damn right they shouldntblisteringsilence wrote:
Criminals (and their families) shouldn't be able to sue you if they are injured or killed in the commission of their crimes.
Well, I just want to say, if you're going to shoot someone ALWAYS shoot to kill.krazed wrote:
damn right they shouldntblisteringsilence wrote:
Criminals (and their families) shouldn't be able to sue you if they are injured or killed in the commission of their crimes.
i too agree
When I was in high school, the old sheriff for the county I lived in retired (20+ years of service), and there was a pretty close contest to see who would replace him. I remember when one of the local news stations did a feature piece on each of the guys that was running, maybe 3 or 4 of them. The man who ended up running had been a deputy in the county for like 12 years, and had been in an officer-involved shooting in the late 80's. The reporter, being all "hard," thought she'd skunk the sheriff's deputy by asking him "the hard questions." This is how it went:{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Well, I just want to say, if you're going to shoot someone ALWAYS shoot to kill.krazed wrote:
damn right they shouldntblisteringsilence wrote:
Criminals (and their families) shouldn't be able to sue you if they are injured or killed in the commission of their crimes.
i too agree
1) They cannot harm you anymore.
2) It puts them out of their misery fast.
3) They cannot sue you. (Their family could but you only get one side of the story, your side.)
4) I know there are more reasons but I'm too tired to think of them right now.
I agree with it, but retreat is a recognised form of defense, and is touted as the first resort by every self defense instructor I've spoken to. Where retreat isn't feasible (that is, it isn't possible or it makes one significantly more vulnerable) then use of force is perfectly appropriate.usmarine2007 wrote:
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_ … lyforce_dc
i would probably retreat if i were you also bubs.Bubbalo wrote:
I agree with it, but retreat is a recognised form of defense, and is touted as the first resort by every self defense instructor I've spoken to. Where retreat isn't feasible (that is, it isn't possible or it makes one significantly more vulnerable) then use of force is perfectly appropriate.usmarine2007 wrote:
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_ … lyforce_dc
Last edited by HunterOfSkulls (2007-03-28 01:50:32)
I don't think anyone will disagree with the statement. Imminent and Harm can be a little vague and ambiguous though.usmarine2007 wrote:
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_ … lyforce_dc
Last edited by RicardoBlanco (2007-03-28 01:49:59)
Ooh, big man on campus, running around making dipshit remarks. I've actually had to use weapons to defend myself on two seperate occasions. Once I had to kill someone.Parker wrote:
i would probably retreat if i were you also bubs.Bubbalo wrote:
I agree with it, but retreat is a recognised form of defense, and is touted as the first resort by every self defense instructor I've spoken to. Where retreat isn't feasible (that is, it isn't possible or it makes one significantly more vulnerable) then use of force is perfectly appropriate.usmarine2007 wrote:
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_ … lyforce_dc
especially if you had to defend yourself with a firearm.
Out of curiousity, why?Konfusion0 wrote:
I'm against the right to bear arms, unless you're in the army, police, or have been in either.
The guy is Tony Martin. I remember thinking it was crazy at the time but i think one of the reasons he was punished so much was for having an unlicensed gun after being banned from owning one. The criminals case was utter bullshit and i'm glad it failed.artofsurvival wrote:
Dudes,
Its quite simple "Runaway"! As here in Great Britain we really don't have many guns that are out of Policce/Goverment Control we have the right to defend ourselves to a responsible level, you can incapacitate someone but you cannot kill! Can't remember the guys name but we recently had a farmer who shot dead 1 burgular and seriously injured another whilst the 2 assilant where entering his house (not farm or out buildings), he ended up serving a 10 year prison sentence! During which time the living assailant recovered and then proceeded to sue said farmer, it got thrown out of court. But we do have the right to defend ourselves in our own homes "A Englishman's House is His Castle" etc, etc: So killing within the 4 fours of your propety is allowed, in self defence of course, ie: someone has to attack you first!
Assuming your not joking what were the circumstances?Bubbalo wrote:
Once I had to kill someone.
Bollox!Bubbalo wrote:
Once I had to kill someone.
Oh? Please elaborate?RicardoBlanco wrote:
Bollox!Bubbalo wrote:
Once I had to kill someone.
.....and Marines. We dont retreat, we like to call it "Tactical relocation". As far as defending one's home, of course I would use deadly force to defend it. I think a gun owner should have intelligence and use their judgement to the best of their abilility but if it is nighttime and it is dark, and someone is in your home against your will then it will be instinct to protect it. Humans are naturally afraid of things we dont know and understand, and if I dont know 'em I will go into defense mode.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
A smart man always keeps retreat as an option. Only mall ninjas and gun-store commandos act like retreat is never acceptable.
Because I feel safer knowing that not just any idiot can obtain a gun. Sure, there may be a black market in some places, but it makes it harder to get...Bubbalo wrote:
Out of curiousity, why?Konfusion0 wrote:
I'm against the right to bear arms, unless you're in the army, police, or have been in either.
Did you kill the guy on the bicycle wearing the army helmet? Thats my buddy you sick bastard.Bubbalo wrote:
Ooh, big man on campus, running around making dipshit remarks. I've actually had to use weapons to defend myself on two seperate occasions. Once I had to kill someone.
Hmmm... Bubbalo, you wouldn't be related to the Williams or Moran families, would you?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Did you kill the guy on the bicycle wearing the army helmet? Thats my buddy you sick bastard.Bubbalo wrote:
Ooh, big man on campus, running around making dipshit remarks. I've actually had to use weapons to defend myself on two seperate occasions. Once I had to kill someone.
LOL, please, please, please blow us away with some fairy tales..........Bubbalo wrote:
Ooh, big man on campus, running around making dipshit remarks. I've actually had to use weapons to defend myself on two seperate occasions. Once I had to kill someone.Parker wrote:
i would probably retreat if i were you also bubs.Bubbalo wrote:
I agree with it, but retreat is a recognised form of defense, and is touted as the first resort by every self defense instructor I've spoken to. Where retreat isn't feasible (that is, it isn't possible or it makes one significantly more vulnerable) then use of force is perfectly appropriate.
especially if you had to defend yourself with a firearm.