I love every time someone makes this point the next set of posts are immediately people going hyperbolic in one direction or the other. :/
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Lawyer-Age: My cousin's husband was charged with second-degree murder
- Thread starter Boards of Canada
- Start date
- Status
I love every time someone makes this point the next set of posts are immediately people going hyperbolic in one direction or the other. :/
Thousands of years of cultural and biological evolution have moved us - most of us - beyond the simple eat/fuck/sleep/kill lifestyle of our lizard brain.
I mean, if you are adamant about shooting first and asking questions later, at least shoot the dude in the kneecaps.
There's more to the social contract than not stealing from people or breaking into other's homes. Like, not killing people without a warning.
You should make yourself known and announce you are armed.
To be honest I can't think of many other possibilities than a)call the police b)confront the perpetrator or c)get the fuck out of your house.
travisbickle
Member
You're just defending people who kill home invaders.
Yes, the intruder died.
Who are you?
why would i be speaking to you?
Unless you can read minds, it's reasonable to "assume the worst" which doesn't mean blindly shooting at every noise. It means assume he's there to harm you and you should incapacitate him however is most expedient, which happens to be shooting. Assuming he's not there to harm and as a result possibly getting harmed or killed is the other possibility and thus you make the other assumption.
HAHAHA surprised it took this long for this to show up
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Unfortunately, there are alot of people in the US, who feel that they should not have to retreat in their own home. Thus castle doctrine.
Then there are other people who feel that they shiould not have to retreat if they have a right to be where they are, hence "Stand your ground."
Eventually, people will pass a law for shooting folks for occupying an area when the shooter beleives he has a right to be in the future.
And this is when WalMart will stop selling firearms and ammuntion after the ineveitable Express Lane Line Cutting Massacre.
Why? Just call the cops and lock the door to the room you are currently in with the shotgun aimed at the door.
That would actually give the cops a chance to catch the fucker red-handed.
Shouting down that you have a shotgun will just trigger fight or flight responses, which you should avoid.
Not sure if you are joking. That isn't a realistic expectation.Or aim for the kneecaps.
Anyone robbing a home is taking a risk with their lives as is the homeowner who doesn't defend himself and family from the invader.
What's happening here is only a subset of b).
The law says it's okay to confront the invader, but that force used should be proportionate to the situation. That's all. There's nothing about asking the invader about their motives or their intention or any other of the weird hyperbolic extremes people are coming up with. It would, in all likelihood, just be about what the defender would reasonably be expected to observe and correspondingly react to.
The law is only there so defendants can't straight-up murder people who are illegally on their property.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
He did what he had to, so good for him. Hope everything turns out alright.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, I do see some resistance to this notion. After all, by announcing your presence, some would seem to suggest that this puts you in danger. Armed or not, now the criminal knows you're there. Think you're a faster draw than him? What if you haven't accounted for his accomplice? People ask these kinds of questions and then surmise that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
why should anyone be expected to give the benefit of the doubt?
Kinda half joking. A warning shot first would be more reasonable.
travisbickle
Member
Because you can't kill someone for what you think they will do to you, in the same way your girlfriend can't blame you for something you did in her dream.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
He should have stabbed him in the leg
You guys should take a hard, long look at yourselves, when even Travis Bickle says something like this.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Basically.
nel e nel, fastest shot in the west
What is your suggestion?
Tesseract
Banned
because our sympathetic nervous system is outdated. because we can deduce things by slowing down time. because the law.
tldr what would sherlock holmes and rambo do?
You do realize a warning shot from a gun is consider misuse of a firearm, and if a police officer did it, he'd be reprimanded. That bullet does go somewhere.
Jesus, some care for innocent people. Don't want a burglar to get hurt so fire a warning shot that could hit who knows what where and when.
Further, all firearm training preaches aiming for center mass. Know why? Because when you miss, same as a warning shot, that bullet is going somewhere you don't intend. Aiming outside center mass only increases the odds of missing with a shot.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't have any hard and fast rules. I won't pretend to be an expert on what people should do in this situation. However, as it comes to advocating how one should behave, I personally just think the situation is slightly more nuanced than some like to make it out to be.
