Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Aslo, if a Teenager broke in my House, and he gets shoot, OH WELL!he should know better,stupid Kids..Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Second, I don't they ppl will kill you if you visit them,lol,that's a stupid comment.
Third,I never heard of that Happeing..
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
By that logic you could blame everything on the victim.
Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have all that cool stuff I never would have robbed him.”
Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gun I never would have shot him.”
Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gorgeous wife I never would have shot him and raped her.”
You make it seem like trying to protect yourself is a bad thing.
Peace in Europe will never stay, because I play Medieval II Total War every day. ~YesDachi
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Yeah,How is Protecting yourself becoming a bad thing??
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
I'm not joking about the importance of property.
By limiting the ability of a homeowner to defend her/his property, you are implicitly taking away control of that property.
If an intruder invades my home, and I cannot defend myself or my property if any means of escape exists, then protection of the person of criminal intruder has been placed above my rights to my own property. No person has any right to enter my home for any reason without a) my permission or that of my wife, or b) a duly signed warrant promulgated by a court with authority in my jurisdiction.
I may choose to escape, valuing the minimization of risk to myself and others over my property. I may issue a warning, preferring the villain's retreat to her or his death at my hands. But these should be my choice. By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property. If I choose to attempt two rapid shots at center of mass followed by a carefully aimed single shot at the head, then my actions in that instance should be a matter for my conscience and the God in whom I believe.
Rights: Life, Liberty, and Property -- until your own actions make them forfeit by attenuating the enjoment of same by another.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
With the exception of traveling from point A to point B, I personally believe that keeping a long-gun in the car (especially in plain view mounted on a rack) is irresponsible unless that truck is parked safely in a garage. A long gun isn't a very logical defense to a car jacker, and you can't exactly tuck it into your shorts and take it with you when you get to the mall, movies, grocery store etc. Long guns are made for game and home defense, not to carry out in public, ESPECIALLY shotguns loaded with buckshot. If you need self defense, carry a handgun.
Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Some say the same about using pepper spray instead of a pistol! To each his own imo.
Formerly ceasar010
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
you made a good point there m8.. I would Yell "Hey,who the hell there?" and if he doesn't get out within,say,10 seconds, I just go down and show him what I can do..
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Perhaps it's different in the US - but here most burglars break into houses to steall stuff and not to kill everybody who lives there. I wouldn't call that a life or death situation.
I cannot quite follow the connection you are making between my statement and the examples you are giving.
My statement did not even imply that a burglar has the right to break into your house and steal things.
I said that by confronting an armed burglar with a gun you might actually create a life and death situation (i.e. putting your life and the life of your family at risk) when originally you "only" had a burglary.
Indeed - as soon as you confront an armed burglar it probably boils down to that. I tend to value my life and that of my family higher than any possessions a burglar might take.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
My point was less that the choice should be taken away from you - however, I definitely question the somewhat action-movie-driven idea that some people seem to have that a shoot-out is the best way to handle an armed burglary.
Last edited by Ser Clegane; 06-01-2006 at 08:23.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
It is an interesting argument, but I have two questions. Firstly, how far does it go? Could you shoot someone in the back if he is fleeing with your TV? Could a shopkeeper shoot someone for shoplifting a chocolate bar? Can you shoot people for infringing your other rights or is there something special about property rights?
Secondly, if you limit what a householder can do to protect his or her property, are you really taking away control of that property? Surely there has to be some notion of proportionality here. Killing someone is extreme. You remove from them the right to enjoy their property and everything else. Do they really give up the right to life simply by the act of crossing your threshold? Can you not argue that by funding a judicial system and law enforcement agencies the state is upholding your right to property? Surely you don't need the right to shoot any intruder.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Actually yes we do! this is what I can't stand about euros or just about any left leaning person for that matter....why is it so hard to give a little responsibility to average joe? Should you have the right to shoot yes, should you all the time no. How about less of this nanny state BS and put some power back where it belongs, and I believe it belongs in the hands of the people.
Is it it so hard just to let people use their common sense in a trespassing situation, it would save some lives and lose some.
Formerly ceasar010
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Could it be because there seem to be enough cases where people don't show common sense?
What about the old geezer who shot the kid who kept "trespassing" his lawn a short while ago, was that common sense too ?
How do you intend to enforce people to exercise common sense ?
Who defines common sense ?
Give more responsibility to the people ? But people show all the time that they are NOT responsible (and I am not talking about guns, but in general)...
Therapy helps, but screaming obscenities is cheaper.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
No.Could it be because there seem to be enough cases where people don't show common sense?
