kids.
We don't need the government telling us that we have no right to use firearms to defend ourselves.
lazs
-
not to mention it is extremely poor form to shoot someone in the back :confused:
HOtard