PDA

View Full Version : tPF Soldier’s wife shoots and kills intruder



Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:52 AM
Soldier’s wife shoots and kills intruder (http://wncn.com/2016/02/01/nc-military-mom-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/)

Another valid use of a firearm by a citizen. And one less nogoodnick.


No charges have been filed against a Lumber Bridge mother who shot and killed a Fayetteville man who was reportedly burglarizing her home on Friday morning.

The Robeson County Sheriff’s Office says deputies were dispatched to an alarm activation call at a home at 6106 NC 20 West on Friday morning around 10:27 a.m.


While deputies were driving to the home, a woman called police to say she shot a man who had broken into her home.


The woman, who is married to a soldier, was out with her toddler-aged child running errands earlier when the man broke into the home, the Fayetteville Observer reported.


Major Anthony Thompson says the woman told investigators that she came home Friday morning and saw a car parked in her front yard.

This is a good case because she came home to find the criminal inside her house. She did not have a duty to back out and allow her stuff to be unjustly taken.

When citizens are armed, criminals must constantly factor that into their schemes. That is a good thing.

donttread
02-05-2016, 08:23 AM
Soldier’s wife shoots and kills intruder (http://wncn.com/2016/02/01/nc-military-mom-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/)

Another valid use of a firearm by a citizen. And one less nogoodnick.



This is a good case because she came home to find the criminal inside her house. She did not have a duty to back out and allow her stuff to be unjustly taken.

When citizens are armed, criminals must constantly factor that into their schemes. That is a good thing.


There are thousands upon thousands of justified gun defenses each year, many without ever firing a shot. But MSM only reports a few. IMO, this is one of the NRA's two major failings in that they don't devote enough resources to publicize these events. They make some effort but not enough. They're second major failing in my eyes is that they don't do enough to pressure for the repeal of control freak gun laws already on the books.

AeonPax
02-05-2016, 08:33 AM
`
`
The woman came home, saw a unknown car in the driveway. Checked to see if the front door was forced open. Went back to her car, got a gun and went inside to confront the burglar and ended up shooting him to death because he had walked towards her with her phone. THEN, she called the police.

What a stupid fool.

Cigar
02-05-2016, 08:33 AM
Thank God ... I've been waiting months for a story like this.

Now if it can happen several dozen times a day we'd have something.

Common Sense
02-05-2016, 08:41 AM
Anecdote.

SemiteArt
02-05-2016, 09:43 AM
Today a waiter killed 9 persons from the same family with a shotgun in Turkey because of his ex wife was about to marry with another person.

SemiteArt
02-05-2016, 09:46 AM
Here another Turkish person kills two with a shotgun who tries to stop him to fight.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffPcZeL2WEc

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 09:52 AM
Our gun control laws are clearly not having any great effect in Turkey.

:smiley-char092:

SemiteArt
02-05-2016, 09:52 AM
So I dont think guns are good things to have one, even knives.

Here another Turkish person, stabs another in the head.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74R6zPlV3A

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 09:54 AM
Thank God ... I've been waiting months for a story like this.

Now if it can happen several dozen times a day we'd have something.

Given the population, the number of guns and the ubiquitous nature of the criminal element, it would be naïve bordering on stupid to imagine that it does not happen many, many times a day.

Subdermal
02-05-2016, 10:48 AM
`
`
The woman came home, saw a unknown car in the driveway. Checked to see if the front door was forced open. Went back to her car, got a gun and went inside to confront the burglar and ended up shooting him to death because he had walked towards her with her phone. THEN, she called the police.

What a stupid fool.

Well, it's generally foolish to be a burglar.

(yes, I'm aware that you were actually trying to claim that of the woman)

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 02:28 PM
I would probably not have gone in the house without backup, unless I was worried about pets in the house, something like that. I'd have more likely simply disabled and/or blocked in the burglar's car and been sitting on the hood of it, pistola at the ready, when he emerged.

Bo-4
02-05-2016, 02:35 PM
For every story like that, there are ten others like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/us/father-shoots-son/

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-mom-accidentally-shot-killed-daughter-20151230-story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/easton-mcdonald-shoots-daughter_n_5676486.html

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 02:41 PM
The tragic accidents ALL make the news; most of the incidents involving someone saving their butt by brandishing a firearm generally do not even get reported to the police...in many cases, for fear that the brandisher will be cited or even arrested, which sometimes happens. You only think it's ten to one in favor of the tragic accident stories; in the real world that happens outside of the media, the actual ratio should probably be reversed.

Bo-4
02-05-2016, 02:44 PM
The tragic accidents ALL make the news; most of the incidents involving someone saving their butt by brandishing a firearm generally do not even get reported to the police...in many cases, for fear that the brandisher will be cited or even arrested, which sometimes happens. You only think it's ten to one in favor of the tragic accident stories; in the real world that happens outside of the media, the actual ratio should probably be reversed.

Not true, the NRA and every barrel stoker site on the planet latches onto "good guy with a gun" stories like moths to a flame. ;-)

Tahuyaman
02-05-2016, 02:53 PM
Soldier’s wife shoots and kills intruder (http://wncn.com/2016/02/01/nc-military-mom-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/)

Another valid use of a firearm by a citizen. And one less nogoodnick.



This is a good case because she came home to find the criminal inside her house. She did not have a duty to back out and allow her stuff to be unjustly taken.

When citizens are armed, criminals must constantly factor that into their schemes. That is a good thing.


before I scrolled through the thread, I predicted the responses and checked to see how I did.

I was almost 100 % in my prediction.

The Xl
02-05-2016, 03:14 PM
Nice.

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:04 PM
`
`
The woman came home, saw a unknown car in the driveway. Checked to see if the front door was forced open. Went back to her car, got a gun and went inside to confront the burglar and ended up shooting him to death because he had walked towards her with her phone. THEN, she called the police.