What about the old geezer who shot the kid who kept "trespassing" his lawn a short while ago, was that common sense too ?
By laws. The man mentioned above is facing charges for murder, I believe.How do you intend to enforce people to exercise common sense ?
The people, though laws.Who defines common sense ?
Such is the burdern of living in a free nation. To be free, we must also be free to make mistakes, though not necessarily free from consequences.Give more responsibility to the people ? But people show all the time that they are NOT responsible (and I am not talking about guns, but in general)...
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Common Sense,Start using it
Some Stupid Cocky Teenager steals a Candy Bar
Shoot?No.
Someone is armed robber and break into your House
Shoot? Yes
Someone Tries to Flee with your TV?
Shoot? Mabye,Mabye not,up to you. Me,Yeah, but I doubt it,I just hit him with a Metal Baseball Bat
Some People Ruin my GrandFather's Garden (they did few years ago)
Shoot? No,Mabye a Warining shot though just for fun
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Trouble is, BHC, peoples' view of common sense differs. Seamus made a good argument for the right to protect one's own property rights, but I am asking how far does it go? I think it is common sense not to kill people for stealing a choclate bar, but to considering using deadly force is someone threatens your life. So far we agree about common sense. However, I think it does not make sense to kill someone for trying to run off with your TV. You think it may be ok. Whose common sense is better?
It is not responsibility; its power - the power of life and death over someone
We agree on this. Everyone does, I think. The question is when is it ok to shoot and when not? My common sense tells me it is acceptable to shoot to protect one's own physical safety, but not acceptable to protect one's property.Should you have the right to shoot yes, should you all the time no.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
To me it is ok to shoot to protect property...as long as they are still on the property.
Formerly ceasar010
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
The solution is remedied by the courts with the reasonable man approach when judging the events. The Right to protect one's property and life should have no contraints other then your action will be reviewed by the legal authorties to ensure that the application of deadly force meet the standards established by law (that a reasonable man would of acted in such a matter.)
What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.
Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.
Incorrect - it is a responsiblity. It is also a right to protect one's property and one's self. Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.It is not responsibility; its power - the power of life and death over someone
The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness. That is why the reasonable man judical application upon review of the events is really the only solution to the dilimia in my opinion.We agree on this. Everyone does, I think. The question is when is it ok to shoot and when not? My common sense tells me it is acceptable to shoot to protect one's own physical safety, but not acceptable to protect one's property.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
THe courts have and will most likely continue to disagree with that stance. Upon the indications of the individual fleeing the property (without the use of violence) - the application of deadly forces is no longer reasonable.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
but if they break into your house,you just going to call 911 and sit there untill he Leaves?? No,it be stupid to do that..
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
If your addressing my comments - then you did not follow the arguement. The application of deadly force will be judged by the legal community after the fact using the reasonable man arguement to determine if it was justified in the circumstance.
To quote myself
But I will even give you a futher clue - I feel no need to use a firearm to protect my home. There are other just as reasonable precautions one can take.
For instance I have the best alarm possible for one's home. A couple of dogs.....
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
What about reckless indifference to human life? This is something that the Australian High Court made good law in R v Crabbe (and has since been codified), but they took a big leaf out of R v Hyam (1975) AC 55 - "a person who does an act knowing it's probable consequences may be regarded as having intended those consequences to occur" (per Viscount Dilhorne).
Of course, this may have been removed by statute (in which case I apologise, sadly I don't have the time to keep abreast of English statutes these days).
Caligula and Hadrian - Unit and Building editors for Rome: Total War.
Now editing -
export_descr_unit.txt, export_descr_unit_enums.txt, export_units.txt, descr_model_battle.txt
export_descr_buildings.txt, export_descr_buildings_enums.txt, export_buildings.txt
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Well, your right. It doesn't remove their right to die.
Why do you hate Freedom?
The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Agreed.
This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.
Which definition?Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.
Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.Incorrect - it is a responsiblity.
Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made. I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.
I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness.
Last edited by Duke of Gloucester; 06-04-2006 at 08:12.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Then your position is based solely upon emotional appeal not the law.
primarily the use of only the individual's definition.Which definition?
Read the following sentences - it explains the responsiblity.
Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.
Then you understood the previous comment correctly, which negates your previous question.Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made.
Read what you wrote previosily and what you wrote here. You are only applying one standard - yours. The standard about wether the home owner used reasonable force to protect himself and his property comes from the legal argument of the reasonable man. What I would do as an individual when someone breaks into my home - is most likely different then what you would do. What is reasonable is solely based upon the individual circumstances of each event. Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.
