Political Crossfire Forums

[britboy]

A case scenario not based on anything I know about that's real.

A guy once bought a shack. Well, he kind of forgot about it, and over the next 15 years it starts falling into disrepair. He moved out years ago.

Well the roof starts leaking and the place looks completely abandoned -- and of course what happens? The local kids, after spending months building up the courage, break in and expore it. They could see from the outside there's not even any property in it. They know no-one lives there. They just wander around in there.

Forward 3 years and now kids regularly go in there to make out, smoke a joint, chat, the kind of normal crap adolescents get up to.

There are 4 kids in there one day smoking weed and drinking some beer they managed to get hold of. Their ages range from 13 to 17. Suddenly the door is kicked open, and in comes the owner, who immediately starts shooting, methodically, all the kids with his Colt.

All 4 naturally end up dead. He's put a total of 42 bullets into them.

They were on his property. He starts telling everyone he 'didn't know their intention' and he was 'defending his property', and it was 'damn dark in there, he could only see the shapes of intruders'. The juveniles had no permission to be there.

If you decided the law (so don't just repeat what the law currently is where you live, this is what law you would propose) -- would you choose his actions to be deemed as legal, or illegal? If illegal - what would his punishment be?

[Kt]

britboy wrote: A case scenario not based on anything I know about that's real.

A guy once bought a shack. Well, he kind of forgot about it, and over the next 15 years it starts falling into disrepair. He moved out years ago.

Well the roof starts leaking and the place looks completely abandoned -- and of course what happens? The local kids, after spending months building up the courage, break in and expore it. They could see from the outside there's not even any property in it. They know no-one lives there. They just wander around in there.

Forward 3 years and now kids regularly go in there to make out, smoke a joint, chat, the kind of normal crap adolescents get up to.

There are 4 kids in there one day smoking weed and drinking some beer they managed to get hold of. Their ages range from 13 to 17. Suddenly the door is kicked open, and in comes the owner, who immediately starts shooting, methodically, all the kids with his Colt.

All 4 naturally end up dead. He's put a total of 42 bullets into them.

They were on his property. He starts telling everyone he 'didn't know their intention' and he was 'defending his property', and it was 'damn dark in there, he could only see the shapes of intruders'. The juveniles had no permission to be there.

If you decided the law (so don't just repeat what the law currently is where you live, this is what law you would propose) -- would you choose his actions to be deemed as legal, or illegal? If illegal - what would his punishment be?

He is obviously a murderer.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: A case scenario not based on anything I know about that's real.

A guy once bought a shack. Well, he kind of forgot about it, and over the next 15 years it starts falling into disrepair. He moved out years ago.

Well the roof starts leaking and the place looks completely abandoned -- and of course what happens? The local kids, after spending months building up the courage, break in and expore it. They could see from the outside there's not even any property in it. They know no-one lives there. They just wander around in there.

Forward 3 years and now kids regularly go in there to make out, smoke a joint, chat, the kind of normal crap adolescents get up to.

There are 4 kids in there one day smoking weed and drinking some beer they managed to get hold of. Their ages range from 13 to 17. Suddenly the door is kicked open, and in comes the owner, who immediately starts shooting, methodically, all the kids with his Colt.

All 4 naturally end up dead. He's put a total of 42 bullets into them.

They were on his property. He starts telling everyone he 'didn't know their intention' and he was 'defending his property', and it was 'damn dark in there, he could only see the shapes of intruders'. The juveniles had no permission to be there.

If you decided the law (so don't just repeat what the law currently is where you live, this is what law you would propose) -- would you choose his actions to be deemed as legal, or illegal? If illegal - what would his punishment be?

Well, legally, it depends on what the defense and the prosecution can prove. One major factor has to do with who was there first. If a burglar is in my home, and broke in when I'm not in it, and I come in on him, I don't have the right to shoot him. Breaking into an unoccupied dwelling is not defensible by lethal force. So, in the scenario, as you raised it, he's guilty of manslaughter, at the very least.

However, if he had seen traces of the kids, went into the shack with his gun, and waited, and then shot them when they illegally entered, he might have a legal leg to stand on. A lot of that, though, would depend on the particular state law, and the definition of dwelling.

A related question, should a camper be able to defend his RV with lethal force? How about his tent?

[Onevote]

britboy wrote: A case scenario not based on anything I know about that's real.

A guy once bought a shack. Well, he kind of forgot about it, and over the next 15 years it starts falling into disrepair. He moved out years ago.

Well the roof starts leaking and the place looks completely abandoned -- and of course what happens? The local kids, after spending months building up the courage, break in and expore it. They could see from the outside there's not even any property in it. They know no-one lives there. They just wander around in there.

Forward 3 years and now kids regularly go in there to make out, smoke a joint, chat, the kind of normal crap adolescents get up to.

There are 4 kids in there one day smoking weed and drinking some beer they managed to get hold of. Their ages range from 13 to 17. Suddenly the door is kicked open, and in comes the owner, who immediately starts shooting, methodically, all the kids with his Colt.

