even in the UK there are cases of people being sent to prison for committing GBH/homicide/illegal torture and detainment for people caught on their property. even people caught in the process of burglarizing them. i guess here we value human life over property. in america it seems to be okay to shoot someone dead if you catch them taking your 60 inch widescreen TV. mind you, i completely agree with the ability to use proportional/reasonable force to defend your family, if an intruder is in your home. but more often than not people getting shot dead are fleeing/running away/pretty much begging for mercy. when i studied law here, there was some realllly interesting case law on the books... pub-landlords who tied up burglars in the basement and beat them around a bit, etc. way overstepping the mark of a citizen's legal powers. and rightfully so. when you allow people free-reign to be vigilantes, you get black kids being shot because of racist pieces of shit with a gun and inferiority complex.
If your housebreaker is already walking out with a 60" LCD, he's probably not there to kill you. Otherwise, it's a little bit difficult to distinguish between ones that are just there to steal, ones that are there to steal and harm, and ones that are just there to harm when you're caught by surprise like that.
Obviously that shit is illegal here too. The Castle Doctrine is not a free pass for torture, false imprisonment or shooting someone in the back. You will go to jail for that shit. However, if my doors are locked and you break in, I don't really care if your taking my TV or my toilet paper, you will die or at the very least be shitting you pants as you retreat over my fence. The door was locked for a reason and you as a burglar accepted the possible risk when you violated that boundary. If someone broke in, I'm not going to have a conversation with him about his true intents, those encounters can lead to split second life or death decisions. The Castle Doctrine allows for the dismissal of debate over this and allows the homeowner to react in a better safe than sorry manner.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
even in the UK there are cases of people being sent to prison for committing GBH/homicide/illegal torture and detainment for people caught on their property. even people caught in the process of burglarizing them. i guess here we value human life over property. in america it seems to be okay to shoot someone dead if you catch them taking your 60 inch widescreen TV. mind you, i completely agree with the ability to use proportional/reasonable force to defend your family, if an intruder is in your home. but more often than not people getting shot dead are fleeing/running away/pretty much begging for mercy. when i studied law here, there was some realllly interesting case law on the books... pub-landlords who tied up burglars in the basement and beat them around a bit, etc. way overstepping the mark of a citizen's legal powers. and rightfully so. when you allow people free-reign to be vigilantes, you get black kids being shot because of racist pieces of shit with a gun and inferiority complex.
Again, motherfucker won't get shot if he doesn't violate the barrier. That simple.
in uk case law there have been several cases to set precedent involving burglars running away (sometimes quite literally down the garden path), only to be shot in the back. the law gives those individuals no leeway. even when considering its a moment of high-adrenaline and loose temper.
I actually have a real life story about this.
About a year ago I was awake at around 2 a.m. playing on the computer when my doorbell rang. I wasn't expecting anyone so I immediately grabbed my SigP226, round in chamber, hammer back, put in my back pocket and answered the door. It was a man in his 40's that smelled like alcohol and looked pretty rough. I asked him what he needed and he said his car had broken down in my cul-de-sac(sp) and wanted to know if he could use the phone. I don't have a LAN phone but I offered to let him use my cell phone. He dialed a number and got no answer and as he is redialing I can see his car is running (it was cold and there was exhaust). Now I'm suspicious. He dials a couple more times and still doesn't get an answer and then asks if he could come in out of the cold. I told him no, because my family was asleep and I didn't want to wake them but he was more than welcome to use my phone some more. He gave up after a few minutes and went back to his car and proceeded to drive away.
Was he a threat? Maybe, maybe not. He didn't do anything and didn't seem threatening apart from his story not making sense. No harm was done. However, had he tried to push his way through the doorway after I told him no, I would not have hesitated to put one through his forehead. He was not welcome, he was warned and had he violated that, the Castle Doctrine says I would have been justified in standing my ground. Dude may have wanted to rob me or hurt my family, I don't know, don't want to know, what I DO know was that he was warned and obeyed.
A locked door presents the same message. You are not welcome in my home, do not violate the barrier.
About a year ago I was awake at around 2 a.m. playing on the computer when my doorbell rang. I wasn't expecting anyone so I immediately grabbed my SigP226, round in chamber, hammer back, put in my back pocket and answered the door. It was a man in his 40's that smelled like alcohol and looked pretty rough. I asked him what he needed and he said his car had broken down in my cul-de-sac(sp) and wanted to know if he could use the phone. I don't have a LAN phone but I offered to let him use my cell phone. He dialed a number and got no answer and as he is redialing I can see his car is running (it was cold and there was exhaust). Now I'm suspicious. He dials a couple more times and still doesn't get an answer and then asks if he could come in out of the cold. I told him no, because my family was asleep and I didn't want to wake them but he was more than welcome to use my phone some more. He gave up after a few minutes and went back to his car and proceeded to drive away.
Was he a threat? Maybe, maybe not. He didn't do anything and didn't seem threatening apart from his story not making sense. No harm was done. However, had he tried to push his way through the doorway after I told him no, I would not have hesitated to put one through his forehead. He was not welcome, he was warned and had he violated that, the Castle Doctrine says I would have been justified in standing my ground. Dude may have wanted to rob me or hurt my family, I don't know, don't want to know, what I DO know was that he was warned and obeyed.
A locked door presents the same message. You are not welcome in my home, do not violate the barrier.
maybe. but many other countries seem to get by fine with those situations without guns or bullets in foreheads. you don't really hear about many cases of peoples' homes' being invaded and their families being tortured, because they didn't have a gun.
Cases like this is why I don't like concealed carry anywhere but in rural areas. Everyone wants to be a hero and a cowboy.
Oh about the stand your ground laws: the state senator who wrote the bill in Florida says he believes that Zimmerman is not protected under his law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- … on-martin/
Oh about the stand your ground laws: the state senator who wrote the bill in Florida says he believes that Zimmerman is not protected under his law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- … on-martin/
look at this piece of shit
he asked for it. i just don't understand how stand your ground is being used here. in a home invasion, the trouble is brought (quite literally) to your doorstep. uninvited. you're minding your own business and someone comes into your most personal and off-limits of places: the family home. this piece of shit went after a youth who was minding his own business, breaking no law. how can he rely on stand your ground? he invited an ass whupping. racist piece of shit.
he asked for it. i just don't understand how stand your ground is being used here. in a home invasion, the trouble is brought (quite literally) to your doorstep. uninvited. you're minding your own business and someone comes into your most personal and off-limits of places: the family home. this piece of shit went after a youth who was minding his own business, breaking no law. how can he rely on stand your ground? he invited an ass whupping. racist piece of shit.
The topographical layout of someones face doesn't mean jack shit.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
look at this piece of shit
he asked for it. i just don't understand how stand your ground is being used here. in a home invasion, the trouble is brought (quite literally) to your doorstep. uninvited. you're minding your own business and someone comes into your most personal and off-limits of places: the family home. this piece of shit went after a youth who was minding his own business, breaking no law. how can he rely on stand your ground? he invited an ass whupping. racist piece of shit.
It's going to come down to a self defense case. The SYG law simply has vague oversight into this realm.
This NOT covered under the Castle Doctrine BTW, that law is designed for domiciles.
yes, i know they're separate things. but i mean i just don't see how 'stand your ground' applies to someone that went after and harassed a kid, and then pulled a gun when the trouble he INVITED upon himself got too much for his fat ass to handle. and i'm not judging him as guilty on his face. lol. i'm just saying he is clearly a deadbeat piece of shit.
i hope he gets the death penalty.
i hope he gets the death penalty.
Wait, I thought you were against the death penalty?
True, I'm not arguing that he didn't invite it or didn't deserve to get his ass kicked. He DID provoke it and he DID deserve to get his ass kicked. He DID NOT, however, deserve to get his head slammed into a sidewalk to the point he thought his life was in danger (unless he drew the gun first, then he did).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes, i know they're separate things. but i mean i just don't see how 'stand your ground' applies to someone that went after and harassed a kid, and then pulled a gun when the trouble he INVITED upon himself got too much for his fat ass to handle. and i'm not judging him as guilty on his face. lol. i'm just saying he is clearly a deadbeat piece of shit.
i hope he gets the death penalty.
Again, it comes down to who initiated deadly contact first. It could have simply ended as a street brawl, but one of these two people initiated deadly force.
Too bad we'll never find out if Trayvon Martin knew George Zimmerman had a gun and quickly weighed his chances for survival between running for his life and the beatdown.
i'm against the death penalty in normal civilized states like the UK/EU, sure. in america, you and mexico live in barbarism. may as well flush this piece of shit down the toilet with the flood.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Wait, I thought you were against the death penalty?
maybe just me, but in my eyes the dude that brings a GUN into a heated/violent situation is the one who is responsible for escalating things. even if it was just fisticuffs and they were brawling, and even if trayvon spotted the gun in the guy's shirt or back pocket or whatever... that would clearly make trayvon feel hugely threatened. even with the gun not being out. knowing you're in a fight with someone that is carrying a gun. no backing down from that point. you know you can't run away or defuse the situation until the guy is out cold. zimmerman brought a gun to a peaceful situation. he bothered someone who wasn't breaking a law. he was carrying a lethal weapon and he stirred up a violent altercation. i would argue the whole reason he felt entitled/safe to do so, to approach a stranger and start shit, is because he had the gun to fall back on. his little safety net. he is a piece of shit.Extra Medium wrote:
Again, it comes down to who initiated deadly contact first. It could have simply ended as a street brawl, but one of these two people initiated deadly force.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-25 05:06:43)
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
america, you and mexico live in barbarism. may as well flush this piece of shit down the toilet with the flood.
Pff MERICA
you are actually just below mexico in gun deaths per capita. mexico. a state undergoing a narco-war. a state living under the recurrent threat of military-level armed drug cartels. where everyday fresh bodies with gunshot wounds and mutilation wash up. US is just below that. the only states 'worse' than you guys are a bunch of warzones and central/south american countries. oh and swaziland. congratulations.Extra Medium wrote:
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
america, you and mexico live in barbarism. may as well flush this piece of shit down the toilet with the flood.
Pff MERICA
first world civilization.
weirdly enough, america also has the world's third-highest rate of suicide by firearm. you're only lower than uruguay and montenegro. and all 3 of you have twice as many gun suicides than your next competitors: the infamously suicidal and depressive finnish.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-25 05:22:29)
What an eyesore.
anyway, burn in hell zimmerman
Yeah? But we get to do this:Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you are actually just below mexico in gun deaths per capita. mexico. a state undergoing a narco-war. a state living under the recurrent threat of military-level armed drug cartels. where everyday fresh bodies with gunshot wounds and mutilation wash up. US is just below that. the only states 'worse' than you guys are a bunch of warzones and central/south american countries. oh and swaziland. congratulations.
first world civilization.
weirdly enough, america also has the world's third-highest rate of suicide by firearm. you're only lower than uruguay and montenegro. and all 3 of you have twice as many gun suicides than your next competitors: the infamously suicidal and depressive finnish.
Also, I don't think any British person has any right to criticize our gun laws as it is your country's fault we have them in the first place. Your government sucked so much dick that after we stomped your shit in the first time we wrote guns into our constitution to make sure we never have to live in a shit country like yours or under a shit government like yours ever again. We still believe this 240 years later and are willing to put up with 11,000 deaths a year of our own people so we don't have to live like you guys for a single day.
I think that speaks volumes.
lol wow. okay it's britain's fault you have 32,000 gun deaths a year, now, in 2013. rofl. funniest thing you have ever said.
do you know how many countries have found independence, or been under someone else's rule, in history? how many of them have 30,000+ gun deaths a year now? do you think they're blaming the people they got independence from, 300 years ago? lol... pure lol. there are fucking countries in africa that have found independence from the uk/france in the last 50 years, and who have less murders a year. ahahahaha.
post of the week.
do you know how many countries have found independence, or been under someone else's rule, in history? how many of them have 30,000+ gun deaths a year now? do you think they're blaming the people they got independence from, 300 years ago? lol... pure lol. there are fucking countries in africa that have found independence from the uk/france in the last 50 years, and who have less murders a year. ahahahaha.
post of the week.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-25 05:43:35)
Does it honestly look like America cares? I find it funny that foreigners are the most vocal opponents of our gun laws yet are not affected by them. Even the anti-gun movement in America is an extremely loud and extremely small minority.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
lol wow. okay it's britain's fault you have 32,000 gun deaths a year, now, in 2013. rofl. funniest thing you have ever said.
do you know how many countries have found independence, or been under someone else's rule, in history? how many of them have 30,000+ gun deaths a year now? do you think they're blaming the people they got independence from, 300 years ago? lol... pure lol. there are fucking countries in africa that have found independence from the uk/france in the last 50 years, and who have less murders a year. ahahahaha.
post of the week.
I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.
dude no one here "cares". we mostly roll our eyes at how backwards you are when it comes to guns. we think it's cute you're so passionate about killing one another... and having a political right to do so. europe looks at it rather condescendingly. we don't 'care'. we're not emotionally or principally invested in your homicide epidemic. "the most vocal opponents", lol. the only time you hear about the US gun debate in the european press/public sphere is when some critic from the states writes an article for our papers. an op-ed type thing. lots of crying americans getting paid to write for our press, like the guardian. cause of course our press is a liberal wet-dream compared to the shit you have there like fox and cnn.
have you visited europe? i don't really get people who say "i'd rather this", when they haven't experienced anything different. fair enough if you have. i'm not gonna quarrel or care. good for you.
have you visited europe? i don't really get people who say "i'd rather this", when they haven't experienced anything different. fair enough if you have. i'm not gonna quarrel or care. good for you.
If you don't care then shut up about it. So sick of foreign douche bags trying to hold that over our head like we give a shit, kind of like Christians holding the threat of hell over an atheist. We don't give a shit.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dude no one here "cares". we mostly roll our eyes at how backwards you are when it comes to guns. we think it's cute you're so passionate about killing one another... and having a political right to do so. europe looks at it rather condescendingly. we don't 'care'. we're not emotionally or principally invested in your homicide epidemic. "the most vocal opponents", lol. the only time you hear about the US gun debate in the european press/public sphere is when some critic from the states writes an article for our papers. an op-ed type thing. lots of crying americans getting paid to write for our press, like the guardian. cause of course our press is a liberal wet-dream compared to the shit you have there like fox and cnn.
have you visited europe? i don't really get people who say "i'd rather this", when they haven't experienced anything different. fair enough if you have. i'm not gonna quarrel or care. good for you.