Hero dad under the gun

[Dis]

in case it wasn't obvious about my first post, well you get the picture.


Well the guy did move towards him (allegedly), so I can see firing in that situation. But if he made no hostile action, I would never shoot anyone.

[Alexander's Horse]

You can only shoot a burglar here if your life is threatened by the burglar. The onus is on you to prove it. You also have to prove that you didn't have the weapon ready - that shows pre meditation to shoot intruders, which is a big no, no.

There's a principle called reasonable force involved. Basically protecting property is not seen as a defensible reason to endanger human life, including that of a burglar.

Same goes with trespass. You can't shoot trespassers. Police here can't even arrest them unless they can prove they were up to no good (or so my neighbour, a policeman, was telling me). They can ask a trespasser to move on and arrrest them if they disobey but not if they obey. This is a big problem for our police.

[Az]

Can I say "freeze or I shoot", and then shoot him, like the police do?

[David Floyd]

I will make my token statement renouncing guns, but pragmatically accepting that attempting to remove them from our society is an impossibilty for the time being.

But without his gun, the victim might have been robbed, or even hurt. Unacceptable.

AH,

You can only shoot a burglar here if your life is threatened by the burglar. The onus is on you to prove it. You also have to prove that you didn't have the weapon ready - that shows pre meditation to shoot intruders, which is a big no, no.

Untrue. The mere fact that the burglar is in your house provides an implied threat to your life/safety. Maybe in Australia that's the case, but that's a silly law.

Further, the law can't tell you where to have your gun in your own house. If you want to wear a shoulder holster while watching TV, and someone happens to break in, and you calmly pull out your handgun and cap his ass, you're not gonna get charged. At least not here in Texas.

Basically protecting property is not seen as a defensible reason to endanger human life, including that of a burglar.

If the burglar is in your house, it is. You can also shoot someone to prevent, say, a carjacking.

[Dis]

err laws in the U.S. may be different than laws in Australia there AH

I do think you can shoot someone who is on your property if they are breaking and entering. Hell in some states you can shoot them even if they are just tresspassing.

[David Floyd]

I do think you can shoot someone who is on your property if they are breaking and entering.

Sure. Why couldn't you?

Never heard of shooting someone for trespassing, though.

[Az]

This is a hard decision for me. I am not sure, yet, about what would morally be the best law for such a case.

[David Floyd]

I don't understand the moral dilemma. A man protects his home and family the only way he reasonably can, against someone who is going to rob and maybe even kill him.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Dis]

Anybody know the laws about using mace?

I recently got some pepper spray. I bought that for my vehicle. Because I don't carry my gun in my vehicle. It's too dangerous. I may use faulty judgement and might not get a clean shoot. And I could end up going to prison.

but I've heard about criminals suing people for using mace on them. And I hear that mace/pepper spray is illegal. Don't aske me why. You would think it would be much more acceptable than shooting someone.

In any case, if this guy had mace, he could have used that on the burglar instead of shooting him.

I would make a seperate thread, but I can't make any more threads today.

[David Floyd]

Don't know the story on mace, but morally speaking, I don't see any problem at all with it. Practically, though, I'd rather just blow the guy away - much safer for you to do that.

[DRoseDARs]

In Nevada it is illegal to carry mace (not certain about pepper spray, which is different I've learned...no, not from experiance ). A lady friend of mine was sexually assulted in her youth. It was a violent attack that left her needing facial reconstructive surgery (you'd never know it by the looks of it unless she told you). She has a special permit from the police (or court?) that allows her to legally own and carry mace with her in public.

[Ned]

They ought to prosecute him and he ought to take this case to the US Supreme Court to see whether the NY Law banning gun ownership is unconstitutional. I'd rather have a real case like this before the court rather than some trumped-up test case that has no real life consequences.

[Sikander]

Your friend would be better off with a gun than the mace. The problem with pain based weaponry and techniques is that the most dangerous types of criminal often are not fazed at all by a little pain. You have to attack their ability to function directly, as your threat of pain is no threat at all to the lunatic who is already feeling no pain.

Interestingly the police manage to kill several people a year around here by misusing pepper spray routinely. They seem to have a real hard time with anything less than lethal force, like using strangleholds. I have seen many people strangled to unconsciousness in my life, and none of them ended up needing medical attention, but train the police to use the technique (as was done in California) and they'll pile up an impressive body count within the year.

[Dis]

kind of funny how carrying a gun in my vehicle would be legal, but mace is not.

I wonder what the difference between mace and pepper spray. Well I bought the pepper spray at a local store here, so I'd imagine it is legal.

and yes it is largely inneffective against some criminals that are high on somethine, or just planed crazed. I hope to not run into one of those.

[MRT144]

so arabs SHOULD be allowed to shoot israelis in defence of their land.