All 4 naturally end up dead. He's put a total of 42 bullets into them.

They were on his property. He starts telling everyone he 'didn't know their intention' and he was 'defending his property', and it was 'damn dark in there, he could only see the shapes of intruders'. The juveniles had no permission to be there.

If you decided the law (so don't just repeat what the law currently is where you live, this is what law you would propose) -- would you choose his actions to be deemed as legal, or illegal? If illegal - what would his punishment be? He is guilty of 2nd degree murder!

[micfranklin]

Well, considering you just killed 4 kids, you should be tried for murder.

[Wolverine]

Why do you start these "I gonna see if you're crazy yank" threads britboy? You already know we are saine.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: Why do you start these "I gonna see if you're crazy yank" threads britboy? You already know we are saine.

I can't remember ever starting a thread aimed particularly at the US.

I think the fact that where gun control is weak people like it that way, and where gun control is strong people like it that way .. is very telling. I also think if half you guys had never seen or heard a gun in your life, you certainly wouldn't want to own one!

By the way, this is quite amusing if only very barely on topic ...

Dog getting shot

[lilwolf]

At the minimum second degree murder.... :-|

[RooK]

If he put 42 bullets in them from a Colt (assuming 1911), he had to reload the thing at least 5 times. Definately murder, and punishment should be life without parole or death.

[Wolverine]

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Why do you start these "I gonna see if you're crazy yank" threads britboy? You already know we are saine.

I can't remember ever starting a thread aimed particularly at the US.
No, but you are always starting threads drilling the pro-gun on what they would do in any given situation.

You have already established that we are sane, and use common sense.

Theres not much of a reason for anyone to see a "what would you do" thread with britboy as the author.
Not to mention your topics are often far fetched. I mean really, 42 shots? Pfft, my AR and AK only hold thirty.

Quote: I think the fact that where gun control is weak people like it that way, and where gun control is strong people like it that way .. is very telling.
Totally different politics. And the the fact that pro-gunners do not suffer from hoplophobia.

Quote: I also think if half you guys had never seen or heard a gun in your life, you certainly wouldn't want to own one!
Doubtful.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Why do you start these "I gonna see if you're crazy yank" threads britboy? You already know we are saine.

I can't remember ever starting a thread aimed particularly at the US.
No, but you are always starting threads drilling the pro-gun on what they would do in any given situation.

You have already established that we are sane, and use common sense.

Theres not much of a reason for anyone to see a "what would you do" thread with britboy as the author.
Not to mention your topics are often far fetched. I mean really, 42 shots? Pfft, my AR and AK only hold thirty.

Quote: I think the fact that where gun control is weak people like it that way, and where gun control is strong people like it that way .. is very telling.
Totally different politics. And the the fact that pro-gunners do not suffer from hoplophobia.

Quote: I also think if half you guys had never seen or heard a gun in your life, you certainly wouldn't want to own one!
Doubtful.

To be honest the thing that annoys me is when people say stuff like 'If anyone enters my house uninvited they are dead'. Its too general a statement. I try and show what a ridiculous statement that is by citing example. And I have quite good fun thinking of outrageous stuff that the extreme pro-gun writer's decided personal policy actually allows. 13 year old kid breaks in to steal your playstation in the middle of the day? You catch him red-handed and he is unarmed? Why not grab your glock and execute him just in case he tries to strangle you? Excellent.

Other sentences that would just dig at me slightly:

'Criminals deserve to be locked up for life / killed / mutilated and dragged round the local market place for all to see.'

'If someone approaches my car in the middle of the night I'm taking no chances, I'm gonna start waving my loaded gun at them'.

'It's just a matter of time before my government tries to enslave me'

'If the government tried to take our guns we'd all suddenly unite as a kind of Viet-Cong esque 'militia' and slowely drive the US army away using our small arms'. And boy would those F16 fighters with cluster bombs be scared when they saw me waving my shotty around'.

'If some police officer tried to take my weapon, despite the fact he was purely following an order, I would shoot him in the face'.

'200 years ago some guy mentioned it was OK for me to have a gun. When he said that he commanded a virtually unchangable law which all people are forced to conceed to for the rest of time, in order to protect their freedom!!' (Haha there's irony there somewhere!).

'I don't see why people can't own grenades / rocket launchers'

Sentences that don't annoy me:

'I like gun sport / hunting / going down the range'

'My granddaddy gave me a gun he got from a German officer in 1943 and it has a lot of sentimental meaning to me'

'My job requires me to have a gun'

'Safety is paramount in handling a gun' (although I went down the range and I thought it was over the top)

'I would let my son play with my gun under my supervision to keep the 'secrecy glamour' thing out of his head, so he doesn't even bother breaking into the lock-box'

'I collect guns like people do coins. It's a hobby.'




I do the questions 80% for my own amusement, 20% to try and test people's convictions a bit, mainly the 'anyone comes in my home, they get shot in the face, no questions asked' brigade.

[Wolverine]

Meh, you already know we are not insane.

