|
ReD_XIII posted:You are acting with a RATIONAL, LOGICAL BRAIN in a situation where the man's brain was SLEEP DEPRIVED, SCARED, AND CONFUSED. Stop it. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing. The identity of the invader isn't important. It is MUCH more likely that the invader is there to do you harm than a "senile old man or a badly injured hiker." The law is about the reasonableness of the perceived threat. The man was shooting at a light. For all he knew, his eyes might not have been adjusted well to the dark, it could have been a flashlight attached to a gun. It is not REASONABLE to expect this man to put himself in harm's way when his property is being trespassed upon. The same brain I used when I was in a near identical situation last year, and once again I managed not to send anyone to the hospital, and the people in my house left pretty quickly When the lights came on and a significantly louder yell than anything they had heard in their recent past told them to get the hell out. You act like its some crazy unreasonable thing, but adrenaline does not make you want to kill people, it makes you jittery and as I said, very loud. The killing bit is something you have to enable yourself to do. both by giving yourself easy access to a weapon and convincing yourself that you would have no hesitation to use it.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:27 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:34 |
|
|
K. Farb posted:You can't be serious, but I'll bite. I'm saying if a burglar can not legally own a gun he won't have one, because criminals follow the law all the time and millions of guns magically disappear when you make them illegal.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:27 |
|
|
K. Farb posted:So you just want to kill someone really fast? This thread is moving too quickly but I'm not talking about just getting rid of your personal gun today, I'm saying that countries without private gun ownership are a lot better off. No. I want to kill someone really safely. I want to be able to guarantee that if someone breaks into my house that I can, if necessary, stop them and survive to ensure that my wife and child get out safely and that I see my kid graduate from college some day.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:The same brain I used when I was in a near identical situation last year, and once again I managed not to send anyone to the hospital, and the people in my house left pretty quickly When the lights came on and a significantly louder yell than anything they had heard in their recent past told them to get the hell out. The difference between your anecdote and what happened in this case is that your intruders left after being shouted at, and the girl who got shot ignored the people shouting at her.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:he won't have one, because criminals follow the law all the time and millions of guns magically disappear when you make them illegal. I'm sure there's a fair number of illegal guns in London, whats their violent gun crime rate again? Obviously identical to the U.S. or you wouldn't be spouting this stretched thin and over used NRA talking point, right? Vincent Van Goatse posted:The difference between your anecdote and what happened in this case is that your intruders left after being shouted at, and the girl who got shot ignored the people shouting at her. My lights were on, and I was facing the people in my home. If they had done the same, they wouldn't feel any need to shot her at all. If anything I was in a much more threatening situation.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
Torka posted:Pretty sweet, I own at poker. I highly doubt it. I installed all this stuff so I can relax at home with my family and NOT have to worry about it. Feels pretty good man. Plus it keeps all the religious and sales people away.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:30 |
|
|
K. Farb posted:So you just want to kill someone really fast? This thread is moving too quickly but I'm not talking about just getting rid of your personal gun today, I'm saying that countries without private gun ownership are a lot better off. It doesn't really matter because guns are not going away, just like weed isn't and just like every other substance people dislike but must accept exists, because you can't de-introduce this stuff to society. They tried with booze (and several other substances throughout history - opium anyone?), it doesn't work out so well. Where the hell did this thread go. I am no fan of guns (in fact I really dislike them!) but this is getting crazy. We don't live in a magical gun-free world, we live in a world with guns, and even if I really don't like them I'm not gonna take away other's right to own them. I kind of feel like that's part of being American, is respecting another's right to bear arms. You can argue (and rightfully so) the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted but it still doesn't matter because here and now it's an inherent part of American culture, is allowing our citizens to have guns. All we can do is try to be reasonable about the laws surrounding them, but people tend to explode into a jibbering pile of emotions when talking about such things, either in fear of guns or fear of losing their guns.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:31 |
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I highly doubt it. I installed all this stuff so I can relax at home with my family and NOT have to worry about it. Feels pretty good man. Plus it keeps all the religious and sales people away. I would assume then that since you are so overzealous about security, you do the responsible thing and keep your gun unloaded and in a safe? Because, you know, it can shoot you too.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:32 |
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:Nobody has argued against this. American people basically have fuckall in the way of deciding how our laws are put in to play. Oh, I realize no one is arguing against it. I'm just explaining to the person I quoted that there was a larger context to my bat suggestion. At least no one was arguing against it until this guy: Vincent Van Goatse posted:This is probably an impossible request, but please define "a lot better off". A lot less stupid people shooting other people and less paranoia, off the top of my head. Boogaleeboo posted:he won't have one, because criminals follow the law all the time and millions of guns magically disappear when you make them illegal. I am always amazed when people parrot this. e: I can respect that some of you have legitimate fears. And I understand that the laws won't be changed. It just strikes me as incredibly barbaric how easy it is to own such a simple killing device. e: VVV How did you know?
