• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When does self-defence go too far?

has self defence gone too far in this instance?


  • Total voters
    33
Back in the early days of IPSC many "standards" had a "weak hand" stage and many people found it was faster to tilt the gun sideways so your dominant eye would line up with the sights (as opposed to shutting your dominant eye and shooting with your weak eye). we also found that shooting weakhand you got a bit more control turning the gun at a 45 degree angle towards the middle of your body. Maybe that is where these mopes got this idea. And yes I hope all the scumbags try to shoot that way when up against the people I have trained

I think they do it cause it looks gangsta.
 
I think they do it cause it looks gangsta.

Told my son if I ever saw him shooting like that, I'd break my boot off so far up his rectum he'd be tasting Kiwi Shoe Polish for a year....
 
Sure it is. Or at least it might be. For example (and I don't know if something like this happened in this case) what if your attacker is bleeding on the floor from two or three axe wounds, and no longer has full use of his arms? At that point, I think you can reasonably conclude that you're safe. What if the attacker's unconscious?

If I get lucky and chop off both his arms then fine, if he is unconscious that dont matter he may wake up.

My point is **** THEM, now I know the law isnt on my side but you force you way into my house to kill me or my family I dont care about your rights and quite frankly if its me vs them or my family vs them I gladly do everything to end them.

ANd if Im on a jury I probably never vote guilty
 
Told my son if I ever saw him shooting like that, I'd break my boot off so far up his rectum he'd be tasting Kiwi Shoe Polish for a year....

yeah fortunately my son trains with the best so he shoots well. he was creaming some good cops in a drill that involved gun at low ready, three 18" plates at 15 yards. He was using a model 10 to their glocks.

the local gun club had an event that was 50 feet, 5 small bore BOAR targets and fast time wins. Kids were supposed to shoot only rifle (he was 10 at the time) but the rangemaster allowed him to shoot a red dot 22 pistol. He hosed all 30 adults but me. One guy whined that my son used a red dot so he borrowed a high standard and shot even faster. (I "missed one"-5 second penalty so I came in second) but he beat all the other adults fair. including 7 cops.

start off practicing good form you get really good fast, and he shoots a pistol at least 3-4 times a month
 
I didn't realize you were so freaking old. :lol:

remember what John Wayne said in the cowboys

I'm thirty years older than you, I had my back broke once, my hip twice, and on my worst day I could beat the hell out of you!:mrgreen::2razz:
 
Wrong. More and more states are strengthening castle law. Also, how do you know the burglar is unarmed and means you no harm? (other than wanting to steal things you worked hard for...)

In this case, all 6 were wielding weapons, were known by the vic to be gang-banger whom he owed money, were taking an aggressive posture on his property, and trespassing with clear intent to commit a felony.

Weapons free.
 
If someone crashes into your house, armed and looking dangerous, you should have every right to kill them before they kill you. But who has an axe next to their TV?

I keep two different swords in my bathroom, so that I can reach one while I'm on the toilet and the other while I'm in the shower.
 
I am never without my pocket knife, which I can open with either hand. My gf knows which back pocket it is always in, just in case the situation is such that better she draws or if I'm down. Sometimes I get drunk and offer it to someone if they will agree to 'take it outside' (only when I'm without females, of course); that's not a good habit, as I don't really want to kill a bully and who knows they could win. I sleep with my machete (panga) at arms length and with a clean sweep to the room's entry. I note this to some close friends, in case they'd think of playing badguy to be funny.

(Stripes, Francis: "I'll kill ya".)
 
Last edited:
Who wants to be Travolta at his end in Pulp Fiction? fwiw, best to piss squating - to be safe and to empty the bladder.
 
I keep two different swords in my bathroom, so that I can reach one while I'm on the toilet and the other while I'm in the shower.

good choice-I have a Mike Bell forged Katana as one of the first line weapons. to go along with a 12 bore shotgun and a glock with a flashlight on it in the bed room.
 
If I get lucky and chop off both his arms then fine, if he is unconscious that dont matter he may wake up.

My point is **** THEM, now I know the law isnt on my side but you force you way into my house to kill me or my family I dont care about your rights and quite frankly if its me vs them or my family vs them I gladly do everything to end them.

ANd if Im on a jury I probably never vote guilty

A few things:

The central issue of this case is that it's NOT a choice between his life or the life of you or your family. By definition, if the dude's not a threat anymore, that dichotomy is no longer relevant.

The law would punish you in this situation not because you've violated anyone's rights, but because you've voluntarily chosen to murder someone who is not a threat to you. So the issue is not whether or not you've chosen to value your family over the rights of an intruder, it's whether or not you've murdered someone, and whether or not you had a valid justification for doing so.

If you're seriously suggesting that it's reasonable to execute an unconscious person because he might wake up, you probably ought to think that through a little bit more. There are any number of things besides murder that would be equally effective in preventing an unconscious person from becoming a threat again (e.g. tying them up, locking them in a closet 'till the cops show up, etc). I'm getting the distinct impression that you're not interested in killing such a person because you actually believe he'd seriously still be a threat at that point, but because you think it's just to kill such a person under any circumstances (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerously anti-social (or anti-societal, more precisely) stance to take.

If you're on a jury, you have a legal obligation to follow the instructions given to you. Since you seem unwilling to do so, my advice to you if you're ever up for jury duty is to tell the attorneys exactly what you just said (that you'd never vote guilty) because that would more or less guarantee that the prosecutor will kick you off the jury.
 
A few things:

The central issue of this case is that it's NOT a choice between his life or the life of you or your family. By definition, if the dude's not a threat anymore, that dichotomy is no longer relevant.

The law would punish you in this situation not because you've violated anyone's rights, but because you've voluntarily chosen to murder someone who is not a threat to you. So the issue is not whether or not you've chosen to value your family over the rights of an intruder, it's whether or not you've murdered someone, and whether or not you had a valid justification for doing so.

If you're seriously suggesting that it's reasonable to execute an unconscious person because he might wake up, you probably ought to think that through a little bit more. There are any number of things besides murder that would be equally effective in preventing an unconscious person from becoming a threat again (e.g. tying them up, locking them in a closet 'till the cops show up, etc). I'm getting the distinct impression that you're not interested in killing such a person because you actually believe he'd seriously still be a threat at that point, but because you think it's just to kill such a person under any circumstances (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerously anti-social (or anti-societal, more precisely) stance to take.

If you're on a jury, you have a legal obligation to follow the instructions given to you. Since you seem unwilling to do so, my advice to you if you're ever up for jury duty is to tell the attorneys exactly what you just said (that you'd never vote guilty) because that would more or less guarantee that the prosecutor will kick you off the jury.



Technically correct... but not nearly as satisfying or decisive as finishing off the wounded. :mrgreen:
 
Here's a story making local headlines in my region.


Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.

I agree 100%. Anyone who breaks into someone else's house, especially while armed, should expect that person to defend themselves by any means necessary.
 
A few things:

The central issue of this case is that it's NOT a choice between his life or the life of you or your family. By definition, if the dude's not a threat anymore, that dichotomy is no longer relevant.

The law would punish you in this situation not because you've violated anyone's rights, but because you've voluntarily chosen to murder someone who is not a threat to you. So the issue is not whether or not you've chosen to value your family over the rights of an intruder, it's whether or not you've murdered someone, and whether or not you had a valid justification for doing so.

If you're seriously suggesting that it's reasonable to execute an unconscious person because he might wake up, you probably ought to think that through a little bit more. There are any number of things besides murder that would be equally effective in preventing an unconscious person from becoming a threat again (e.g. tying them up, locking them in a closet 'till the cops show up, etc). I'm getting the distinct impression that you're not interested in killing such a person because you actually believe he'd seriously still be a threat at that point, but because you think it's just to kill such a person under any circumstances (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerously anti-social (or anti-societal, more precisely) stance to take.

If you're on a jury, you have a legal obligation to follow the instructions given to you. Since you seem unwilling to do so, my advice to you if you're ever up for jury duty is to tell the attorneys exactly what you just said (that you'd never vote guilty) because that would more or less guarantee that the prosecutor will kick you off the jury.

ANd I will always ask the same question whi gets to determine who is a threat, my whole point is its not defined, a different 12 people might rule it different.

secondly dont get your panties in a bunch, I dont WANT to kill anybody LMAO

Im saying if somebody breaks into my house with the clear intent to KILL ME I dont care about thier rights and YES I know the law isnt on my side but I think the law is wrong.

You said I should tie him up or lock him in a closet etc. **** THAT!!!
what if while im tying him up he wakes up and kills me, what if while draggin him to the closet he wakes up and kills me

His intent is to kill me, ME PERSONALLY while he is in my home I will continue to view him as a threat and I will not stop until he is dead IF I only had knives and sticks and axes etc.

There is no possible LOGIC you could give me to take that risk for me or my family. AGain I know the law is not on my side Im just telling you what I would do.

Now I dont have to worry because I have a gun and a CWP so I would be fine if he was wounded holding a gun at him and then calling the cops but it wont go down that way. I will shoot him in the head.

If I was on a jury I wouldnt be doing anything wrong because its my job to enforce the law and theres very little you could say to me to logically make me believe there is no longer a threat in a case like THIS.

Others, yes of course, 6 guys in the house with plans to kill you, sorry about their luck.
 
Technically correct... but not nearly as satisfying or decisive as finishing off the wounded. :mrgreen:

and I agree
the issue is that in this thread I have made it clear I dont care about technically :)
I think the law is wrong in this case or should have more room to work.

by the way that poster probably thinks you are "anti-social" now LOL
 
and I agree
the issue is that in this thread I have made it clear I dont care about technically :)
I think the law is wrong in this case or should have more room to work.

by the way that poster probably thinks you are "anti-social" now LOL



Nah, I'm just anti-thug. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom