Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[JimC]

That wasn't lawful self defence...

It was murder, and all but a handful of utterly insane Americans know it...

Sick fucks, those praising such actions...

[Blind groper]

To Gallstones

That is the most crazy, and (to quote Jim) sick fuck law I have ever seen.

Here in NZ, and I suspect, in Australia, where our laws are sane, the law permits a property owner to use "reasonable force" to evict a trespasser, but only after verbally telling him/her three times that he/she is trespassing and must leave, and if they continue to refuse to leave. Various court actions have narrowed down the definition of 'reasonable force' to the minimum required to successfully evict someone. And that most definitely does not include using a firearm.

If that action had occurred in NZ, the murderer would now be serving 20 years in prison, which is the correct result.

[Seth]

That wasn't lawful self defence...

ipso facto and de jure it was lawful self-defense. Fredenberg initiated a "confrontation" as an evidently enraged cuckold and unlawfully entered Harper's garage with enough evident intent to do bodily harm to Harper that Harper went all the way to his bedroom, retrieved his gun, and then went back to the garage and shot Fredenberg. Unless I miss my guess, Fredenberg threatened to assault Harper at some point and made an illegal entry into Harper's home. The standard appears to be much the same as Colorado, but worded more loosely. In Colorado, one who makes an "unlawful entry" which includes forcible entry, trespass and even simple mistake, with the intent to commit another crime inside that domicile (such as "I'm going to kick your ass for fucking my wife" which is clear evidence of intent to commit assault, and the individual leads the armed resident that the intruder is going to use any degree of physical force whatsoever, even in the slightest degree against ANY occupant (which means something as simple as trying to push by the homeowner to escape) then the use of deadly force is authorized.

The purpose of castle doctrine laws is to ensure the absolute right to be safe in one's own home against ANY forcible intrusion by another. The law puts the burden on the intruder to know the law ("don't break into other people's houses forcibly or you're likely to get shot dead on the spot") and avoid doing so.

It was murder, and all but a handful of utterly insane Americans know it...

Well, that lets out the legislatures of 19 states and tens of millions of people who support the Castle Doctrine.

Don't want to get dead? Don't break into other people's homes. Pretty simple really, and I have zero sympathy for anyone who can't abide by that social stricture on behavior.


Sick fucks, those praising such actions...[/quote]

[Seth]

To Gallstones

That is the most crazy, and (to quote Jim) sick fuck law I have ever seen.

Here in NZ, and I suspect, in Australia, where our laws are sane, the law permits a property owner to use "reasonable force" to evict a trespasser, but only after verbally telling him/her three times that he/she is trespassing and must leave, and if they continue to refuse to leave. Various court actions have narrowed down the definition of 'reasonable force' to the minimum required to successfully evict someone. And that most definitely does not include using a firearm.

If that action had occurred in NZ, the murderer would now be serving 20 years in prison, which is the correct result.

Only because you're all fucking pansies and cowards and you let your government victimize you by making it illegal to use lethal force in defense of your home. Criminals who break into people's homes do tremendous damage even if they take nothing and do nothing. It destroys the feeling of security in the occupants and victimizes them for years and years after the fact. My mother suffered from such stress and fear after she came home and interrupted three juvenile burglars in the act one day.

She, and everyone else has a fundamental right to be absolutely safe and secure in their own homes (their castles) and NO ONE has any right whatsoever to unlawfully enter someone's home particularly by force, and those that do need to get suddenly and violently dead as an example and lesson to other cocksuckers who think it's fun to terrorize people in their own homes.

I want to hear you bloviate after some thug has broken into your house in the middle of the night, beat you down, tied you to a chair and raped your wife and daughter repeatedly in front of you before laughing in your face as he cuts their throats and leaves you to suffer the consequences of your pussy government and it's criminal-coddling ways.

It's easy to talk when you haven't had your home invaded.

[Blind groper]

Actually, I had an almost exactly equivalent
A situation two years ago. A nasty person with a grudge stormed down onto my porch and began yelling at me, including threats. I got my wife to call the cops while I confronted the asshole. I ended by telling him 3 times he was tresspassing, and to leave. Then I grabbed him. Spun him around and pushed him up the driveway. He was so shocked that he left.

Only idiots believe guns are needed in simple situations like that. No wonder the US has such a high murder rate!

[Seth]

Actually, I had an almost exactly equivalent
A situation two years ago. A nasty person with a grudge stormed down onto my porch and began yelling at me, including threats. I got my wife to call the cops while I confronted the asshole. I ended by telling him 3 times he was tresspassing, and to leave. Then I grabbed him. Spun him around and pushed him up the driveway. He was so shocked that he left.

Only idiots believe guns are needed in simple situations like that. No wonder the US has such a high murder rate!

And if he'd pulled a knife and opened your throat, would that be a "simple situation" too? That's the problem with your reasoning, you really don't understand just how quickly a "simple situation" like a shouting confrontation can turn into a deadly attack using a weapon you didn't know the intruder had. Two seconds or less. You let this person get close enough to you to stab you in the guts or shove a knife into your throat before you are physically able to react. Only the purely random fact that this person was not intent on killing you saved your life.

I never would have let anyone in a rage get within 20 feet of me before I draw my pistol and tell them to back off. That's because, as every police officer in the US knows, inside of 15 feet a suspect with a knife can rush you and kill you before you can draw, fire and stop him. Once they are within 15 feet, you have less than two seconds to react, and if you're taking on a knife from that range you need to focus on avoiding the blade, blocking, moving and opening the distance and direction of attack so you get time to draw and fire effectively.

In your example I'd have gone inside and locked the door if I saw him coming and prepared for armed response if he broke in. Then, and only then would I have called the police. Getting into confrontations on your front porch is stupid and dangerous.

Using a handgun as a deterrent in this way is one of its most useful functions. In most cases, used in that way one never need discharge the firearm because the assailant knows you have superior force at your command and will retreat or break off the attack, and you also have the drop on them even if they too have a firearm in their belt, which gives you a substantial tactical advantage.

You continue to conflate the presentation of a firearm to thwart or stop an attack with the actual use of deadly force by shooting the attacker. One is not inevitably the other. Indeed, the majority of incidents involving the lawful use of firearms in self defense don't involve any shots being fired. That's been my experience too.

If, when the attacker in the scenario starts to kick in the door, you were to pick up your handgun, take a defensive position while your wife and daughter respond in a pre-planned and practiced retreat response, it's highly likely that the assailant, being faced with an armed, determined homeowner that he can't get to quickly enough, will turn and run. And if he doesn't, you'd be perfectly justified in shooting him if you see that he's armed with a knife.

That's called "strategy and tactics for armed encounters" and everyone should have a well-thought-out plan of action that they practice regularly, whether they have a gun or not, for such situations, just as you would (if you're smart) have a fire emergency escape plan that you've prepared for and practiced.

[Blind groper]

Seth

In spite of your statement that most confrontations do not involve a shooting, there are 8,000 hand gun murders each year in the USA, plus 100,000 people who get a bullet through part of their anatomy. These facts demonstrate clearly that those guns you love do enormous harm.

Maybe there are some people who use guns in self defense purely for threat. But there are a hell of a lot of gun owners who shoot and kill. Not only that, but you and Gallstones have used these threads to express your support for the despicable murderers who shoot and kill when there is no need to. That last example of a guy who went into another man's garage to confront him with the fact that he had been bonking his wife - did so unarmed, and did not attack the guy physically. Yet the man whom was confronted went and got a gun and shot down the unarmed man. That was a despicable murder, and that guy should be in prison for life - not supported by fellow gun nutters. You and Gallstones should be deeply ashamed of supporting the actions of an asshole like that.

[rainbow]

It's easy to talk when you haven't had your home invaded.

Absolutely.
This hardly ever happens in civilised countries. Why don't you move to one?

[JimC]

Paranoia, xenophobia, selfishness, and irrational worship of the mystical "Amendment"...

A bizarre set of symptoms found in a small segment of an otherwise modern culture...

Interesting...

[Jason]

Faku

If you find a problem with data, or rational thinking, in my posts, I am happy to hear from you.
When your comments, like that in the previous post, tell me nothing, then you are posting crap.

I do find problems, but my response was uncalled for. I've been under mounting stress for the last couple months and I lashed out. I apologize.

[Blind groper]

Faku

A very gracious apology. Thank you. That gives me more respect for you.

[Gallstones]

Paranoia, xenophobia, selfishness, and irrational worship of the mystical "Amendment"...

A bizarre set of symptoms found in a small segment of an otherwise modern culture...

Interesting...

Please link to your diagnostic credentials so we can verify that you are speaking from a position of knowledge and not just yanking lazyboy opinions out your ass.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Paranoia, xenophobia, selfishness, and irrational worship of the mystical "Amendment"...

A bizarre set of symptoms found in a small segment of an otherwise modern culture...

Interesting...

Please link to your diagnostic credentials so we can verify that you are speaking from a position of knowledge and not just yanking lazyboy opinions out your ass.

Unless the rest of you?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This man "bravely" shot a Chihuahua in "self defense".

[Blind groper]

To Gawdzilla

That story is obviously a lie. We know that because the Great Gun Guru, Seth, tells us that concealed carry people never use their guns irresponsibly.