You would kill someone for breaking and entering.
You would kill them.
That seems really, really... poorly reasoned? They infringe upon your rights to property and privacy, and in response you destroy them? You take everything from them as payment for your lost privacy, material possessions, and sense of security?
...
There's an old saying... "an eye for an eye". Essentially it meant you can at most deprive a wrongdoer of something equal to what you lost. They steal two of your sheep, you are entitled to get up to two sheep back. But not twelve. You could, of course, choose to not excerise your full right of reparation if you liked, and ask for lesser or equal compensation in a different form. But you could never take more.
The only reasonable situation to use deadly force is in self-defense. Unless you are about to be, or are being attacked, you have no right to retaliate with violence.
And if you want to become a police officer, you really need to get straight your ideas of when the use of force is appropriate. Remember, violence as a last resort. Always.
~Alja~
Bump in the Night
-
Alja-Markir
- Trebuchet Enthusiast
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
- Location: Deep In Space
-
The Pious Flea
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 15:22
- Location: The Mote in God's Eye
Alja-Markir wrote:You would kill someone for breaking and entering.
You would kill them.
That seems really, really... poorly reasoned? They infringe upon your rights to property and privacy
Breakers and enterers also put safety at risk, particularly because there's a distinct tendency for them to injure / kill witnesses in order to make their getaway if discovered.
I require a dance of intellect. Put on your thinking shoes!
Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!
Do not question me! I control your arms!
Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!
Do not question me! I control your arms!
Within the confines of the following law, I am going to defend my home, my property, and my family (in the future).
Colorado statute 18-1-704.5 (emphasis added):
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
In plain English? If some guy breaks into your house, and you think he intends to commit a crime in addition to breaking and entering, and you think he might attack you or yours, then it's okay to kill him. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Burglers don't usually break in for tea and crumpets.
In addition, if I become a cop, I will do what it takes to make it home every night.
Colorado statute 18-1-704.5 (emphasis added):
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
In plain English? If some guy breaks into your house, and you think he intends to commit a crime in addition to breaking and entering, and you think he might attack you or yours, then it's okay to kill him. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Burglers don't usually break in for tea and crumpets.
In addition, if I become a cop, I will do what it takes to make it home every night.
Wil Wheaton says "Game over, Moonpie."
In addendum, and somewhat agreement, with what Cake said, most burglars will react violently if caught in the act. If I catch someone breaking into my home, then I have every reason to believe that he intends to kill, or at least maim, me. He's stressed out, not thinking clearly, and doesn't really care about any other laws he might break. On grounds of that, I'm now attacking in self-defense.
That's justification for incapacitation.
HOWEVER, I have met people who defended their homes, and were sued by the burgler over the injuries they dealt while defending their homes! Not only that, but the burglers actually won the case!
That's justification for extermination.
As a correlary, though, as soon as the threat is past, you're not allowed to make any more hostile actions towards an intruder once the situation's been dealt with: you are allowed to restrain him(tie him up), and call the police, in which case, he'll survive, and sue you for injury.
That's justification for using lethal force on the first strike. The first chance is the only chance you'll get, and you'll usually be denied a second chance by the intruder ending your life.
As an interesting side-note, if two people break into your home, one dies for any reason, and the other escapes, the surviving intruder is charged with first-degree murder, so if you see multiple burglers, make sure at least one dies, so that the others all go away for good.
The average police response time is just long enough for the intruder to kill you, tie your wife to the bed and rape her, kill your wife, tie up your daughter, kidnap your tied-up daughter, and make off with the TV.
Having said that, I do respect the job the police do, and I think Cake would make an excellent officer. I have a brother who wants to be a police officer, as well.
That's justification for incapacitation.
HOWEVER, I have met people who defended their homes, and were sued by the burgler over the injuries they dealt while defending their homes! Not only that, but the burglers actually won the case!
That's justification for extermination.
