In other news - drunk college student gets shot and gets persecuted for a felony?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by HTWingNut, May 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr_Mysterious

    Mr_Mysterious Like...duuuuuude

    Reputations:
    1,552
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Laws are not there to protect people, HT. They're there to keep order.

    Mr. Mysterious
     
  2. Nick

    Nick Mr.Mischief

    Reputations:
    3,799
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    151
    I disagree for the most part. Look at the "Make my day" law. It's not in place to keep order, it's in place to protect people.

    Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2
     
  3. Mr_Mysterious

    Mr_Mysterious Like...duuuuuude

    Reputations:
    1,552
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, Mr Mischief. The "Make My Day" law just happens to be a law that protects people. But it's also there to keep order :p

    Some can even argue by giving the people what they want, they are maintaining order.

    Mr. Mysterious
     
  4. Qing Dao

    Qing Dao Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    1,593
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Even if that is the case, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, that doesn't have anything to do with this issue. The castle doctrine, or "make my day" law or whatever you want to call it is there for the express purpose of protecting people in their homes. It assumes that any person inside your home who has no reason to be there is a dangerous intruder with intent to harm the people inside the home. This is correct about 99.9% of the time, but as the situation has shown us, it is not correct 100% of the time. But I still think it's better than the alternative, where homeowners can get screwed for defending themselves from home invaders. I mean, you willfully break into someone's house while they are there, you are asking for it.
     
  5. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Potato

    Reputations:
    21,578
    Messages:
    35,409
    Likes Received:
    9,867
    Trophy Points:
    931
    I know they're different but just to make the counter point to "trespassing is trespassing", which it isn't. Yes trespassing is trespassing as far as entering a home without permission, but beyond that there's obviously different circumstances that don't necessarily justify filing charges.


    So what about driving laws, seat belts, speed limits, etc? Call it keeping order, or call it protecting people it's the same thing. By keeping order you are protecting people from having an otherwise "wild west" society. Protecting people against other people from doing stupid things.

    I've had drunken college girls end up in my apartment while in college on numerous occasions, without my permission, dead of night. I guess I should have shot them too. One completely nude too. Ok that's being extreme. But the point is I don't have a gun. I see using the gun as only an extreme situation where you are clearly at risk of being seriously injured or killed. I don't have a gun, so in my situation, what would I have done? Called the cops. Get out of there. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you need to use it at the first opportunity.

    Regarding the shoplifting charge, it was dropped, found not guilty, and entering a house drunk is a far cry from shoplifting, lol.

    And I have nothing against guns at all. My uncle is an expert marksman and hunter. I believe in the right to bear arms. But I don't believe in the right to take someone's life without at least weighing in on the situation. There's been lots of cases of people shooting and killing someone when their life was at risk, yet still get charged with murder. But anyhow, I digress.
     
  6. yuio

    yuio NBR Assistive Tec. Tec.

    Reputations:
    634
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    The property owner was completely in the right.

    If I feel someone threatens the safety of my family... I'll kill them and won't think twice period. That's what that law is for, it's too allow people to protect themselves.

    using the "6 year old blah blah" is a straw man argument, that's when I would detain the child and figure out whose parents I have to call.
     
  7. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    8,057
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    7,555
    Trophy Points:
    531
    If I'm going to kill someone, I'll be thinking twice for sure.

    For the ones who think this shooting is legit, I sure hope a relative never surprises you with a visit to your house when you forget to lock the back door.

    You can't wait to pull the trigger one instant to assess the situation and distinguish between an intruder that would threaten your safety and that of a young drunk blonde female student? You are in a good position with the gun in your hand without firing. Where is everyone's value for life beyond your family members?
     
  8. Convel

    Convel Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    951
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    917
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Same here. Just because you have the law on your side doesn't mean you should shoot someone when there are other ways to handle the situation. If you've decided to shoot someone it should be because you thought it was your absolute last resort, not simply because you were able to.
     
  9. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Potato

    Reputations:
    21,578
    Messages:
    35,409
    Likes Received:
    9,867
    Trophy Points:
    931
    You clearly didn't read anything I posted. That "6 year old" was about the "trespassing is trespassing" so you can shoot anyone that enters argument. Straw man or not, it presents its point that well it's not really ok.

    Like I said, if you have a gun, for one it shouldn't be loaded, so you have plenty of time to get the bullets, assemble your gun, and then shoot the person? Why not call the cops in the meantime? What would you do if you didn't have a gun?

    I have two little kids. Of course I'd do whatever I had to to protect my kids, but unless I was just attacked out of the blue, I'd at least have an idea what's going on and get the heck out of there, call the cops, whatever. If me or my kids were clearly in danger I'd attack, beat with a lamp, baseball bat, knife, whatever. But that sure as hell wouldn't be my first thought to confront whomever was in my house. It would be to get the heck out of there.

    And the fact that the girl is shot already, I think the lesson is learned. And in the hip? If you're that bad of a shot then maybe you shouldn't own a gun. You don't shoot to maim, you shoot to kill if your life is really in danger which means chest or head. Hip is a long ways away.

    But whatever, shoot away. It's sad to see people shot for no reason these days, this just adds fuel to the fire...
     
  10. Tsunade_Hime

    Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow

    Reputations:
    5,413
    Messages:
    10,722
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Trophy Points:
    581
    The whole point is, if someone breaks into your home, you have no idea who they are. They could be a serial killer for all you know. It doesn't matter if they are drunk or not, breaking the law is breaking the law. Maybe they shouldn't have shot her, but I don't think it is too out of order.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page