Hero dad under the gun - Page 2

tandeetaylor · January 24, 2003, 05:04

I've heard that spraying mace or pepperspray can be very irritating to everyone in the vicinity, and not just the person you spray it at.

Oh, and if someone comes in my house, you can be damn sure I'll shoot and ask questions later. I'm not going to wait for them to "threaten" me or my family members.

tandeetaylor · January 24, 2003, 05:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
so arabs SHOULD be allowed to shoot israelis in defence of their land.

Ya think?

MRT144 · January 24, 2003, 05:11

the wink is there for a reason...im going to become ming-like in my use of the wink

tandeetaylor · January 24, 2003, 05:18

I have no knowledge about your professed beliefs, so I could logically assume that you were either being sarcastic, or that you were winking at people who you felt would not support such a statement but either had or would support the general theme of this thread. Either way, it doesn't matter. My post was simply an acknowledgement that I agree with the statement, whether or not you meant it to be sarcastic. [/threadjack]

MRT144 · January 24, 2003, 05:21

i agree with the statement, the wink was there for the israelis

Rogan Josh · January 24, 2003, 06:01

This guy should go to prison or pay a large fine (or whatever the usual punishment is). He broke the law by having an unregistered gun, and he should be punished for it. I agree that we should not be punished for shooting the guy (since the burgler was running towards him at the time), but he shouldn't be rewarded for it either. He should be treated like anyone else who has an unregistered gun.

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 07:29

Could all those who live in Texas put their guns away please.

Thank you.

Australian common law is a lot different to Texas law. You can't shoot burglars or thieves here.

MRT144 · January 24, 2003, 07:39

what about dingos that eat babies?

Drogue · January 24, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There's a principle called reasonable force involved. Basically protecting property is not seen as a defensible reason to endanger human life, including that of a burglar.

We have that law in the UK too. A man (can't remember his name) shot and killed a 17 year old burglar, and perminantly injured his accomplice, who were breaking into his farmhouse. He was (rightly IMHO) jailed for manslaughter. The burglar was unarmed, and posed no threat to the farmer, therefore it is not "reasonable force", as the courts decided. Because of the circumstances, he'll only serve 2 or 3 years though. I can understand, to some extent, why he did it, but he killed someone who posed no threat to him, with an unlicenced gun. That to me deserves a manslaughter charge.

CerberusIV · January 24, 2003, 08:12

In the UK our upright and responsible government pretty much banned all private ownership of modern firearms a few years ago (black powder is still just about OK and shotguns for farmers) and since then the gun crime figures have gone through the roof. A farmer who shot a burglar has just had his parole application turned down but will be out in 6 months anyway (His case looked too much like premeditated). (Edit: cross post with Drogue)

In the UK over half of burglaries occur whilst the occupiers are at home.

If I ever have a burglar I won't be giving them an opportunity to turn violent anyway but a gun would be less messy.

MichaeltheGreat · January 24, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
This guy should go to prison or pay a large fine (or whatever the usual punishment is). He broke the law by having an unregistered gun, and he should be punished for it. I agree that we should not be punished for shooting the guy (since the burgler was running towards him at the time), but he shouldn't be rewarded for it either. He should be treated like anyone else who has an unregistered gun.

(a) He purchased the gun legally where he lived at the time.

(b) There's no uniform system of registration - those jurisdictions which require it (most don't, or make it optional) each have their own, often inconsistent rules. With a motor vehicle, or most other property registration issues, valid registration (if required) in the originating state has some legal weight, at least for a period of time.

(c) It's not even clear if the registration statute is constitutionally valid, since it may well be inconsistent with controlling Federal law, and the firearm never provably left it's owners residence. (Carrying a weapon or transporting it is distinct from mere ownership, and is a local issue unless the weapon is transported across state lines). Since the weapon was bought legally under Federal law, as well as state law for where it was purchased, it's questionable whether New York can even apply the registration law in this case.