Posted on 09/05/2009 9:24:04 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
Thats because the Uk has turned into a pussy state run by feel good goofballs and ragheads.
It is known that if person or persons enters a house where they know there are people inside at the time, that the invaders are most likly hardcore criminals who will kill at the drop of the hat. They are terrorists that use violence to achieve what they want. They will tie up everyone, beat the males and rape the females{sometime they will rape the males as well} The cop of the street will tell you off the record to fight with every means you have. They will also tell you to buy a gun and know how to use it.
As many of you may know, My city, Pittsburgh is hosting the G20 summit. Durning that time, the local PD will be thin because of the est 100,00 protestors and other morons inavding the city. My house will go to DEFCON 2, weapons will be loaded and ready for use against any of those pirates who might think it would be a good time to try a home invasion.
In North Carolina you can use deadly force to prevent an intruder from breaking into your home, but once he is inside you would have to let him take your HDTV and go, if that was his only intent.
Does it really matter what the law is in the UK? Since handguns are persona non grata in England, you're going to have to use a baseball bat cricket mallet to defend yourself and your livelihood. I'm guessing most people are going to wait for the equally unarmed bobbies to arrive and hide in the closet with them.
Mr Salazar continued, “The home invasion business is hard enough; having to work at night and all. It makes it even harder when people think it's okay to shoot at us. We are people too! And we are not covered by OSHA rules.”
The D.A. here in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina has made a statement that anyone using Glaser safety slugs for home defense will face a murder charge (multiple wound channels, no plugging!). He is a liberal whoos!
If someone breaks into my home, I’m not waiting to ask if they’re armed before shooting them.
Gee, that's funny, when I was a kid that was a "right" that was assumed. In fact, it's the very first right anyone has: to protect themselves in their dwelling.
Sorta defines the concept of "private property".
But that was 50 years or more ago.
I guess things changed in the interim....now you have to ask a bunch of politicians if it's OK to defend your life?
May be covered under the new “Castle Doctrine?” MAY...???
This is exactly what the law was intended to cover and justify. I don’t get where the “may” part comes in. It seems perfectly clear to me.
“If someone breaks into your house, in Texas, you shoot them....”
Absolutely. I was talking with my brother who is involved in both state and local law enforcement and his opinion was that 90% of law enforcement officials in the state when responding to a home/self defense shooting would arrive and their first question would be “Is he still alive or do you need to shoot him again to make sure?”
Carry in your vehicle was authorized in 07. Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with that.
§ 8.03 Retreat Rule [A] Common Law – If a person can safely retreat and, therefore, avoid killing the aggressor, deadly force is unnecessary. Nonetheless, jurisdictions are sharply split on the issue of retreat. A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-aggressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreat in complete safety. Many jurisdictions, however, provide that a non-aggressor who is threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force, if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety.
A universally recognized exception to the rule of retreat is that a non-aggressor need not ordinarily retreat if he is attacked in his own dwelling place or within its curtilage [the immediately surrounding land associated with the dwelling], even though he could do so in complete safety.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim08.htm
Croquet mallet.
Cricket bat. Edge on it could do a good deal more damage than a baseball bat.
>>”I’m sure it was in self-defense, but I’m very against that because they took two lives and who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive,” student Alejandro Salazar said.
Upon reading this story, the reader automatically sympathizes with, and imagines himself in the place of, one of the parties.
Most FReepers see themselves as the innocent PREY. Salazar sees himself in the role of PREDATOR.
DG
To expand on what you said, the old English Common Law drew a distinction between an affray (a violent fight between two ore more people) and a felony.
In a situation where there was an argument, or a drunken brawl, you had a duty to disengage if possible and leave the fight. The reason for this was to avoid killings between otherwise-law-abiding citizens in the heat of passion.
This did NOT apply for the case of violent robbery, rape, etc, where the killing of the felon was considered a positive social good.
At some point the law lost the distinction between behavior appropriate when caught in an affray, and behavior appropriate to defend against felony.
choice is one heck of a predicament ... to choose to break and enter a household, and being armed as well is not a way to make me believe they wanted to have tea and crumpets wtih the owners.
There are consequences for all actions.
Sadness. To bad the third one wasn’t put down permanently on site as well. Do you imagine his humana health care is paying his hospital bills. oh, I forgt .. the occupation arem robber probably does not require the employer to carry health insurance on its employees.
tax payer takes it in the azz again
Mr. Salazar believes, if you die and no one else, that’s better than two (robbers)dying.
We have a 'Castle Law' in Alabama too and I don't know anyone who disagrees with having it.
Interestingly, the new law was needed because the prior law permitted you to use deadly force to protect your NEIGHBOR’s home and belongings, but not your own!
“who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive”
When Lice are a menace one must also eliminate the nits!!!
Or at least feels more solidarity with a predator of his own ethnicity than a victim not of his ethnicity. A formula for civil war with unassimilable ethnicities.
Only someone writing for an Austin-area station could even question whether this shooting was justified;
around here, we’d consider that the shooter did a public service akin to picking up and disposing of trash along the highway...
And this “Luling,” the young thugs were from: Is that Luling the New Orleans suburb?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.