[Otacon]

Let me put it this way: If someone breaks in and tries to steal my DVD player in the middle of the night, I won't kill him but he still gets to eat a little lead. I'd shoot to wound and call the cops. For the next scenario, assume I am married and have a daughter.

Someone breaks in and rapes my daughter and wife. He's dead.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Why do you start these "I gonna see if you're crazy yank" threads britboy? You already know we are saine.

I can't remember ever starting a thread aimed particularly at the US.
No, but you are always starting threads drilling the pro-gun on what they would do in any given situation.

You have already established that we are sane, and use common sense.

Theres not much of a reason for anyone to see a "what would you do" thread with britboy as the author.
Not to mention your topics are often far fetched. I mean really, 42 shots? Pfft, my AR and AK only hold thirty.

Quote: I think the fact that where gun control is weak people like it that way, and where gun control is strong people like it that way .. is very telling.
Totally different politics. And the the fact that pro-gunners do not suffer from hoplophobia.

Quote: I also think if half you guys had never seen or heard a gun in your life, you certainly wouldn't want to own one!
Doubtful.

To be honest the thing that annoys me is when people say stuff like 'If anyone enters my house uninvited they are dead'. Its too general a statement. I try and show what a ridiculous statement that is by citing example. And I have quite good fun thinking of outrageous stuff that the extreme pro-gun writer's decided personal policy actually allows. 13 year old kid breaks in to steal your playstation in the middle of the day? You catch him red-handed and he is unarmed? Why not grab your glock and execute him just in case he tries to strangle you? Excellent.

What if the 13 yr old boy is 6'2" 250 lbs (don't laugh, my wife taught such a 13 yr old boy last year)? Also, how do you know what the 13 yr old kids' intention is? You don't know that he's not there to kill and rape your toddler.

As I've said, personally, I wouldn't shoot a home invader on sight, unless I saw a weapon. However, I wouldn't condemn anybody who did so, provided that the law of his/her state allowed it. The law of my state does allow it. The legal presumption is that someone who breaks into an occupied house is attempting to seriously harm the occupants. When my boys get closer to teenhood, I will definitely explain to them the possible repercussions of breaking into a house, or even going into a house without the permission of the adults inside (mainly to keep them from going into some girl's room, and getting shot/beaten up by an irate dad).

britboy wrote: Other sentences that would just dig at me slightly:

'Criminals deserve to be locked up for life / killed / mutilated and dragged round the local market place for all to see.'

'If someone approaches my car in the middle of the night I'm taking no chances, I'm gonna start waving my loaded gun at them'.

Obviously you haven't had to drive through a rough part of Miami at night....

britboy wrote: 'It's just a matter of time before my government tries to enslave me'

'If the government tried to take our guns we'd all suddenly unite as a kind of Viet-Cong esque 'militia' and slowely drive the US army away using our small arms'. And boy would those F16 fighters with cluster bombs be scared when they saw me waving my shotty around'.

Hmm, do you think that Americans wouldn't be at least as smart as the Iraqis. I don't see AK's being waved at F16s in Iraq.

britboy wrote: 'If some police officer tried to take my weapon, despite the fact he was purely following an order, I would shoot him in the face'.

'200 years ago some guy mentioned it was OK for me to have a gun. When he said that he commanded a virtually unchangable law which all people are forced to conceed to for the rest of time, in order to protect their freedom!!' (Haha there's irony there somewhere!).

First, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment. Second, the constitution can be changed. It's been changed 17 times since the original Bill of Rights. Personally, I think if gun banners truly want to ban guns, that's the way they need to do it. By repealing the 2nd amendment. I would oppose them politically if they tried, but at least I would respect the way they are doing so. Also, freedom does have costs associated with it. For example, we have rights to a jury trial. The costs of that: 1) the possibility of being forced to be on a jury; and, 2) the freeing of guilty criminals. Those are definite costs, and I could easily argue that getting rid of a jury trial would greatly decrease crime. Why not do that? It's against our basic freedoms. The same applies to the 2nd amendment. Yes, repealing the 2nd amendment would reduce gun crimes. However, it wouldn't be worth the cost to freedom.

britboy wrote: 'I don't see why people can't own grenades / rocket launchers'

Sentences that don't annoy me:

'I like gun sport / hunting / going down the range'

'My granddaddy gave me a gun he got from a German officer in 1943 and it has a lot of sentimental meaning to me'

'My job requires me to have a gun'

'Safety is paramount in handling a gun' (although I went down the range and I thought it was over the top)

Well, that's the way it works. I was taught those same rules, and they apply even when hunting.

britboy wrote: 'I would let my son play with my gun under my supervision to keep the 'secrecy glamour' thing out of his head, so he doesn't even bother breaking into the lock-box'

'I collect guns like people do coins. It's a hobby.'




I do the questions 80% for my own amusement, 20% to try and test people's convictions a bit, mainly the 'anyone comes in my home, they get shot in the face, no questions asked' brigade.

I still don't see what the problem is with that brigade. I wouldn't mind them as neighbors (however, I would definitely tell my sons not to "mess" with their daughters :-) )