What a stupid fool.

The nogoodnick? Agreed.

The woman was within her rights.

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:05 PM
Thank God ... I've been waiting months for a story like this.

Now if it can happen several dozen times a day we'd have something.


Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:05 PM
Anecdote.
Along with thousands of others every year.

:wink:

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:06 PM
Today a waiter killed 9 persons from the same family with a shotgun in Turkey because of his ex wife was about to marry with another person.


What part of Turkey?

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:07 PM
So I dont think guns are good things to have one, even knives.

Here another Turkish person, stabs another in the head.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74R6zPlV3A

How many times do you need to stab someone in the head to kill them?

Once for me.

Peter1469
02-05-2016, 05:09 PM
Not true, the NRA and every barrel stoker site on the planet latches onto "good guy with a gun" stories like moths to a flame. ;-)


Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 05:37 PM
Not true, the NRA and every barrel stoker site on the planet latches onto "good guy with a gun" stories like moths to a flame. ;-)

Um, yeah...when they're in the news. :lipsrsealed:

Standing Wolf
02-05-2016, 05:40 PM
What part of Turkey?

I like the dark meat, personally...the white meat is usually too dry, unless you smother it in gravy.

I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

Tahuyaman
02-05-2016, 05:49 PM
Soldiers quite often provide their wife with some firearms training, as they are gone quite a bit. It's generally not a good idea to burglarize the home of a soldier. Especially one who might be an Infantryman in the 82d Airborne, or a special ops unit.

Before you you attempt to burglarize a home in the area surrounding large active duty Army installation, it might be prudent to do a good thorough recon first.

donttread
02-05-2016, 06:30 PM
`
`
The woman came home, saw a unknown car in the driveway. Checked to see if the front door was forced open. Went back to her car, got a gun and went inside to confront the burglar and ended up shooting him to death because he had walked towards her with her phone. THEN, she called the police.

What a stupid fool.

A poor choice, especially with a child in the car but within her rights.

donttread
02-05-2016, 06:35 PM
For every story like that, there are ten others like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/us/father-shoots-son/

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-mom-accidentally-shot-killed-daughter-20151230-story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/easton-mcdonald-shoots-daughter_n_5676486.html

Not true, it's largely about what the media reports. If they gave equal air time to gun defenses it might push the issue too far in favor of those of us who believe in the Constitution, thereby making things less controversial , which means less viewership and less advertising dollars

donttread
02-05-2016, 06:39 PM
Not true, the NRA and every barrel stoker site on the planet latches onto "good guy with a gun" stories like moths to a flame. ;-)


Wolf is absolutely right gun defenses are drastically under reported

AeonPax
02-05-2016, 07:24 PM
The nogoodnick? Agreed. The woman was within her rights.
`
While it is not expressly written in the US Constitution, we have the right to do stupid things.

AeonPax
02-05-2016, 07:26 PM
A poor choice, especially with a child in the car but within her rights.

See above.

William
02-05-2016, 08:49 PM
I don't pretend to understand the US attitude to guns and shootings, and the link didn't say if the man was armed or was threatening her in any way, but in my society, she would very likely be charged with manslaughter. We do not consider an ipad to be worth any human life - even a burglar's.

There is very little detail in the link, but it simply says she saw a man walking towards her, holding her ipad. It didn't say she saw a man, who then turned and walked towards her (which might have been threatening) - he was walking in that direction when she first saw him. There was no threat involved in that.

So self-defence cannot apply in this case, as there was no obvious threat.

Here is what Australian Law says about the defence of property:

Self-defence and property

In regards to the defence relating to property, the use of self-defence is limited and the Zecevic defence may not be applicable. Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia, statutory provisions exist in reference to using force in defence of property, and mirroring the common law, the defence of property must be reasonable and necessary, as well as being proportionate to the threat perceived by the accused, and also, the use of force must not be intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Furthermore, s 10.4(3) of the Commonwealth Code and s 420 of the New South Wales Crimes Act for example, self-defence is not available if the force used in the protection of property has the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and the conduct must also be reasonable and necessary, as well as proportionate to the threat perceived by the accused.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4542/australian-self-defence-laws-in-criminal-matters.aspx

I dunno if US Law is different, but they are both based on English Common Law, so I don't see why it should be. :smiley:

Matty
02-05-2016, 09:08 PM
Australian law does not apply in the US. Too bad.

William
02-05-2016, 09:21 PM
Australian law does not apply in the US. Too bad.

I'm not saying it does, but both legal systems come from English Common Law, so I'm wondering what US Law says about shooting dead someone who is just stealing your stuff, but making no threat to you.

Do you know? And if you don't, how do you know US Law is any different from Australian Law when it comes to Self Defence? :smiley:

Matty
02-05-2016, 09:31 PM
I'm not saying it does, but both legal systems come from English Common Law, so I'm wondering what US Law says about shooting dead someone who is just stealing your stuff, but making no threat to you.

Do you know? And if you don't, how do you know US Law is any different from Australian Law when it comes to Self Defence? :smiley:



It depends entirely on what state you reside in. Look up the castle doctrine. There was a man in Texas who shot two thieves in the back. They had robbed his neighbors house and were fleeing the scene when he shot them. The jury would not convict him. They probably would convict him in a state like California.

William
02-05-2016, 09:50 PM
It depends entirely on what state you reside in. Look up the castle doctrine. There was a man in Texas who shot two thieves in the back. They had robbed his neighbors house and were fleeing the scene when he shot them. The jury would not convict him. They probably would convict him in a state like California.

Thanks for that. I looked up Castle Doctrine, and found these provisions apply in North Carolina.


