BF2S Forums As in, is it OK for a private citizen to shoot a criminal?

I don't think it's actually justifiable - except maybe death sentence - but I don't count that as homicide.

-konfusion

Last edited by konfusion (2007-05-17 11:33:27)

Mushroomcar wrote:

What, someone steals your tv..
Does he deserve to die for that?
Isn't this going to far?..

You break into my house.  Endanger my family.  Hell yeah, you're dead.

Last edited by Ilocano (2007-05-17 12:42:04)

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

Name one other country in the World that suffers from college massacres? Or Mass murders? on the scale that the US does?

Having difficulty finding other countries? I though you would....

Let's see.... Rwanda, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Columbia, Equador... the list goes on and on. The difference is that we have a free media here. They report on it like it's the second coming of Christ himself. It's news, and it makes the news divisions lots of money. The "scale" of the US is actually pretty small. The shootings that happen here are random, isolated incidents that, while tragic, are not necessarily indicative of a larger problem.

It's just that they happen so infrequently that when it does happen, it's news.

We don't have paramilitary orgainzations or rebel groups that slaughter whole villages. We don't have suicide bombers that we worry about on a daily basis. We DO have nutjobs that every decade or so flip out and kill.

Again, it's tragic. But it's also rare. It's the exception, not the rule. Now, college shootings are mainly confined to the US, as far as I know. We have 2 big ones in the history of our higher education, Texas and Virgina Tech. To be fair, we also have WAY more colleges than any other country. Hell, I saw a statistic the other day that says that the US, at any given time in the last 50 years, has more college students than the rest of the world combined. Now, given that many, many students come here from other countries to study, this is still an interesting statistic.

topal63 wrote:

^^^ I also think it is hard to establish a base for it being "a statistic" based soley upon 2 events. It seems a bit too random to try an extrapolate, as a phenomenon, it being something worthy of being called statistical; or a statistic.

I agree completely. I don't know that it's that we have that many more shootings here, as much as our dirty laundry gets aired on the world stage, while that of other countries gets swept under the rug.

Pubic wrote:

konfusion wrote:

I don't think it's actually justifiable - except maybe death sentence - but I don't count that as homicide.

-konfusion

Some guy breaks into your house, hes tweaking, holding a samurai sword and is about to stab your sleeping significant other...you have a pistol nearby, you know you can shoot the guy and save the love of your life...you're supposed to let him do it????

Here is in the States, a burglar can sue you for shooting him or breaking his leg while trying to get away.  Only solution, make sure to kill him so it'll only be your word against his "silent" word...

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, there is.  A person has the right to defend themselves reasonably if they are in what could reasonably be considered danger, and if that results in the attacker dying, too bad.  What do I mean?

If someone shoves you into a wall, and you respond by shooting them 5 times in the head, it's not reasonable.

If someone's advancing on you with a knife, and you shoot them, and they happen to end up dead, it is reasonable.

If someone's attacking you in a manner that is serious (i.e. an actual attack, not rough-housing etc.) and your only way of defending yourself involves killing them.......too bad for them.

If someone's attacking you, you stop them from being a threat (i.e. knock them out) and then continue to harm them, and they die, you should have stopped.

At last, your views on this matter have been made clear to me. 100% agreement.

But what if an unarmed housebreaker falls through a skylight and impales himself on your kitchen knives?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-17 17:19:46)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, there is.  A person has the right to defend themselves reasonably if they are in what could reasonably be considered danger, and if that results in the attacker dying, too bad.  What do I mean?

If someone shoves you into a wall, and you respond by shooting them 5 times in the head, it's not reasonable.

If someone's advancing on you with a knife, and you shoot them, and they happen to end up dead, it is reasonable.

If someone's attacking you in a manner that is serious (i.e. an actual attack, not rough-housing etc.) and your only way of defending yourself involves killing them.......too bad for them.

If someone's attacking you, you stop them from being a threat (i.e. knock them out) and then continue to harm them, and they die, you should have stopped.

At last, your views on this matter have been made clear to me. 100% agreement.

But what if an unarmed housebreaker falls through a skylight and impales himself on your kitchen knives?

he would make a fortune off of you because our justice system is completely fucked...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

But what if an unarmed housebreaker falls through a skylight and impales himself on your kitchen knives?

That depends on whether you planted them there specifically to do him grievous bodily harm.

That is to say, excepting those with prescient visions, it ain't the occupants fault.

blisteringsilence wrote:

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

Name one other country in the World that suffers from college massacres? Or Mass murders? on the scale that the US does?

Having difficulty finding other countries? I though you would....

Let's see.... Rwanda, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Columbia, Equador... the list goes on and on. The difference is that we have a free media here. They report on it like it's the second coming of Christ himself. It's news, and it makes the news divisions lots of money. The "scale" of the US is actually pretty small. The shootings that happen here are random, isolated incidents that, while tragic, are not necessarily indicative of a larger problem.

It's just that they happen so infrequently that when it does happen, it's news.

We don't have paramilitary orgainzations or rebel groups that slaughter whole villages. We don't have suicide bombers that we worry about on a daily basis. We DO have nutjobs that every decade or so flip out and kill.

Again, it's tragic. But it's also rare. It's the exception, not the rule. Now, college shootings are mainly confined to the US, as far as I know. We have 2 big ones in the history of our higher education, Texas and Virgina Tech. To be fair, we also have WAY more colleges than any other country. Hell, I saw a statistic the other day that says that the US, at any given time in the last 50 years, has more college students than the rest of the world combined. Now, given that many, many students come here from other countries to study, this is still an interesting statistic.

Trying to compare countries that are in near continuous civil war with a country that isn't is stupid as hell. African massacres happen because they are at WAR with each other, American massacres happen because of screwed up reasons what ever they may be.

Once you or the other guy pulls out a gun (or knife), "deadly force" is brought into the equation-i.e. there is no longer any reason to expect a person to "shoot to maim."  "Shoot to maim" is a stupid expectation IMO, not only because maiming shots are more difficult but because they could result in your demise depending on how severely you injure your attacker.

Some states require you to attempt to flee.  While this is great in a parking lot or other public place, I don't think it should apply on private property.  The common rule is if you have reasonable fear for your life (or grievous bodily harm, in some areas), you are justified to use deadly force.

edit-spelling

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-05-18 09:26:38)