Guns don't kill people .... - Page 13

dmg1969 · 03-26-2012, 12:43 PM

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and carry a gun daily. As I type this, it in my briefcase within arms-length. I don't want to be a statistic if some nut-ball comes to the office I work in (law firm) and decides to start shooting.

That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for. Still...if someone breaks in to my house and I draw down on them with my handgun and they flee...the confrontation is over. If I give chase and shoot him, I am then the aggressor. That is what happened in this case and he should be charged.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.

Spexxvet · 03-26-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmg1969

In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for.

Why are you thankful for this?

HungLikeJesus · 03-26-2012, 12:58 PM

In Colorado this is called the "make my day" law.

piercehawkeye45 · 03-26-2012, 01:25 PM

The idea that you don't have to run away if someone breaks into your house?

Spexxvet · 03-26-2012, 01:51 PM

Yes

dmg1969 · 03-27-2012, 07:17 AM

Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but......

If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off.

sexobon · 03-26-2012, 03:31 PM

Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.

Spexxvet · 03-26-2012, 03:58 PM

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

sexobon · 03-26-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

In these days of doped up perps, "stuff" can turn to "lives" (or rape or torture) in less than a heartbeat. I wouldn't kill for stuff either; but, I have the advantage of tactical training plus experience that might enable me to better discern what's at stake and avail myself of more options than most other civilians. I'm not going to sit in judgment of those who don't; unless, I'm legally charged to do so by way of jury duty.

The comparison you suggest would be interesting; but, of limited use even if that information could be accurately obtained. While the good of the many generally outweighs the needs of the few, when it comes to the right of self preservation, sometimes the good of the many is outweighed by the needs of the few - or the one.

It will always be a balancing act and it appears the process will be in the adversarial form of our judicial system with staunch advocates for both extremes going at each other while those in the middle hope to take from it what's best for them. I don't believe there's a one size fits all national solution and that it will continue to be the purview of the states. I hold the people of each state accountable for those decisions and not entire national organizations whether they be business, political, religious ... etc.

piercehawkeye45 · 03-26-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules. It should not be a 'almost anything goes' law like in Florida but it shouldn't be so restrictive that it prevents people from protecting themselves or their properties, if they understand the potential consequences of doing so.

classicman · 03-26-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmg1969

That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.

Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Need I continue with this stupid rationale?

IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

[RACE] is the issue.

Really? Gee thats a new twist

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules.

Agreed

dmg1969 · 03-27-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

Well, that's the thing, Spex...you are not legally permitted to kill over STUFF. You have to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. If some drunk breaks in and lays on my couch because he thinks he's in his own house, I call the police. If someone breaks in tries grabbing my flat screen, my dogs will be on him along with myself and hand him an ass beating. If he is armed and threatens me, I drop him. It's not like the wild west...you have to know when you are legally permitted to use deadly force. I have studied it as a responsible gun owner.

HungLikeJesus · 03-26-2012, 04:38 PM

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

Spexxvet · 03-26-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

Imma buy me a big gun and buttfuck them in the mouth with it. I can't afford bullets.

footfootfoot · 03-27-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

You are one funny guy

03-26-2012, 12:43 PM	#1
dmg1969 I got nothing Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Central PA Posts: 486	I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and carry a gun daily. As I type this, it in my briefcase within arms-length. I don't want to be a statistic if some nut-ball comes to the office I work in (law firm) and decides to start shooting. That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense. In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for. Still...if someone breaks in to my house and I draw down on them with my handgun and they flee...the confrontation is over. If I give chase and shoot him, I am then the aggressor. That is what happened in this case and he should be charged. ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man. __________________ Void where prohibited. Your results may vary. Not intended for resale. Do not remove tag. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

03-26-2012, 12:58 PM	#3
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	In Colorado this is called the "make my day" law. __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

03-26-2012, 01:25 PM	#4
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	The idea that you don't have to run away if someone breaks into your house? __________________ I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.

03-26-2012, 01:51 PM	#5
Spexxvet Makes some feel uncomfortable Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,346	Yes __________________ "I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce

03-27-2012, 07:17 AM	#6
dmg1969 I got nothing Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Central PA Posts: 486	Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but...... If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off. __________________ Void where prohibited. Your results may vary. Not intended for resale. Do not remove tag. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Last edited by dmg1969; 03-27-2012 at 07:23 AM.

03-26-2012, 03:31 PM	#7
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.

03-26-2012, 03:58 PM	#8
Spexxvet Makes some feel uncomfortable Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,346	An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals. I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff". __________________ "I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce

03-26-2012, 04:38 PM	#13
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites? __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)