Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol

[Fragony]

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices -- does this not implicitly mean that you have no right to your own property? The application of justice you mention favors the criminals right of person OVER your right to your property. So you could only defend your daughter, without threat of jail for your actions, DURING and not just prior to her rape, since only then has a crime of person been committed? (Yes the example is hyperbolic). If so, I am glad that Die Nederlunds have legalized most substances -- you've got to keep the criminal element happily stoned to avoid losing everything.

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

[Tribesman]

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices
Thats a big IF, so hold on with the credit there Seamus .
Notice this bit....This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.
.....interesting huh , shocking , and bullshit ......Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, If the burglar has the knife first the homeowner get the self defence provision .
Also a criminal with a weapon is commiting an entirely different crime than one without a weapon , in this case that would be aggravated burglary , though in the example put forward it would stick at that as the burglar took the knife from the house , if he bought his own knife it would be aggravated burglary with intent , which is an even more serious charge .
And of course serious charges involving violence or the intent to violence , get different treatment .......Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him.

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

[Fragony]

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

Well here is one, fast huh

http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2...eersteken.html

[Tribesman]

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag

[Fragony]

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag

Nope it went more like this,

This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.

as I said before, different case though. I just don't make that much effort for you.

[Tribesman]

I just don't make that much effort for you.
No it appears that you just make it up .

[Fragony]

No it appears that you just make it up .

But of course, we have this every time. You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.

[Tribesman]

You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.
No Frag , I asked for a case that backed up your claim about dutch law , what you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed .

Now there was a case in Britain where someone killed a burglar , he was found guilty because he killed the burglar when the thief was not a threat to him so it was not self defense , there was a case just up the road recently where a farmer was found guilty of manslaughter (though it was clearly murder) after killing a burglar when it was not self defense .
Everywhere has laws defining murder , manslaughter and every other type of killing , just as they have laws stipulating what constitutes self-defense and intent .
For you to try and claim that Holland does not have these laws and that the courts do not follow the laws of the land just shows that once again you are giving your "unique" interpretation of Dutch laws .

[Fragony]

Fascinating story but I don't believe you, link please.

It is just as I told you, violence>burglary. If there is anything the dutch judges don't like it's taking matters into your own hands when the police is to busy warming their ass with their own; if that strikes you as insane by all means ride with me. There is having the law and applying it. I gave you what you wanted, one case, exactly what you asked for. Can give you a whole lot more.

[Ronin]

so despite all the thousands of deaths every year from fire arms one person managed to make a correct use of one?


well....woooopty freaking doo!!!

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up?

[Ser Clegane]

Also I have a clear opinion regarding the regulation of gun ownership, i.e. favouring rather restrictive regulations (at least for countries where it currently is regulated - the situation is abit different for countries like the US, where guns are already so spread that regulations would be extremely difficult to implement), I have to admit that the pro-gunners have a bit of an unfair disadvantage when it comes to statistics that prove their position.

It is certainly much easier to statistically measure deaths caused by guns than lives saved by guns - for the latter you rather have to rely on anecdotal evidence as it will be next to impossible to show statistics with a bullet-proof methodology.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Fascinating story but I don't believe you, link please.

It is just as I told you, violence>burglary. If there is anything the dutch judges don't like it's taking matters into your own hands when the police is to busy warming their ass with their own; if that strikes you as insane by all means ride with me. There is having the law and applying it. I gave you what you wanted, one case, exactly what you asked for. Can give you a whole lot more.

Probably the article Tribesman was refering to

Thing is Frag, Tribesman (and I) can't believe that Dutch law is that daft. British law is not keen on allowing people to take the law in to their own hands. In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him. In the case you describe, in Britain at least, the householder could claim self defense. The same applies to the original case in the thread. The boy clearly had good reason to believe that he and his family were at risk, and took action to protect himself and them. This is why we want to see a link to stories illustrating what you describe. It is so daft we don't believe it. (Of course, if it is in dutch, I won't be able to understand it)

[scooter_the_shooter]

so despite all the thousands of deaths every year from fire arms one person managed to make a correct use of one?


well....woooopty freaking doo!!!

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up?

They manage to use them in defense 2.5 million time a year in good ol' USA, And the good news is you don't need to sign up in my state (unless it's a handgun )

[ZombieFriedNuts]

If somebody comes into your house with the intension of robbing you I don’t think thy will care if they hurt you, so you should have the right to do anything you want to them short of killing them.
For example tie them up put them in the boot of your car drive them to Wales then leave them there with nothing, that will teach them.

[Duke of Gloucester]

If somebody comes into your house with the intension of robbing you I don’t think thy will care if they hurt you, so you should have the right to do anything you want to them short of killing them.
For example tie them up put them in the boot of your car drive them to Wales then leave them there with nothing, that will teach them.

A professional burglar will not want to confront a householder, so if you know he (or she) is in the house, then that is a mistake. They have either been too noisy or mistakenly thought you were out. They will want to get out ASAP. They won't want to hurt you and get blood or other evidence on their clothes. They will probably be more scared than you are. Of course, professional burglars are not the only people who break in to your house. The point I am making is that you can't make generalisations about burglars.

As EA says: I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

If we allow people to "do what they like to burglars then":

• lots of teenagers being silly will be killed, maimed or tortured
• you'd better trust anyone you vist, or they could kill you and claim you were a burglar
• you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

[yesdachi]

I think this is a good story. I am 100% for the responsible use of guns; it is a right we should not dismiss the importance of.

I’m sure you have all heard about Kennesaw, the “gun city”, but incase you haven’t take a look. Pro-gun arguments often lead to this city as an example. I think the idea is sound and some cities could benefit but I don’t think it would work everywhere.

Here’s a little exert from the Kennesaw Historical Society.

The Gun Law
Kennesaw rocked the world when on May 1, 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring all heads of households to maintain a firearm and ammunition. The law was passed partly in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Illinois (June, 1981) banning private possession of handguns. Since passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw has gone down significantly, while the rate in Morton Grove has gone up.

Guns are not bad, idiots are bad. There should be laws against them.

[scooter_the_shooter]

If any one wants to stop the "what if scenarios" and look at incedents that happened and statistics I will post more in this thread.

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.



Like this

you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

They won't shoot you ( and be within their rights) if you knock on the door and ask for help. Even with the castle law you can't kill every one who comes on your property.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the gun control topic (sorry if someone mentioned this, I didn't read everything):

A gun is a tool, not a toy. It can be bent to do your will. If guns are outlawed, knives will simply be used more often.

The problem is not the weapon, it is the responsibility with which it is used. Take Switzerland as an example. HOWEVER, that being said, a gun can obviously be used for evil. What if that man had a firearm on his person? I would be more likely to fire at a person with a weapon pointing at me then a person who is unarmed, personally.

I am not an advocate of gun control, BUT I believe that all weapons should be stored properly, and that every legal owner of a firearm must pass a basic safety course.

[Tribesman]

In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him.
The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder .
Now while in the second case I think the farmer did the area a favour and probably should have killed the rest of the family while he was at it . It doesn't change the fact that the law is the law .
And if you break the law then you pay the consequences , as set out by law .
edit to add
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1111/nallyp.html
Nally screwed himself with his own testimony (which is why the appeal will come out and change the manslaughter conviction )that he kept beating Frog with the stick (after first shooting him) because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die , so to then return to the house , reload his weapon and kill the thief it makes it murder .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up?

In Lisbon, I do not know. Here in the USA, you can try a Wal-Mart.

[Banquo's Ghost]

"because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die"

Slight tangent, but that'll make a great retort when next you cross swords with Divinus Arma...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool

Thanks for the wink. As you surmised, my statement did NOT equate the two nor do I place a lesser value on women in any way, shape, or form. Prole' would ace me if I thought that way, and she'd be correct, though I would probably have been offed by the wife before then.

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

I was trying to emphasize that, in your example, only when the crime being committed had risen to the level of a crime against another person, and not merely the threat of same, would violence be justified. I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

[Tribesman]

Slight tangent Banquo , but did you hear Frogs wife giving testimony classic
Off topic a bit more , she is up on nearly 2 dozen charges next month .

[Major Robert Dump]

The difference between first and second degree burglary is whether or not someone is likely or unlikely to be "home", therefore first carries a much larger penalty in the states. Burglarizing a business after hours or a home (where the thief has a reasonble cause to believe no one is home) will almost always be 2nd degree. Burglarizing a home at a time when people are more likely to be present will almost always net 1st degree.

The possibility for violent confrontation -- from both sides -- skyrockets when people are home, and a large part of criminals hurting people during break-ins comes from their presence being discovered and the burglar trying to gain control of the situation.

Being in someones home in and of itself isn't justifiable cause to kill them, nor is it justifiable to kill over property (running off with your tv/car)and that will be the case in any state, and may vary slightly (as always) because of juries. Certain aggravating factors may contribute to this, though, like if it is late at night and dark, if the burglrar surprises the victims, if the home has been hit repeatedly or the occupants assaulted before etc etc.


You will be hard pressed to find a jury that will convict someone for killing a home invader unless it was a clear cut example of the burglrar attempting to flee, i.e. shot in the back 4 times on the front porch holding a stereo.

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

And to clarify an issue from page 1, we were talking about warning shots, not shouting a warning. Cops don't fire warning shots, no one should. Yerlling a warning is an entriely different matter and should be done if possible, although police don't always bother with that nicety if they feel time is of the essence. Thats what scares me about using a gun in self defense, the possibility that if its in a public place a cop who is nearby could just shoot me

[scooter_the_shooter]

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

me

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own

[Tribesman]

It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own
Hmmmmmm.... read what you wrote in post #25 . You are at it again Ceasar
Look......Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish....if you cannot see what is wrong with having a weapon , loaded or unloaded in the open bed of a pickup truck driving around town(or country for that matter) then perhaps you need a few lessons in responsible gun ownership .

[scooter_the_shooter]

Any one have a link to this incedent, I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.

[solypsist]

american citizens should be allowed to keep whatever they want, gun-wise, on their property. i'm not pro-gun, i'm just anti-the-government-taking-my-sh**-away-from-me.

[Tribesman]

I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.
So if it was indeed on the bed of the pick up would it be a problem ? Remember , it is just a piece of metal , right

[scooter_the_shooter]

I googled a little bit and coulnd't find anything.


Oh darn ya got me tribes