As a correlary, though, as soon as the threat is past, you're not allowed to make any more hostile actions towards an intruder once the situation's been dealt with: you are allowed to restrain him(tie him up), and call the police, in which case, he'll survive, and sue you for injury.
That's justification for using lethal force on the first strike. The first chance is the only chance you'll get, and you'll usually be denied a second chance by the intruder ending your life.
As an interesting side-note, if two people break into your home, one dies for any reason, and the other escapes, the surviving intruder is charged with first-degree murder, so if you see multiple burglers, make sure at least one dies, so that the others all go away for good.
The average police response time is just long enough for the intruder to kill you, tie your wife to the bed and rape her, kill your wife, tie up your daughter, kidnap your tied-up daughter, and make off with the TV.
Having said that, I do respect the job the police do, and I think Cake would make an excellent officer. I have a brother who wants to be a police officer, as well.
Deemed too hazardous for human contact.
I would like to say first that the number of crimes that can be punished by death in the state of Colorado is three: Murder in the first degree, Kidnapping, and treason. As well the right to kill someone is strictly limited to self defense or defense of your home. None of these things is to be taken lightly.
My thoughts on killing someone that has invaded my home, is that my child or wife or myself (side note: I am still single) is already in mortal danger, and that is more then enough for me to kill.
like cake said, "Burglars don't usually break in for tea and crumpets." The statistics I am using are from the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR), and can be found here http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html something to note is that these numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. In 2006 the estimated number of forcible rape in Colorado was 1,870. A trend among rapists in Colorado is to assault victims within their own homes. This of course does not cover all the rapes; as well it is not even close to the number of burglaries in 2006. But I hardly think I would stop to ask the burglars intentions, and would assume the worst.
As for when I become a cop (I’m studying can you tell), I will make it home every night, whatever it takes. I’m not so starry eyed that I think that everyone has good in them, nor am I jaded enough to think that no one has good in them. However, violence should always be the last resort (if its not you failed to resort to enough of it :P), and I agree with that, but in the position of a law enforcement officer if you are involved it is not with a Sunday elderly bible study group. As another point people shoot at cops for no other reason then they are cops, most of the time officers don’t want violence to be the answer, for one it’s dangerous and for two it’s a lot of paperwork. It’s all well and good to wear idealistic goggles once in a while, but here in the real world you don’t always get to choose what the last resort is.
My last little bit I swear. The phrase “an eye for an eye” was penned in a time when capitol punishment was the most used punishment, and was no more then an attempt to make it truly “an eye for an eye.” It sounds great, but it’s not a solid deterrent. As an example “you broke into my house now it’s my turn” is not as scary as “break into my house and risk death.” I know that that has cut down forced entries.
My thoughts on killing someone that has invaded my home, is that my child or wife or myself (side note: I am still single) is already in mortal danger, and that is more then enough for me to kill.
like cake said, "Burglars don't usually break in for tea and crumpets." The statistics I am using are from the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR), and can be found here http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html something to note is that these numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. In 2006 the estimated number of forcible rape in Colorado was 1,870. A trend among rapists in Colorado is to assault victims within their own homes. This of course does not cover all the rapes; as well it is not even close to the number of burglaries in 2006. But I hardly think I would stop to ask the burglars intentions, and would assume the worst.
As for when I become a cop (I’m studying can you tell), I will make it home every night, whatever it takes. I’m not so starry eyed that I think that everyone has good in them, nor am I jaded enough to think that no one has good in them. However, violence should always be the last resort (if its not you failed to resort to enough of it :P), and I agree with that, but in the position of a law enforcement officer if you are involved it is not with a Sunday elderly bible study group. As another point people shoot at cops for no other reason then they are cops, most of the time officers don’t want violence to be the answer, for one it’s dangerous and for two it’s a lot of paperwork. It’s all well and good to wear idealistic goggles once in a while, but here in the real world you don’t always get to choose what the last resort is.
My last little bit I swear. The phrase “an eye for an eye” was penned in a time when capitol punishment was the most used punishment, and was no more then an attempt to make it truly “an eye for an eye.” It sounds great, but it’s not a solid deterrent. As an example “you broke into my house now it’s my turn” is not as scary as “break into my house and risk death.” I know that that has cut down forced entries.
-
Master Gunner
- Defending us from The Dutch!
- Posts: 19383
- Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: In Limbo.
A note about the phrase "an eye for an eye", I don't know where it originated first, but I do know that Canadian and American law is heavily based off of British Common Law (after all, we're mostly descended from British settlers). What this has to do with anything is that British Common Law is based on the Book of Exodus, which contains one of the earliest uses of "an eye for an eye" (the other contender would be the Code of Hammurabi, but I have no idea which came first, especially when you extend back into traditions before we first wrote it down). Now, to actually get to the point of this. As used in Jewish law and tradition, at least at the time of Exodus, "an eye for an eye" was not meant to be taken literally. All reparations for physical damage and the like would be monetary. So the original intent of the law, or at least the law that our laws are based on, is not that violence is an answer to violence, but rather it was for equivalent reparations.
All that stuff been said (no idea why I even said it, it makes no difference), I fully support Cake's right to have a gun to defend his family with, especially if he also needs it to become a cop. However, I feel a must point out to Cake that that the shotgun he already has is much more effective for home defense. As for concealed-carry, I'm still up in the air about it, but if it helps with his sense of security, and he never, ever draws it without clear and immediate danger and intent to use it, then he is well within his rights to go for it.
All that stuff been said (no idea why I even said it, it makes no difference), I fully support Cake's right to have a gun to defend his family with, especially if he also needs it to become a cop. However, I feel a must point out to Cake that that the shotgun he already has is much more effective for home defense. As for concealed-carry, I'm still up in the air about it, but if it helps with his sense of security, and he never, ever draws it without clear and immediate danger and intent to use it, then he is well within his rights to go for it.
-
robothero
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 21 Aug 2005, 11:23
- First Video: Ways to drink a Coke?
- Location: winnipeg
- Contact:
I am not a lawyer, but I would not recommend killing someone solely for the purpose of avoiding a lawsuit.Yukikaze wrote:HOWEVER, I have met people who defended their homes, and were sued by the burgler over the injuries they dealt while defending their homes! Not only that, but the burglers actually won the case!
That's justification for extermination.
[quote="Master Gunner"]However, I feel a must point out to Cake that that the shotgun he already has is much more effective for home defense. As for concealed-carry, I'm still up in the air about it, but if it helps with his sense of security, and he [i]never, ever[/i] draws it without [i]clear and immediate danger[/i] and [i]intent to use it[/i], then he is well within his rights to go for it.[/quote]
Having gone shooting with cake and putting a few shells through that shotgun it would prov very unweildy in close quarters combat.
Having gone shooting with cake and putting a few shells through that shotgun it would prov very unweildy in close quarters combat.
Uhm.. Yeah, so the video was good, Lets get back to that eh?
As much fun as talking about death and rape and suing is, I do belive this is the video discussion thread, eh?
If I was in Pauls position I probably would of gotten up and gone to the bathroom, I mean.. when your up, your up. Right?
As much fun as talking about death and rape and suing is, I do belive this is the video discussion thread, eh?
If I was in Pauls position I probably would of gotten up and gone to the bathroom, I mean.. when your up, your up. Right?
---------------
Haz- King Ozzy (Juhnaid)
---------------
Haz- King Ozzy (Juhnaid)
---------------
Master Gunner wrote:However, I feel a must point out to Cake that that the shotgun he already has is much more effective for home defense.
I feel like a shotgun would be a poor choice for a home defense weapon, because it throws more than one projectile at a time. Not everything would hit the target, and anything that misses has to land somewhere else... Also, I'm pretty sure a shotgun would leave a rather large mess.... If I've got one projectile that WILL (I say will because I will fire no gun unless I know EXACTLY where the bullets will land. I'll be spending a lot of time at the range.) hit the target, I'd rather use that.
