BF2S Forums How Many of You Agree With This Statement?

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

No I don't agree with ONES right to defend ONESELF from an act of imminent harm - BUT I sure as hell agree with MY right to defend MYSELF with extreme prejudice on anyone wishing me or mine harm

This is completely off the cuff, but I remember about 5+ years ago a Marine (or ex-Marine, once again, off the cuff) had his house broken into by a burglar. Now, putting all those years to good use, he beats the living day lights out of the burglar. Unfortunately he got arrested for assault or something stupid like that because he pulled the guy out of his house (therefore, out of his "safe zone") and kicked the guys ass on his front lawn.

I think the Marine (or whoever) was perfectly in his rights of self defense. The burglar started the events by illegally entering the others house. Its not the Marines fault they burglar was too bitched and bloody to finish the job.

Oh, and karma to whoever can actually find a report on this. I tried but no dice

Hurricane wrote:

If someone assaults me or breaks into my house, and I've got a pistol, they better be prepared for a bullet to some part of their body. I'll be damned if I die or get hospitalized because some overpaid asshole thought it's cruel to protect your life when it's in danger.

Unfortunately if you shoot someone with a gun YOU get charged with assault/murder. . . even if they are attacking you!! That is unless you can prove self defense (ie if he/she is shooting at you).  That is why I dont even know why I own a gun, cause if someone NOT carrying robs me and I shoot him, I'm the one that gets skrewed. . . .

I know it is bullshit, but that is the way our system works.  Regardless if the intruder is stealing your TV, you shoot him/her YOU go to jail.  The assailant may have the ability to charge YOU with assault. . .its crazy

Turquoise wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

If someone assaults me or breaks into my house, and I've got a pistol, they better be prepared for a bullet to some part of their body. I'll be damned if I die or get hospitalized because some overpaid asshole thought it's cruel to protect your life when it's in danger.

Unfortunately if you shoot someone with a gun YOU get charged with assault/murder. . . even if they are attacking you!! That is unless you can prove self defense (ie if he/she is shooting at you).  That is why I dont even know why I own a gun, cause if someone NOT carrying robs me and I shoot him, I'm the one that gets skrewed. . . .

I know it is bullshit, but that is the way our system works.  Regardless if the intruder is stealing your TV, you shoot him/her YOU go to jail.  The assailant may have the ability to charge YOU with assault. . .its crazy

Some states are far more lenient about self-defense than others: Florida is one notable example.

Thats true. . .

I guess I am just speaking as a Californian and our tough gun laws here. . .

PureFodder wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

First of all, there is already legislation in place (this bill is just adding to it) that defines the justification for use of deadly force. The problem with your example is that it's not good. If some crazy assed MMA fighter comes up to me after a match, all cranked up or methed out, and throws a punch at me, I believe I'm well within my right to shoot him. If a big dude throws a punch at one of my female friends, she should be well within her right to shoot him.

So, using the same arguements, if your wife tries to slap you then you should be within your rights to shoot her dead?

Surely if your examples were legal so would that. Not good.

No, if your wife slaps me in the face, I am not in danger of immenent bodily harm. A blow to the ego, perhaps.

Now, if my wife were a kung-fu master, and tried to rip out my throat, I would be able to shoot her.

I think you may need to reread my examples again. I don't think you understood them.

Konfusion0 wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

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...

-konfusion

I don't know about other countries, but here in the states, any idiot cannot get a gun. You have to pass a background check, at minimum.

I saw the application form - didn't seem too hard to me to get a gun.

-konfusion

Well, you have to not be a criminal, not beat your wife, not have a history of mental illness.... and that's about it. If you're a responsible citizen, there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. People who buy guns through licensed dealers don't use them to commit crimes.

fadedsteve wrote:

Unfortunately if you shoot someone with a gun YOU get charged with assault/murder. . . even if they are attacking you!! That is unless you can prove self defense (ie if he/she is shooting at you).  That is why I dont even know why I own a gun, cause if someone NOT carrying robs me and I shoot him, I'm the one that gets skrewed. . . .

I know it is bullshit, but that is the way our system works.  Regardless if the intruder is stealing your TV, you shoot him/her YOU go to jail.  The assailant may have the ability to charge YOU with assault. . .its crazy

This might be true in the People's Republic of California, but it's sure as hell not true in the rest of the country. The laws are based on English Common Law, which states that a man's home is his castle. If anyone is in your home, without invitation, and you have reason to fear for your life (the act of breaking into one's home is reason enough), you can respond with deadly force.

Perhaps that's the reason Arkansas has such a lower burgulary rate than Cali. A criminal here knows he's running the chance of getting blown away every time he goes through a window.

blisteringsilence wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

First of all, there is already legislation in place (this bill is just adding to it) that defines the justification for use of deadly force. The problem with your example is that it's not good. If some crazy assed MMA fighter comes up to me after a match, all cranked up or methed out, and throws a punch at me, I believe I'm well within my right to shoot him. If a big dude throws a punch at one of my female friends, she should be well within her right to shoot him.

So, using the same arguements, if your wife tries to slap you then you should be within your rights to shoot her dead?

Surely if your examples were legal so would that. Not good.

No, if your wife slaps me in the face, I am not in danger of immenent bodily harm. A blow to the ego, perhaps.

Now, if my wife were a kung-fu master, and tried to rip out my throat, I would be able to shoot her.

I think you may need to reread my examples again. I don't think you understood them.

How would you possibly know if your ninja wife was going to slap you or rip your throat out? How big would the big guy have to be before he's threatening enough to make it legal to kill him? Clearly if someone throws a punch or slap at you there's little chance of you getting killed, so how do you have the right to kill them? The examples you give are clearly bad examples as in none of them is there any threat to the victims life, just the possibility of minor physical harm.

Last edited by PureFodder (2007-03-30 07:31:46)

Parker wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Why should I?  I feel it enough to say that the situation was not one I could safely remove myself from.

because you are telling a story.
at least attempt to back it up.....unless you are worried about someone calling you out on your bullshit.

But how would my providing detail show that I'm telling the truth?

I agree with that statement.