First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Mom asks 911 permission to kill intruder
91108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Online
Posted 1/4/12

tsukasa789 wrote:


munchthis wrote:

and its all legal, once some steps one foot into your house without any given permission or consent you can kill them.


What about all those stories where the homeowner was prosecuted for killing an intruder? It is not legal to kill home intruders unless they brandish a weapon.


if they come into your house by force and you feel that your life is in danger it is justifiable self-defense. lets say someone broke into your house while you were still there, its dark, you're scared, you see someone in your house, and you don't know what to do, they see you and come at you, what would you then do in that situation? you don't know if they're armed, you start to panic a bit and right now the body's fight-or-flight response is kicking in. your choices are to either lock yourself in your room then call the cops and wait for them to come, fight back to try to scare them away or kill them before they can kill you or hurt you or anyone else in the house.

even if they don't show you a weapon it doesn't mean they aren't carrying one. if I were in that situation I would shoot first then ask questions later.
Posted 1/4/12 , edited 1/4/12

mystic17 wrote:

Hmph, interesting.

I'd rather injure them instead of killing them, so they can go to jail. but this is how I feel.


In Australia you can't go over using reasonable force. i.e. if they're not armed, you're the one who goes to jail for shooting them dead.

You'd be the one who would suffer worse repercussion's.

Is your reaction.

It's not wussy. Being so scared and hasty to kill someone is wussy. Scaring them away would've been plenty.

Use of reasonable force wasn't used here. It's kinda a fail.

Ooh, can I kill him? I hate the hastiness it was said in and then carried out.

Thoughtless action. Scaring them would've been enough. I feel for the guy.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 1/4/12

mystic17 wrote:

Hmph, interesting.

I'd rather injure them instead of killing them, so they can go to jail. but this is how I feel.


same.
15775 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/4/12

munchthis wrote:


tsukasa789 wrote:


munchthis wrote:

and its all legal, once some steps one foot into your house without any given permission or consent you can kill them.


What about all those stories where the homeowner was prosecuted for killing an intruder? It is not legal to kill home intruders unless they brandish a weapon.


if they come into your house by force and you feel that your life is in danger it is justifiable self-defense. lets say someone broke into your house while you were still there, its dark, you're scared, you see someone in your house, and you don't know what to do, they see you and come at you, what would you then do in that situation? you don't know if they're armed, you start to panic a bit and right now the body's fight-or-flight response is kicking in. your choices are to either lock yourself in your room then call the cops and wait for them to come, fight back to try to scare them away or kill them before they can kill you or hurt you or anyone else in the house.

even if they don't show you a weapon it doesn't mean they aren't carrying one. if I were in that situation I would shoot first then ask questions later.


Look, the law does not give you free reign to kill anyone who intrudes into your home. Judges can make their own interpretations of the situation on a case by case basis, but it still doesn't change the fact of the law thereof. That aside, your example is misconstruing what you previously said. Your describing an attack now, when before you outright said it was legal to kill an invader whether they intentionally threaten you or not.

Case and point, the law does not give you the license to kill anyone who enters your home whether they are invited to do so or not.
1458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/4/12

mystic17 wrote:

Hmph, interesting.

I'd rather injure them instead of killing them, so they can go to jail. but this is how I feel.


^This.

67345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 1/4/12
I would injury them also. If they were pointing a gun at me or about to shoot, then I'd use the gun. I'm a strong adherent to the rules of self-defense (depending on the situation).
91108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Online
Posted 1/4/12

tsukasa789 wrote:


munchthis wrote:


tsukasa789 wrote:


munchthis wrote:

and its all legal, once someone steps one foot into your house without any given permission or consent you can kill them.


What about all those stories where the homeowner was prosecuted for killing an intruder? It is not legal to kill home intruders unless they brandish a weapon.


if they come into your house by force and you feel that your life is in danger it is justifiable self-defense. lets say someone broke into your house while you were still there, its dark, you're scared, you see someone in your house, and you don't know what to do, they see you and come at you, what would you then do in that situation? you don't know if they're armed, you start to panic a bit and right now the body's fight-or-flight response is kicking in. your choices are to either lock yourself in your room then call the cops and wait for them to come, fight back to try to scare them away or kill them before they can kill you or hurt you or anyone else in the house.

even if they don't show you a weapon it doesn't mean they aren't carrying one. if I were in that situation I would shoot first then ask questions later.


Look, the law does not give you free reign to kill anyone who intrudes into your home. Judges can make their own interpretations of the situation on a case by case basis, but it still doesn't change the fact of the law thereof. That aside, your example is misconstruing what you previously said. Your describing an attack now, when before you outright said it was legal to kill an invader whether they intentionally threaten you or not.

Case and point, the law does not give you the license to kill anyone who enters your home whether they are invited to do so or not.


look I'm not saying kill everyone and anyone that comes inside your home and I didn't say anything about a license to kill, all I'm saying is if someone breaks into your home, you feel that there is a threat to your life or your family's life, you can kill if need be. whether or not you get prosecuted for it just depends on the laws where you live, and the law system there.

if someone breaks into your home by kicking down your door whether they want to kill you, rape you, or rob you blind, you have legal right to defend yourself if the need arises. killing them would just be one of the options and to me its the simplest one.
2479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / CT
Offline
Posted 1/4/12

FreeHorses92 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this story amusing?


I think it would be bad if you DIDN'T find it amusing.



Posted 1/4/12
hmm

as long as they were an actual threat to her, that was...sort of...okay

however, the second someone steps onto your property, whether you want them to be there or not, they are your responsibility

if a burglar was in your home and they tripped and fell and hurt themselves, they could sue you.

but that's England.

there were many ways in which she could have saved herself and her baby without taking anyone's lives

2322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California, Hawai...
Offline
Posted 1/4/12
im going to make the joke, someone has too, the burglar needed to take the shotgun shell to the knee
35796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Stoke, England
Offline
Posted 1/4/12
The second guy was like "OH SHIT. IT'S EVERY MOTHERFUCKER FOR HIMSELF."
43062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Long Beach
Offline
Posted 1/5/12
Yeah. I'd rather just injure them... I wouldn't be able to stand the feeling of knowing I killed someone...
53556 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / The great not so...
Offline
Posted 1/5/12 , edited 1/5/12
I would have just shot the guy in the knees so he wouldn't be able to walk. Then scare the other guy by firing shots blindly.
15383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Seattle, WA (USA)
Offline
Posted 1/5/12
To me it sounds like there was no warning what so ever, as soon as the guy was in view BOOM! But I think it was justified and well with in her right, but for me I would have let out some kind of warning to get the f*ck out or die, at least just try to shoot him in the leg and let the popos deal with it. But again, in the end, I still think what she did wasn't wrong.
4752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / A rock in the mid...
Offline
Posted 1/5/12
It was well within her rights, she didn't even need to ask the dispatcher or call 911 first if she felt that would have put her in more danger otherwise. As for just injuring the intruder, that would just get her sued by the guy she wounded. It doesn't matter whether you're aiming to kill or just wound its deadly force either way. If you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot to kill, you would have a hard time justifying deadly force to wound either.
Trying to scare someone else off by blindly shooting is even worse though, since you're responsible for every bullet and every bit of shot you fire. If you hurt or kill an innocent person like that you're screwed
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.