Defense of Self or Others

The Castle Doctrine (2013) alters the rules of self-defense and defense of others.


• It provides a person using non-deadly force with immunity from civil and criminal liability if the person using it reasonably believes it’s necessary for defense against imminent unlawful force.


• It says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.

http://rowanfreepress.com/2014/03/30/n-c-law-for-defending-your-home-vehicles-and-work-place-castle-doctrine/

I bolded the bits which seem most important, and which are similar to British/Australian Law. They are the bits which would make sure that woman was charged with manslaughter under our law and yours - cos there was no threat in that situation. He was just walking through the house with her ipad and nothing said he was armed or made any threatening moves.

Crepitus
02-06-2016, 12:59 AM
Not true, the NRA and every barrel stoker site on the planet latches onto "good guy with a gun" stories like moths to a flame. ;-)


Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.
Another case of being banned for having a dissenting opinion.

This place is going downhill fast.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 01:01 AM
`
While it is not expressly written in the US Constitution, we have the right to do stupid things.

And say utterly stupid things.

Wouldn't you agree?

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 01:02 AM
I don't pretend to understand the US attitude to guns and shootings, and the link didn't say if the man was armed or was threatening her in any way, but in my society, she would very likely be charged with manslaughter. We do not consider an ipad to be worth any human life - even a burglar's.

There is very little detail in the link, but it simply says she saw a man walking towards her, holding her ipad. It didn't say she saw a man, who then turned and walked towards her (which might have been threatening) - he was walking in that direction when she first saw him. There was no threat involved in that.

So self-defence cannot apply in this case, as there was no obvious threat.

Here is what Australian Law says about the defence of property:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4542/australian-self-defence-laws-in-criminal-matters.aspx

I dunno if US Law is different, but they are both based on English Common Law, so I don't see why it should be. :smiley:

In most states you have no duty to retreat from your home. Had she shot the guy outside she may have a problem. But maybe not. Juries find people not guilty a lot here when they shoot criminals.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 01:04 AM
Thanks for that. I looked up Castle Doctrine, and found these provisions apply in North Carolina.

http://rowanfreepress.com/2014/03/30/n-c-law-for-defending-your-home-vehicles-and-work-place-castle-doctrine/

I bolded the bits which seem most important, and which are similar to British/Australian Law. They are the bits which would make sure that woman was charged with manslaughter under our law and yours - cos there was no threat in that situation. He was just walking through the house with her ipad and nothing said he was armed or made any threatening moves.

The Castle Doctrine is not an issue in this shooting.

It was inside her house.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 01:04 AM
Another case of being banned for having a dissenting opinion.

This place is going downhill fast.

Here is an English translation (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/55839-Forum-Change-Open-tPF-Discussion-Rules-to-All-of-Forum-but-Rants-Pub-and-Hole) of the policy of tPF threads.

Crepitus
02-06-2016, 01:06 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/55839-Forum-Change-Open-tPF-Discussion-Rules-to-All-of-Forum-but-Rants-Pub-and-Hole

Silly comments can go elsewhere.
Whatever you say pete.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 01:08 AM
If you have questions about the policy use the PM function.

William
02-06-2016, 07:57 AM
The Castle Doctrine is not an issue in this shooting.

It was inside her house.

Matty asked me to look up Castle Doctrine with reference to this shooting, she seems to think it applies.

I don't understand the point you are making by saying it was inside her house - can you explain? :smiley:


A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some countries, any legally occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] In many jurisdictions, a person has a duty to retreat, to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. The castle doctrine negates the duty to retreat when the victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I don't see where the 'imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm' bit applies in this case. :huh:

AeonPax
02-06-2016, 08:04 AM
And say utterly stupid things. Wouldn't you agree?
`
As soon as people start going to jail for being stupid, let me know.

decedent
02-06-2016, 08:21 AM
Our gun control laws are clearly not having any great effect in Turkey.

:smiley-char092:

Are your Turkish laws enforced?

SemiteArt
02-06-2016, 08:22 AM
What part of Turkey?

South of Turkey. A few years ago another person killed 44 persons from the same family because of his wife cheats him.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 09:01 AM
Matty asked me to look up Castle Doctrine with reference to this shooting, she seems to think it applies.

I don't understand the point you are making by saying it was inside her house - can you explain? :smiley:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I don't see where the 'imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm' bit applies in this case. :huh:


I said the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply in this circumstance.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 09:06 AM
Matty asked me to look up Castle Doctrine with reference to this shooting, she seems to think it applies.

I don't understand the point you are making by saying it was inside her house - can you explain? :smiley:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I don't see where the 'imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm' bit applies in this case. :huh:

You need to look at the North Carolina criminal statutes to see how the law is applied in North Carolina.

donttread
02-06-2016, 09:17 AM
Matty asked me to look up Castle Doctrine with reference to this shooting, she seems to think it applies.

I don't understand the point you are making by saying it was inside her house - can you explain? :smiley:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I don't see where the 'imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm' bit applies in this case. :huh:

She had a right to defend her home. No obligation to stay out of her own "castle" just because someone might be inside. I'm not sure I like her choice , however that choice does not impair her right to self defense once the shit hits the fan.

Truth Detector
02-06-2016, 09:17 AM
`
While it is not expressly written in the US Constitution, we have the right to do stupid things.

Since when was protecting ones property from thiefs a stupid thing? Yep, in loony liberal land the woman should have stepped aside and allowed the thief to escape to steal another day.

In liberal loony land, cops prevent this sort of thing by......well, actually they don't. Cops show up AFTER the crimes have been committed.

Truth Detector
02-06-2016, 09:19 AM
`
As soon as people start going to jail for being stupid, let me know.

Don't worry; we don't jail Liberals for being liberal. ;)

Mac-7
02-06-2016, 09:24 AM
I said the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply in this circumstance.

You mean in your opinion it does not apply.

But you were not present and didnt see anything so you really are not qualified to say

donttread
02-06-2016, 09:24 AM
I don't pretend to understand the US attitude to guns and shootings, and the link didn't say if the man was armed or was threatening her in any way, but in my society, she would very likely be charged with manslaughter. We do not consider an ipad to be worth any human life - even a burglar's.

There is very little detail in the link, but it simply says she saw a man walking towards her, holding her ipad. It didn't say she saw a man, who then turned and walked towards her (which might have been threatening) - he was walking in that direction when she first saw him. There was no threat involved in that.

So self-defence cannot apply in this case, as there was no obvious threat.

Here is what Australian Law says about the defence of property:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4542/australian-self-defence-laws-in-criminal-matters.aspx

I dunno if US Law is different, but they are both based on English Common Law, so I don't see why it should be. :smiley:


She has a right to defend her home in that state and doesn't have to wait to see a gun pointed in her face ( too late) to exercise that right.
I think similar doctrine should apply to quick stop clerks, especially if they have been robbed before. The minute the perp says "give me the money" shooting him should become a legal option.

donttread
02-06-2016, 09:32 AM
In most states you have no duty to retreat from your home. Had she shot the guy outside she may have a problem. But maybe not. Juries find people not guilty a lot here when they shoot criminals.


I think seeing the complete panic trained police officers demonstrate when they shoot a guy carrying a knife who is 30 feet away , and unload the whole clip at him, for example, is waking people up. I think they now get that a citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt in these situations and the citizen may not react completely rationally when threatened .

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 09:34 AM
You mean in your opinion it does not apply.

But you were not present and didnt see anything so you really are not qualified to say

I explained that if you really want to know what law applies you need to look at the North Carolina criminal statute. Each state has its own homicide laws and self defense is applied differently.

And yes, I am not a member of the North Carolina bar, so technically I am not qualified to provide a legal opinion on the matter. I am a member of the Texas and DC bars however. How about you, Mac?

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 09:35 AM
I think seeing the complete panic trained police officers demonstrate when they shoot a guy carrying a knife who is 30 feet away , and unload the whole clip at him, for example, is waking people up. I think they now get that a citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt in these situations and the citizen may not react completely rationally when threatened .

Very good point.

Mac-7
02-06-2016, 09:45 AM
I explained that if you really want to know what law applies you need to look at the North Carolina criminal statute. Each state has its own homicide laws and self defense is applied differently.

And yes, I am not a member of the North Carolina bar, so technically I am not qualified to provide a legal opinion on the matter. I am a member of the Texas and DC bars however. How about you, Mac?

The man was in her house where he was not supposed to be with a stolen car parked outside.

I assume she killed him in self defence based on those PROVEN FACTS.

William
02-06-2016, 09:53 AM
She had a right to defend her home. No obligation to stay out of her own "castle" just because someone might be inside. I'm not sure I like her choice , however that choice does not impair her right to self defense once the shit hits the fan.

I think I understand what you are saying - morally and at law, she had every right to be in her own home, and the man had no right to be there. But where both you and Peter are losing me, is when you talk about self defence. AFIK, the man she shot dead was not armed and made no moves to threaten her - he was just walking through her house. All she needed to do was tell him to put the ipad back and get out of her house. Like she had a gun and he didn't. Surely self defence can only apply where there is an attack or the reasonable threat of an attack? :huh:

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 09:55 AM
I think I understand what you are saying - morally and at law, she had every right to be in her own home, and the man had no right to be there. But where both you and Peter are losing me, is when you talk about self defence. AFIK, the man she shot dead was not armed and made no moves to threaten her - he was just walking through her house. All she needed to do was tell him to put the ipad back and get out of her house. Like she had a gun and he didn't. Surely self defence can only apply where there is an attack or the reasonable threat of an attack? :huh:

Welcome to America.

(Don't break into homes.)

Mac-7
02-06-2016, 09:56 AM
I think I understand what you are saying - morally and at law, she had every right to be in her own home, and the man had no right to be there. But where both you and Peter are losing me, is when you talk about self defence. AFIK, the man she shot dead was not armed and made no moves to threaten her - he was just walking through her house. All she needed to do was tell him to put the ipad back and get out of her house. Like she had a gun and he didn't. Surely self defence can only apply where there is an attack or the reasonable threat of an attack? :huh:

Maybe thats how it works where you live but not here

Matty
02-06-2016, 09:59 AM
The Castle Doctrine is not an issue in this shooting.

It was inside her house.


I don't understand Peter. Dosen't the castle doctrine cover your home? In Florida it covers home, car, even hotel. Wherever you are.

William
02-06-2016, 10:01 AM
Welcome to America.

(Don't break into homes.)

Thanks Peter (I won't,) but that doesn't explain the legal situation at all. Are you saying the rule of law doesn't apply in America? Or are you saying some US Laws allow you to kill anyone who you find on your property for any reason? :huh:

Mac-7
02-06-2016, 10:03 AM
Thanks Peter (I won't,) but that doesn't explain the legal situation at all. Are you saying the rule of law doesn't apply in America?

The rule of American law applies in America.

Matty
02-06-2016, 10:07 AM
The best way not to get shot in someone's home is to avoid sneaking into the home with intent to steal or do harm. See? All you have to do is behave yourself.

SemiteArt
02-06-2016, 10:16 AM
Our gun control laws are clearly not having any great effect in Turkey.

:smiley-char092:


LoL nope. In Turkey you do not have such a right to shoot a person even they enter your home. You will be jailed for protecting yourself. You cant have a pistol easily and for this reason, people usually buy shotguns, its much easier to have in procedure. My uncle have a pistol because of he was a politican and my father have a shutgun because he probably would not be allowed to buy one.

William
02-06-2016, 10:21 AM
The rule of American law applies in America.

I understand that - I'm asking about American Law. I understand the laws about self defence in the US are something like this. Both are quotes about US Law.


In the U.S., the general rule is that "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-1) In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-2) When the use of deadly force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force) is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-3) Most states no longer require a person to retreat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat) before using deadly force. In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one's own home.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)


Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. -

Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable man” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable man” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 10:22 AM
I don't understand Peter. Dosen't the castle doctrine cover your home? In Florida it covers home, car, even hotel. Wherever you are.

I modified my statement. We need to look at the North Carolina criminal code to see what the deal is in North Carolina.

The laws on self defense vary by state. In some states you do have a duty to retreat if your life is not in danger.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 10:26 AM
Thanks Peter (I won't,) but that doesn't explain the legal situation at all. Are you saying the rule of law doesn't apply in America? Or are you saying some US Laws allow you to kill anyone who you find on your property for any reason? :huh:

The rule of law absolutely applies in America. In some states if you trespass you can be shot. In others you have to fear for your life first.

We also have a jury system designed to be a check on judges (and the State). When I was in law school a man killed a person breaking into his car- he used a shotgun from inside the house. The nogoodnick was outside. It was very clear that the law was violated. But the jury acquitted the man. Which was unexpected because the defendant was white. The nogoodnick was black. And the jury was almost entirely black.

But the people of New Orleans at that time were fed up with crime. In this case they saw a dead career criminal and found in favor of the citizen.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 10:27 AM
The best way not to get shot in someone's home is to avoid sneaking into the home with intent to steal or do harm. See? All you have to do is behave yourself.

Thanks for the reminder. I was just about to go looting. :wink:

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 10:28 AM
LoL nope. In Turkey you do not have such a right to shoot a person even they enter your home. You will be jailed for protecting yourself. You cant have a pistol easily and for this reason, people usually buy shotguns, its much easier to have in procedure. My uncle have a pistol because of he was a politican and my father have a shutgun because he probably would not be allowed to buy one.

Joe Biden agrees with Turkey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 10:30 AM
I understand that - I'm asking about American Law. I understand the laws about self defence in the US are something like this. Both are quotes about US Law.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

What is the law in North Carolina?

We have 50 states with 50 different criminal codes.

Oh, and we have to consider, that the local police / DA said that no charges will be filed. That doesn't mean that a law was not technically violated.

Matty
02-06-2016, 11:11 AM
I modified my statement. We need to look at the North Carolina criminal code to see what the deal is in North Carolina.

The laws on self defense vary by state. In some states you do have a duty to retreat if your life is not in danger.


This is correct. But in Fla. and Texas you also have stand your ground laws along with castle doctrine. You have no duty to run. If they break in you may shoot them.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 11:53 AM
This is correct. But in Fla. and Texas you also have stand your ground laws along with castle doctrine. You have no duty to run. If they break in you may shoot them.

And the laws are different in other states. So if we are talking about a specific case, we need to look at that state law.

In general, Wiki is fine for self defense law.

I think Mac was asserting his qualifications above. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

donttread
02-06-2016, 01:19 PM
I think I understand what you are saying - morally and at law, she had every right to be in her own home, and the man had no right to be there. But where both you and Peter are losing me, is when you talk about self defence. AFIK, the man she shot dead was not armed and made no moves to threaten her - he was just walking through her house. All she needed to do was tell him to put the ipad back and get out of her house. Like she had a gun and he didn't. Surely self defence can only apply where there is an attack or the reasonable threat of an attack? :huh:

Cops shoot unarmed people all the time. She had a reasonable expect expectation hat the man she suddenly caught in her home was armed

Mac-7
02-06-2016, 02:17 PM
I think Mac was asserting his qualifications above. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

I tried to enlighten you but you just keep waving your resume in my face as if it buys you credibility here.

Which it doesnt.

Let me repeat what I said before since neither of us were actual witnesses to the event.



The man was in her house where he was not supposed to be with a stolen car parked outside.

I assume she killed him in self defence based on those PROVEN FACTS.

exotix
02-06-2016, 02:21 PM
Another valid use of a firearm by a citizen. And one less nogoodnick.

This is a good case because she came home to find the criminal inside her house. She did not have a duty to back out and allow her stuff to be unjustly taken.

When citizens are armed, criminals must constantly factor that into their schemes. That is a good thing.This is a valid case of why we need firearms ? Because one person shot an intruder and 30,000 other Americans got shot to death last year ?

http://i66.tinypic.com/34o7t6u.gif

Tahuyaman
02-06-2016, 02:22 PM
If you come home and find someone actually inside your doors in the process of burglarizing your home, it's reasonable to believe or fear this person is armed and has the potential to do you bodily harm.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 05:49 PM
This is a valid case of why we need firearms ? Because one person shot an intruder and 30,000 other Americans got shot to death last year ?

http://i66.tinypic.com/34o7t6u.gif

440,000 died in hospitals from doctor error in the same time period. Wake up, Exo. Or not.

Cletus
02-06-2016, 06:03 PM
Matty asked me to look up Castle Doctrine with reference to this shooting, she seems to think it applies.

