Another shooting in america

[Johnsonontheleft]

Summary execution for petty theft?

Harsher than sharia law.

I wouldn't have people executed for petty theft. However I believe people should have the right to use lethal force to protect their family from an intruder. It's all about the risk of harm to the family.

Most parents would agree with me on this.

I think most parents would agree that you should have the right to use reasonable force.

Which you already do.

It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kidnap, rape and murder your child, but you'd never be able to prove that was their intention, so what happens in this scenario?

The overriding fact is that the intruder is in the wrong. They have broken the law. They may or may not intend to murder your kids - who knows? No parent should be willing to take that chance and if it means killing an intruder to safeguard their kids I think most parents would. Are you supposed to ask them what their intentions are once they have broken into your house and your family are at risk?

 

[sinnerman]

I wouldn't have people executed for petty theft. However I believe people should have the right to use lethal force to protect their family from an intruder. It's all about the risk of harm to the family.

Most parents would agree with me on this.

I think most parents would agree that you should have the right to use reasonable force.

Which you already do.

It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kidnap, rape and murder your child, but you'd never be able to prove that was their intention, so what happens in this scenario?

The overriding fact is that the intruder is in the wrong. They have broken the law. They may or may not intend to murder your kids - who knows? No parent should be willing to take that chance and if it means killing an intruder to safeguard their kids I think most parents would. Are you supposed to ask them what their intentions are once they have broken into your house and your family are at risk?

It is possibly reasonable, if you caught someone in the act of raping or murdering your child, to shoot them, however it is not reasonable to shoot some who you catch robbing your house. You are trying to muddy the waters between the two and making out it is ok to kill a burglar because you think he may rape or kidnap your daughter.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

I think most parents would agree that you should have the right to use reasonable force.

Which you already do.

It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kidnap, rape and murder your child, but you'd never be able to prove that was their intention, so what happens in this scenario?

The overriding fact is that the intruder is in the wrong. They have broken the law. They may or may not intend to murder your kids - who knows? No parent should be willing to take that chance and if it means killing an intruder to safeguard their kids I think most parents would. Are you supposed to ask them what their intentions are once they have broken into your house and your family are at risk?

It is possibly reasonable, if you caught someone in the act of raping or murdering your child, to shoot them, however it is not reasonable to shoot some who you catch robbing your house. You are trying to muddy the waters between the two and making out it is ok to kill a burglar because you think he may rape or kidnap your daughter.

Here's the problem: when someone breaks into your house when you and your family are there, you have no idea of the intruder's intentions. It could be to kidnap your daughter, it could be to rob your TV. Let me repeat the key point - 'someone breaks into your house'. At this point you've done fuck all wrong and they're a criminal intruder with unknown intentions.

If a parent kills this intruder I would hope that they receive absolutely no punishment for their actions. UNLESS the intruder is clearly on their way out of the house holding a TV or stereo etc and it's clear the family is not in danger.

 

[Bluebee2]

It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kidnap, rape and murder your child, but you'd never be able to prove that was their intention, so what happens in this scenario?

The overriding fact is that the intruder is in the wrong. They have broken the law. They may or may not intend to murder your kids - who knows? No parent should be willing to take that chance and if it means killing an intruder to safeguard their kids I think most parents would. Are you supposed to ask them what their intentions are once they have broken into your house and your family are at risk?

It is possibly reasonable, if you caught someone in the act of raping or murdering your child, to shoot them, however it is not reasonable to shoot some who you catch robbing your house. You are trying to muddy the waters between the two and making out it is ok to kill a burglar because you think he may rape or kidnap your daughter.

Here's the problem: when someone breaks into your house when you and your family are there, you have no idea of the intruder's intentions. It could be to kidnap your daughter, it could be to rob your TV. Let me repeat the key point - 'someone breaks into your house'. At this point you've done fuck all wrong and they're a criminal intruder with unknown intentions.

If a parent kills this intruder I would hope that they receive absolutely no punishment for their actions. UNLESS the intruder is clearly on their way out of the house holding a TV or stereo etc and it's clear the family is not in danger.

You are well within your rights to give a robber a good battering if he was up the stairs so to speak, then he has an intention to enter a bedroom where people are sleeping, if he stays down stairs he can say he's just a plain old robber. Don't mention Bungalows I've not got a clue.

 

[buckshot]

Just to clarify, the "stand your ground" law doesn't just apply to situations that occur in your home. You could be walking on a street and somebody who has the nerve to be black could come over to you asking for directions and get shot because they look threatening.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Just to clarify, the "stand your ground" law doesn't just apply to situations that occur in your home. You could be walking on a street and somebody who has the nerve to be black could come over to you asking for directions and get shot because they look threatening.

I don't think so. I think common sense should have a role to play here.<br /><br />-- Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:40 pm --<br /><br />

It is possibly reasonable, if you caught someone in the act of raping or murdering your child, to shoot them, however it is not reasonable to shoot some who you catch robbing your house. You are trying to muddy the waters between the two and making out it is ok to kill a burglar because you think he may rape or kidnap your daughter.

Here's the problem: when someone breaks into your house when you and your family are there, you have no idea of the intruder's intentions. It could be to kidnap your daughter, it could be to rob your TV. Let me repeat the key point - 'someone breaks into your house'. At this point you've done fuck all wrong and they're a criminal intruder with unknown intentions.

If a parent kills this intruder I would hope that they receive absolutely no punishment for their actions. UNLESS the intruder is clearly on their way out of the house holding a TV or stereo etc and it's clear the family is not in danger.

You are well within your rights to give a robber a good battering if he was up the stairs so to speak, then he has an intention to enter a bedroom where people are sleeping, if he stays down stairs he can say he's just a plain old robber. Don't mention Bungalows I've not got a clue.

This makes little sense though. You hear an intruder break in, you go downstairs to investigate immediately - you still have no idea whether that intruder is a child kidnapper or petty thief. The only facts you have at your disposal at this stage is that this is someone who has broken into your house.

 

[Blue Hefner]

My home has never been burgled (hopefully it never will be), I would imagine it a frightening experience.

However, breaking and entering is not an offence that should be punishable by death!

 

[sinnerman]

Just to clarify, the "stand your ground" law doesn't just apply to situations that occur in your home. You could be walking on a street and somebody who has the nerve to be black could come over to you asking for directions and get shot because they look threatening.

I don't think so. I think common sense should have a role to play here.

-- Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:40 pm --

Here's the problem: when someone breaks into your house when you and your family are there, you have no idea of the intruder's intentions. It could be to kidnap your daughter, it could be to rob your TV. Let me repeat the key point - 'someone breaks into your house'. At this point you've done fuck all wrong and they're a criminal intruder with unknown intentions.

If a parent kills this intruder I would hope that they receive absolutely no punishment for their actions. UNLESS the intruder is clearly on their way out of the house holding a TV or stereo etc and it's clear the family is not in danger.

You are well within your rights to give a robber a good battering if he was up the stairs so to speak, then he has an intention to enter a bedroom where people are sleeping, if he stays down stairs he can say he's just a plain old robber. Don't mention Bungalows I've not got a clue.

This makes little sense though. You hear an intruder break in, you go downstairs to investigate immediately - you still have no idea whether that intruder is a child kidnapper or petty thief. The only facts you have at your disposal at this stage is that this is someone who has broken into your house.

And if that persons threatens you, ie moves toward you in what you deem to be a threatening way, then you can use reasonable force. Obviously the term reasonable can change depending on the circumstances as each situation differs. You can't usually shoot an unarmed burglar and call it reasonable, unless of course you can convince a jury that you were sure he was armed and you, or your families, life was threatened. What the law doesn't allow is for homeowners to be able to kill anyone that enters their home uninvited.

 

[johnny on the spot]

I'm a man of peace. That said, any person breaking into my house dies.

DIES.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wouldn't have people executed for petty theft. However I believe people should have the right to use lethal force to protect their family from an intruder. It's all about the risk of harm to the family.

Most parents would agree with me on this.

I think most parents would agree that you should have the right to use reasonable force.

Which you already do.

It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kidnap, rape and murder your child, but you'd never be able to prove that was their intention, so what happens in this scenario?

The overriding fact is that the intruder is in the wrong. They have broken the law. They may or may not intend to murder your kids - who knows? No parent should be willing to take that chance and if it means killing an intruder to safeguard their kids I think most parents would. Are you supposed to ask them what their intentions are once they have broken into your house and your family are at risk?

You wouldn't have to prove anything if you were charged with the unlawful killing of an intruder. You would be afforded the same rights as anyone else accused of a crime, that is a Jury would have to be sure you were acting unlawfully, a particularly high hurdle in crimes such as this.

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't think the current law is adequate. Cases of homeowners being prosecuted are almost unheard of, convictions even rarer.

It cannot be right that people can act with total impunity towards intruders in their home. Otherwise torturing them for weeks before executing them and sending the dvd to their family would be permissible. The control that is imposed by the state is that you act reasonably based on the circumstances you find yourself in. If those circumstances are such that you perceive your children are under threat then you are perfectly entitled to use extreme force. What Jury is going to convict someone for properly defending their family?

People get so worked up about this subject and yet the law as it stands is perfectly constructed.

Unless you feel that people should be allowed to act unreasonably, that is.