All THAT being said. I don't think it looked like Paul had to pee. And even if he did, I think he might have waited 'til the duck left. Duck was dangerous.
Wil Wheaton says "Game over, Moonpie."
-
The Pious Flea
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 15:22
- Location: The Mote in God's Eye
Paul had some very good acting in this video.
I think in retrospect that the video was slightly too long, and Paul had a hard time coming up with stuff to do to fill up that time - looking at the phone again was probably too much - but it's a small thing, and doesn't detract from the quality of the acting itself.
I think in retrospect that the video was slightly too long, and Paul had a hard time coming up with stuff to do to fill up that time - looking at the phone again was probably too much - but it's a small thing, and doesn't detract from the quality of the acting itself.
I require a dance of intellect. Put on your thinking shoes!
Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!
Do not question me! I control your arms!
Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!
Do not question me! I control your arms!
-
Dr Frankenjam
- Posts: 945
- Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 11:47
- Location: En-ger-land
- Contact:
Cake wrote:I feel like a shotgun would be a poor choice for a home defense weapon, because it throws more than one projectile at a time. Not everything would hit the target, and anything that misses has to land somewhere else... Also, I'm pretty sure a shotgun would leave a rather large mess.... If I've got one projectile that WILL (I say will because I will fire no gun unless I know EXACTLY where the bullets will land. I'll be spending a lot of time at the range.) hit the target, I'd rather use that.
Unless you're already a cold blooded killer, i'd like to point out that in such an event where you'd feel you need to fire a weapon at someone in order to protect yourself... you're not gonna hit them every time. You're gonna be nervous, they're gonna be nervous, you're both going to be moving, you're gonna have the wild shakes and you're gonna fire more than one shot.
preferably, you wouldn't have to fire any shots, as a homeowner simply threatening with a gun is going to intimidate all but the most stupid/gutsy intruders. Even then, low-penetration, small-arms fire is far preferable to a shotgun. It needs to be big enough for stopping power, but low-penetration, so that it goes through as few walls as possible. Remember, we want to drop the bad guy, not the kids sleeping down the hall.
However, I never said anything about using a gun. We've got a set of Cutco knives, and they're the sharpest things I've ever seen. The police report will involve something about the intruder having his belly or neck slashed open with a butter knife.
However, I never said anything about using a gun. We've got a set of Cutco knives, and they're the sharpest things I've ever seen. The police report will involve something about the intruder having his belly or neck slashed open with a butter knife.
-
Dr Frankenjam
- Posts: 945
- Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 11:47
- Location: En-ger-land
- Contact:
The summary?
Code: Select all
"Guns are good."
"No, guns are stupid!"
"Nu uh!"
"Ya huh!"
"Agreed to disagree?"
"Yeah."
Last edited by Cake on 08 Oct 2007, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.
Wil Wheaton says "Game over, Moonpie."
Ooo and on the burgling thing? Escalation. If burglars know you have a gun, or are likely to have a gun, they will get guns.
Also, i object to the idea that all people who break into your home are murdering rapists. All criminals have lines that they will not cross between crimes they are prepared to commit and crimes they aren't. We had a break in a few years ago (in England) and all they stole was my brother's remote-control car, which had been his long-awaited 'holiday season' present.
Jumping through an open window of a house that isn't yours does not stop you being a human being. Also, burglar alarms exist for a reason.
Also, i object to the idea that all people who break into your home are murdering rapists. All criminals have lines that they will not cross between crimes they are prepared to commit and crimes they aren't. We had a break in a few years ago (in England) and all they stole was my brother's remote-control car, which had been his long-awaited 'holiday season' present.
Jumping through an open window of a house that isn't yours does not stop you being a human being. Also, burglar alarms exist for a reason.
Return to “LRR Video Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests