321 replies to this topic

[aztek]

Gummug, on 28 January 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

I thought that in some localities you can use lethal force to stop theft of some types of property. Maybe it goes back to the old days of stopping a horse thief, 'cuz back then, if someone stole your horse and you were in the desert, you could die. Does anyone know anything about this? The legality of lethal force to stop property theft I mean?
-Ignorant

well after any shooting you will be asked questions, back in a days you might get away with killing someone that stole your horse, or something else, but now, i doubt you will. unless you were in immediate danger, i doubt you will be let go with no charges

[Yamato]

Gummug, on 28 January 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

I thought that in some localities you can use lethal force to stop theft of some types of property. Maybe it goes back to the old days of stopping a horse thief, 'cuz back then, if someone stole your horse and you were in the desert, you could die. Does anyone know anything about this? The legality of lethal force to stop property theft I mean?
-Ignorant

Not sure about how the laws may vary but I suppose they will take it on a case by case basis.  If you shoot someone in the back after they're running away with your purse, that's probably not going to cut it.  If grandma shoots them at point blank range while they're in the process of mugging her, that very well might hold up in court.   Castle laws are a legal example of lethal force to stop property crime too.   If you live in a castle state and someone has broken into your house, they better say their prayers first if they know what's likely to happen next.   Even in cases where castle laws were stretched, the vigilante shooter was vindicated in court.  

Take Joe Horn, who defended his neighbor's house after the thieves were already making their way out the window with the loot.  Horn's not in jail; he's a free man and widely regarded as a hero by his peers.  This kind of legality would probably befuddle a poor UK bureaucrat.

[sslama]

Actually cops have their fair share of problems with guns.  There have been lots of unfair shootings by cops which started riots.   Perhaps no one should carry guns.  Cops don't carry them in England and they don't have problems with guns.

[AsteroidX]

I agree cops weaponry needs to be evaluated and according to international law is one of the reasons the american people need to stay armed.

I have a phone number herfe you can call if youd like to help out.

http://www.un.org/di.../odavisio.shtml

[Gummug]

Yamato, on 28 January 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Not sure about how the laws may vary but I suppose they will take it on a case by case basis.  If you shoot someone in the back after they're running away with your purse, that's probably not going to cut it.  If grandma shoots them at point blank range while they're in the process of mugging her, that very well might hold up in court.   Castle laws are a legal example of lethal force to stop property crime too.   If you live in a castle state and someone has broken into your house, they better say their prayers first if they know what's likely to happen next.   Even in cases where castle laws were stretched, the vigilante shooter was vindicated in court.  

Take Joe Horn, who defended his neighbor's house after the thieves were already making their way out the window with the loot.  Horn's not in jail; he's a free man and widely regarded as a hero by his peers.  This kind of legality would probably befuddle a poor UK bureaucrat.

That is an interesting phone call, thanks. I wonder why the dispatcher wanted to him to lay down on the ground when he was unarmed? They were robbing in broad daylight, how brazen is that?

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 28 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

They're using violent video games to treat PTSD in veterans.   The idea is reliving their worst experiences in a safe comfortable environment.  It appears to be having good results according to the documentary.

Yeah. I read about that. Good stuff!

[DieChecker]

sslama, on 28 January 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Actually cops have their fair share of problems with guns.  There have been lots of unfair shootings by cops which started riots.   Perhaps no one should carry guns.  Cops don't carry them in England and they don't have problems with guns.

We've had a lot of issues with the City (Portland) going after cops that have shot people. Most of the cops have been cleared, but the Liberal Elite that run Portland love to make a Circus of any cop that shoots at anything. One cop was attacked by a Homeless, Mentally unstable man in a park, when the homeless man charged out of public restroom with a large cleaver. So when the fellow got within 10 feet and kept charging the cop shot him. Another case was were a 18 year old came charging out of a house with a long knife and shrugged off one officers tazer and jumped at another. And he got shot just before stabbing the officer. And several other incidents where people refused to follow officer commands and presented themselves as holding a concealed gun, forcing officers to shoot them. But, naturally when it comes out the shooting victim is mentally unstable, or a teen, or homeless, city hall turns on the officers and makes it a case of Public Opinion.

Should the police be required to actually receive a wound before firing their weapon? Should they only be allowed tazers? The new shotgun load tazers have quite a good range.

What would an English cop do it he was charged by a fellow with a long knife? Beat him down with his club? Might indeed result in less fatalities then a gun, but involves a lot more risk to the officer. Maybe the healthcare system and such in England allows for more cops to be on Down Time for injuries recieved in fighting with dangerous individuals??