Criminals Get Their Comeuppance

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no problem with guns. I just personally don't want one. I do believe that self defense should be entertaining. One reason I want a taser. The idea of leaving someone twitching and foaming at the mouth is very appealing. If I can make them start to smoke it would just add to the fun.:D
 
dawntreader said:
I have no problem with guns. I just personally don't want one. I do believe that self defense should be entertaining. One reason I want a taser. The idea of leaving someone twitching and foaming at the mouth is very appealing. If I can make them start to smoke it would just add to the fun.:D
Click to expand...
If they start to smoke they're probably dead.
 
dawntreader said:
I have no problem with guns. I just personally don't want one. I do believe that self defense should be entertaining. One reason I want a taser. The idea of leaving someone twitching and foaming at the mouth is very appealing. If I can make them start to smoke it would just add to the fun.:D
Click to expand...

:eek: And i thought I was evil.....:p
 
It's fair to defend youself, but to suggest someone should shoot-to-kill solely to avoid a lawsuit is bad. Even if you can get away with it, to kill someone unnecessarily is murder.
 
PattyMan2001 said:
It varys in the states, basicly Hit-or-miss. In California, I dont care how in the right you were, you can expect a lawsuit from ither the criminal who robbed you if he lived, or if he died, his family will deffinatly sue you, and they may win, wouldnt be the first time....And you can expect a local DA to concider if any criminal charges can be filed.
Click to expand...

Um...not true. My dad's boss is an example. Some guy was talking to to the boss, but the boss did not realise it was to him. My dad's boss's son in law (I think that is what he was) was walking into the house. The guy started chasing him to the house. The son in law went into the house and locked the door. The guy broke down the door and started to assualt the son in law. The boss heard what was happening took out his pistol (he was a past air force pilot). He told the guy to stop it. The guy went for the boss. The boss shot him in the head and the bullet continued through the wall. Barley missing his 4 year old granddaughter. The police came took the dead guy away. They told the boss he did the right thing, and there was no other option. He was not sued. If the boss wounded the guy... the boss would have died.
 
As a fellow Aussie, I have to say our system sucks and the politicians suck ever harder
Some of the American policies have merit and could work here if only those in government wake and get some serious work done
 
QuailPilot said:
Um...not true. My dad's boss is an example. Some guy was talking to to the boss, but the boss did not realise it was to him. My dad's boss's son in law (I think that is what he was) was walking into the house. The guy started chasing him to the house. The son in law went into the house and locked the door. The guy broke down the door and started to assualt the son in law. The boss heard what was happening took out his pistol (he was a past air force pilot). He told the guy to stop it. The guy went for the boss. The boss shot him in the head and the bullet continued through the wall. Barley missing his 4 year old granddaughter. The police came took the dead guy away. They told the boss he did the right thing, and there was no other option. He was not sued. If the boss wounded the guy... the boss would have died.
Click to expand...

Umm Yes true, that just means he gut lucky. The PD would have filed a report, a local DA would have looked at it, and decided not to prosacute. Unless the guy that rushed your dads boss had a gun or a knife, thats use of exsesive force, Ergo, NOT self defence. Self Defence means using equal or lesser force, so I'll say it again, he got lucky, plain and simple. And he was further lucky that the familey didnt sue, seeing his over use of force, almost anybody could make a rather convinceing case for wrongfull death.
 
PattyMan2001 said:
And he was further lucky that the familey didnt sue, seeing his over use of force, almost anybody could make a rather convinceing case for wrongfull death.
Click to expand...

Overuse of force in YOUR opinion. And yes, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. But any judge worth his robes would throw the case out on the grounds that if the perp had not been engaged in criminal activity, he'd be with us today.

We gotta start getting tough on criminals in these instances, whereby we reserve our compassion for those not outside the law, throwing out those lawsuits as baseless considering that engaging in criminal activity could result in death, and oh by the way too bad if it does.

Basically, we should take the attitude that unlawful activity will not be rewarded in any way. My $.02.:D
 
PattyMan2001 said:
NOT self defence. Self Defence means using equal or lesser force...
Click to expand...

I'd say that a decent gun is pretty much the biggest equalizer there is. I'd also be willing to argue that the size and threat level of the opponent is a pretty big factor to consider. If you're a pretty small guy being attacked by a large fella then there's serious chance that he could kill you...whether he's armed or not. Just because the other guy doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he doesn't present the risk of fatal injury. I believe the standard question in regard to whether something is self defense or not is, "Were you in fear for your life?" If the answer is yes then generally (obviously the accompanying facts would have to agree with that assessment) you will be acquitted...yes, even in California.
 
The guy that assualted the boss was a proffessonal martial artist. (I forgot to mention that he punched through the roof of the car. He did that because boss did not know he was talking to him.)
 
QuailPilot said:
The guy that assualted the boss was a proffessonal martial artist. (I forgot to mention that he punched through the roof of the car. He did that because boss did not know he was talking to him.)
Click to expand...

Ahhh See now you didnt say that, your above post made it seem like just two average guys, in which case I would have been right. Changes EVERYTHING. Unless thats just an exageration, would'nt suprise me, this is the net after all, no way to check up on your little story, No offence intended, but I just dont buy it.

t.c.cgi said:
That's a rather strange notion. I'm certainly glad it doesn't work like that here
Click to expand...

You may want to check your local laws, according to most states thats the deffination of Self Defence, is useing equal or lesser force then is used aginst you, and only to an extent that will allow you to get away. Not KOing them or killing them. Based on what you said, somebody shoots a spit wad at you from across the room, you would concider it Self Defence to pull out a .45 and shoot at him, or run up and hit him with a baseball bat. And California is not like Florida or OK, where i live, out there Self Defence laws still apply even in your own home, You cant kill somebody unless there trying to kill you, with a knife, gun ect... California is one of the most Anti-Gun/weapon states in the union, I hated liveing thre, Soo glad I moved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top