I don't understand the point you are making by saying it was inside her house - can you explain? :smiley:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I don't see where the 'imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm' bit applies in this case. :huh:

It is a thing called the "Reasonable Person" standard. All that means is would a reasonable person in the same set of circumstances believe he or she was facing an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury to him/herself or a third party. The person who is shot doesn't even need to have been armed. It doesn't really matter. What matters is whether a reasonable person would have sufficient cause to believe he posed a threat.

donttread
02-06-2016, 06:08 PM
This is a valid case of why we need firearms ? Because one person shot an intruder and 30,000 other Americans got shot to death last year ?

http://i66.tinypic.com/34o7t6u.gif


2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides and there are tens of thousands o gun defenses each year

SemiteArt
02-06-2016, 06:15 PM
Joe Biden agrees with Turkey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

I cant focus on what he says because of his ugly face and because of the person with feminine voice sitting next to him.

He seems like this to me

http://i.hizliresim.com/D4j0O1.jpg

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 06:36 PM
2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides and there are tens of thousands o gun defenses each year

You are talking to a brick.

exotix
02-06-2016, 06:38 PM
You are talking to a brick.
Ask 'em to post his stats so you both don't look dumb ... LOL

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 07:08 PM
Ask 'em to post his stats so you both don't look dumb ... LOL

Exo, don't overstep your bounds, little freak.

exotix
02-06-2016, 07:12 PM
Exo, don't overstep your bounds, little freak.No sweat .. I'm just getting started ... so you might as well TB me now to join my other buddies before I really ask for it ... LOL



Here you can borrow mine ... LOL

Thread Banned by Thread Owner

http://i66.tinypic.com/2qdn05e.png

William
02-06-2016, 07:20 PM
What is the law in North Carolina?

We have 50 states with 50 different criminal codes.

Oh, and we have to consider, that the local police / DA said that no charges will be filed. That doesn't mean that a law was not technically violated.

Thanks Peter, I don't know enough (anything?) about American Law to be arguing with an American barrister, so I'm not (Lol, you're a qualified lawyer, and I haven't finished high school.:laugh:) You make good points about the different laws in different states, and the fact that no charges were laid doesn't mean the law was not technically violated.

AFIK, British and Australian Law is totally different in that you have to prove a credible threat to use violence and specially, lethal violence, if you injure or kill someone and claim self defence (you can't just say you were scared). Like most people, I guess, I'm judging the situation by what I know in my own country - so thanks again for the info and discussing this in the way you did. I learnt something in that discussion (which is part of the reason I'm here). :smiley:

Crepitus
02-06-2016, 07:27 PM
I think seeing the complete panic trained police officers demonstrate when they shoot a guy carrying a knife who is 30 feet away , and unload the whole clip at him, for example, is waking people up. I think they now get that a citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt in these situations and the citizen may not react completely rationally when threatened .
Well trained police officers don't do that.

Peter1469
02-06-2016, 08:09 PM
Thanks Peter, I don't know enough (anything?) about American Law to be arguing with an American barrister, so I'm not (Lol, you're a qualified lawyer, and I haven't finished high school.:laugh:) You make good points about the different laws in different states, and the fact that no charges were laid doesn't mean the law was not technically violated.

AFIK, British and Australian Law is totally different in that you have to prove a credible threat to use violence and specially, lethal violence, if you injure or kill someone and claim self defence (you can't just say you were scared). Like most people, I guess, I'm judging the situation by what I know in my own country - so thanks again for the info and discussing this in the way you did. I learnt something in that discussion (which is part of the reason I'm here). :smiley:

No worries. The US is pretty unique so far as self defense goes.

Our individualism contrasts with our conformity.

zelmo1234
02-07-2016, 08:56 AM
Thank God ... I've been waiting months for a story like this.

Now if it can happen several dozen times a day we'd have something.

Yes this is the only one?

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-used-to-stop-crime-2013-3

Accept for the 2,499,999 other each year

donttread
02-07-2016, 09:28 AM
Ask 'em to post his stats so you both don't look dumb ... LOL

Common knowledge, public record and I believe they were posted last week or so.

donttread
02-07-2016, 09:30 AM
Well trained police officers don't do that.


Usually it's some bully with a badge townie that does it, but they are still cops

donttread
02-07-2016, 09:44 AM
I don't pretend to understand the US attitude to guns and shootings, and the link didn't say if the man was armed or was threatening her in any way, but in my society, she would very likely be charged with manslaughter. We do not consider an ipad to be worth any human life - even a burglar's.

There is very little detail in the link, but it simply says she saw a man walking towards her, holding her ipad. It didn't say she saw a man, who then turned and walked towards her (which might have been threatening) - he was walking in that direction when she first saw him. There was no threat involved in that.

So self-defence cannot apply in this case, as there was no obvious threat.

Here is what Australian Law says about the defence of property:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4542/australian-self-defence-laws-in-criminal-matters.aspx

I dunno if US Law is different, but they are both based on English Common Law, so I don't see why it should be. :smiley:

William, in America the burden of proof is not on this woman to prove that she acted in accordance with the law. It's on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in accordance of the law. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So even if this case was borderline , the DA's office would have to go after her and prove that she did not feel an immediate threat. A DA in a military town inditing a soldiers wife for shooting someone who invaded her home , is likely not a step they would take in a borderline case.
Do you have the same burden of proof in Australia?

donttread
02-07-2016, 09:58 AM
Thanks Peter, I don't know enough (anything?) about American Law to be arguing with an American barrister, so I'm not (Lol, you're a qualified lawyer, and I haven't finished high school.:laugh:) You make good points about the different laws in different states, and the fact that no charges were laid doesn't mean the law was not technically violated.

AFIK, British and Australian Law is totally different in that you have to prove a credible threat to use violence and specially, lethal violence, if you injure or kill someone and claim self defence (you can't just say you were scared). Like most people, I guess, I'm judging the situation by what I know in my own country - so thanks again for the info and discussing this in the way you did. I learnt something in that discussion (which is part of the reason I'm here). :smiley:

The other tricky issue here William is that many don't like her choice to enter the home knowing something was wrong. Hell, I don't like her choice because she had a child in the car. However, she has every right in the world to make poor choices. She certainly has every right in the world to enter her own home. Non of that matters . What matters is did she fear for her life at the time she fired.
Also, you have to admit that her actions directly improved the gene pool. I mean what kind of thief parks his car in the driveway while he's robbing a house? We can only hope that he had not passed on his genes yet.

William
02-07-2016, 10:56 AM
William, in America the burden of proof is not on this woman to prove that she acted in accordance with the law. It's on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in accordance of the law. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So even if this case was borderline , the DA's office would have to go after her and prove that she did not feel an immediate threat. A DA in a military town inditing a soldiers for shooting someone who invaded her home , is likely not a step they would take in a borderline case.
Do you have the same burden of proof in Australia?

Yes of course we have the presumption of innocence in British and Australian Law.

AFIK, it works like this - you kill someone, and you are taken into custody while the police establish the sequence of events. The CPS then decides if there is a case to answer, and if so, you will be granted bail as long as there is no risk of flight. At a much later date, when both the prosecution and the defence have had time to assemble their cases, a trial by jury will be held.

During this trial, your actions and reactions will be examined, and you will be questioned and cross questioned about your actions which led to the death of this person. If it can be established that the threat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the extent that any reasonable person would have perceived it as such, and would have taken the actions you did, you will be found not guilty of the charge of (usually) manslaughter, and be free to go. But if the threat you perceived would not have been perceived as such by a reasonable person, then it is likely the jury will find you guilty as charged.

I'm not sure, but I think someone, such as this woman, who emptied a whole clip into someone who was unarmed, and not acting in a threatening manner, would probably be found guilty by a British or Australian jury. They would find no reasonable justification for the woman to fear for her life.

We don't have military towns, and we don't treat the military as anything special in our society, so it wouldn't make any difference that she was a soldier's wife. :smiley:

Standing Wolf
02-07-2016, 11:06 AM
This is a valid case of why we need firearms ? Because one person shot an intruder and 30,000 other Americans got shot to death last year ?

More than half of those people shot themselves. If the person in the mirror wants you dead, there's really no defense against that.

If you'd ever been in the position of needing a gun to protect your life and property, perhaps you'd be more sympathetic to those who'd like the opportunity to do the same.

Tahuyaman
02-07-2016, 11:07 AM
Ask 'em to post his stats so you both don't look dumb ... LOL

look a this...... exo telling someone else how to keep from looking dumb. Too funny.

donttread
02-07-2016, 11:15 AM
Yes of course we have the presumption of innocence in British and Australian Law.

AFIK, it works like this - you kill someone, and you are taken into custody while the police establish the sequence of events. The CPS then decides if there is a case to answer, and if so, you will be granted bail as long as there is no risk of flight. At a much later date, when both the prosecution and the defence have had time to assemble their cases, a trial by jury will be held.

During this trial, your actions and reactions will be examined, and you will be questioned and cross questioned about your actions which led to the death of this person. If it can be established that the threat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the extent that any reasonable person would have perceived it as such, and would have taken the actions you did, you will be found not guilty of the charge of (usually) manslaughter, and be free to go. But if the threat you perceived would not have been perceived as such by a reasonable person, then it is likely the jury will find you guilty as charged.

I'm not sure, but I think someone, such as this woman, who emptied a whole clip into someone who was unarmed, and not acting in a threatening manner, would probably be found guilty by a British or Australian jury. They would find no reasonable justification for the woman to fear for her life.

We don't have military towns, and we don't treat the military as anything special in our society, so it wouldn't make any difference that she was a soldier's wife. :smiley:

I see your point but are you telling me that local politics isn't a factor in your country.? Also, in our country we have failed to charge trained police officers or even fire them sometimes after they empty a clip into a guy 30 feet away with a knife, for example. How could we hold a scared , untrained citizen to a higher standard than we hold our cops to?

donttread
02-07-2016, 11:26 AM
Yes of course we have the presumption of innocence in British and Australian Law.

AFIK, it works like this - you kill someone, and you are taken into custody while the police establish the sequence of events. The CPS then decides if there is a case to answer, and if so, you will be granted bail as long as there is no risk of flight. At a much later date, when both the prosecution and the defence have had time to assemble their cases, a trial by jury will be held.

During this trial, your actions and reactions will be examined, and you will be questioned and cross questioned about your actions which led to the death of this person. If it can be established that the threat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the extent that any reasonable person would have perceived it as such, and would have taken the actions you did, you will be found not guilty of the charge of (usually) manslaughter, and be free to go. But if the threat you perceived would not have been perceived as such by a reasonable person, then it is likely the jury will find you guilty as charged.

I'm not sure, but I think someone, such as this woman, who emptied a whole clip into someone who was unarmed, and not acting in a threatening manner, would probably be found guilty by a British or Australian jury. They would find no reasonable justification for the woman to fear for her life.

We don't have military towns, and we don't treat the military as anything special in our society, so it wouldn't make any difference that she was a soldier's wife. :smiley:

That sounds a lot more like presumption of guilt, whereby I have to prove my actions were lawful vs. the other way around. Specifically "If it can be established that the treat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the point that any reasonable person would have perceived it has such , and would have taken the actions you did you will found not guilty and free to go." It should be more about absolute proof that you did not act in self defense but rather in anger. Sadly, our presumption of innocence is slowly devolving into a presumption of guilt as well. Remember the words "innocent until proven guilty " don't mean shit if the actions don't follow the words.

Cletus
02-07-2016, 12:29 PM
Usually it's some bully with a badge townie that does it, but they are still cops

There is no set distance at which it is justified to engage an attacker with a knife.

Peter1469
02-07-2016, 04:56 PM
Yes of course we have the presumption of innocence in British and Australian Law.

