• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Don't fight back

william said:
Wow! Would you just comply? :sneaky:
Click to expand...
You know I’ve been around some pretty rough areas but I’ve never really felt too concerned about someone breaking into my house to kill me.

Some of these places certainly had lots of guns and crime, but I learned a rule very well. “If you pull yours I will pull mine” the stakes are higher when you both have a gun.

Up to you tbh like idgaf if you shoot someone robbing you I just don’t get why it’s big on the mind.
 
The so-called Castle Doctrine is somewhat peculiar to the US, and even there it does not apply equally in all states.

Generally speaking, an intruder entering your home is not sufficient reason to use deadly force against them, and in most jurisdictions the occupants must also reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon them. Thus, if you shoot a burglar who's only there to take your stuff (as most burglars are), you still risk being prosecuted for homicide (though admittedly there are exceptions).

A minority of states permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land or property to use force to regain possession of that land or property, with Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force in this context.

Referring specifically to Canada, the situation is similar: Canadian law does, in fact, allow you to use force - up to and including deadly force - in defence of your life or peaceably possessed property, or the defence of another's life or peaceably possessed property, so long as the degree of force is reasonable in the circumstances. Note, however, that case law in Canada has unambiguously held that the use of lethal force in defence of property alone is not reasonable.
 
Btw., self-defense is arguably the most misunderstood concept in legal theory, and hardly anyone bothers to educate themselves on the subject.

In most legal systems self-defense is regarded as a "perfect defense" in the sense that it excludes culpability (i.e. when engaged in self-defense you are not committing any unlawful act) - this is opposed to necessity, where you admit to committing an unlawul act, but argue that it was necessary in order to prevent a greater harm to society (which does not exculpate you, but may shield you from punishment - aka an "imperfect defense").

Because it effectively absolves you of any wrongdoing, self-defense carries a high burden of proof. Legal systems vary, but in most cases you must show that the threat you acted against was imminent and unavoidable.
  • The threat is imminent if it is not delayed (so if someone says "I'll shoot you tomorrow", you cannot react by shooting them and claim to have acted in self-defense);
  • The threat is unavoidable if there are no other reasonable ways of mitigating it (if someone tells you "get out of here or I'll kill you", it is not an unavoidable threat, and if you then use force against them, you cannot claim to have acted in self-defense). This is where the concept of self-defense conflicts with the aforementioned castle doctrine - theoretically, you can flee your own home, thus avoiding the threat, although most jurisdictions will permit you to stand your ground in this situation.
It's all a very tricky and nuanced matter, and it pays to take a few minutes to read up on the subject - because you never know if/when you might be called upon to make such choices.
 
Socom7 said:
The so-called Castle Doctrine is somewhat peculiar to the US, and even there it does not apply equally in all states.

Generally speaking, an intruder entering your home is not sufficient reason to use deadly force against them, and in most jurisdictions the occupants must also reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon them. Thus, if you shoot a burglar who's only there to take your stuff (as most burglars are), you still risk being prosecuted for homicide (though admittedly there are exceptions).
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement. I would not shoot an intruder unless I saw a weapon. I would let them know I was armed and try to hold them there till the police arrived. If they fled, which they most likely would, I would not shoot them in the back. I do think there is allot of grey area there though. Split second decisions have to be made. I have seen allot of reports of individuals being shot reaching for a cell phone or wallet.
Socom7 said:
A minority of states permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land or property to use force to regain possession of that land or property, with Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force in this context.

Referring specifically to Canada, the situation is similar: Canadian law does, in fact, allow you to use force - up to and including deadly force - in defence of your life or peaceably possessed property, or the defence of another's life or peaceably possessed property, so long as the degree of force is reasonable in the circumstances. Note, however, that case law in Canada has unambiguously held that the use of lethal force in defence of property alone is not reasonable.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to "looters will be shot." "Horse thieves need to be hanged!" Isn't that the law of the west. (y):ROFLMAO:
 
intel-bank said:
You know I’ve been around some pretty rough areas but I’ve never really felt too concerned about someone breaking into my house to kill me.

Some of these places certainly had lots of guns and crime, but I learned a rule very well. “If you pull yours I will pull mine” the stakes are higher when you both have a gun.
Click to expand...
The trouble with that is if you wait you could be dead. The one who gets the first shot usually wins in a street gunfight.
intel-bank said:
Up to you tbh like idgaf if you shoot someone robbing you I just don’t get why it’s big on the mind.
Click to expand...
 
william said:
The trouble with that is if you wait you could be dead. The one who gets the first shot usually wins in a street gunfight.
Click to expand...
From my experience where I’ve legitimately been around things like this consistently, either nobody wins or it’s a coin flip.
 
intel-bank said:
From my experience where I’ve legitimately been around things like this consistently, either nobody wins or it’s a coin flip.
Click to expand...
How would you like to be a cop and have to make that decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom