Post a picture of yourself

[Deleted member 1381]

im not getting charged with murder, id rather injure them and prevent them from leaving

you will hit them in the femoral artery and cause them to irreparably bleed to death
[doublepost=1581789138][/doublepost]

Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they're not a threat. This is especially true when they're in close proximity to you (like in a house) where a scuffle, unfavorable to you, can now turn into a deadly scenario where the intruder possesses a weapon and you're severely injured or dead. I agree with you, blasting people for simply breaking your lock is stupid but US state laws account for this

it's too much of a grey area

over here you hear stories all the time of people who break into pensioners homes, beat them black and blue and then make off with their telly, at times like that you wish the homeowner was armed with a chainsaw nevermind a gun

then there's cases like with tony martin

at the end of the day situations like these are best determined by precedent and mitigating circumstances, there's no set law that can outline the hundreds of different circumstances that may arise

 

[Clokr]

Personally. God forbid if anything ever came to it. And you had to use deadly force in order to protect yourself. Law permits you to do so. And what I’d follow is you go for center mass. Police train in deadly force as “you shoot until the threat is no more.” And that’s what I follow too. I’d engage until the threat presented before me is gone. Wether it be I gun the man to death, or if he’s injuried. I never want to kill a man, no one does. Unless you’re that mentally degraded. Even if you injure the man. And the threat is gone. Do everything you can to keep that man alive. It’s a hard reality to realize and do in the heat of the moment. But I want everyone, regardless of what they were trying to do. To survive, and get the help they need to realize what they did was stupid.

 

[Deleted member 3818]

of course it is, I just find it wrong to shoot someone fatally when I can see they are presenting no physical threat. I haven't been burgled as I live in quite a secluded area so perhaps I am looking at this through rose tinted glasses, but personally I would not simply shoot someone just because they are in my home

"On the evening of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and 16-year-old Fred Barras, both Irish Travellers from Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire[8] – broke into Martin's house.[9] Shooting downwards in the dark with his shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[10] Martin claimed that he opened fire after being woken when the intruders smashed a window. "

My point is that you don't know what kind of threat they might be, sure there's a good chance they could be harmless but there's also a good chance they could have a weapon and be prepared to use it. I respect the hustle robbers go through, but I don't feel any sympathy for them if they're killed doing so.

im not getting charged with murder, id rather injure them and prevent them from leaving

Better than missing and potentially being murdered yourself.

I think we can all agree that anyone can panic and end up making a mistake.

It's, however, completely different from someone who takes advantage of the break in to kill someone in cold blood after they surrender/try to escape/whatever.

And to add on top of those two, there's many more outcomes that can come from such a situation.

If someone did this then sure I don't personally agree with it, but it's fairgame if they broke into the property in the first place. And yes I agree there's so many potential outcomes and you should do your best to make sure it doesn't end in one where you're dead.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

My point is that you don't know what kind of threat they might be, sure there's a good chance they could be harmless but there's also a good chance they could have a weapon and be prepared to use it. I respect the hustle robbers go through, but I don't feel any sympathy for them if they're killed doing so.

its entirely based on circumstance

would you have shot this person

 

[Señor Jaggles]

If someone did this then sure I don't personally agree with it, but it's fairgame if they broke into the property in the first place. And yes I agree there's so many potential outcomes and you should do your best to make sure it doesn't end in one where you're dead.

There's no fair game in killing someone, unless they're trying to take your life. If someone did something so bad that they deserve to die, I'd rather them live suffering instead of earning them the easy way out.
[doublepost=1581789570][/doublepost]

its entirely based on circumstance

would you have shot this person

AW AYE YE GOT ME AYY I'm on the floor lmao he's hilariously bad at it

 

[Deleted member 1381]

AW AYE YE GOT ME AYY I'm on the floor lmao he's hilariously bad at it

the irony is if he didnt have that nike cap on he'd of seen the bloke recording and done a runner

 

[afric]

if someone broke into your house, right this instant, how would you defend yourself?

brick

 

[Señor Jaggles]

brick

come again?

 

[Deleted member 3818]

its entirely based on circumstance

would you have shot this person

It doesn't matter what I'd do personally in this specific situation, I'm saying that no matter the circumstance you can't expect people to behave like trained military professionals. The robber knows the risks and if it becomes a reality the person trying to defend themselves should not be held accountable.

There's no fair game in killing someone, unless they're trying to take your life. If someone did something so bad that they deserve to die, I'd rather them live suffering instead of earning them the easy way out.
[doublepost=1581789570][/doublepost]

Well I guess we just have different perspectives on it then, to me if someone is trying to invade your property and potentially harm you, it's as fair as fairgame gets.

 

[afric]

come again?

a ceramic brick, launched at a veolicty of 1-2 m/s at the subject in questions skull or vital organs

americans don't seem to understand that killing someone for breaking into your house w/e a weapon is murder and pretty morally bad

 

[Clokr]

a ceramic brick, launched at a veolicty of 1-2 m/s at the subject in questions skull or vital organs

americans don't seem to understand that killing someone for breaking into your house w/e a weapon is murder and pretty morally bad

Now I realize I no longer want to use a gun to defend myself and instead I have gone to a local construction site and stole a pallet of bricks

 

[afric]

Now I realize I no longer want to use a gun to defend myself and instead I have gone to a local construction site and stole a pallet of bricks

a brick constitutes to 'reasonable force' and will be held up in court

an assault weapon with a laser pointer, 60 round magazine, infrared scope and 300 dollar foregrip does not and also costs much more han a £2 brick

 

[Deleted member 1381]

you can't expect people to behave like trained military professionals.

even the local town spiceheads could aim a gun at someone and say the fuck are you doing you don't need to be a trained military professional

. The robber knows the risks and if it becomes a reality the person trying to defend themselves should not be held accountable.

shooting someone just on principle of them robbing your house is inexcusably wrong, if they visibly present a threat then you may use force. this is not only the decent thing to do, but the law

 

[Señor Jaggles]

a ceramic brick, launched at a veolicty of 1-2 m/s at the subject in questions skull or vital organs

americans don't seem to understand that killing someone for breaking into your house w/e a weapon is murder and pretty morally bad

No, I know what you meant, what I was wondering is where would you be picking it from

Is your house that rundown?

 

[afric]

No, I know what you meant, what I was wondering is where would you be picking it from

Is your house that rundown?

no, but brick-throwing is considered a fine art in northern Ireland

much like the murder of politicians is considered a performance art here also

 

[Deleted member 3818]

even the local town spiceheads could aim a gun at someone and say the fuck are you doing you don't need to be a trained military professional.

Sure a lot of people probably could, but a lot of people would also probably be freaking out and will resort to full force in order to defend themselves and anyone else that may be in the house. Bottom line being that you can't expect anyone to be able to follow what might have been the best course of action determined after the event by someone who wasn't even there.

shooting someone just on principle of them robbing your house is inexcusably wrong, if they visibly present a threat then you may use force. this is not only the decent thing to do, but the law

Again my point being that you do not know what kind of threat they present. Yes they could be a harmless thief who wan'ts nothing more than to get your car keys, or it could be a drugged up maniac who's trying to harm your family. They may look to be unarmed, but they may also have a weapon tucked under their clothes, or maybe it's just dark and you can't really even see if they're armed or not at all. Anything could be possible and anything could happen, therefor there is nothing wrong with taking measures to protect yourself, your home and your family even if it ends with the loss of the robbers life.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

Sure a lot of people probably could, but a lot of people would also probably be freaking out and will resort to full force in order to defend themselves and anyone else that may be in the house. Bottom line being that you can't expect anyone to be able to follow what might have been the best course of action determined after the event by someone who wasn't even there.


Again my point being that you do not know what kind of threat they present. Yes they could be a harmless thief who wan'ts nothing more than to get your car keys, or it could be a drugged up maniac who's trying to harm your family. They may look to be unarmed, but they may also have a weapon tucked under their clothes, or maybe it's just dark and you can't really even see if they're armed or not at all. Anything could be possible and anything could happen, therefor there is nothing wrong with taking measures to protect yourself, your home and your family even if it ends with the loss of the robbers life.

bottom line: learn muay thai and have no need for guns

 

[bubblegum]

a brick constitutes to 'reasonable force' and will be held up in court

an assault weapon with a laser pointer, 60 round magazine, infrared scope and 300 dollar foregrip does not and also costs much more han a £2 brick

What is an assault weapon

 

[GenericPlayer]

then there's cases like with tony martin

all im seeing here is a bunch of guys who decided to break into another guys house and then got peppered for it

martin was justified imho

 

[Deleted member 1381]

all im seeing here is a bunch of guys who decided to break into another guys house and then got peppered for it

martin was justified imho

the controversy lies in how he shot them

he shot them in the back while they were trying to frantically escape out of the window once they realised he had a shotgun

the guy got burgled about 6 times by travellers and so the verdict was he simply lay in wait for them to break in again then used it as an excuse to kill them, which is where it goes into a grey area - vengeful murder with extra steps. "English law permits a person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used." - so they've hit the nail on the head, it's up to the jury to decide whether or not it was justified.

the guy's got every right to be pissed off and the police were also at fault for their lack of action but if you shoot someone in the back while they're trying to run away from you and your home legislation states you are committing a crime which is why it's best to just leather the cunts