To those who argued that Florida's "Castle Law" was no big thing

[Malikshah]

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/_Shoot_first_laws_make_it_tougher_f_10272007.html

Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.

John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.

From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson

In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.

Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."

Yup--we're becoming a nation of killers.

Next time one of these types of laws pass in Florida-- please take the time to reflect and maybe, just maybe, listen to those who warn of the dangers.

[mvccd1000]

1. Those laws most certainly were a "big thing."

If someone comes in my house, I should not have to wait for that person to begin shooting me first. I should not have to run away from the person who illegally entered my house.

I SHOULD be allowed to defend my home and my life from an illegal intruder without worrying about that person (or that person's surviving family) suing me for protecting myself.

Those laws were long overdue.

[Squatch]

4. Love the "even-handedness" with which this was written

the guy "ambles" into somebody else's garage and then FROM THE SHADOWS (!) blam!!!

[michreject]

196. This sounds about right

the guy "ambles" into somebody else's garage and then FROM THE SHADOWS (!) blam!!!

You shouldn't go into someone Else's dwelling without permission.

[zanne]

218. And you deserve to die for that?

Even if the guy didn't "amble" and if he stole a valuable piece of equipment, that does not call for an execution. Theft is theft. Blowing somebody away is murder. It's simple. The trigger-happy homeowner should be in jail.

[michreject]

224. I'm not getting into the where, when or why's

He was inside another persons structure, not in a yard. The intent was criminal. Think "In cold blood".

[zanne]

225. Not getting into specifics, huh?

That's what you do when you can't answer a question.

[michreject]

253. To put it so even you can understand it

Yes.

[girl gone mad]

216. No kidding.

was this an original article by raw story or is it copied from somewhere else? The bias is intense.

[5X]

9. Let me see how this could work.....

You really dislike your neighbor, he complains about
how you don't mow often enough, or some such neighborly thing.
You open your garage door, you give him a call and invite him
over for a beer to talk over your differences, you blast him.

That was justified.

[Peregrine]

41. Every shooting is investigated by the police

They just don't show up and see the body in the house and say "have a nice day" then leave. Regardless of what the story says, in Florida there still must be a feeling that your or somebody's life is at risk.

Just yesterday, My wife and I were diving in Daytona. We were stopped (I was the passenger) and a man walked up to the car, bent down to look inside while putting his hand on the door handle. Either he didn't like the look of the dog next to me or he didn't like that a male was in the passenger seat, he let the handle go and walked away.

I have a carry license, but don't carry. I will now.

[Scout]

169. probably a better idea to LOCK your car doors.... n/t

[Iris]

114. a more likely scenario - Your child misses curfew and is sneaking in late at night... n/t

[mondo joe]

134. Castle Doctrine doesn't allow for that. NT

[Toots]

2. Amerika...Home of the Brave

The fear that must permeate these gun people... It is amazing..

[mvccd1000]

7. That's a ridiculous statement...

.... kinda like saying I drive in fear just because my car has airbags.

I know that I have some of the tools necessary to defend my household, should the need arise. It's not a feeling of fear, it's a feeling of preparedness.

If you go on a hike, do you take extra water or dry clothes, matches, a signalling mirror? Why? If so, you must be hiking in constant fear of being lost forever.

Being prepared does not = being in fear.

[Toots]

10. Prepared for what?

You must fear something that you need to prepare for. Most people do not fear for their lives when they go to McDonalds but I guess you do or you would not Prepare for that fear..I feel sorry for you, it must be very hard to live with such fear of your fellow American.

[mvccd1000]

17. Strange logic...

Do you drive in constant fear? If you answered no, then I can assume you don't buckle up, use airbags, or carry insurance on your car. You certainly don't need any of those things if you're not afraid.

Does your dwelling have a smoke detector? Wow, I'll bet you can hardly sleep at night for fear of fire. No need for a smoke detector if you're not in constant fear of fire.

It sounds like the difference between us is that you choose to go through life blissfully unaware that anything could ever happen to you. I understand that life does not always go as planned, and I try to be prepared to minimize the impact on me when that happens.

As I said (and as you apparently missed), being prepared does not = being afraid.

[Toots]

44. So I should send my five year old off to McDonalds "Prepared"

Packing a gun into an unarmed society is being afraid IMO. Normal people do not do that...It is an unreasoned fear that something bad is going to happen to you in which you must be prepared for..It is in no way the same as buying Dental Insurance for my children..

[mvccd1000]

91. Is your five year old responsible for him/herself at that age?

And able to make decisions about whether to buy a car with an airbag, or fund a life-insurance plan, or pack a backpack for hiking?

No? Then why would you send him/her anywhere "packing heat?" Especially since that would be in violation of the law. That would call your parenting skills into question...... :)

So, you DO prepare for some things, but you think it's foolish to prepare for others - is that it?

Personally, I have declined dental insurance. My teeth have always been healthy, and it would be a waste of money for me. Obviously, not all solutions are the right fit for all people.

[krispos42]

103. Are you child's fingerprints on file?

Does your child know what to do about Mr. Stranger Danger? Does your child know "Stop Drop and Roll"? How about a DNA sample someplace?

Why are you living in fear? Why are you making your child live in fear?







Society is not "unarmed", incidently. I don't know where you get that impression from. Criminals have weapons, numbers, or both, that they use to their advantage, in adition to their predator aggression and violent attitudes.

[michreject]

198. San Ysidro McDonald's massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Oliver_Huberty

[Malikshah]

16. The question is being prepare to do what?

Shoot first and ask questions later?

God forbid a person with senile dementia wander into someone's yard or home at night.

The police train in the use of deadly force; the average gun owner does not have such training.

But that's OK it seems to many.

[mvccd1000]

20. Good point!

I certainly can't tell the difference between my tottering 96-year-old Great Aunt and some teenager with a crowbar busting down the door.

[Malikshah]

22. In the dark of night half asleep, I would have to agree with you.

Glad to see my opinion backed by a competent authority. :)

[mvccd1000]

27. Then we can safely add you to the list of people who should NOT keep a gun. :) nt

[rockymountaindem]

23. But studies have shown that once you touch a gun

one of two things happens, sometimes both

1) You become a rage-blinded maniac out for blood

or

2) Your IQ goes down 45 points on contact

:sarcasm:

[Amelie]

65. Yoshihiro Hattori

Mistakes happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

[krispos42]

101. The law says "reasonable"

Blasting away at the neighbor kid for retrieving a football from your yard is not "reasonable". Blasting away some nursing home escapee rearrainging your patio furniture is not "reasonable". So the law does not protect those shootings.

And you seem to feel that, in those cases where a shooting WOULD be protected by the "reasonable" part of the Castle Doctrine law, the resident would automatically shoot to kill, just because he or she can do it without fear of punishment. That no thinking occurs. Just the raw joy of of acting out a mastubatory gun fantasy.

Is this coming from your opinion that gunowners are just bloodthirsty psychos? That they are all knuckle-dragging freepers with zero respect for life?

I think it is likely that you are taking BushCo's complete and utter abstract disregard for human life and projecting it onto individuals in heart-thumping, uncertain, high-stakes intimacy.

[zanne]

221. BS-----It's paranoia;. nt

[Xenotime]

48. It really is..

Paranoia grows like weeds in this country.

[mondo joe]

75. It's not fearful to understand the potetial threats and take reasonable precautions.

Am I fearful or paranoid for having an emergency kit in my home that is in an earthquake zone?

[Toots]

219. So using your Logic we should attack Iran immediately

Ferar is fear no matter how you like to avoid the term. Most people do not pack heat yet to you they are unprepared for life's emergencies. I say by paying my taxes to provide Police protection America is prepared. If you use unreasoned fear to demand all carry guns then what is the point of having the police?

[Dr. Strange]

223. That question probably deserves its own thread.

... what is the point of having the police?

If we have nothing to fear, then why do we need police? What are they protecting us from? And if their job is to protect us, then what happens when they fail? If I call 911 and the police don't arrive in time to save me, are they at fault? Can they be held responsible?

[Yggdrasill]

123. Fear?

"The fear that must permeate these gun people...It is amazing" You are so completely off base that I feel you do not actually comprehend reality. People who carry, fight back, assert their rights are not living in fear. They are doing just the opposite and the criminals are the ones who are going to feel the fear.

[zanne]

220. Is it paranoia or wanting to be a cowboy?

I can't decide.

[Squatch]

3. If somebody "ambles" into my home

(:shrug:)

with the intent to harm me, that person is not ambling anywhere else ever again.

[elias7]

8. sure, but how do you know what was the intent in this case?

better to shoot first, ask questions later? Very sticky...

[Squatch]

11. Let's see:

Person who broke into your house is there to:

a) ask for milk and cookies
b) help around the house and clean the windows you've been putting off for months
c) finish building your backyard deck

:shrug:

[Little Star]

244. Why didn't a,b,c ring the door bell??

[backscatter712]

57. The whole point of these laws is that you don't have time.

If someone's in your home, you don't have time to ask questions like "Can I safely retreat?" "Is the guy really a threat to the life and limb of me and my family?" If someone's attacking you, it'll happen really fast, and you could be dead really fast, so that's why the law gives you the benefit of the doubt in these situations.

[kimmylavin]

145. If someone's attacking you...

... will you have time to retrieve your gun from where you have it safely stored?
What happens if they don't attack you in the room where you keep your gun?

This argument that you're protecting your home doesn't really make sense to me - how does one have the foresight to know into which part of your house someone will "amble" with the intent to hurt you?

[Kingshakabobo]

174. That's the rub, isn't it?

I keep a handgun in my home but it's locked away in a safe behind a false panel in the bedroom. Why? I'm more worried about it being stolen or one of my nephews getting their hands on it.

I figure the odds are a million to one someone will break in to my home when I'm there. Add to that the fact that the burglar alarm or the dog will probably scare them off before they get through the door/window.......I think that makes the odds a brazillion to one that I'll ever get the "opportunity" (I get the impression some on this thread think of it that way) to shoot an intruder.

I just don't lay awake at night dreaming of blasting someone.

The more likely scenario would be catching someone breaking in to cars in our association parking lot but I'm not willing to kill someone over a car stereo or a hub-cap on an insured vehicle.

I used to work with a guy that kept his handgun stuffed between his mattress and headboard. I wonder how many people in this thread don't keep their weapons locked and secured?

[backscatter712]

177. I keep mine in an electronic quick-open pistol safe.

It's one of those ones where you can punch in the code, which pops open the door, and pull your weapon out in five seconds.

With my apartment, it's on the fifth floor, and while there is a balcony, you'd have to be Spiderman to be able to climb up to it, so chances are any attacker will come in through the front door. If that happens, I lock myself in my bedroom, get my gun ready, call the police and aim at the door. Let the intruder have the living room and kitchen - I can always get more stuff, but if he kicks down my locked bedroom door, I think that's a good sign he's hostile and an immediate threat to my life and limbs, so that's when I open fire.

[BadgerLaw2010]

105. Burglary of occupied dwelling is considered an inherently dangerous felony.

Burglary also doesn't necessarily mean "intent to steal."

[rockymountaindem]

5. I don't think Florida was the first to have a law like that

Colorado has had such a law since the early 90s when I was a kid. I remember them calling it the 'make my day' law, and all my friends on the playground thought that was really cool so we started saying "make my day" like it was "don't tase me bro" all the time.

As to whether or not that man in the article was justified, well, he assumed that if someone broke into his house it was to harm him. Why should he have to wait to find out for sure? Why should someone have to hide *in their own home* from an intruder when other options are available?

[benEzra]

236. Most states have such laws.

The OP is confusing the Castle Doctrine (which most states recognize, i.e. you can shoot someone breaking into your home if you are in it) with Florida's new law eliminating its quirky duty-to-retreat statute, extending the Castle Doctrine to cover carjackings, and preventing violent attackers from suing their victims if they are shot during commission of a forcible felony.

[cigsandcoffee]

6. A good rule of thumb on this is for people to stop robbing homes.

Do that, and we've solved the problem.

Meanwhile, thieves entering a person's home illegally will have to continue to fear the thought that they might get their ass shot off.

[Malikshah]

18. So many assumptions as to why someone goes into someone's yard

or dwelling...

[Squatch]

25. Yard = buffer zone

Door threshold = intrusion

Break onto my property, enjoy everything you can grab from my lawn. Cross the door threshold uninvited, you are going to get hurt.

[Malikshah]

67. So to you, capital punishment is the punishment for theft.

How enlightened.

[Pavulon]

72. Well, Pretty easy to Prevent

If a person does not break into another persons home they have no worries.

BTW not a punishment, result of their action. That punishment could be crapping their pants when a homeowner shoots at them and misses, wheel chair if their spine is broken by a gunshot, or death.

All results of their action.

[kimmylavin]

146. Actually...

The result of their action is that they break into a home, and are thus breaking a law: last I checked, they do still punish people for this sort of thing.

You blowing their head off would be a result of YOUR action.

[mondo joe]

150. They punish for that, if the burglar is ever caught.

And you can be glad about it, if you're still alive.

[kimmylavin]

154. That's right.

And I'll even match the melodrama.
You can be glad when and if the burglar is ever caught, and you won't have blood on your hands.
Meanwhile, you can just get on with your murder free life.

[mondo joe]

158. I'm sorry but I'm not quite understanding your point.

If you wish to gamble your life, that's certainly your right and I would not question it.

It is also, however, your right to defend yourself from harm or reasonable expectation of harm. And self defense has never bee murder.

[kimmylavin]

250. I think the gamble

is having a loaded weapon in your house.

And again, how do you define a "reasonable expectation of harm?"
Why should the law cover degrees of paranoia?

And whether or not it was in "self defense", its still murder.
Someone's still dead.

[mvccd1000]

212. Yeah, we all know robbers only want your property. They promise not to hurt you.

Like these two robberies in the Phoenix area:

"Three Teens Indicted in Subway Killing"
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/centralphoenix/articles/1125subway19Z4.html

"Trial begins in slayings of Mesa workers"
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0125evtrial25.html

Both of these were restaurant robberies where the victims complied and gave up the money. In each case, they were then herded into back rooms and executed.

Letting the robbers in to take what they want sounds like a GREAT plan to me! :sarcasm:

[kimmylavin]

251. Wow.

Two WHOLE robberies out of every robbery in this country?
That's quite some odds.

I'm not trying to put down what are obviously tragedies, but I'd still rather take my chance with NOT having a loaded weapon in my home.
A loaded weapon, incidentally, that causes far more harm in the home via accidents than it ever will IF someone breaks in.

[mvccd1000]

255. Not quite the WHOLE country. :)

Those were two that I had on top of my head, because they happened in the area in which I live.

I can understand your choice not to have a weapon in your home. If you did not know how to drive, it would be dangerous for you to operate a car. If you are not trained or comfortable with a gun, it would be dangerous for you to have one of those, as well.

I am trained and confident in my ability to handle a gun properly, so I would ask you not to try to make the choice for me, just as I would not make it for you.

[Pavulon]

203. No They might as well shoot themselves

as come into someones home and fail to follow orders issued at gunpoint. I posted earlier a rational approach to this. I have a pretty good threat assessment "radar". I am not going to pop the drunk kid for walking into my house.

I have no urge to harm someone over property. However a person in my home after dark who ignored two barking/biting dogs, a fence, an alarm system, a locked door, flood lights, and the little voice in their head that said "this is really dumb" is not there for property.

That is a rational state of mind. So they will be met at shotgunpoint with a flashlight in their face.

They will then decide the outcome of the encounter by their actions.

[kimmylavin]

252. Okay, and I ask this honestly.

Why do you feel that after two dogs, a fence, an alarm system, a locked door and flood lights that you STILL need a gun to protect your home?

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. you are making an assumption that the reason they "ambled" into the house

was for theft and not for murder /rape /assault.

[Malikshah]

85. I am basing my response on that which was written

Break onto my property, enjoy everything you can grab from my lawn. Cross the door threshold uninvited,

Am not adding anything to the response but what was said.

[Evergreen Emerald]

100. again--you made an assumption that he was shot for theft

that is Monday morning quarterbacking. If someone ambled into my house, they would not even have time to tie me up.

[mondo joe]

76. Not quite. Self defense is a right we each have if we reasonably believe we are threatened.

[Malikshah]

87. Self defense involves what? Shoot to kill?

What is deemed a threat?

Hell, folks who vote for * are a threat to me for they back a murderous regime in my mind, one which seeks to have me removed from sight.

Should I take action into my own hands? Of course not.

Is this a bit hyperbolic? Yup. Are many of the circumstances given in this thread just as hyperbolic? Damn straight.

[mondo joe]

94. It certainly can include that.

If you think folks who vote for * are an imminent threat, shoot some and make your case in a court of law.

I wouldn't side with you, however.

[NashVegas]

98. Don't You Need a Different Avatar?

Should I take action into my own hands? Of course not.

The point of V seems to elude you.

[BadgerLaw2010]

106. Yes, if there's a reasonable belief of a threat of death or great bodily harm.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. And people like you support & encourage criminals. Coddling criminals is what got us

where we are today. Criminals give up their rights when they are in the process of committing a crime. Period.

Have you ever been robbed before? I'm talking armed holdup, not someone breaking into your home while you're gone. I've been robbed at gunpoint twice & carjacked once. All part of living in Miami, huh?

You come on MY property looking for trouble, you're gonna find it. Big time. Just a few weeks ago I had an ex employee show up at my house, drunk and all pilled up, wanting to start a fight. He got his fucking throat smashed with a 36 inch Baltimore Wrecking Bar. He's damned lucky I wasn't in a bad mood, or I would have shot his ass.

Quit coddling and apologizing for criminals. They're scum and deserve whatever the fuck happens to them. Their right to breathe ends with my right to enjoy my home without being robbed, harrassed or otherwise intruded upon.

[Malikshah]

90. Oh my goodness. Is that you Archie? Where's Edith?

Be careful with that foam--it'll stain the shirt collar.

Wonderful anecdote. I am in awe of the testosterone shown. Makes me feel safe.

[Ghost in the Machine]

102. Do you have anything besides boorish stupidity to add to this conversation?

Just askin'....

Because it doesn't seem like it, so far. You couldn't even answer a simple straight up question.

Have YOU ever been robbed at gunpoint? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice, save your boorish nonsense for someone else.

Yes, I'm *so* full of testosterone. Me, an almost 45 year old guy who's 85% permanent total disabled and who's had 2 major neck surgeries which resulted in major nerve damage and limiting the use of my arms and my ability to fight. Not to metion the fact that my neck was taken apart and rebuilt, the put back together WITHOUT screws, rods, or any other hardware. In short, a simple fender bender for someone else could be a paralyzing accident for me. Smacking a 28 year old, who's drunk and hopped up on pills, in the throat with a crowbar wasn't a hard choice to make.

Now answer my question....

[Malikshah]

113. Listen sparky, I'm not the one talking about coddling criminals.

Just the one accused of doing so.

No--I've not been robbed at gunpoint. I've been robbed though. Does that mean I don't have a right to an opinion?

Sorry, don't have all the personal woes you so clearly decided to make public that have very little to do with the larger issue of gun control.

In other words, I am trying to raise a valid point and have not resorted to personal attacks.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe there is more helpful discussion going on beyond the oneupsmanship of whose life is lousier.

You don't want to be intruded upon. Fine. There's a shack someplace in the mountains. Feel free.

[Ghost in the Machine]

115. This issue isn't about gun control, it's about self defense. I guess your

reading comprehension skills are about as good as your debating and/or conversational skills, which is 'not very good'.

I don't look at my situation as "personal woes" either... it's just something that's happened to me in the course of my existence in this world, and I have adjusted to it and "dealt with it" accordingly, thank you very much!

BTW, I already live in "shack" in the mountains, but that didn't stop a drunken, pilled up ex employee who was fired for theft from coming on MY property trying to start a fight.

Who said I have a lousy life? I enjoy life every single day, no doubt about that. I don't worry if there's a 'boogeyman' hiding in the shadows somewhere waiting to jump out and harm me & my 2 kids (yes, I'm a single father also), but I AM prepared to protect them and myself at any and all cost.

Now, you were saying??

[Malikshah]

118. My comprehension is just fine, sunshine.

And I stand by my statements.

If conversational skills require oneupsmanship and hyperbolic accusations of coddling criminals--then the world is worse off than I imagined.

As for debate--there's yet to be one. Rather, the mode of discussion thus far is to argue that since one has not been robbed at gunpoint, one isn't allowed to have a valid opinion on the matter. That sort of criteria is not up to any debate format.

Enjoy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

124. I beg to differ, cupcake...

So far you haven't comprehended that the "Castle Law" is about self defense, not about gun control and you've failed to comprehend that maybe the reason I asked you if you had ever been robbed at gunpoint is so I could know whether you've ever faced KNOWING what it is like to possibly be in your last moment on this earth because someone has a gun pointed at your head. Apparently you don't know that feeling, and hopefully you never will.

Another thing you don't comprehend is that by making excuses for criminal behavior you are, in fact, "coddling" criminals. They are just as responsible for their actions as you are or I am, and they need to realize that.

I stand by MY statement that a criminals rights end where my property line begins. I know my main mail lady, and the two that fill in for her when she is out. I know my meter reader and I can tell if it's the UPS or Fed-Ex truck outside. However, NONE of these people would be coming into my home in the middle of the night.

Another thing you fail to comprehend is that you have contributed NOTHING of substance to this thread, including your OP. You posted a story in biased "gun grabbers" opinion.

You go right ahead and keep spouting assinine reactionary bullshit, just don't act surprised when someone calls you on it.

Take your petty bullshit somewhere else, I'm done with you, as you provide nothing of substance to this discussion, only hyperbole and straw men. I think that's all you've got. The facts (your posts) bear me out on that statement also.

[BushOut06]

171. So now, due process is considered "coddling criminals"?

Pardon me, but that sounds like a bunch of rethug BS. There is a reason why we have a court system. Someone comes onto your property wanting to pick a fight, you call the police and have him locked up. You didn't say anything about him waving a gun around, or threatening your life - you merely stated that he was drunk and wanted to fight.

Maybe we should just do away with this whole system of due process? If you catch someone stealing from your company, why not just execute them on the spot, or at least cut off their hands? Heck, if we just started executing people, maybe we'd be a lot safer. :sarcasm:

[Ghost in the Machine]

180. Maybe you don't understand due process??

The Castle Law is designed to give law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. Period. That's all the "due process" a criminal needs. They've been given a warning, and that warning is "if you break into someones house, you stand a very good chance of getting shot and/or killed". That's due process enough for me. If you have a problem with the law, take it up with your state rep or senator. Otherwise, the law basically says "criminals beware, you may get killed".

Every time you apologize or make an excuse for a criminal you're part of the problem. Try being part of the solution for once, huh?

[BushOut06]

182. We're talking about two totally different situations here

We're not talking about someone physically breaking into your house. In your situation, the person was merely in your yard. Surely you can tell the difference. I hope you're not suggesting that you're allowed to blast away anyone merely coming into your yard.

[Ghost in the Machine]

184. Again, please point out where I said he was "standing in my yard"

Thanks...

[zanne]

226. Kids cut through my yard every day...

They also play in my carport when it rains. I don't know these kids, but I assume that they're not out to get me, CUPCAKE.

[Scout]

232. you better get out there and bash them in the neck with a crowbar! n/t

[Occulus]

167. "Criminals give up their rights when they are in the process of committing a crime. Period."

No, they don't... at least, not in the US.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BushOut06]

168. Why didn't you just kill the motherfucker?

After all, he was on YOUR property, "looking for trouble". Nice to see that instead of calling the police like most normal people would have, you only smashed the fuck out of his throat with a weapon. Why didn't you just finish the job and blow his head off? Surely you would have been within your rights. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BushOut06]

181. You're the one who said you "smashed his fucking throat" with a crowbar

Sounds like you enjoyed smashing another person's throat with a crowbar, and that you're hoping he'll come back so you can pump his worthless ass full of lead.

I love how you immediately fall back on freeper bullshit, with the whole rape analogy. I'm sorry, but there's a HUGE fucking difference between a drunken ex-employee standing in your yard yelling at you, and somebody raping your wife and daughter.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BushOut06]

185. So you just had to open the door and smash his fuckin throat - glad we cleared that up

Now we know that you actually had to open the door to attack him. Real nice move there.

BTW, who the HELL do you think you're calling a "boy"?

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BushOut06]

187. As does yours, sir

Calling someone else a "gangsta wannabe" and calling me a "boy", and accusing other people in this thread of being criminals because they disagree with your stance? Sounds borderline racist, pal. You *do* realize that personal attacks on other DU members are strictly forbidden, don't you?

Someone standing at your door, even if they are pounding on it and yelling at you, does NOT constitute an immediate threat to your life. If that person breaks down your door and enters your house, then you're well within your rights to shoot to kill. But from the tone of your posts so far, it seems like you actually enjoyed attacking that guy with a crowbar, and only regretted you couldn't "beat the shit out of him with your bare hands".

BTW, consider yourself alerted.

[Ghost in the Machine]

188. Do you enjoy showing off your ignorance? You must, because you keep

putting it all out here for everyone to see. When did "gangsta" become a race? Please tell me what *you* would call a silly hick white boy who wears his britches halfway down his ass with a red bandana on in "aunt jemima" (yes, that's what they call it, you want to cry about that too?) fashion and jumps around talking like these "thugs" on gansta rap videos.

You obviously live a very sheltered life, my friend.

I'm alerted on? WAAAAH! I'm heartbroken! NOT! Make sure you alert on yourself for calling me a freeper, ok? Take your bullshit somewhere else, little boy....

[BushOut06]

189. Please point out where I called you a "freeper"

I have never once issued a personal attack on you. And yes, I stand by my statement - some of the arguments you've made sound like freeper bullshit. I'm not calling YOU a freeper, that's a big difference. Stuff like "criminals lose their civil rights when they commit the crime" and bringing up the analogy of someone raping my wife & daughter.

Would you call an African-American a "boy"? If not, then why would you call ANY member of DU that, when you don't know who the hell you're talking to? There are quite a few people here on DU who would take great exception to that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

192. Sure here ya go. Your backpedaling doesn't help you either.

BushOut06 (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-29-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. You're the one who said you "smashed his fucking throat" with a crowbar
Sounds like you enjoyed smashing another person's throat with a crowbar, and that you're hoping he'll come back so you can pump his worthless ass full of lead.

I love how you immediately fall back on freeper bullshit, with the whole rape analogy. I'm sorry, but there's a HUGE fucking difference between a drunken ex-employee standing in your yard yelling at you, and somebody raping your wife and daughter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in your small mind, you're not calling me a freeper by saying I "fall back on 'freeper bullshit'", yet I'm a racist for calling someone a "gangsta wannabe". You really are stupid beyond words. That's not an insult, just an observation.

You know the old saying... if it walks like a duck...

Now, go sit in a corner and cower in fear while those of us who aren't afraid to stand up for ourselves and/or others take care of business. You can call it vigilante justice or whatever else you prefer to call it, but around here we call it "looking out for ourselves, our families & those around us". One of these days you'll wake up and realize that not ALL Democrats and/or Liberals are pacifists, pushovers, tree huggers or whatever else we're called or percieved to be.

Would I be wrong in assuming by your attitude that you've never worn the uniform to serve your country either? If not, why not?

[BushOut06]

193. Yes, you would be quite wrong

And it wasn't just the "wannabe gangsta" comment you made - it was calling another member of DU a "boy". Calling someone a "boy" has very racist overtones. Like I said, you wouldn't walk up to an African-American and call them that - you shouldn't call people on DU that either. You have no idea what the color of my skin is, and there are LOTS of people here who would take serious offense to you calling them "boy".

[Ghost in the Machine]

197. Well, I've been wrong before, so no big deal. However, you still make assumptions

of who I'd talk to like what. I'm not afraid of, nor intimidated by anyone. Basically, what you're doing is building up a straw man and knocking it down when you keep tossing the word "African American" around. Nowhere does any of my posts mention an African American. But feel free to keep building your strawmen and knocking them down.

Try sticking to the issues of what we're discussing. A drunken, pilled up punk beating on my door and looking for trouble, all while scaring my son, my daughter & her friend. Put yourself in my shoes for once, knowing that the cops would be 30 minutes or longer in responding... anything could happen in that amount of time.

As it was, it took less than two minutes to rectify the situation and the boy KNOWS that if he ever comes back here again he's going to leave in an ambulance, if not body bag.

As it stands, I've seen him in town twice since this incident. What do you know, I didn't try to kill him, hurt him or anything else! When he sees me, he hangs his head and walks off in the opposite direction because he KNOWS he fucked up, and as far as I'm concerned the problem is over with. I've had more than a few tell me "this ain't over with" when they've gotten their asses kicked. My response? "Well, let's finish it right now, boy". I don't hold grudges and don't chase after people with the intent on harming them. I *do*, however, protect myself, my children and my property when the need arises. If you can't wrap your mind around that and understand it, there's nothing more I can say to you to help you understand it. You don't seem to realize that when you live in the 3rd smallest county in the state, with a police force of FOUR officers, sometimes you just have to rely on yourself and take care of yourself.

[Scout]

191. gosh, I guess CLOSING THE DOOR or not opening it in the first

place just never occurred to you? You sound like you might be a major league asshole.

[Ghost in the Machine]

195. I guess you would just let someone keep beating on YOUR door while your

daughter and her friend who was spending the night were crying because they were scared, right?

Yeah, I *can* be a major league asshole when I want or need to be. My preference in this life is to live peacefully and be left alone by the dregs of society, but when they come to MY door, they're putting themselves in a place they really don't want to be.

I go to my place of business, I go to the grocery store and I come home & take care of my family. I don't go out looking for trouble, I don't bother anyone else and I don't socialize with many people besides my family. All I want is to be left alone to raise my family in peace and comfort. When you drive 8 miles from your home, in the opposite direction from town and come on MY property, through MY fence around MY yard and onto MY front porch looking for trouble, you're going to find it. Pure and simple, no questions asked. Maybe you should try reading some of my other replies and get the whole story. I live on 12,5 acres, out in the woods, 12 miles from town in a county that has FOUR cops.

Bottom line... if you don't want to get fucked up, DON'T come to my door looking for trouble. Period.

[Scout]

199. what, are they whiners or something?

"daughter and her friend who was spending the night were crying because they were scared,"

just kidding there, ha ha

I see my assumption about you was correct.

[Ghost in the Machine]

200. Yeah.,.. ha ha...

My assumption is that you're gutless, nutless wonder who wouldn't have the balls to open your mouth to my face. You're just another anonymous internet loudmouth and tough guy, huh? You should change your name to Cub Scout because you're a childish boor.

[Paladin]

205. How Nice That Someone With Your Temperment.....

....can get his hands on all the guns he wants.

Is this a great country, or what?


(Sarcasm Alert, because I figure you'll need it)

[Ghost in the Machine]

206. Even nicer that someone with your mentality.....

can post on an anonymous message board.

What a country! eh, Yakoff?

Standing up for myself gives me a bad temperment?? How sad you must be...

No sarcasm needed....

[Scout]

233. you are too funny....

too much testosterone honey?

Keep posting, you're giving the normal people a laugh!

[Ghost in the Machine]

241. Normal people mock scared children? Who knew!?!

At least you didn't deny that you wouldn't have the guts to say something like that to my face. That was big of you.

Define "normal people".

[Scout]

243. no, YOU are being laughed at, not scared children.

the balance of your post isn't worth a comment, don't assume anything else....

[Ghost in the Machine]

245. Scout - "What are they, whiners or something?" YOU mocked my daughter

and her friend for being scared because a drunken pill head was beating on my front door, threatening me bodily harm. Now you want to deny it? It's right up above here a few posts, look it up. That makes you a piece of trash in my book. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. Live with it.

[Scout]

246. you've got some serious problems with reading comprehension....

and i'm not the the one with multiple deleted posts in this thread.

I've got no problems whatsoever living with my posts in this thread.

why would i mock your daughter? she's got big strong tough daddy-man to protect her!

[Ghost in the Machine]

247. I don't know, why *did* you mock my daughter? It's right up above for all to see.

As for deleted posts, who gives a fuck? Certainly not me. I don't whine to the mods & that's probably the reason some of your posts are still up.

BTW, it seems you're the one with reading comprehension problems. "Live with it" was in reference to you being a piece of trash in my book for mocking my daughter, NOT because your post is up there. Is that clear now?

[Scout]

248. here, read my post

Scout Mon Oct-29-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #195
199. what, are they whiners or something?

"daughter and her friend who was spending the night were crying because they were scared,"

just kidding there, ha ha

I see my assumption about you was correct.

=====================================================================


see the just kidding there, ha ha


========================================================================

now, taking the advice of my dad, "Argue with a jackass, he does the same" I'm done with your hyper-aggressive nonsense.

[Ghost in the Machine]

249. So "just kidding, ha ha" makes it all better?

Maybe I should get my "sacastically funny" meter recalibrated?

I'm sorry, but I take my right to defend myself and my family from harm very seriously. I'm really surprised at some of the comments here because I've stated in the past that I am a gun owner, and I very easily could have shot this clown and been justified in doing so. I chose NOT to bring a gun into the situation because I felt I could handle it without one. Although I didn't spell everything out word for word here, what would YOU do about someone beating on your door, threatening to "kick your ass" and saying "I'm going to kill you, come out here!"??

Remember, you are living 12 miles from town, in a COUNTY (yes, the WHOLE COUNTY) that has 4 police officers?

[zanne]

222. Are you lost in a time warp?

It's not 1957, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

[Ghost in the Machine]

239. Are you lost in "head up your ass" land?

No, it's 2007 - almost 2008. Violent crime has risen 1000% since 1957. Criminals should know by now that there's consequences to their actions and going to jail isn't the worst thing that could happen to them.

Just because you're too chickenshit to stand up for yourself or protect yourself and/or your family doesn't mean that everyone else is. I think the only thing you're capable of is running your mouth on an anonymous message board with silly bullshit that you think is either funny or an insult, but if faced with a real life criminal you'd probably piss your pants and start crying for jesus or someone else to save you.

Prove me wrong...

[krispos42]

104. This is not capital punishment

No homeowner who shoots and kills in self-defense is acting out the normal legal mechanisms. Therefore, it is not capital punishment.

It is (hopefully) justified homicide. The killing of another person in defense of self or others because the normal mechanisms and protections of law enforcement are absent.

[Blue Diadem]

30. Why don't you tell us why someone goes into someone's dwelling.

and no I'm not speaking of someone who is mentally disabled, usually they are known by their neighbors.

My friend's neighbor was shot at just for waking up and going to his door and asking what someone was doing in his garage. The neighbor was lucky, the bullet lodged in the frame of the doorway, missing his head by a few inches. They live in a very low crime area, rural farm land directly behind their home.

[cigsandcoffee]

59. Why do you go in to someone's dwelling?

To use the phone? Use their laundry room? Watch TV?

Or, do you not enter other peoples' homes at all?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I occasionally "stroll into garages" as part of my job...

and I'm so happy to see so many people here think it would be a good idea for me to be shot.

[Squatch]

13. Obviously you stroll into garages univited

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Yes. And for that I should be shot?

[Squatch]

21. If you came into my house univited, you would be.

I've got a Benelli 12 ga next to my bed and a Sig Sauer in a quick-access safe near my garage entrance.

I have too many valuable things in this house to wait to figure out if your intentions are hostile or not.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. So, you would kill me simply on the suspicion that...

I might want some of your stuff?

Fascinating.

[Squatch]

26. I would kill you under the suspicion that you were there to harm me

and my family. And therefore, I would not hesitate one microsecond to kill you.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. Oh. Now it's not the stuff. Somehow you can divine who...

is out to harm your family.

I hear this sort of thing a lot, and I always have this nagging suspicion that it really means looking for an excuse to kill someone.

[Squatch]

29. I've never said it was not my "stuff".

I don't need to divine who is out to harm my family. When a person breaks into my my home, I will assume that he is there to harm me and my family, and will act accordingly.

[Hangingon]

40. In Texas I think I would respond that I applied "lethal force"

to end the danger to me and protect my property as allowed by the law. True, it might result in death.

[bullimiami]

15. i guess the meter readers, surveyers, linemen, yard guys, inspectors and

anyone else who might amble onto someones property better beware.
they are all fair game.

[Malikshah]

19. Yup- the law cuts out the "middle man"-- common sense and decency.

[Hangingon]

33. What would any of these people be doing working at night?

Remember that the Dallas "Parrot" shooting happened at night. Meters are outside the garage. Linemen, surveyers and inspectors should announce themselves before entering. Surely these people would know the law in their state.

[flvegan]

34. Or Trick Or Treaters...at night...wearing masks...carrying bags...in groups

Bring it kiddies. Once you reach perimeter and breach my fence...it's go time. :sarcasm:

[BushOut06]

172. You never know - them little motherfuckers might be trying to rob you

I wouldn't buy their "trick-or-treat" routine either. Little no-good beggars. Why are they hiding their faces, they obviously have something to hide. If I see any of them little bastards around my house, I'm shooting first and asking questions later, better safe than sorry!

:sarcasm:

[MisterP]

202. there's often problems on Nov. 1 with foreign exchange students,

since they don't realize Americans often returns to their bunker mentality the other 364 days of the year (365 in years divisible by 4--except those divisible by 100)

[mondo joe]

56. Here's a Wiki article - it might be worth seeing how it applies at state law levels

Conditions of use

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
* The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

[alarimer]

122. Does this protect cops when they break into the WRONG address?

As has happened from time to time. So if you shoot them in the reasonable assumption that they are burglars instead of cops, you are not covered under this doctrine? Personally, if this doctrine is in effect, it should not protect cops who make errors. It is incumbent upon the police to make sure they have the right info before they go breaking in somewhere.

[mondo joe]

133. It seems pretty clear to me on two points:

* The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home

On the first: Even if the officer is in error, he or she IS acting in the course of their legal duties. It's not illegal to make an error.

On the second: Even a cop in error can't be reasonably assumed to intend to inflict serious bodily harm, or death simpply because they entered the home.

[benEzra]

240. Depends on your state.

Some states give officers immunity even if they are knowingly perpetrating an illegal home invasion without a warrant; others treat warrantless invasions as any other felony home invasion. Most states are probably somewhere in the middle.

[mvccd1000]

31. Can I ask why?

I can't imagine anyone having a reason to "stroll into my garage" uninvited.

Sure, my neighbors do it all the time when they see me working on a car. Haven't shot a single one of them yet...

Nor have I ever shot the Fedex man, the UPS man, the meter reader, the HOA inspector, the mailman, or any of the kids that come around and slide landscaping pamphlets into my door handle.

Imagine that - I can actually keep a gun near me without succumbing to the uncontrollable desire to shoot someone, anyone, who gives me the chance.

[struggle4progress]

86. I've sometimes done it with the best of intent: Their car's parked in front of the house,

with its lights on. "Damn! They're gonna run down their battery!" Bang on the front door. No answer. Garage door is open, and a quick glance shows the garage contains a door into the house. Stroll into garage and knock on door into house. "Hey! Ya left your lights on! Thought you'd like to know!"

That example may be dated. But anybody with a brain in their head oughta be able instantly to imagine ten or fifteen possible (though perhaps rare) scenarios where somebody innocently does something like that.

[Malikshah]

92. Unfortunately, more time is spent thinking of folks seeking to

enter houses to eat babies and the like.

You bring up one of any number of innocent scenarios. They'll be deemed tragedies in the news, they'll be forgotten, and another family will mourn the loss of a loved one while another soul will be haunted by their act (hopefully--I say that because I'm becoming a bit discouraged at the lack of humanity exhibited here today)

[mvccd1000]

99. So what are the options?

I can cite just as many cases where someone complied with a robber and was still shot for his/her trouble. We had two restaurant robberies in the Phoenix area that I can think of recently where the employees gave up all the cash, and were then herded into the back room (or the cooler, in one case) and executed. (Google Mesa AZ Whataburger and Phoenix AZ Subway and words like robbery, execution.)

Some people assume that if you comply, you will be fine, and after all - "it's only property." Unfortunately, there are no guarantees of that.

Personally, I think that if someone is going to get shot during a crime, it should be the criminal. Why should I remain passive and "hope" that I don't get shot when the criminal is the one causing the interaction?

[Malikshah]

112. Reason. That's the option. Rational thought and prioritization.

Not wishing to take part in the Castle law does not equal passivity.

Unfortunately, that is the mindset of so many.

Get em before they get me.
Gotta be prepared to blow people away, cause they're sure as hell gonna come at me.

So much assurance, so much confidence in the baser nature of humans.

It's a wonder we don't drown each other at birth.

[mvccd1000]

153. "Not wishing to take part????"

I don't "wish" to have someone invade my home. If someone does so, however, they have made the choice to take part in the castle doctrine. Prioritization is a good point. Me and my family will always be my priority. A criminal invading my home will not ever be my priority.

Obviously, as with any law, you're going to have people who take advantage. I would guess, though, that MOST people who act under the castle doctrine will have done so because they were in a situation that legitimately put their life in danger.

How someone could advocate a "wait and see" attitude when someone is breaking into the house is simply beyond me. Wait and see what? If they will run away? If they are armed? If they only want to rape my girlfriend and not kill her?

What do you want me to wait for? A sit-down discussion?

[BushOut06]

190. There is a HUGE difference here that people are missing

If someone is in your yard or garage while you're inside your house, they do not pose an imminent threat to your life. The minute they actually break into your house, then it's a totally different story.

[mvccd1000]

208. I'll agree with that.

If someone is only prowling around in my yard, I do not feel that I am in imminent danger. There is plenty of time at that point to call the police, and that is what I would do.

Once they try to gain entry to the house, though (or actually, once it looks like they will be successful in the attempt) they have taken action that legitimately constitutes a threat to the safety of the people inside.

At that point, the gun will be in one hand, and the cell phone with 911 will be in the other.

[mondo joe]

52. Per Wiki, at least:

Conditions of use

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
* The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

[Malikshah]

69. All of those are hard to prove-- and in the end, the folks shot are still dead.

Florida btw is leading the charge in the imminent threat shooting issue as well.

It is now all in the mind of the person with the gun.

Great...:eyes: :eyes:

[mondo joe]

71. But if you shoot someone dead and don't meet the standard, you're guilty of murder.

Right?

[struggle4progress]

88. What standard? No reasonable basis required for "I thought the person might hurt me"

[mondo joe]

97. Actualy, I believe a reasonable suspicion is required.

If a 10 year old in a Halloween costume on Halloween enters your yard to knock on your door, it does not present a reasonable fear.

[struggle4progress]

111. "... The old version of the castle doctrine told homeowners that they could kill when they ..

reasonably believed that their lives were in danger. Now the law tells average citizens they can kill when they reasonably believe that their homes or vehicles have been illegally and forcibly invaded ..."

Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law: Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way
By ANTHONY J. SEBOK
[e-mail]
Monday, May. 02, 2005
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

[BadgerLaw2010]

130. That's a misquote. Just about everywhere, it's "death OR great bodily harm" for deadly force.

You don't need to distinguish between someone intending serious physical injury, and someone who wants to kill you. Largely because it isn't possible to distinguish in most cases.

[struggle4progress]

135. " ... Margie Boyette's grandson, 23-year-old Justin Boyette, walked onto a Winter Haven man's ..

.. property unarmed in April and was shot to death. Michael Brady, who said he fired because Boyette threatened to punch him, was the first person cleared by a Polk County grand jury under the new "Stand Your Ground" law .."
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/31/Tampabay/Will_the_jury_say_he_.shtml

".. Friends of the man Brady shot to death, Justin Boyette, are angry that a grand jury cleared Brady. They say Boyette, 23, was a friendly bear of a man at 6 feet 2 and 270 pounds. They claim Boyette simply wanted to shake Brady's hand. 'A lot of people are going to die as soon as people figure out this law,' said Eric Wagner, who hosted Boyette that day and has not stayed at the home across the street from Brady since then. 'All you have to say is, I was afraid, and you can blow someone away.' ... "
Gun law triggers at least 13 shootings
Orlando Sentinel Special Report (2006)
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-208267.html

[struggle4progress]

136. " ... a detective did not respond after a teenager was shot in March. Instead, the agency's on-call

detective told deputies at the shooting scene to forward their reports to the State Attorney's Office for review. Carlos Avilez, 15, was suspected of attempting to steal a car near Orlando when the owner's husband opened fire with a 9 mm pistol, hitting the teenager in the back of the leg. A witness told deputies the teen may have been shot as he was fleeing.

'I don't see how he could have been afraid of my son when he had a gun and shot him running away,' said Carlos' mother, Maria Avilez. Her son pleaded guilty to breaking into the car.

The only account from the shooter, Michael Graham, 34, is a brief, barely legible statement saying he felt threatened by the teen ..."

Gun law triggers at least 13 shootings
Orlando Sentinel Special Report
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-208267.html

[struggle4progress]

137. " ... Investigators said Daniel Metevier was upset because he couldn't join in on a game ..

.. Sunday morning at a home in the Oakhurst Reserve subdivision of Seminole County .."
Poker Dispute Results in Draw, Shooting in Florida
Updated: January 16th, 2006 03:28 PM EDT
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Poker-Dispute-Results-in-Draw--Shooting-in-Florida/1$28039

" .. Seminole County authorities say Daniel Metevier shot the men after they refused to let him play in a poker game. Francis Webster was shot in the shoulder and Jason Granich was shot in the stomach. The sheriff's office says Granich is in serious but not life-threatening condition. Webster's wound was superficial .."
Police: Off-duty Maitland officer shoots two over cards
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:12
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2006/1/17/139578.html

".. The charges were dropped two months later, after Metevier, 30, underwent a lengthy tape-recorded interview with prosecutors. Metevier provided his medical records to prove he underwent knee surgery shortly before the shooting. He claimed he was unable to defend himself, partly because of the injury, without resorting to deadly force, according to the recording. Prosecutors, who spent about 15 hours interviewing witnesses, focused their questioning on Metevier's state of mind before the shooting and why he was carrying a police-issue sidearm while drinking .."
Gun law triggers at least 13 shootings
Orlando Sentinel Special Report (2006)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=208267

[Pavulon]

53. Repo Man..

Was recovering a vehicle, owner believing theft was taking place on his property after dark, shot the man with a rifle. Killed him instantly.

Ruled justifiable homicide.

There is NO reason someone should be IN MY HOME without my permission. In my yard, expect a confrontation, in my home expect to be detained at gunpoint. Fail to comply..Well that could be very bad.

[karlrschneider]

55. I would strongly recommend you do not "stroll" into mine unannounced.

Or uninvited.

[cigsandcoffee]

60. What job gives you the right to enter a private home?

Even the FBI needs a warrant for that. How did you get exempted?

[nonconformist]

116. You "stroll into garages" unannounced and uninvited?

What the hell do you do for a living?

And if that happened to me, YES, I would assume the worst... otherwise, why uninvited and unannounced? That's suspicious behavior.

[karlrschneider]

120. Generally only thieves or perverts do that. He might be both.

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

138. Have you ever handed out campaign literature? When nobody's home,

one likes to leave it under the doormat. There's not always a doormat at the front door: the mat is usually at the entry the homeowner prefers to use, and that door into the house may be from the garage. I've walked into open garages to slip campaign literature under the doormat.

[snooper2]

164. I wouldn't do that if I were you...

I would not be a happy camper if I was came around the corner and saw some stranger dicking around in my garage...

[struggle4progress]

207. Ya gonna be da hero of wingnut gun wackos everwhere when ya shoots a lit-carryin campaign volunteer!

If I thunk ya wud lissen, I might would suggest chillin a tad

Butif ya rilly hates canvass-folk so frickin much, why not jest stick a no-trespassin sign in yer drive?

[Basileus Basileon]

215. Entering someone's garage without permission is a bad idea no matter who you are,

or why you're there.

[struggle4progress]

254. Whoa! This thread is just FULL of anti-activists!

[Nye Bevan]

156. I'm guessing not at 2AM, while the homeowner is sleeping?

Which was the case here.

[jody]

32. Additional information “NW Dallas homeowner shoots, kills intruder after parrot's warning”

NW Dallas homeowner shoots, kills intruder after parrot's warning

Tuesday's burglary, police say, was the fourth on Mr. Baker's property within a month. Investigators say preliminary information indicates Mr. Woodson may have been responsible for some or all of them.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"He was in the very back of the garage," Mr. Baker said of Mr. Woodson. "There were no lights on. The only thing I could do was see a silhouette, and as you saw in the video, he had his hands in his pockets when he came through here. I had no idea what he had."

The security video shows a man – presumably Mr. Woodson – with his hands in his pant pockets, casually walking around the perimeter of the garage and then inside.

Neither police nor Mr. Baker would give a detailed account of the confrontation that followed, and the cameras don't capture it. But police said Mr. Woodson didn't try to flee and that Mr. Baker shot him in his midsection.

[-..__...]

38. Maybe Woodson thought Baker was holding a garage sale...

and he was one of those extra-early risers that shows before everyone else in order to get the good deals?...

Mr. Baker killed 46-year-old John Woodson, whose criminal record includes charges of burglary, theft and possession of a controlled substance.

Tuesday's burglary, police say, was the fourth on Mr. Baker's property within a month. Investigators say preliminary information indicates Mr. Woodson may have been responsible for some or all of them.

[jody]

39. Pennsylvania said in its constitution dated 28 Sept. 1776

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

[Kingshakabobo]

35. Whatever happened to "Don't move! put your hands where I can seen them and get down on the floor"?

It works for the police. Why should a business owner get to blast someone for walking in to his unlocked garage?

[cigsandcoffee]

62. The police are trained, and have partners and handcuffs.

Homeowners are not trained to restrain felons, and attempting to do so would leave them in jeopardy.

[mondo joe]

152. I can think of a lot of reasons. The police are acting on behalf of the state, they

are trained and have resources ordinary people don't, and they are obliged to make protecting the public their priority.

A home or business owner's obigation is to protect themselves within reason.

[Kingshakabobo]

163. Fair enough. I was astonished by the "shoot first" gang on this thread.

I get the feeling that some of the clowns on this thread are the type that end up killing their teenager sneaking back in the house past curfew.

If you make an assessment of whether or not you SHOULD be pointing your weapon at the person you should be able to make an assessment of weather or not that person is an immediate threat - or some 90 pound junkie looking to steal your tools from your garage......or the neighbor's drunk kid in the wrong kitchen.

I know not all situations will be ideal but it appears a few posters on this thread plan on shooting anything that moves.

Sure, they may have the legal right - Morally? ... not so much.

[mondo joe]

165. I have to admit, my opinion this week is very informed by the murder in his own home

of the S.O. of someone I know through work. He walked in on a burglary being committed by a couple of teens who shot him dead.

Once someone enters your home illegally it heightens the odds that something will go awry, and someone will end up dead or hurt.

[Deep13]

161. If instead of lying on the floor...

...the robber lunges at you, how much time do you think you will have to react before he is on you? The answer: none. Covering a few dozen feet at a run takes no time at all.

[Kingshakabobo]

166. Since we are playing "what if".....

What if he is 20 feet away in a fairly well lit room with nothing in his hands? Are you still going to blast him?

[Deep13]

176. If that room is in my house...

...then yes, probably, unless it is clear that he has some benign reason for being there or is clearly trying to escape. Twenty feet is nothing and I am not sure I can hit a moving target anyway. I can't escape because I am already in the place where I would escape to. As a practical matter, however, if I was caught off guard to the extent that I did not know about the intruder until I was already in a room with him, then I would not have a gun on me anyway.

[williesgirl]

36. If you come on my property during the day in a marked car/van that tells me you have business

here, no problem. Last I've noticed, the meter reader, cable guy etc are in such vehicles and usually expected around certain times. On my lawn or porch knocking on the door and you're safe.

Break through that door uninvited, especially at night, and you'll set off my alarm which notifies the police. If you keep coming in after hearing that, sorry but you're asking for an unfriendly reception. If my pit bull doesn't stop you, understand she just gave me time to get my gun. I've been trained on how to use it, the laws in my state governing it's use etc. I also have a concealed weapons permit.

We in VA don't have laws to stop criminals' families from suing after the fact. Another benefit to monitored alarm systems is they stay on the phone will you until police arrive. Everything is recorded so my warnings to stay out of where I'm located or I'll shoot would be available for any court hearings or to help the police decide not to charge me with any offense if I handle things as trained.

My instructor taught that if you aim the gun when threatened, shoot to kill or you probably just gave a criminal your gun as well. I hope I never have to aim, much less shoot, which is why I have the alarm system, dogs etc. Gun is very last resort.

By the way, I'm a widow living in the mountains alone with 3 dogs. I only carry the gun if I expect to be out alone after dark. It has saved me twice in two years from thugs trying to get into the car at stop lights. At the time, I didn't have the pit bull, just my Pug and Boston Terrier. On each occasion, they laughed when my dogs were going crazy, saying did I really think those 2 would stop them. My answer both times was, No, but this will, as I raised my gun to the shooting position. Thank God, they fled at the sight of the gun. I hate to think what may have happened if I didn't have it.

[distantearlywarning]

37. Easy way for robber to solve his problem:

Don't stroll into strangers' homes with the intent to steal from them.

On Edit: I am a woman who is often in my house alone during the day and sometimes at night. I live in a big city, a mere 1/2 mile from an incredibly high-crime neighborhood. If you break down my door, you will set the security alarm off. If you continue to try to get in after that, I will feel completely justified in shooting you or stabbing you or whatever it takes to protect myself. There is absolutely no reason for me to assume that if you are breaking down my door that you will just take a few things and leave my person alone (not to mention: why should I even allow you just to steal from me?) Better one dead robber than me taking a chance on being raped, assaulted, or murdered. I guess that makes me a vile, evil person. Oh well.

Also, I do have garages, and anyone entering my garage without 1) being in uniform and 2) immediately identifying themselves and their purpose will have the police called on them. Would I shoot first in that circumstance? No. But maybe I would consider it if they disregarded my warning about the police and continued to try to enter the house from the garage.

[jody]

43. Laws like Florida's prevent criminals from suing you for exercising your right of self-defense. n/t

[lonestarnot]

96. So tell me where self defense came in here.

[Hangingon]

108. In Texas in the dark of night the law allows presumption.

The man had his hands in his pockets apparently and apparently made no moves to leave peacably.

[jody]

119. distantearlywarning said in #37, "if they disregarded my warning about the police and continued to

try to enter the house from the garage."

That description of a hypothetical incident changes the criminal's act to one of threatening the home owner. That's self-defense.

[ironrooster]

42. Oh, it'll be a "big thing" when

narc officers make a mistake and break into the wrong home.

[jody]

45. The story plugs Freedom States Alliance which wants to ban all guns.

But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.

Follow the money--a look at the Gun Guys' sugar daddies

Of all the Freedom States Alliance websites, the Gun Guys would seem to be the flagship--at least it gets updated regularly--the rest seem to be pretty static. The Freedom States Alliance, in turn, is apparently part of, or managed by Mark Karlin and Associates, a Chicago based public relations firm. The funding, or at least a vast chunk of it, comes from the Joyce Foundation. According to this, in 2006, the Joyce Foundation gave $650,000 to the Mark Karlin group, for the Freedom States Alliance (they also gave $185,000 to the same PR firm in 2003, "to help raise the media presence and capacity of Midwest gun violence prevention groups," although this may have been before the Freedom States Alliance was formed). Actually, a look on the Joyce Foundation's list of grants for public policy dealing with "gun violence" is something of a who's who of anti-gun groups--and the money involved is huge: $500,000 to the Violence Policy Center, a staggering $1,795,000, since July, 2004, to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (here, here, here, and here)--and that's just a sampling--in all, there's over six and a quarter million dollars devoted just to pushing more restrictive gun laws (according to this)--and that doesn't count all the money for firearms "research."

[MadHound]

46. Wow, so much fear on this board

Alarms, dogs, guns ready at a moment's notice. All for an occurence that has a slight change of occuring, less than one percent. Damn, how do you people live in that kind of fear? How do you deal with it. Oh, yeah, more guns.

[Mojorabbit]

58. Tell that

to my friend who was killed by a burgler when he came home and caught them in the act last year. Good girl scout training to be prepared. Once prepared there is no need to fear. I am home alone a lot of the time and am armed. The crime rate has risen greatly the past few years here. A sign of economic problems perhaps.

[MadHound]

125. Yet you sound like you are still fearful, despite being armed

You mentioned your friend who was killed, cited local crime stats, and stated your feeling that you have to be "prepared," ie armed, to not feel fear and to be armed inside your own home. It is evident from your post that you are indeed still fearful. Hmmm, maybe being armed doesn't alleviate that feeling of fear:shrug: Perhaps you should get to the roots of this fear, rather than simply trying to treat the symptoms, ie getting guns and being armed.

[Mojorabbit]

126. No I am not the least bit afraid

I am realistic about where I live and have taken measures to protect myself just in case. I hardly ever think about being armed as I was raised around guns and have no fear of them at all. I am a crack shot and had been for years before my friend was murdered. I have enjoyed target practice with all manner of guns since I was a teenager in the seventies.

[MadHound]

128. Hmm, interesting, if you say so.

However your actions and words both betray you. I lived for a decade in a violent neighborhood, gunfire on a daily basis, yet I never thought I needed a gun. Of course I got to know my neighbors and neighborhood, was friendly towards people, and exhibited no fear of the world. The old truism that fear attracts predators is just that, a truism, something perhaps you should think about. Wandering around one's own house armed is a sign of fear friend, not just being "prepared".

[Mojorabbit]

129. I don't

wander around my house armed. LOL. Good grief. I own guns for target shooting and protection and hubby hunts as well. I am no more afraid of my guns than I am of my chefs knife or my mixer. I know my neighbors and they also have guns as they are hunters. Like I said I am prepared for anything..hurricanes, blackouts, burglers. It is all one and the same. I am not afraid of any of them but prepared for all. I encounter a mindset like you seem to have from people who have never been around guns. They are not mysterious things that up and shoot on their own.

[OzarkDem]

79. Crime rates are much, much lower, too

Fear isn't justified, there are fewer crimes committed today than in the last 20 years.

People shouldn't overreact.

[krispos42]

107. That just means the odds of an incident are lower

Each incident will be as a terrifying, as violent, and as intrusive.

If the crime rate is low, then self-defense laws will be used rarely. It does not mean they should be eliminated.

[Mojorabbit]

144. Not where I live

I am not sure what is causing the increase. Maybe it is that we get so many new people from all over the country or else some of the Miami crime gangs are branching out or maybe it is the economic situation in this country. It is weird that it is happening though.
http://www.wesh.com/iteam/9573306/detail.html

[mondo joe]

84. Some may be fearful. But it is not fearful to simply recognize possible threats

and take reasonable precautions.

[MadHound]

127. Yes, but over reacting to perceived threats, and taking unreasonable precautions

Is much more in evidence when it comes to guns. Looking at the crime stats(you can get this at the FBI website) shows you that crime is going down, not up. We're not living in a Mad Max world where you have to constantly be on the look out for violent criminals and can't leave your house unarmed. Yet this is the mindset of many in the gun community. This is why such fear seems unreasonable and unwarranted to me.

I think that part of the problem lies with our media, our news, shows, movies, etc. They all leave the impression that violence can happen at anytime, when the reality of the matter is that violence is declining, and that a family member is more likely to shoot the gun in anger at another family member rather than being used in self defense. In fact the majority of guns are used against the owner or the owner's family, either through suicide, murder or accidental firing. Most murders are committed by family members, most guns are used in suicides, and the epidemic of children accidentally shooting somebody is rising.

I lived in a risky neighborhood for a decade, and never felt the need for a gun. In fact three quarters of the US population feels no need to own a gun. But fear is a powerful emotion, and I feel that it is prompting more and more people to arm themselves with ever increasing numbers of guns, when reality is dictating otherwise, that there is actually less need for a gun now that ever. That is unreasonable in my opinion.

[mondo joe]

131. Over-reacting, by definition, is unreasonable.

The question is then what is not unreasonable.

I think living in fear - failure to carry out the normal functions of daily life, or doing them with great fear - is not reasonable.

If your home is broken into, and if you have a gun, I don't think it's unreasonable to defend yourself with it.

[karlrschneider]

47. Any burglar who "ambles" into my house will amble no more.

Good for Baker.

[tjwash]

49. And once again...a handul of people manage to transform GD into the gungeon.

Take a bow :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

61. Odd, isn't it? You'd expect to see this crap in the gun forum, if one ever wanted to look.

Really doesn't have a place here. That's why the forum was created.

[-..__...]

66. Is this strictly a firearms related topic?

I don't believe I've seen one post here that addresses the situation as an RKBA or gun control issue.

The focus of the discussion has more to do with the property rights of a homeowner .vs the use of excessive force.

[BushOut06]

194. One would think some of these people would actually enjoy shooting someone

For instance, look at posts #83 and #186. Some guy is banging on his door, so what does he do? He opens the door, and smashes the guy in the throat with a crowbar. He says that if he had been in a "bad mood", he would have shot the guy. Then he goes on in #186 to say if he had been able to, he would have "beaten the shit out of him with his bare hands".

Most people I know who own guns are fairly responsible people, who would be horrified at the prospect of having to inflict serious bodily harm or death on another person, even if it were completely justified.

[billbuckhead]

209. It's public morality and safety.

Thus general discussion.

[Pavulon]

50. Real Easy, Don't Break in..

Someone in my home after dark has justified lethal force. Many posters here are jabbering on about "stop, freeze," under stress people may not have the opportunity to give a burglar orders. Your only burden is to identify what you are firing on. (not the drunk neighbor kid)..

I will NOT hide in my home. I will not back myself into a closet with no doors.

I will issue a verbal warning, a person on the other side will see a flashlight, if they don't comply or run to the door/window they are going to get shot.

The law requires a person to be in fear for their life. That can happen in a parking garage or in my home.

I would NOT shoot someone stealing my car in front of my home, I would confront them, but not shoot them, unless they reached for a weapon or tried to close distance.

Common sense applies here.

[mondo joe]

51. Is the point that burglars SHOULD be able to sue homeowners who shoot them in

the act?

[Pavulon]

54. Well the law does not allow the homeowner

to dead check them. Most shootings involving handguns are non fatal. A real possibility.

In reality that lawsuit would never happen.

[High Plains]

63. So many macho would-be killers on DU. Who woulda thunk?

[mondo joe]

64. Well, the usual sterotype is that we're basket weaving pushovers.

It's good to not forget that liberals know how to fight too, and are willing to defend ourselves.

[Judi Lynn]

68. Not really. No well balanced people think that, and no one cares what the drooling idiots think,

anyway. If right-wing propaganda can move anyone to believe something like that, that person is too wildly stupid to care about, anyway.



Living a life trying to calculate what others think, instead of doing what's right is one wasted, empty, pointless life. It's dishonest.

[mondo joe]

81. I said that's the sterotype. I didn't say you should believe it.

[tuckessee]

70. One could also say there are a lot of people on DU who seek to enable thieves.

Maybe they are thieves themselves?

[Judi Lynn]

78. One could say it but he would sound like a complete idiot. n/t

[Paladin]

82. Trust Me, This Is Basic Wish Fulfillment For The Gungeon Types

Hardly any of them like to hunt, and they've gone over to an entirely different type of firearms: pistols and assault-style rifles---weapons specifically designed to kill human beings. And with these sorts of guns comes the ugly fantasy: being absolutely horny about the possibility of putting a bullet into another person, a possibility that's made more likely with Castle Laws. We're not talking about reasonable self-defense measures here, we're talking about the active anticipation of and desire for violent altercations. There's evidence of this pathology in this thread, and God knows there's daily evidence of it down in the Gungeon.....

[BushOut06]

109. There do seem to be an awful lot of blood-thirsty types on here

Some of the sentiments you see here and on the Gun forum seem like they'd be more at home in freeperland. It seems like some of these people almost want someone to break into their house so they can blast them away.

[Paladin]

132. Check Out The Gungeon As The Elections Get Closer

The bashing of Democratic candidates will be non-stop, all because they don't slavishly adhere to an NRA-friendly gun policy. Happens every time; in fact, it's already underway......

[billbuckhead]

175. Check out John Edwards evil wife in the Gungeon

Truly pathetic.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=136762>

[derby378]

162. Weren't muskets specifically designed to kill human beings, too?

:shrug:

[Paladin]

204. No They Weren't, Not Exclusively

How about dragging yourself out of the 18th century and dealing in present-day reality?

[derby378]

228. Hey, I'm sitting here at the technological bell curve...

...waiting for some people to catch up.

[benEzra]

237. As much as any other gun, yes...

most civilian long guns, including most hunting guns and target guns, started out as military weapons.

[Basileus Basileon]

214. I'm not macho at all. I'd pull the trigger because I know my limitations.

If I am in a similar situation, I am not going to try to hold him for the cops, keep a gun trained on him, or any other form of heroics. That could go wrong a number of ways; I wouldn't trust myself in such a tense situation. I am not going to hope I am undiscovered. While I am going to call the cops, since the person is already in my house I am not going to be able to kick back and wait patiently, hoping the criminal does not do anything to me or anyone else in the house. I am going to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, and deal with the profound emotional and legal consequences afterwards.

[WGS]

74. He had his hands in his pockets

He could have been concealing a weapon.....

[OzarkDem]

77. US Burglary rate today about half the rate in 1987

Breaking and entering is not a growing problem, its a shrinking one. Just sayin...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

[mondo joe]

80. But the trend doesn't matter if you're the one whose home is entered. I know someone

whose SO was murdered just recently by a couple of teens who broke into his house in Seattle.

The trend is an absolutely good one, and a good thing to bear in mind. But people are still at risk.

[cigsandcoffee]

89. Maybe more and more robbers are afraid of getting shot. n/t

[Malikshah]

95. I'll be interested to see the statistics in the next five years.

1987 to 2001-- a period of relative growth and expansion-- dips in the chart, but overall things were on the upswing in the 1990s.

Today-- not so.

In my neighborhood--i've seen a major upswing in robberies, breakins, etc. (we were broken into 2 yrs ago-- vans cart the kids into the neighborhood a la Oliver Twist to break in through small windows, etc.)

[lonestarnot]

93. Doesn't sound like Woodson "tried to hide first."

[MrSlayer]

110. I've no problem with it.

Stay out of my house and you won't get shot. Simple as that.

[L0oniX]

117. No problem killing innocent Iraqis either.

Worry about people getting killed while trespassing after we stop killing innocent people in Iraq. Until them ...big fucking deal.

[aikoaiko]

121. Not just "not a big thing" -- Stand Your Ground Laws are good things.

Sure, some mistakes will happen and some abuses may happen, but its still better to make it clear that if someone commits a forcible felony where a victim has a legal right to be and that victim fears for his/her life/health, then it is reasonable to protect that victim from litigation should they use force to defend him or herself.

I don't know enough of the facts to judge the incident in the OP, but any law may be abused and any law may find itself applied to ambiguous situations at times.

[benEzra]

139. Bullshit. Nearly EVERY state has Castle Doctrine laws, including California...

in your own home, the presumption that someone breaking in presents an imminent threat, allowing you to use potentially lethal force to repel a home invasion, dates to well before the incorporation of the United States.

Florida's new law eliminated the duty to run away if you were attacked with intent to kill or maim in a public place, bringing its laws into conformity with those of most states (including California) that do not require you to run away if someone is trying to kill you or make you the victim of a forcible felony. But the new statute did not change the rules under which you can defend yourself in your own home; it just made it less likely that you'll be victimized again in the courts.

[qdemn7]

140. "Those who warn of the dangers?"

Bullshit. FSA is just a sock puppet for the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

See what I really don't understand about many people here on DU who are so anti-gun is this:

You DO NOT trust ordinary people to own guns.
You only want the Police and Military to have guns.
You complain about the Police being racist and or using excessive force.
You are derisive of those who choose to join the Military.

[Malikshah]

141. Generalize much?

That is something I don't understand about some folks.

Blatant generalization pops up on occasion.

As for the text in bold, as the OP, I can prove you wrong on 3 of the four counts.

As an Army brat, I have relatives who own weapons, and have no qualms about others doing so.

I have, after experiences in my town, however, have complained about excessive force (involving deaths) of our police force.

And I stand by my OP.

It is called discourse. It happens on DU.

[qdemn7]

147. Here's a simple fucking solution

Don't break into people's homes and YOU and others won't have to worry about getting shot.

[Malikshah]

148. Along the lines of "If you've nothing to hide, what's the worry of them

listening in"

Specious argument.

Interesting that there is the occasional correlation between aggressive language and specious argument in this thread.

[qdemn7]

149. Big difference

You're talking about the government, I'm talking about ordinary citizens. I trust the latter, I don't trust the former.

[benEzra]

242. The problem with that analogy...

Along the lines of "If you've nothing to hide, what's the worry of them listening in"

Specious argument.

The problem with that analogy is that Bushco wants to tap your phones even if you're NOT doing anything illegal. However, no one is saying that homeowners should be able to shoot people innocently walking down the sidewalk, just people committing illegal home invasions.

If you are a bona fide terrorist and the government has enough evidence to get a warrant, the government certainly can and will tap your phone, legitimately. And if you are a bona fide home invader and go kick somebody's door in, you stand a decent chance of getting shot.

[bluestateguy]

142. I just read the whole article and your commentary

And, what's your point?

[Malikshah]

151. When this was enacted in Florida, and some argued that as goes Fl, so goes the

nation in wacky ways-- people told us to relax. That is was just Florida...we Floridians are extreme and it "won't play in Peoria"

Well, it's played all over the Place.

Florida appears to be a crucible for crazy. The last frontier of fanaticism.



So next time Florida comes up with some assbackward way of thinking and legislation that smacks of strangeness, stand up and take notice.

It'll be at your doorstep tomorrow.

Of course this thread has devolved into the "guns" "anti-gun" schtick replete with testosterone laden puffery and accusations aplenty.

Such is life on DU.

For more evidence that Florida is off the deep end:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2155224

Florida Dem Leadership needs to be swept away as of yesterday.

[mvccd1000]

210. In other words...

... "I can't believe so many people here believe in the homeowner's right to defend his home against a criminal. I thought there would be more sympathy for criminals. Let's call this one done."

[Malikshah]

229. Nope-- those words are your interpretation of the issue

and no matter how much discussion is provided, it appears--I say appears--that you're sticking with that particular interpretation.

Enjoy.

[LisaL]

143. I guess the homeowner should have baked

him some cookies. Give me a break. Shooting the burglar is a bad thing? Tell that to the Petit family.

[Nye Bevan]

155. IT WAS 2AM--- "Ambled" my ass

Interesting how the Raw Story article doesn't mention this little piece of information.

When some burgling scumbag enters your garage at 2AM when you are sound asleep, that is NOT AMBLING. And I am very glad that this piece of shit will not be "ambling" into anybody else's house in the dead of night, ever again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/17/2007-10-17_man_shoots_intruder_after_being_warned_b.html

[slackmaster]

157. Allow me to offer California's more moderate position as a reasonable protection for self-defense

We can shoot people who break into our homes, but the entry has to be both unlawful and forceful for the self-defense law to kick in.

Shooting someone who strolled peacefully into an open garage is not a protected act. From the California Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[Nye Bevan]

160. So, you wake up at 2 AM, hear a noise,

and someone has "strolled peacefully" into your garage, which is what the guy in Florida did. In California you just have to give him all of your stuff and hope he has mercy on you?

[slackmaster]

170. I keep my house and garage locked, so the situation you describe is not possible

But if someone, say a drunk, stumbled into my house when I had the door unlocked and wasn't threatening me, I'd hold him for the police.

[distantearlywarning]

201. Hold him how?

Won't you need a gun to do that?

[slackmaster]

217. Rifle, baseball bat, short sword, 12-inch kitchen knife, crow bar, rope

Whatever is handy and appropriate for the situation.

[Deep13]

159. By calling the "victim" a robber, the writer is conceding...

...he was there for a violent purpose. (Robbery is theft by force.) Sorry, but I'm not going to cry for him. Nor am I going to call injustice to the fact that the home-owner does not have to defend himself a second time in a homicide trial.

[Akoto]

173. In my opinion, the line is very clear.

If someone is walking around your yard, check to see what they're doing. Don't gun someone down for walking up to your door or being on your grass.

If they enter your home, unannounced and ininvited? Particularly at an hour where people are likely to be asleep? They have just crossed that line.

[Raejeanowl]

211. Then I'm A Killer, Too

The trespass or break-in itself, with presumptive access/seizure of any weapon-actual or makeshift-in my home, is the physical threat against which I have a right to defend myself.

I have no compunctions about using whatever means necessary to stop/disable anyone who illegally invades my home. If they die as a result, they die.

[Basileus Basileon]

213. I find absolutely no problem with this event whatsoever.

If you sneak into someone's home with intent to commit a crime, I am not going to be upset if you are killed. And I sure as hell do not believe a homeowner should be made to stand trial for homicide for defending his house and family against a criminal who has already broken in.

A man sneaks into my house at 2AM? If I have a gun (I don't where I live), I'm shooting him. I'm not going to play superhero and try to hold him for the cops by keeping a gun trained on him or any bullshit like that. That can go wrong any number of ways. I'm going to resolve the already-dangerous situation as quickly and safely (for me) as possible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

227. So you can just take someone's LIFE because you think

they MAY (MAY!) be stealing your PROPERTY? You'd kill somebody to save your LAWN MOWER?

Sorry, that's way out of proportion, and a perfect symptom of our greedy, paranoid society.

[mvccd1000]

230. How do you know what they're there for?

I posted links in one of these threads to a Jack in the Box robbery and a Subway robbery in Phoenix. In both cases, the store employees complied and gave up the cash to the criminals, and in both cases, the criminals herded them into back rooms and executed them.

It would be nice if you could just say, "Here, take my property," and the criminal would say, "Thank you," and walk away with it. That's not always what happens, though.

If someone is going to get shot during a crime, I'd rather it be the criminal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

231. Those incidents make news because they're *isolated occurrences*

Someone who robs a business is probably afraid of leaving witnesses.

The typical prowler is not going to go out of his way to kill the inhabitants of the house.

Paranoia strikes deep.

[Raejeanowl]

234. You're Way Out There in La-La Land With Your Arguments

Naivete makes its deadly inroads, as well. Incidents like those also happen without ever making the news; depends on whether it's a slow news day. And does it occur to you that there are possible witnesses in a home invasion-what happens then to your arguments?

You haven't any clue what the "typical prowler" (if there is such a thing) does or doesn't plan to do, or is capable of doing if frightened or seen. Being "greedy" or "paranoid" isn't the point. Do you really think anyone here wouldn't let a piece of property go if they could reasonably (operative word) rely on the good intentions and fair play of a person or persons entering their homes without their permission? That's just it-THEY CAN'T.

I don't owe doodly-squat to someone who invades my home, and while I generally abhor senseless loss of life, I don't waste many of my humanitarian tears on people who prey on other people.

But you go ahead, I invite you to try out your theories one of these days, and just take the chance that you get one of those "untypicals" who wasn't there for your property in the first place, or decides he likes the look of you or your son or daughter while he's there.

Problem is, an "isolated occurrence" only needs to happen to you or a member of your family ONCE. And for that, you'd give a trespassing stranger in the middle of the night the benefit of the doubt?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

235. There are many ways to die

Most of them have nothing to do with menacing strangers but are equally sudden and tragic.

I refuse to worry more about one than about any other. I also refuse to be influenced by media-generated paranoia, which serves only to divide us and make us suspicious of one another.

[mondo joe]

257. There isn't too much tragedy in successfully protecting yourself and your family

from someone who breaks into your home.

[mvccd1000]

258. I'm with you on that one.

I don't worry much. When it's my time, it's my time. I do take the simple precautions I can, though, to increase my odds. I buckle up, I don't drink and drive, I have smoke and CO detectors, and I am proficient with my firearms.

So far, I haven't been in an accident to be saved by a seatbelt, I haven't had a house fire for my fire alarm to save me from, and I haven't been the potential victim of a criminal where I have needed a firearm.

Hopefully I never will experience any of those things. If I do, I'll know that I've done what I can to prepare for them.

[benEzra]

238. The typical prowler would go out of his way to avoid occupied dwellings...

which is why most simple burglaries occur during the day, when the occupants of the home are not there.

An intruder who knowingly enters an occupied home isn't your typical prowler. Invasions of occupied homes are statistically pretty dangerous for the occupants.

[mondo joe]

256. More like: Someone can RISK their own life by breaking and entering another's home.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

259. Sorry, it's life over possessions for me

Always.

[mondo joe]

261. Once someone enters your home they have created a high risk situation.

And you're the one at risk.

Self defense is an appropriate response to an imminent threat. You may wish to rsk your life in such a situation, but it s not reasonable to expect others to do the same.

[incapsulated]

260. Anyone who defends this is nuts

Period.

You have a fucking gun, already. Point it and demand they state their purpose on your property.

Shooting people who wander onto your fucking lawn would be considered insane in the wild west, for chrissakes, what is the matter with you?