What criteria would you use to determine whether or not to shoot?
Farmer Murdered over botched burglary
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
What criteria would you use to determine whether or not to shoot?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So I'm a bit of a lazy **** and I take a shortcut by cutting across your garden. Selfish and frankly out of order, yet you think you'd be within your rights to murder me for it?
someone I don't know, not an authority figure(policeman/fireman etc), usual burglar outfit(dark clothes), general scum looking for some items to sell for their next crack fix.
SHOULD NOT BE IN MY HOUSE AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY.
The is no evidence that Martin had been burgled before beyond hearsay. He can't claim the police didn't investigate because he never told them about the crimes - if these burglaries ever actually happened. The story only came up when he was interviewed. And obviously a person charged with murder would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc.
M
[TW]Fox;17560156 said:
Agreed. If absolutely necessary and as a last resort I think one should be able to protect yourself / family / property. Stupid, impractical, liberty threatening laws just serve to cause mayhem, frustration and generally make life too complicated when it's NOT normally needed.
Last edited:
So based on stereotypes then.
because I dont know who they are, they look shifty, probably have a bag full of my possessions.
good enough for ya?
why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,692
Ignore.
So far you have used stereotypes and assumptions to justify shooting a person.
or acts of violence.
its not stereotyping, its being logical about who should and should not be in my house doing bad things.
I suppose you would just invite them in, give them everything they wanted, put the kettle on for them?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Ambulance called to property as the owner is having a heart attack, someone on either end of the phone gets the number wrong, they go down the street, to 28 instead of 82, are worried someone is unconcious and dying, they break in to try to help, you blow them away JUST because they are on your property.
Theres a reason why in the law property and location doesn't matter, danger to your own, or someone elses life allows reasonable force to be used and thats how it should be.
Said ambulance driver shouldn't be instantly shot upon walking into your house, you should realise he is no threat, explain its the wrong house and they find the right house and save a life.
In your world, you can kill them, and the guy down the road dies as a consequence on top of that.
INTENT, the same act can be commited for 50 different reasons, and intent is key in the way you handle situations.
Flat out being okay to kill anyone for entering your property in any circumstance ignoring intent would be ridiculous. Being able to kill someone in defending your life not proven but with a reasonable assumption someone is there to hurt you IS already fine.
Frankly if he'd shot them IN the house, he'd have no problem, but chasing guys outside, as they flee, he is no longer in danger. If they were running at him, the assumption they intended to hurt him is safe enough to make and blowing them away WITH A LEGAL WEAPON, he wouldn't have been in trouble.