Jump to content

I have an idea for a new thread...


TNT1

Recommended Posts

no. you can use force when you feel your life is threatened.

but you cant use force if your property is being threatened. And that is why criminals have more rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 'Dale

    4539

  • Hairy

    4257

  • gummibear

    3909

  • Eddy Gordo

    3863

Top Posters In This Topic

but you cant use force if your property is being threatened. And that is why criminals have more rights. 

you can't kill somebody, but you can act against them physically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't kill somebody, but you can act against them physically.

again thats a load of crap. Generally a criminal is a lot tougher stronger stupider and violenter than your normal middle class white guy. so you say i can act against them physically. what am i supposed to do? i am not allowed to pull a gun until i feel my life is under threat. so i have to wait until they are kicking my ass before i can defend myself. its stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this line trotted out often on the interwebs. It's simply not true - everyone has the same rights. You might not like those rights when applied to criminals, but that is a different debate.

It's been mentioned a few times before - the reason the victim gets charged for shooting a criminal is simply because that's how the police have to process the case.

 

The investigating officer can't make a call on whether the shooter was an innocent victim or bystander. That's up to the prosecutor, based on evidence that the police will gather in a formal and methodical process. The reality is that the prosecutor will invariably look at the merits of the case and decline to prosecute. The "victim" is then informed, without going to court and no stain on their record.

 

I may be mistaken on some of the details, but that's (largely) how it plays out. Anyone else know the facts about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been mentioned a few times before - the reason the victim gets charged for shooting a criminal is simply because that's how the police have to process the case.

 

The investigating officer can't make a call on whether the shooter was an innocent victim or bystander. That's up to the prosecutor, based on evidence that the police will gather in a formal and methodical process. The reality is that the prosecutor will invariably look at the merits of the case and decline to prosecute. The "victim" is then informed, without going to court and no stain on their record.

 

I may be mistaken on some of the details, but that's (largely) how it plays out. Anyone else know the facts about this?

agreed this would be the case in a life and death situation, but it would not be the case if i shot someone who was breaking into my house just to steal. this is where i have a problem. i cannot defend my property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again thats a load of crap. Generally a criminal is a lot tougher stronger stupider and violenter than your normal middle class white guy. so you say i can act against them physically. what am i supposed to do? i am not allowed to pull a gun until i feel my life is under threat. so i have to wait until they are kicking my ass before i can defend myself. its stupid

ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed this would be the case in a life and death situation, but it would not be the case if i shot someone who was breaking into my house just to steal. this is where i have a problem. i cannot defend my property. 

Maybe that's where you have to decide whether your response is proportional to the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's where you have to decide whether your response is proportional to the threat.

i know - i get that. responsible firearm owner and all that. but I still feel that the deck is stacked in favour of the criminal and against the law abiding citizen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know - i get that. responsible firearm owner and all that. but I still feel that the deck is stacked in favour of the criminal and against the law abiding citizen. 

Stop with the feelings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's where you have to decide whether your response is proportional to the threat.

just out of interest - and i am not trying to be patchelicious argumentative: I walk into my lounge. there are 2 guys helping themselves to my TV and hifi. they are both unarmed but substantially bigger than me. I have my firearm on me but have not drawn it yet. what would the correct / acceptible response be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just out of interest - and i am not trying to be patchelicious argumentative: I walk into my lounge. there are 2 guys helping themselves to my TV and hifi. they are both unarmed but substantially bigger than me. I have my firearm on me but have not drawn it yet. what would the correct / acceptible response be?

 

skiet altwee in hulle moer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout