forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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.
MTBeer Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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. HDW 1
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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
Lotus Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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? Skylark and Ed-Zulu 2
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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.
MTBeer Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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 stupidok
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 okwhy do i feel like you are just saying that to keep me quiet?
Lotus Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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. MTBeer, Blackbeard and Odinson 3
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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.
Patchelicious Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 Stop with the feelingssorry. its just so hard sometimes.
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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?
fanievb Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 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 forkie, BSG and IMan777 3
forkie Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 skiet altwee in hulle moerand then plant a weapon on them... BSG 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now