I hope you don't own guns or ever own them
lulz. Seriously though, you ever daydream about getting into situations like this, and what your response would be? Like, "if my nemesis in high school called me out, how would I beat him in a fist fight?"
That's how I arrived at kneecapping/hamstringing for any possible scenario where I have a gun. Not that I own a gun for home protection. A katana would be so much more stylish.
And you might get charged like the woman in Florida. So as a homeowner you are in an always lose situation.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
I am willing to take a life if my life is threatened directly.
In the commotion of a fight sometimes it's hard to judge, but if someone just ran up in my house my first though won't be to kill
Well, I did not know that - the misuse part that is. Of course the bullet goes somewhere, but I suppose in the heat of the moment, an untrained person isn't thinking about that. If I ever did get a gun, I would go through training to make sure I know the proper way to use it.
I just did a quick look for license laws in my area, and it didn't mention anything about safety/usage training. Is that standard when acquiring a license?
So you have to wait for them to do it??
I think that I'll be erring on the side of caution when I smack any intruder with my sawn off curtain pole.
Not much gun ownership in my country..
Baconsammy
Banned
That's quite a message you're sending to other criminals in Canada who enjoy breaking and entering. "The people you're terrorizing shall pose no threat to you, sir. And if they do, we shall prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law!" That'll deter crime.
How do you know the guy doesn't have a gun when it's 3 AM and dark?
Ironically, I agree with the warning, in a verbal form. Part of the gun training I got was training on appropriate response to an intruder (this was in Virginia). If I detect an intruder, retreat with my family to a room, lock it, and announce that I am armed, calling the police, and will fire if they come upstairs.
Now, this is ideal circumstances. More likely is I hear something, go downstairs and find an intruder. If they run, I'd let them go. If I'm armed, I'd tell them to hit the ground. Any action towards me in ANY way, I'd take as hostile intent and respond with force. This way, I'm protecting myself not only physically, but legally as well.
Nel e Nel said:
Depends on your locale, I believe. A lot of places do NOT require, but you'll find most gun ranges won't let you on their range without some basic training with it. Its pretty easy to find training, be it through dealers or NRA, but as a requirement, I don't think too many places do that.
Baconsammy
Banned
How granular are the laws in Canada regarding this? If the criminal makes a move away from you, but towards a room your child is in but you don't stab him, instead you merely punch him in the head, but you hit his temple and he dies. Still your fault? Still a risk of doing time?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well if you can't see him clearly then you definitely shouldn't be confronting him in any way. I'm sorry that should just be common sense.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Honestly, what the fuck are you even trying to say? You haven't made a single coherent post in this thread. All I can tell is that you're upset and crying about it.
Yep, in the U.S. we can stab, stomp, and shoot our intruders. Then we urinate on them and text pictures to all of our friends.
What was the nature of your training? Military, police, personal? Just curious.
What if you went down to check, couldn't see clearly but got his attention and he is now approaching you?
There is no perfect solution. But I think informing a burglar you're aware of his or her presence, and that you are armed, is the least egregious.
Baconsammy
Banned
Do you have kids? Do you own a home with bedrooms spread out in all directions? A criminal moving away from my room is merely heading towards my children's rooms. I'm going to confront that asshole, and he may die. If he can't handle that possibility, the prevention is simple - don't rob people.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Approaching you? Go ahead and fire, that's a pretty clear sign of aggression. These are exactly the kind of distinctions that make this about more then "if he's in the house, go ahead and attack"
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
It's reasonable to assume an intruder may have a weapon to intimidate anyone inside if they were caught. It is also reasonable to the occupant, in North America at least, may have a weapon and so thus a confrontation is very likely, especially if the latter believes the former to be armed. From that perspective, it's difficult to argue that the occupant should avoid pulling the trigger or attacking the burglar in defence of their lives or property.
It must be difficult legally to approach this, but there needs to be a distinction made here between self-defence and murder. I don't believe you have the inherent right to take someone's life on the mere premise that they intruded upon your home.
It must be difficult legally to approach this, but there needs to be a distinction made here between self-defence and murder. I don't believe you have the inherent right to take someone's life on the mere premise that they intruded upon your home.
- Status