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:33 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:I'm sure there's a fair number of illegal guns in London There are millions of guns in America. We are a country of insane gun nuts *and* reasonable gun owners, and because of that we have a *lot* of guns. You can't just skip directly to the step where we have gun laws like other countries, because we aren't like them. You are arguing an ideal that does not conform to reality, and it makes you a moron. Stop pretending there is a comparison to be made where none exists. K. Farb posted:I am always amazed when people parrot this. You are also amazed by shiny objects and spinning around in a circle really fast, why should this be any different?
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:The same brain I used when I was in a near identical situation last year, and once again I managed not to send anyone to the hospital, and the people in my house left pretty quickly When the lights came on and a significantly louder yell than anything they had heard in their recent past told them to get the hell out. Good for you that you handled the situation the way you did. How can you expect this man to? Should he handle driving his car like you do too? You can't make a comparison, it's apples to loving wheat. His situation and yours are not the same because you have both had different backgrounds. You put yourself in a huge amount of risk doing the things you did, and I'm glad it worked out for you. You cannot expect this man to put his life in more perceived danger just because you did. Maybe he's more of a coward than you are, but the law says he was within his rights. If you don't like it, try to change the law. He probably felt like he had no choice but to shoot her. You are acting as if he maliciously gunned her down and was smiling as he did it. Giving himself easy access to a weapon is a right in America, and convincing himself to have no hesitation to use it is not a bad thing (he thought he was using it on a criminal who intended him harm.) When someone was in his house at 3 am, I am sure he wasn't thinking "what if this is a college girl?" Edit: You say he should have turned on his lights, but that's not in the loving law. He perceived bodily harm, turning on the lights could have harmed him more than helped him. He made a judgement call, now you are monday morning quarterbacking him with some high and mighty position that you were in a similar situation and handled it differently.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
ReD_XIII posted:Good for you that you handled the situation the way you did. How can you expect this man to? Should he handle driving his car like you do too? You can't make a comparison, it's apples to loving wheat. His situation and yours are not the same because you have both had different backgrounds. You put yourself in a huge amount of risk doing the things you did, and I'm glad it worked out for you. Because he's reasonable and not a fucktard. Q.E.D. I've come to the conclusion that half of this thread are quivering people scared of their own shadows who require the ability to shoot at said shadow if it moves wrong, for their perception of safety to not be at the level that risks them having a stroke.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:35 |
|
|
Pfeh, fools. Surely you know the best way to handle this is to don your fedora, tilt it back at a jaunty angle and then unsheath the blade of your katana. At the sight of your fearsome weapon, the intruder would fall to their knees, and this entire thing could have been prevented! Bushido solves all.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
ReD_XIII posted:Good for you that you handled the situation the way you did. How can you expect this man to? Should he handle driving his car like you do too? You can't make a comparison, it's apples to loving wheat. His situation and yours are not the same because you have both had different backgrounds. You put yourself in a huge amount of risk doing the things you did, and I'm glad it worked out for you. His perception of risk to bodily harm was made simply because he had an unknown subject in his house. While castle doctrine REMOVES the necessity to flee said perceptions of threat, it does not remove your responsibility to make firing said weapon the last resort.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
ReD_XIII posted:Edit: You say he should have turned on his lights, but that's not in the loving law. He perceived bodily harm, turning on the lights could have harmed him more than helped him. He made a judgement call, now you are monday morning quarterbacking him with some high and mighty position that you were in a similar situation and handled it differently. Maybe it was legal for the guy to kill her. That doesn't mean that it was somehow acceptable.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:38 |
|
|
You live in a $2.75m home on College Avenue near a University. You are researching security measures for your expansive 4,250 square foot home. Do you choose: A) A policy of being prudent about locking doors and installing an affordable Brinks security system to warn you of home invaders, giving you both time to react and warn any home invaders while also having the police immediately called. B) To ignore step A, but keep a gun by your bed for shooting figures in the shadows.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:39 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:Because he's reasonable and not a fucktard. Q.E.D. Ad hominem, nice way to wrap up your terrible argument. The loving law is all about reasonable. Judges have decided reasonable again and again in court cases. Is that not enough for you? Ok then it isn't enough for you, but it's enough for our legal system. You are not a judge, you are not on the jury. Your opinion is wrong, objectively, in America's legal system. You cannot ask a person whose home is being trespassed upon to turn on lights, the invader is UNKNOWN. It could have been a man with a gun. You will argue about the yelling but what if the intruder was just working up the courage to shoot the shouting man? You are being a dipshit, asking people to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others. That's not what America is about.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
text editor posted:You live in a $2.75m home on College Avenue near a University. You are researching security measures for your expansive 4,250 square foot home. So its someone elses fault when idiot drunk college kids wander into their home? Good to know.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:I've come to the conclusion that half of this thread are quivering people scared of their own shadows who require the ability to shoot at said shadow if it moves wrong, for their perception of safety to not be at the level that risks them having a stroke. Do all of you live in South Central L.A. or something? No, and I don't own a gun. I just think that in most jurisdictions, most judges and juries would agree that it was reasonable for the couple in question to be afraid for their lives. This doesn't mean that what they did was the Right Thing To Do, but it means it was understandable. Also maybe notice that even though I disagree with you I'm not making up a bunch of silly bullshit about you or accusing you of anything. In fact I think it's ok that you disagree with me! Though maybe you could express it better.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:41 |
|
|
ReD_XIII posted:You cannot expect this man to put his life in more perceived danger just because you did. Maybe he's more of a coward than you are, but the law says he was within his rights. If you don't like it, try to change the law. He probably felt like he had no choice but to shoot her. You are acting as if he maliciously gunned her down and was smiling as he did it. Giving himself easy access to a weapon is a right in America, and convincing himself to have no hesitation to use it is not a bad thing (he thought he was using it on a criminal who intended him harm.) When someone was in his house at 3 am, I am sure he wasn't thinking "what if this is a college girl?" Owning guns may be a right, but there's a reason an 8 year old cant buy a handgun. You said it yourself, there are responsible and irresponsible gun owners in this country, and nowhere near enough is done to weed the irresponsible from the responsible. The second amendment doesn't say right to bear arms when you're of age and pass a background check, so obviously we have the law up to interpretation. If more was done to encourage safe use of firearms then situations like this would be much less common. In this case, keeping a loaded gun next to your bed is wildly irresponsible, qualifying him as someone who should not have a gun. If the weapon was in a safe then the extra time took to remove it might even give him a moment to clear his head and realize that the person stumbling around his house was a drunk girl chatting away on her cellphone.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:41 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:I would assume then that since you are so overzealous about security, you do the responsible thing and keep your gun unloaded and in a safe? I figure I have enough time to get it out of the safe first with the alarm. Dont bother unloading it pretty much ever since I carry to work, at work and home again. (armored car custodian/atm tech)
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:41 |
|
|
text editor posted:You live in a $2.75m home on College Avenue near a University. You are researching security measures for your expansive 4,250 square foot home. Mind you, they left the door open right next to their bed. But I'm not going to use this as fault for them. Cos I don't feel they should HAVE to lock their doors. My concern is still purely their lack of responsibility before firing the weapon. They made NO attempt beyond incessant screaming at the girl to leave to determine if that level of force was necessary. I still don't think their perception of her as a threat was at all reasonable.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:42 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:They made NO attempt beyond incessant screaming at the girl to leave to determine if that level of force was necessary. What else should they have done? Im honestly curious.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:43 |
|
|
Nthman posted:So its someone elses fault when idiot drunk college kids wander into their home? Good to know. If you're incapable of responding to people in your house except by shooting them, then yeah, you have some responsibility to ensure that people cannot get inside your house. This is because people dying is a Bad Thing, and you should not be okay with it just because my rights  quote:What else should they have done? Im honestly curious. They should have gotten out of the room and called the police.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I figure I have enough time to get it out of the safe first with the alarm. Dont bother unloading it pretty much ever since I carry to work, at work and home again. (armored car custodian/atm tech) Reasonable circumstances and good on you. If it isn't clear you're not the kind of gun owner I'm railing on about here.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
ReD_XIII posted:Ad hominem, nice way to wrap up your terrible argument. The loving law is all about reasonable. Judges have decided reasonable again and again in court cases. Is that not enough for you? Ok then it isn't enough for you, but it's enough for our legal system. You are not a judge, you are not on the jury. Your opinion is wrong, objectively, in America's legal system. You cannot ask a person whose home is being trespassed upon to turn on lights, the invader is UNKNOWN. It could have been a man with a gun. You will argue about the yelling but what if the intruder was just working up the courage to shoot the shouting man? You are being a dipshit, asking people to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others. That's not what America is about. Ad hominem? How so? Spaceman future! is not a fucktard and the guy who shot the girl irresponsibly is. The next portion of text which you didn't quote, was wholly ad hominem, but this particular part, not.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:I still don't think their perception of her as a threat was at all reasonable. And obviously everyone who has a different definition of reasonable than your (subjective) definition is "quivering people scared of their own shadows who require the ability to shoot at said shadow if it moves wrong".
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:Mind you, they left the door open right next to their bed. But I'm not going to use this as fault for them. Cos I don't feel they should HAVE to lock their doors. My concern is still purely their lack of responsibility before firing the weapon. They made NO attempt beyond incessant screaming at the girl to leave to determine if that level of force was necessary. I still don't think their perception of her as a threat was at all reasonable. I would consider not locking doors yet still feeling that keeping firearm around for defense to be part of that 'lack of responsibility' as well.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
Nthman posted:What else should they have done? Im honestly curious. Maybe turned on a light, or waited for a response. If you read the affidavit they were shouting at her the whole time, she said hello, they didn't even hear that. So in the process of them yelling at her, any further response wouldn't have done much good either. She thought she was in the right house, drunk and confused, so them screaming at her likely wouldn't have made her leave while she tried to process why they were yelling at her. Point is, they saw her, yelled at her, then shot. Nothing in between. I'd love to know the actual time of entry to shooting that elapsed. My guess is it likely wasn't more than a few seconds.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
Nthman posted:What else should they have done? Im honestly curious. Maybe hitting some kind of light so you can figure out what you are shooting at before firing?
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
text editor posted:I would consider not locking doors yet still feeling that keeping firearm around for defense to be part of that 'lack of responsibility' as well. Definitely a lack of responsibility, academically. But legally, not so much. Stupid, yes. But not actionable. There's plenty of other things they should've done that I feel they were legally obligated to do.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:48 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:And obviously everyone who has a different definition of reasonable than your (subjective) definition is "quivering people scared of their own shadows who require the ability to shoot at said shadow if it moves wrong". To be honest, while that statement is clearly hyperbole; one need only read back the last 15 pages or so to see that many people here seem to hold the assumption that there are numerous risks to your life every single day in all sorts of situations that could require snap reaction without a thought to what you're firing at.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:50 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:Maybe turned on a light, or waited for a response. If you read the affidavit they were shouting at her the whole time, she said hello, they didn't even hear that. She claims she said hello but her testimony doesn't really count for as much considering how drunk she was at the time. The couple said that they repeatedly asked her to leave and she didn't respond, they told her several times that they had a gun, and she not only ignored them but continued entering the house and coming towards them. Yes, they could and should have turned on a light but I think it's pretty reasonable that a person who is in their own bed, has just been woken up and is afraid and has an intruder coming towards them - ignoring their shouts to go away - will not have the presence of mind to think of every possible thing they can do like turning on a light. Nor is such presence of mind required in the law. Her testimony is also harder to believe because she said this place was just "a step" from the house she was trying to go to but it was actually 3/4ths of a mile away.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
Lorentz Factor posted:I feel You are not the law. Maybe you feel he should have turned on lights. The law does not have that as a reasonable requirement. Maybe it will in the future. Maybe the next time someone takes the time to turn on the lights in a trespassing case they get shot and the intruder gets away. You cannot ask the man to put himself in more danger when he perceives he is in a life or death situation. That's like saying, I know you think you're in a lot of danger, but you need to put yourself in even more danger before Somethingawful poster Lorentz Factor will think you acted reasonable (despite all the court rulings and judge who have already decided what is reasonable in the U.S. legal system.) Yes the dude messed up hugely with responsibility with respect to the doors, but that doesn't eliminate his right to defend perceived bodily harm, or give him an extra burden to put himself in more danger. Edit: That is the law, which in this case is objective. You are arguing about your opinions and ideas which are subjective.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:53 |
|
|
What if she stumbled upon a room where people were sleeping who subscribed to the beliefs of ancient Aztecs? Would they be entitled to tie her up to a stake and remove her heart with a stone knife, sacrificing her to their almighty God Quetzalcoatl? I'm sure people would defend that with the current freedom of religion laws as well as the castle doctrine too.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:53 |
|
|
piss explosion posted:What if she stumbled upon a room where people were sleeping who subscribed to the beliefs of ancient Aztecs? Would they be entitled to tie her up to a stake and remove her heart with a stone knife, sacrificing her to their almighty God Quetzalcoatl? I'm sure people would defend that with the current freedom of religion laws as well as the castle doctrine too. Yes, but you are clearly a paranoid schizophrenic.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:54 |
|
|
K. Farb posted:I was speaking more generally than this couple. Yes, because guns being illegal has always prevented some one from getting them. If some one wants to hurt me, why should I be compelled to make it a fair fight by not using the best available means of self defense? I'd rather win 100% of the time than give an assailant even the smallest margin of success. Fair fights are for idiots.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:55 |
|
|
piss explosion posted:What if she stumbled upon a room where people were sleeping who subscribed to the beliefs of ancient Aztecs? Would they be entitled to tie her up to a stake and remove her heart with a stone knife, sacrificing her to their almighty God Quetzalcoatl? I'm sure people would defend that with the current freedom of religion laws as well as the castle doctrine too. I actually believe this scenario was covered about 6 pages back.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 03:56 |
|
|
piss explosion posted:What if she stumbled upon a room where people were sleeping who subscribed to the beliefs of ancient Aztecs? Would they be entitled to tie her up to a stake and remove her heart with a stone knife, sacrificing her to their almighty God Quetzalcoatl? I'm sure people would defend that with the current freedom of religion laws as well as the castle doctrine too. The law of the land bro. It was illegal to be drunk without being of advanced age. The penalty was death though but most citizens didnt needed to be restrained. It was quite the honor. And Quetzalcoatl didnt get human blood sacrifices. And he was hardly almighty since he was himself punished for a crime.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 04:00 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:34 |
|
|
Great job, most of you people are loving insane.
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2012 04:01 |
|
