The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Home Base

Home Base A starting point, and place for threads don't seem to belong anywhere else

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2012, 03:31 PM   #196
sexobon
^it sings^
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,596
Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 03:58 PM   #197
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,332
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 04:38 PM   #198
HungLikeJesus
Only looks like a disaster tourist
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: above 7,000 feet
Posts: 7,208
Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?
__________________
Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn

SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.
HungLikeJesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 04:43 PM   #199
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus View Post
Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?
Imma buy me a big gun and buttfuck them in the mouth with it. I can't afford bullets.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 05:02 PM   #200
sexobon
^it sings^
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
In these days of doped up perps, "stuff" can turn to "lives" (or rape or torture) in less than a heartbeat. I wouldn't kill for stuff either; but, I have the advantage of tactical training plus experience that might enable me to better discern what's at stake and avail myself of more options than most other civilians. I'm not going to sit in judgment of those who don't; unless, I'm legally charged to do so by way of jury duty.

The comparison you suggest would be interesting; but, of limited use even if that information could be accurately obtained. While the good of the many generally outweighs the needs of the few, when it comes to the right of self preservation, sometimes the good of the many is outweighed by the needs of the few - or the one.

It will always be a balancing act and it appears the process will be in the adversarial form of our judicial system with staunch advocates for both extremes going at each other while those in the middle hope to take from it what's best for them. I don't believe there's a one size fits all national solution and that it will continue to be the purview of the states. I hold the people of each state accountable for those decisions and not entire national organizations whether they be business, political, religious ... etc.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 05:11 PM   #201
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules. It should not be a 'almost anything goes' law like in Florida but it shouldn't be so restrictive that it prevents people from protecting themselves or their properties, if they understand the potential consequences of doing so.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 06:24 PM   #202
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmg1969 View Post
That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
[RACE] is the issue.
Really? Gee thats a new twist
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules.
Agreed
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 08:54 PM   #203
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,034
One day, I plan to own a handgun and a rifle. maybe multiple. I'm not really into shotguns or "assault" weapons but could imagine owning an AK-47 or something.

I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.

But I don't feel like, anywhere in Vermont, I would need to.

*This statement not intended to be political in any way. Just personal.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 10:31 PM   #204
HungLikeJesus
Only looks like a disaster tourist
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: above 7,000 feet
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
...
I would never use a weapon to defend myself...
Not even if a bunch of the locals were outside your door with torches and pitchforks?
__________________
Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn

SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.
HungLikeJesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 10:41 PM   #205
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,034
I couldn't do it. Like, I have no business using a weapon to defend myself. Gun owners talk about how some mythical ‹bermensch of the Responsible Gun Owner is who they mean when they talk about gun owners... I am not that. I don't believe that I could make the hard choices, be the right responsible actor in a high-stakes, high-stress situation like that. If I can't talk my way out of it, well, I'm SOL... but if I picked up a weapon to be used for violence, I do not believe that I would be able to use it responsibly, and using it irresponsibly, even under emotional stress, i don't believe is forgivable, even if you didn't create the situation. I'm not necessarily saying that should be the law, but I don't think the use of violent force, even in self-defense, is justified if the force is applied irresponsibly.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 05:49 AM   #206
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,511
I think that is a completely valid argument for a single person to make. If you have others in your household, sacrificing them to a principle you hold is less noble. I look at it like the nutters who don't seek medical help because Jesus is gonna cure them. Fine die of cancer, but don't let your children die to improve your relationship with the guy in the sky. Thankfully, I live in a "castle" state where in the unlikely event of a home invasion I can do whatever needs to be done, without having to read the mind of my assailant. If possible I'd avoid confrontation, but I'm not sacrificing myself or my children.

Strange correlation: We've seen the video of the kids with the rc car pushing the guys golf balls around. Being a golf hater, I thought it was hilarious if a little mean, but then the kid confronted the old man over a not unpredictable response. The home invader is an extreme version of that kid, crossing a psychological line with unpredictable results, because his victim is surprised and has no way of knowing his intent and maybe buried his wife yesterday.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 07:17 AM   #207
dmg1969
I got nothing
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 486
Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but......

If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off.
__________________
Void where prohibited. Your results may vary. Not intended for resale. Do not remove tag. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

Last edited by dmg1969; 03-27-2012 at 07:23 AM.
dmg1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 07:22 AM   #208
dmg1969
I got nothing
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
Well, that's the thing, Spex...you are not legally permitted to kill over STUFF. You have to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. If some drunk breaks in and lays on my couch because he thinks he's in his own house, I call the police. If someone breaks in tries grabbing my flat screen, my dogs will be on him along with myself and hand him an ass beating. If he is armed and threatens me, I drop him. It's not like the wild west...you have to know when you are legally permitted to use deadly force. I have studied it as a responsible gun owner.
__________________
Void where prohibited. Your results may vary. Not intended for resale. Do not remove tag. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
dmg1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 07:23 AM   #209
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?

Griff: I suppose it would've also been funny had someone ran an RC around just as people in their bee-keeper costumes were getting ready to jab pointy things at each other in a time-honored and noble sport.

dmg: I guess I'll pull out a conservative-ish thought and say that you can't really define a 'liberal mind-set' because I would protect myself (a single person, no dog, no gun, but a big knife) if someone invaded my home. I'd kill the hell out of someone who was trying to take away my life and my freedom to be safe in my own home. Or die trying.

We liberals aren't all pushovers.
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 07:34 AM   #210
ZenGum
Doctor Wtf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.

I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.

I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008.
Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.