AFIK, it works like this - you kill someone, and you are taken into custody while the police establish the sequence of events. The CPS then decides if there is a case to answer, and if so, you will be granted bail as long as there is no risk of flight. At a much later date, when both the prosecution and the defence have had time to assemble their cases, a trial by jury will be held.

During this trial, your actions and reactions will be examined, and you will be questioned and cross questioned about your actions which led to the death of this person. If it can be established that the threat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the extent that any reasonable person would have perceived it as such, and would have taken the actions you did, you will be found not guilty of the charge of (usually) manslaughter, and be free to go. But if the threat you perceived would not have been perceived as such by a reasonable person, then it is likely the jury will find you guilty as charged.

I'm not sure, but I think someone, such as this woman, who emptied a whole clip into someone who was unarmed, and not acting in a threatening manner, would probably be found guilty by a British or Australian jury. They would find no reasonable justification for the woman to fear for her life.

We don't have military towns, and we don't treat the military as anything special in our society, so it wouldn't make any difference that she was a soldier's wife. :smiley:

Too bad.

Cletus
02-07-2016, 05:25 PM
I see your point but are you telling me that local politics isn't a factor in your country.? Also, in our country we have failed to charge trained police officers or even fire them sometimes after they empty a clip into a guy 30 feet away with a knife, for example. How could we hold a scared , untrained citizen to a higher standard than we hold our cops to?

You are really hung up on that thirty feet with a knife thing.

Cletus
02-07-2016, 05:28 PM
Yes of course we have the presumption of innocence in British and Australian Law.

AFIK, it works like this - you kill someone, and you are taken into custody while the police establish the sequence of events. The CPS then decides if there is a case to answer, and if so, you will be granted bail as long as there is no risk of flight. At a much later date, when both the prosecution and the defence have had time to assemble their cases, a trial by jury will be held.

During this trial, your actions and reactions will be examined, and you will be questioned and cross questioned about your actions which led to the death of this person. If it can be established that the threat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the extent that any reasonable person would have perceived it as such, and would have taken the actions you did, you will be found not guilty of the charge of (usually) manslaughter, and be free to go. But if the threat you perceived would not have been perceived as such by a reasonable person, then it is likely the jury will find you guilty as charged.

I'm not sure, but I think someone, such as this woman, who emptied a whole clip into someone who was unarmed, and not acting in a threatening manner, would probably be found guilty by a British or Australian jury. They would find no reasonable justification for the woman to fear for her life.

We don't have military towns, and we don't treat the military as anything special in our society, so it wouldn't make any difference that she was a soldier's wife. :smiley:

Very few pistols since the days of the Broomhandle Mauser have used "clips".

Peter1469
02-07-2016, 06:29 PM
That is a big problem with a lot of anti gun laws. They are written by people who know nothing about guns.

Mac-7
02-07-2016, 06:51 PM
Very few pistols since the days of the Broomhandle Mauser have used "clips".

Give the child a break.

yes "magazine" is the proper term but even American adults who are firearms literate occasionally say clip.

or at least I do.

William
02-07-2016, 08:26 PM
I see your point but are you telling me that local politics isn't a factor in your country.? Also, in our country we have failed to charge trained police officers or even fire them sometimes after they empty a clip into a guy 30 feet away with a knife, for example. How could we hold a scared , untrained citizen to a higher standard than we hold our cops to?

That sounds a lot more like presumption of guilt, whereby I have to prove my actions were lawful vs. the other way around. Specifically "If it can be established that the treat of death or serious bodily injury existed to the point that any reasonable person would have perceived it has such , and would have taken the actions you did you will found not guilty and free to go." It should be more about absolute proof that you did not act in self defense but rather in anger. Sadly, our presumption of innocence is slowly devolving into a presumption of guilt as well. Remember the words "innocent until proven guilty " don't mean shit if the actions don't follow the words.

Well, I dunno about local politics and how that affects law enforcement. But if that woman were a Brit or Aussie, I don't see how a charge could not be laid - even if she were the PM's wife. She killed an unarmed person who was not attacking or threatening her in any way. There would be a huge fuss if she were just allowed to go free without a trial.

The presumption of innocence does not mean that the circumstances are not examined by the authorities and, if necessary, a court of law. And 'innocent until proven guilty' does not mean that suspects cannot be charged with a suspected crime - specially one as serious as killing someone.

And I understand and agree with the very good point you are making about trained police officers killing people armed with only a knife from 30 feet away - this happens in my country too (except they are usually charged,) but it is a little different dealing with a crim who is brandishing a knife, from someone who is simply twocking your ipad - don't you agree? And since you mention it - should a scared, untrained citizen even be carrying a loaded gun?

There is no way of absolutely establishing intent, so a court of law has to use 'the reasonable person' standard in judging anyone's actions where self defence is claimed. There is no presumption of guilt - there is proof positive - the body, and the admission, of killing someone - which is basically an unlawful act until proven otherwise, so the only possible defence of that action has to be shown to a court of law. It's not the same as accusing someone of manslaughter without evidence, and expecting him to provide the proof he didn't do it. That would be a presumption of guilt. :wink:

William
02-07-2016, 08:49 PM
Too bad.

I understand where you're coming from Peter (I have uncles whom I admire in the military,) but I also understand that neutrality to be the sign of a healthy society. We don't have a military culture - and our military is honoured and decorated when they perform their duties bravely and well, and our Governors General are most often chosen from the retired military (currently Major-General Peter Cosgrove,) but they are not treated as something special just for choosing a career in the military.



Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism (“Fascism Anyone?,” Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine’s policy. (snip)

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
http://www.deliberation.info/the-14-characteristics-fascism/

We don't want our society to become like that. :smiley: