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

Parker wrote:

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

I still can't get over the fact at how lax American Firearms laws are? I know its your 2nd amendment "right" to be able to arm yourself but come on think about how paranoid does a nation have to be to have an LAW stating that citizens have the RIGHT to bear arms?

Thats just my opinion. Here in South Africa we have extremely stringent firearm laws in fact if you shoot a robber in your house that is not armed with a firearm you are most likely going to be charged with Manslaughter it happens here all the time! The robber gets killed and the shooter get hauled off to jail.

I know many would disagree with this sentiment but it places more responsibility in the hands of firearm holders prevents trigger happy people! And I would say that 7/10 times there is an armed robbery the person with the firearm who thought he was GI Joe gets p00ned ! And then there is another Firearm on the streets ! woopeeee!

Ok taken in context we have a lot of illegal firearms in South Africa and most of them are your Automatic AK-47 they came across the boarder from all the civil wars in Africa now that there is peace the weapons are being sold to criminals hell you can pick up a AK-47 on the black market for R500.00 thats just under $67.00

And a 9mm Semi-Auto Berta (Police issue) costs about R150.00 thats about $20.00 some of the gun runners even rent out their 9mm for the day!

I'd hate to think of the madness in this country if every citizen had the right to bear arms?

I have a question to post to everyone thats is pro lax gun laws in the states...

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....

first, you dont talk about our constitution as "Rights". we were born here, those are our fucking rights, you dont like it? kiss my ass.

do you think all the gun runners would like for civilians to arm themselves to defend against cheap kalishnikovs and out dated handguns?


anyway........

??? Sorry ????

and a gun is a gun ! weather its made in the 70's or 00's its going to fire a round and kill you... Keep your carbine! I'll take a working kalishnikov over a M16 any day they last longer and are hardier! the Freedom Fighters weapon of choice!!!! If it shoots it kills simple or do you need a new shinny Glok... yeah those defiantly kill better than other guns ? DUH ! a gun is a gun !

But people refer to "rights" as many different things I'm not arguing that fact whats in your constitution and that you don't have the rights to bear arms. Like you said its "your" country after all. I'm not arguing the fact I personally find it strange thats all.

I'm not disputing that fact that you shouldn't have the right its what your "fore fathers" decided when the constitution was drawn up which was when by the way 1787? It is the oldest written national constitution of its type still in effect in the world! Doesn't that mean its a bit out dated? (not intended to offend just think about how the world has changed should countries move with the times?)

No one has answered my question about the mass murders? oh wait....  run out of ammo or something?

Africa has plenty of problems believe you me and I'm not blind to that but Europeans/Americans you guys really don't understand the African mentality and its a mind set unfortunately rival (tribes) and or ethnic groups have some serious history of bad blood between groups.

We all know there is genocide\Mass migration due to waring factions and tribes going on in Africa on a daily basis. Its also about control and power ever since Europeans left Africa to its own devices (for the better)
The rural mentality took over and then it was a question of grabbing power and maintaining it no matter what the costs. (this stems from educational deprivation)

I'm not blind to the fact the we have serious issues here and one day eventually we will have everything sorted. Yet with the black market arms trade and the readily available weapons we still haven't had schooling massacres and mass murders...

Last edited by |BFC|Icenflame (2007-05-17 02:59:10)

As far as I know, self-defense has boundaries in Iceland.

I'm not really familiar with the laws (can't be arsed to look them up on the congress site to look it up.

IMO if someone tries to kill you, you got every right to defend yourself in every single way you can think of.

blisteringsilence wrote:

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

It is, when said criminal threatens the citizen's life. But then, who decides who is a criminal and who is not? And how does a citizen know, at a given time that the person he shoots is in fact a criminal in the eyes of the law? This is a very complicated scenario, and it always differs in each particular case.

I'm in favour of people being allowed to defend themselves with "reasonable force".  If someone holds a legal firearm and has to shoot someone to stop them attacking someone, then so be it.

But I do think it's an area you have to be careful in.  If someone breaks into your home, you should have a right to defend it.  But no "shoot first, questions later" style, please.  An intruder should (if at all possible) be made aware of an armed defender, and if he doesn't run, or makes a move that could be an attack, then shoot the fucker.

Luckily, here in Ireland, we don't have a huge amount of gun crime (although it's steadily rising with criminal gangs getting more heavily armed).  So far as I'm aware, you are entitled to shoot an intruder in your home if he's a threat to you or anyone else.  It's important, however, that it's obvious he wasn't retreating or anything.  If the police find someone with a shotgun blast to the chest and you tell them he was charging at you with a knife, you'll probably be alright. (Although, recent cases haven't always gone that way, unfortunately).  If the police arrive and find a guy half-way out of your window with a big hole in his back, you'll be done for murder. 

Yes, I believe a citizen should be permitted to shoot a criminal, if absolutely necessary, and the laws I live under seem to more or less support that stance.  More or less...

I answered YES, because some states have the death penalty. That's legal (based upon law). It's based upon knowledge (a best effort determination of guilt). Therefore it is a premeditated killing; a legally justified homicide.

Bubbalo wrote:

He asked if it's OK, not if it's legal.

And I gave an instance where it is OK, and legal. You know someone is a killer and you put them down premeditated. We kill them. How much more direct of an answer can there be than that. (I am not arguing the flaws inherent to the system, or inherent to laws surrounding the death penalty, nor am I interested in arguing the mistakes made within the current legal system, here in the US). Ending another life in this manner is a premeditated killing.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-17 09:04:17)

Touchy subject... I've been debating this with my father for a few weeks now.  He bounces back and forth between wanted to buy a .357 and not.  The latest round is not.

Guns complicate issues.  A lot.  How often does someone go around into a random house and kill people.  Not often.  The chances that you'll need your firearm for protection are small.  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and says "Give me your wallet and have your wife give me a blowjob."  Even if I am carrying a handgun, I'd turn to my wife and say "Do that thing to him that I really like.." as I hand over my wallet.  I don't want to risk pulling out that handgun and tossing the dice on who gets off the first shot that hits.

In other words, yes there is justifiable homicide, but I don't think it is common enough to worry about..  an average of about 225 cases per year... a 0.00000075% chance of it happening (225/three hundred million people in USA).  Lets say double that for the situations where the criminal is wounded and not killed... so 0.0000015% and lets say triple that where the gun is pulled and the situation is over just like that.  0.0000045%... if you STILL think you are going to be able to use that gun to protect yourself or someone else, go buy a lotto ticket too...

Now this assumes private citizens.  This does not assume law enforcement which is probably much higher.

Last edited by Rosebudteg (2007-05-17 09:19:19)

Bubbalo wrote:

Yeah, but the way you said it was:

"Yes, because the law says it's OK under these circumstances"

Which assumes the laws are always right, something I think everybody here disagrees with.

No assumption of absolute perfect certainty here. We all know complete prefect certainty can't be guaranteed within the knowledge of guilt, in every instance (of an heinous act), and error cannot be removed from the human created system of law. I think there is lot of error inherent to the system.

Also, there is blur (not a clear line) when killing becomes homicide vs being self-defense. Just as wrong as it is to kill an innocent man within the current death-penalty system. It would be just as wrong for me to kill a suspect rapist and it turn out: I was wrong. Does my ignorance excuse my action?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-17 09:24:00)

if there is an imminent threat of life or great bodily harm,  shoot to stop the threat.  policy and way of life.  the safe zone with a person with a knife is 21ft.  a person doesn't have good intentions if he is coming at you wielding and knife and will not listen to commands.  stealing a t.v. no.  breaking into my housing armed and walking into my childs room?   you betch ya.

CameronPoe wrote:

Self defence - shoot to maim though at least, rather than kill. Righteous war.

Alrighty, this is a good starting place. Cameron, I don't know how much firearms training you have, but I need you to explain this to me. How, exactly, can you shoot to maim? Every firearms training class I have ever attended has emphasized that there is no such thing as shoot to maim. If a situation is serious enough to use DEADLY FORCE (ie, a firearm) you shoot to kill. You shoot for center mass.

Not to mention, if you shoot to maim, what happens if you miss? Center mass is a much bigger target than someon's leg.

MrE`158 wrote:

I'm in favour of people being allowed to defend themselves with "reasonable force".  If someone holds a legal firearm and has to shoot someone to stop them attacking someone, then so be it.

But I do think it's an area you have to be careful in.  If someone breaks into your home, you should have a right to defend it.  But no "shoot first, questions later" style, please.  An intruder should (if at all possible) be made aware of an armed defender, and if he doesn't run, or makes a move that could be an attack, then shoot the fucker.

Yes, I believe a citizen should be permitted to shoot a criminal, if absolutely necessary, and the laws I live under seem to more or less support that stance.  More or less...

I have a couple of problems I'd like to discuss with you. First and foremost, the concept of reasonable force doesn't exist in US law with regards to to civillians.

When you talk about an intruder breaking into a house, that's where I have a big issue. You say that you should identify yourself to the intruder as being armed and give him the opportunity to flee. I don't understand why. If someone is in your house going bump in the night, why would you give him the opportunity to shoot you? Why would you identify yourself at all? If you have the drop on him, and can resolve the situation with complete safety (to yourself, which is all that matters), why wouldn't you take advantage of that?

Rosebudteg wrote:

Guns complicate issues.  A lot.  How often does someone go around into a random house and kill people.  Not often.  The chances that you'll need your firearm for protection are small.  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and says "Give me your wallet and have your wife give me a blowjob."  Even if I am carrying a handgun, I'd turn to my wife and say "Do that thing to him that I really like.." as I hand over my wallet.  I don't want to risk pulling out that handgun and tossing the dice on who gets off the first shot that hits.

In other words, yes there is justifiable homicide, but I don't think it is common enough to worry about..  an average of about 225 cases per year... a 0.00000075% chance of it happening (225/three hundred million people in USA).  Lets say double that for the situations where the criminal is wounded and not killed... so 0.0000015% and lets say triple that where the gun is pulled and the situation is over just like that.  0.0000045%... if you STILL think you are going to be able to use that gun to protect yourself or someone else, go buy a lotto ticket too...

Now this assumes private citizens.  This does not assume law enforcement which is probably much higher.

First, on your quote about tossing the dice. Train. TRAIN. Everyday for a week. Then every two for a month. Go to classes. Keep shooting until you can shoot the Marine pistol course as expert with both hands. Fire that weapon until your hands are bruised.

Why?

I'll tell you. I don't feel like I'm tossing the dice if I pull my weapon. I know where my first shot is going to his before my weapon leaves my holster. Shooting is a reflex action, and the more you do it, the better at it you will get.

Now, on to your averages. For every person who is shot and killed in the US, about 20 are shot and survive. That's mainly due to our superior medical care, but whatever. So, that would alter your statistics from 225 a year to 4725 a year (225 killed and 4500 that survive). If you look at that data as compared to population, sure, it't not a big percentage. But, neither is homicide as a whole.

Moreover, the defensive use of a handgun is not a lotto ticket. The crime rate is not equal in all neighborhoods across the US. I know a DCFS caseworker who works in the ghetto in Little Rock, who has pulled her carry piece more than 40 times for defense. She hasn't had to shoot anyone yet, thank god, but she won't go about her duties without her weapon.

aardfrith wrote:

Is it OK for a private citizen to shoot a criminal?  Well in the United States, you've got these things called trials, juries and the law.  We've got them in the UK, though ours have a little more history and experience behind them.  It's for a trial by twelve men, good and true, to determine whether someone is a criminal, not for private citizens.  If you see a crime being committed, you may not have the full facts at your grasp.  If you shoot someone who's brandishing a weapon at another person, how do you know they are not just defending themselves?

OK, I don't know what kind of wild west vigilante justice scenes you have flying through your head, but I think you're a little confused about the definition of a justifiable homicide.

I'm not talking about citizens stalking the streets, shooting down suspected criminals. I'm talking about a 24 year old woman who lives alone shooting a man that comes into her apartment. I'm talking about a 41 year old man shooting the man who broke into his house. I'm talking about the bystander at the convienence store robbery who shoots the man pointing a gun at the clerk's head.

Now, I am of the opinion that I have the right to defend myself and others from hostile action. Anywhere, anytime. That's what we're discussing here.

topal63 wrote:

Also, there is blur (not a clear line) when killing becomes homicide vs being self-defense. Just as wrong as it is to kill an innocent man within the current death-penalty system. It would be just as wrong for me to kill a suspect rapist and it turn out: I was wrong. Does my ignorance excuse my action?

I would argue it depends on the circumstances. You shot a man you thought was a rapist. Where did you shoot him? Your daughter's bedroom? Your front yard? Some random alley? Again, I'm not advocating vigilante justice. But, I do believe that if you are walking down an alley, and see a man raping a girl, you should have the right to shoot him, in order to defend her.

krazed wrote:

k so lets say you have a concealed weapon on you and you're walking down the street at night, someone comes at you with a knife, you:
a) try to run away with a high likelyhood of them catching up and wounding/killing you
b) try to fight them off with the same outcome as above
c) tell them they're a naughty criminal and to wait right there while you call the police
d) pull your gun on them and give them the opportunity to either leave or die, they lunge you then yes, you're allowed to shoot them

granted the criminal may just go and get a gun (illegaly, duh) and just shoot the next person first with no risk.
or he might say fuck this, im too likely to get shot, how many people around them have guns too


i guess my point is, if either yours or someone elses life is in danger, the criminals life takes a lower priority.

that being said, i support the law that requires you to at least give them the option of fleeing. i.e. not shooting them in the back, or shooting someone at distance when they have no way to actualy harm you yet

agreed

if i unholster my weapon i have every intention of using it, im not gonna say shit, if they see it and run good for them (im not going to jail on murder charges for shooting some asshole in the back), if they keep coming, well, ill turn their ass into swiss cheese.