It's a shortcut. But if that is what he is doing, what justifies your shot in the back?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Yet more castle doctrine laws!
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
ELITEOFWARMAN8
King
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
1. No, you didn't. You merely posed another question with a different scenario.
2. Your house is not your own private country. You have a legal obligation not to murder people. Theft of lollipops or television sets does not alter that.
Enjoy prison.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't think anyone would kill over a lollipop unless they were pretty messed up anyhow. But even if they would, I'd agree with you there. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I had a felony in mind (Actually, in NYS "Snatching a lollipop" from someone's hand would actually be a felony
but that wasn't the kind of thing I meant.)If someone comes into your house and steals your flat screen TV, and starts running, you should absolutely have the right to use lethal violence if necessary. Would I use lethal violence over a TV? No, I wouldn't, personally I'd only feel comfortable using lethal violence to defend life, not property. But the criminal has no "Right" to protection.
There are two things at play here. The most important one is that he came into your house. So he was in a place he ought not to be AND he stole your property. The amount is also important, but less so.
My problem is that criminals shouldn't be able to hide behind the protection of the law while transgressing that same law. I guess with the lollipop thing its just an order of magnitude so high that I think we're probably all on the same page. Stealing a lollipop isn't really that serious anyway (Even though its technically a felony in NYS
I mean by common sense standards.)I don't know exactly where I'd draw the line for property values. I probably wouldn't legally draw it anywhere, if you enter my house, the government should not protect you if I use lethal violence.
Once the criminal is fleeing empty-handed there's absolutely no right to shoot anymore, although I would make an exception if they are armed. If they did the crime while armed you should be allowed to assume they could still be a threat and you should be allowed to take them.
I'd also say that once the criminal is stopped you should have no right to kill. If he gives himself up, or is too injured to escape, that should be the end of it. Sadly, in American culture, rather than the criminal being brought to justice, the innocent person who shot in self-defense probably gets sued
GhostWriter16
Deity
Not "Any." But people have a right to defend their property.
Ideally they should do it with the minimum amount of force necessary. If all you've got to do is point the gun and not use it, do that. If all it takes is a warning shot, great. If all it takes is a shot to the knee, go for it.
The problem is that these types of solutions are not allowed right now so its basically either kill or let them get away with it. No legal possibility to hold them at gunpoint and wait for the police.
ELITEOFWARMAN8
King
Stop sticking words in my mouth and making up scenarios in a sad attempt to try to beat me.
And this right trumps my right to life?
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Except for some very specific situations in Texas, you can't defend property with lethal force.
Warning shots and shooting to wound are legal no-nos in most of the US. Even pointing a gun can be a bad idea in some cases. Which is probably not a bad if you ask me.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
The funny thing is that I didn't. I didn't even need to. You claimed that
. The fact you overlooked is that you actually can't do whatever you want in your own house.
Second, you claimed a willingness to shoot a person who punched you and ran away. This is technically murder.
Third, you still haven't answered my question.
And GW, what makes a lollipop legally different from a TV? The theft of either is a felony. And you seem to support the idea of allowing people to shoot and kill people who commit a felony by stealing their property. Your distinctions are entirely arbitrary.
If they are running, lethal force is not necessary. If you think it is, you should refrain from considering yourself pro-life.
ELITEOFWARMAN8
King
If your life is not under threat, lethal force is not necessary and I will refuse to hug a murderer, even if the victim is a thief.
Yes it is.
Stop being a criminal hugger.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Stop being a criminal hugger.
Who's the crime hugger here? It's your ideas that are contradicting laws. So if anyone is endorsing criminal behavior, it's you.
Stop being a criminal hugger.
pfffttttt hahahahaaha
I am generally against gun licensing, but I am starting to see the point. There is no way that Eliteofwarman8 should be allowed possession of a firearm and I would hope that a licensing agency that got hold of his posting history on this subject would deny a license.
ELITEOFWARMAN8
King
Well you must be a criminal to correct? I hope not.
Sorry, you are wrong.
@ you.To late.
You crazy leftists opposed to gun rights and castle doctrine may change your tune when you come up against something tunneling under your castle and trying to breech your walls.
See who's laughing when this happens to you!
Link to video.
See who's laughing when this happens to you!
Link to video.
Similar threads
