Waste the ***** in a heartbeat , no question . Alternative ; here lies John Citizen and his family ,brutally slain by unknown intruders , wife and daughter violated during crime, but the good news is folks , THEY OBEYED THE LAW ! !. Questions; 1) what ******* use is that . 2) who are the idiots who implement said laws ? , 3) do they ,by chance have access to more comprehensive security than we do ? 4) are these the same people who say "you can't defend yourself with lethal force " , but will send you off to another country to kill heaps of people , because they don't like their politics . Bust into my joint ,and your'e dead ,end of story , f....ck what the govt. says.
"He took my DVD pla<x>yer so I killed him!" "I love my blender so much I'll kill anyone who tries to part us". Realistically I'm not going to kill people over replaceable things; that's just daft as is risking your own life over a toaster. <br />
If they place me or my family in danger then I'd kill them.
heck ya....i got kids...i would kill anyone trying do harm and a danger to my babies i would think twice
if they tried to escape I would let them, but if they threatened me or my family I would defend myself and them and if the intruder got killed it would be justified. Now in the U.K. the rights of the housholder have been strengthened, in one case 3 or 4 men entered a house, the housholder felt threatened and used a shotgun, two men injured, the judge sentenced them to long jail terms and said if they broke into a house then they must expect the housholder to defend him/herself. Here in Germany, still the intruder seems to be treated better than the householder. very stupid.
If they intended to do harm for me, yes. If they're stealing my TV, no.
I'll call the police and take proper precautions so that it doesn't happen again. But a life is not worth an inanimate object to me. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I took a life over a possession.
if i really wanted to kill somebody, i'm sure i could find a better way to go about it
PART OF New York Penal Law § 35.20 states: <br />
" 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or <br />
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate <br />
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted <br />
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. <br />
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly <br />
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for <br />
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably <br />
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or <br />
attempted commission of arson.
The criminal suits are civil, not criminal matters- as far as I know (and perhaps wrongly) convicted criminals are allowed to sue their victims for injuries sustained at the scene of the crime- their homes. Years ago a convict fell through a skylight and as I recall was successful
I gave you the statute- I know what it says. a defendant can be convicted even if the home (or, the Court of Appeals has held), car, boat etc. are empty because it is reasonable to presume places people inhabitate are inhabited
Crimonal presecutions can occur by various instruments and are tried in criminal courts. Re the civil suits filed by criminals- The closest knowledge of Law I have is that about 30 years ago it became illegal to inherit from any one you were convicted of murdering or from profitting off media (books mostly) about the crime
Yes- those laws were put in response to (i'm guessing) Bernie Goetz- aka the Subway Vigilante--he wasn't allowed to profit from his crimes
Statute or common law? I thought a specific statute was drafted in response to this
specificity of the legislature often responding to the courts' public opinion fueled common law is statutory
Morally justified and legally justified are two different things. <br />
Morally would depend on the person. Legally would depend on the laws of the state.<br />
Where I live, burglary is a felony, and under the current laws, a person is justified in using force, up to and including deadly force to protect life and property. <br />
Being an armed citizen, myself, I wouldn't hesitate in attempting to stop an intruder. Stop, being the operative word.
we have heavy skillets i would grab one and if all he or she was doing was looking for money i would laugh but the second the person acted like they was going to touch my boys or my phone or computer i would hit them in the head with a skillet and handcuff them to the electric pole outside in the back yard scare the **** out of them and then set them free with a false warning if they return they will never make it away the next time good thing about no one knowing me is they wouldnt know im to loving to harm anyone
skillets are good for something for the longest time we had one in the back floor bored just incase it was needed
The laws vary throughout the different states & big cities in the US. But as a guide-the big cities, where most of the more strict gun laws are in place; those gun laws are effective-people who obey laws do not have guns. If they do, chances are they would be put in jail for protecting themselves against an intruder. The areas with less strict gun laws-those that have "The Castle Doctrine" (meaning one has a right to protect one's self, family & property) have lower crime rates because the outlaws know there is a chance that they might get shot. The answer to the original question-yes. Absolutely as I am protecting against an aggressor-he would be the one who is morally wrong and taking the risk. And best to kill him-empty the gun into him. Dead criminals don't tell lies or hire slimy, lying, yet convincing lawyers.
it would be foolish to break into my house, unless you like getting chased by coonhounds.