When one breakes into someone's home - the fear exists regardless if someone dies or not. The application of force by the homeowner in this regards has been often judged as reasonable. It is in certain circumstances after the initial breakin that the law has judged that unreasonable force has been applied.I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.
For instance most legal systems have ruled that unreasonable force was used when the home invader was shot in the back in the front yard of the dwelling. Then there is the case that was alreadly mentioned that happened in the United Kingdom. That also could only be seen as unreasonable force being applied. Hince the criminal charge of the property owner was applied by the legal authority.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
"I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours."
Under NO Circumtances,should we use a Gun? What happens if they break into your House with a Gun or a Knife or Both, just call 911 and coward in your room? NO. They break into my House, I let my Huskey go after it and let her tear him apart while I stand that laughing my butt off..
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Well that comment is based on a cheap emotional appeal. Forget I said it. However it does not mean that my whole argument is based on an emotional appeal.
Seriously, Redleg I don't understand what you are saying. On one hand you seem to say that it is up to the individual to decide what to do in a given situation. In fact you seem to say that the individual has a responsiblity to decide for themselves. You then say society must judge his actions after the event. Then you criticise me for expressing my own opinions. I am not sure why I am not allowed to express opinions, and I am interested to know why you direct the the criticism "you are only applying one standard - yours" to me alone, when it could be applied to most other contributors to the thread. (It may be because I repeated some ill-judged Travel Agent advice - if so I apologise) I also think that householders are entitled to some guidance as to what is likely to be found reasonable before they act. You see I think I am perfectly reasonable and I am never going to agree with the use of lethal force simply to protect property. Seamus probably considers himself reasonable too, but he is likely to say this is o.k. The concept of the "reasonable man" is a legal fiction designed to clarify thinking when making legal decisions. It basically reminds them that they should apply society's standards when making judgement. We should not fall in to the trap of thinking that there are positions which are objectively reasonable.
Quote:
Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.
Read the following sentences - it explains the responsiblity.
Quote:
Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made.
Then you understood the previous comment correctly, which negates your previous question.
Quote:
I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.
Read what you wrote previosily and what you wrote here. You are only applying one standard - yours. The standard about wether the home owner used reasonable force to protect himself and his property comes from the legal argument of the reasonable man. What I would do as an individual when someone breaks into my home - is most likely different then what you would do. What is reasonable is solely based upon the individual circumstances of each event. Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.
The blanket postion I am arguing against is that you can do what you want to an intruder. Let me make it clear - if you are afraid of physical harm then the use of lethal force may be justified. For example I have no problem with the actions of the young man in the example that started the thread. Some blanket postitions must be o.k. - for example you may not shoot intruders to your home simply because you don't like their clothes. I also think it is reasonable to say "you may not kill an intruder simply because they may make off with your property".Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
OK
Correct that is what I am saying.Seriously, Redleg I don't understand what you are saying. On one hand you seem to say that it is up to the individual to decide what to do in a given situation.
That is correctIn fact you seem to say that the individual has a responsiblity to decide for themselves.
That is the function of law, which is also exactly what I have stated.You then say society must judge his actions after the event.
Did I state that you are not allowed to have an opinion? (are you attempting an emotional appeal once again?)Then you criticise me for expressing my own opinions. I am not sure why I am not allowed to express opinions,
In expressing your opinion you must also accept the peaceful consequences that come with that open expression - and that consequence is criticism and disagreement with your opinion being vocalized.
Because this discussion is primarily between you and me.and I am interested to know why you direct the the criticism "you are only applying one standard - yours" to me alone, when it could be applied to most other contributors to the thread.
Guidance concerning the issue is acceptable to me also. However how much guidance the legal established authority has in telling people how to react to what they precieve to be a danger to themselves. There is an inherient right to self-defense.I believe that householders are entitled to some guidance as to what is likely to be found reasonable before they act.
If you read carefully - you will notice that I have never stated that it is acceptable to use lethal force to simply protect property.You see I think I am perfectly reasonable and I am never going to agree with the use of lethal force simply to protect property.
Then I think you misread his statements.Seamus probably considers himself reasonable too, but he is likely to say this is o.k.
It is an established legal arguement. You can believe its a legal fiction - however it is the arguement used to measure an individuals actions.The concept of the "reasonable man" is a legal fiction designed to clarify thinking when making legal decisions.
exactly - but it seems with the unequiventol statement you made earlier that you have falling into that same trap.It basically reminds them that they should apply society's standards when making judgement. We should not fall in to the trap of thinking that there are positions which are objectively reasonable.
And if you look into the laws of the land - regardless of which nation - you will find that most legal codes do not allow for the un-justified shooting of an intruder. The justification of lethal force is normally associated with the "reasonable man" arguement about what would a resonable man do in the situation.The blanket postion I am arguing against is that you can do what you want to an intruder. Let me make it clear - if you are afraid of physical harm then the use of lethal force may be justified. For example I have no problem with the actions of the young man in the example that started the thread. Some blanket postitions must be o.k. - for example you may not shoot intruders to your home simply because you don't like their clothes. I also think it is reasonable to say "you may not kill an intruder simply because they may make off with your property".
The violation of property rights does not always justify the use of deadly force, but in most instances it applies.
If an individual pulls a gun in order to just rob you of your property - how do you know that he is just after your property?
If an individual invades your home in the middle of the night - how do you know that he is just after your property?
If someone pulls a knife on you - how do you know that they are only after your property?
The problem is that you don' know - and there is no way that you can know.
However I do agree that you can not shoot the individual after he committs the crime and has demonstrated that your life was not in danger when he flees the scene without doing any form of physical violence.
I believe that this is the difference in our postions. Until the indication is demonstrated by the individual committing the violation of property rights (the criminal), that no physcial harm is intended by the criminal to the property owner - the property owner is often justified in protecting his property and himself from the violent acts of the criminal.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Don't mind criticism or disagreement (not keen on being patronised though). To be fair you did not say that I was allowed to have an opinion, just that my opinion was not valid because it was a personal opinion. Still don't understand the reasoning behind this.Did I state that you are not allowed to have an opinion? (are you attempting an emotional appeal once again?)
In expressing your opinion you must also accept the peaceful consequences that come with that open expression - and that consequence is criticism and disagreement with your opinion being vocalized.
Have I said anywhere there is no right to self-defence?Guidance concerning the issue is acceptable to me also. However how much guidance the legal established authority has in telling people how to react to what they precieve to be a danger to themselves. There is an inherient right to self-defense.
Good we agree on that.If you read carefully - you will notice that I have never stated that it is acceptable to use lethal force to simply protect property.
Seamus can speak for himself, but I think when he says "By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property." he is claiming the right to use lethal force is he chooses whatever the circumstances once someone has entered his house without permission.Then I think you misread his statements.
Legal fiction is a term laywers use. I probably haven't used it exactly as meant in this context because I am not a lawyer. Legal fictions are extablished as acceptable in law, so I did not mean it wasn't recognised legally, just that the "reasonable man" concept was a shorthand way of refering to society's standards.It is an established legal arguement. You can believe its a legal fiction - however it is the arguement used to measure an individuals actions.
It should go without saying that any expressions of opinion that I have made are subjective and personal (but still valid as expressions of my opinion.)exactly - but it seems with the unequiventol statement you made earlier that you have falling into that same trap.
I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with.I believe that this is the difference in our postions. Until the indication is demonstrated by the individual committing the violation of property rights (the criminal), that no physcial harm is intended by the criminal to the property owner - the property owner is often justified in protecting his property and himself from the violent acts of the criminal.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
The reasoning is based upon the legal code.
You keep implying it with the statement about property.
Have I said anywhere there is no right to self-defence?
Good we agree on that.
That is not the interpation that I get. He is implying that his rights come first.
Seamus can speak for himself, but I think when he says "By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property." he is claiming the right to use lethal force is he chooses whatever the circumstances once someone has entered his house without permission.
Agreed.Legal fiction is a term laywers use. I probably haven't used it exactly as meant in this context because I am not a lawyer. Legal fictions are extablished as acceptable in law, so I did not mean it wasn't recognised legally, just that the "reasonable man" concept was a shorthand way of refering to society's standards.
Didn't say that - however I did say your falling into the same trap that you mentioned.It should go without saying that any expressions of opinion that I have made are subjective and personal (but still valid as expressions of my opinion.)
Then I have misunderstood your postion based upon some of the terms used.I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with.
A simple thing to do on the internet discussion forums where the intent behind the words is not always clear.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol
Our Rights Do Come First,Not the Robber. If you Think the Person Still has Rights when he is Invading your house, I Disagree..
"I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with."
Duke, I disagree with you there. Tell me,someone breaks into your House,for Any Reson,I don't mean for oen thing or another, I Mean Any Reson,Robbery,Murder,etc.. Tell me what you Main Idea of your Course of Action Be? Get the Gun? Call the Cops and hide? Let your Dog/Dogs take Care of Him? Fight/Confront Him?? or just sit there and Do Nothing??
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks