Sabrewulf165
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
the caption under the video was my favorite part:
"Intruder Threatens Student With Bat, Student Punches Him"
"Intruder Threatens Student With Bat, Student Punches Him"
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Thief Demanding PC Gets Pummeled Instead
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
It's sad to see every post wanking over how great it would be to shoot someone and reeling off how many (unnecessary) guns you own.
Why are geek forums so awash with ITGs??
Nobody is "wanking" over how great it would be to shoot someone.
They are "wanking" over how great it is to BE ABLE TO DEFEND YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN HOME IF YOU NEED TO.
I live in America. We have a Constitution with an amendment that says we are allowed to own a firearm to defend ourselves against douchebags with ill-intent.
Also, I live in Texas (one of the states in America that is still free) so I can defend my property with deadly force (as we SHOULD be able to).
If you don't like it, fine.
Manaknight
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,446
thats the one thing that i don't get about law in this country... like you guys bring up, an intruder gets a .45 welcoming committee upon entering my house. however killing them is too easy, seriously, this isn't like sadistic or anything, i think non fatal shots teach a much greater lesson for intent to hard. If they spend their life limp from the neck down, or never walk again because their knees are missing. Thats more of a lesson learned than the body bag.
yet if that happens then you are arrested...what a great justice system.
that being said, good for this dude, though the intruder deserved a few more hits from the bat methinks.
You don't shoot to wound.
You shoot to kill.
Deadly force is to be used only when authorized. So, if you shoot someone, your goal should be to kill them.
If you shoot someone, and your aim was not to kill them, you should not have shot them.
I think this point doesn't get emphasized enough. I apologize if I am preaching to the choir.
You shoot to kill.
Deadly force is to be used only when authorized. So, if you shoot someone, your goal should be to kill them.
If you shoot someone, and your aim was not to kill them, you should not have shot them.
I think this point doesn't get emphasized enough. I apologize if I am preaching to the choir.
He'd probably have received at least half a magazine of .45ACP from me.
cocheese256
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 783
Nice reference.
If only the thief had a knife then you would have had to use another quote from the same movie series.
No. As far as the law in concerned you shoot to STOP the threat. You tell the police you shot to kill and you might find yourself in jail. Inside the home in a Castle Law state it may vary a bit, but you need to look at the precise text of the law. In Texas, you shoot to stop the threat. You aim for center mass and if they die they die. You never tell a lawyer or the police you shot to kill. Sadly the law often makes a distinction between self-defense and execution even when it applies to some douche bag who broke into your house.
Well said. All the hippies, and all the people who think "all life is sacred" are empathizing with the wrong people. Why don't they feel empathy for those who have been violated? Those who will have nightmares for years to come? Who no longer feel safe in their own home and had the things they've worked for stolen by some underserving cockbag who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us?
Your life isn't "sacred" or "precious" to the scumbag who would literally profit from your misery and your hard work.
No, you don't get arrested for that. This is somewhat of a legal fallacy. These people are almost never, if ever charged in criminal court for defending their property, their homes and their loved ones, or even themselves. Unless they have a duty to retreat law in their state that isn't going to happen. Now, the fucker that lives on the other hand can sue you in civil court and if you get a jury of pussies up their who empathize with the bad guy you get fucked. You also get raped in legal fees. Civil court charges, and lawsuits are very different from criminal prosecution. You have a legal right to defend yourself and so long as the police and the DA think everything is justified, or it's a good shoot you will not face prosecution in criminal court.
But yes, Manaknight, if your goal is to kill them, and you fail - they can sue you (our legal system seems to be broken).
That's one of the reasons I practice my shooting skills
Insurance
Actually, several states have fixed that. In Texas when you defend your home from an intruder they can NOT sue you in civil court. You are protected from criminal and civil prosecution if it was a good shoot.
its people like you thats the problem with this country. people who think its ok to use deadly force to defend PROPERTY. Give me a break. Your life is not in danger is someone in standing in your neighbors yard or stealing you TV. i think people like you have a mental defect.
fixed spelling mistakes:
its people like you thats the problem with this country. people who think its ok to use deadly force to defend PROPERTY. Give me a break. Your life is not in danger if someone in standing in your neighbors yard or stealing your TV. i think people like you have a mental defect.
its people like you thats the problem with this country. people who think its ok to use deadly force to defend PROPERTY. Give me a break. Your life is not in danger if someone in standing in your neighbors yard or stealing your TV. i think people like you have a mental defect.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
You still have mistakes.
My life is not in danger if someone is stealing my TV?
If someone enters MY home, against MY will, refuses to leave, and starts stealing my shit, I'm going to shoot them.
Next time you're getting robbed, and you are in your home, let me know how it goes.
Maybe you'll get shot and your wife will get raped. Then, you can be part of "the problem with this country."
You're an idiot. Go back to your starbucks and type on your Mac.
Yes, thank you for the clarification. As soon as I clicked the submit button, I realized my error.
I meant to add a disclaimer:
Stopping the threat usually involves killing the individual. It is difficult to stop the threat and try to NOT kill them. In other words, it's not the movies - you don't shoot someone in the leg to demobilize them. You, as you said, aim for center mass and hope for the best (them dying).
I'm going to have to side with LawGiver on this one. You are looking for excuses to kill people. You're hiding behind law books committing murder. That's what makes you deranged. You don't shoot a burglar to kill. Shoot to stop him, fine, but don't shoot solely for the purpose of seeing him dead.
You are very wrong. Very, very wrong.
You said:
"Shoot to stop him, fine, but don't shoot solely for the purpose of seeing him dead."
If you shoot someone to stop them, how do you think they are "stopped?"
Do you think it tickles?
Did I say, in any of my posts, that I would shoot someone "for the sole purpose of seeing them dead." as you said?
No.
Yes. Yes you did.
No, No I didn't.
You shoot someone to stop the threat. The sure way to stop the threat is using that deadly force to kill them.
Like Dan said, you don't say you "shoot to kill" in court. You say you "shoot to stop."
When you "shoot to stop," they may die. A good way to "stop" someone is make them bleed-out or cause a central-nervous system failure. This often results in death.
However, when you use deadly force, if you don't want them to die, you should not shoot them.
Dying is a highly possible outcome of being shot.
I apologize if my wording was incorrect or confusing.
that's a quote from a television show. don't let it get in the way of objective thought.
No. Thinking that I should let some asshole steal my property and the things I've worked for and allowing them to profit by their actions is wrong on so many levels. Also people that steal stuff do also break in and they do murder people as well as commit other unspeakable acts. You have no way of knowing if that's the case or not when they come into your house. I would rather shoot them and not take that chance. I feel my life is more valuable than the life of some theif who might also be a murderer or whatever else. I don't want to kill anyone. However, if someone breaks into my house I'll not wait to find out what their "intentions" are.
You hit the nail on the head with this.
Well if by stopping him you mean putting half a magazine of .45ACP rounds into the bastard's center mass in order to stop him then I'd agree. As for an excuse to murder, not hardly. I don't wish to kill anyone, but I'll be damned if I'll let some scumbag break into my house and let him do as he pleases. I won't give that fucker the chance to hurt anyone if I can help it.
Stop demonizing law abiding citizens for defending themselves and stop empathizing with these pieces of shit.
Also,
Do you honestly think shooting someone ONCE always "stops" them?
Depending on the psychological/physiological state of the adversary, drugs in their system, etc,
THEY MAY KEEP ON GOING.
When you shoot to stop, you are immobilizing your enemy. Immobilization from gunshot wounds and death go hand-in-hand.
Yes, there is a possibility that they might survive. HOWEVER, IF YOU WERE COUNTING ON THAT POSSIBILITY, BAD MOVE!!! YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE!!!
If you don't understand this, then please - don't own a gun for self defense. We don't need more irresponsible gun owners than there already are.
Do you honestly think shooting someone ONCE always "stops" them?
Depending on the psychological/physiological state of the adversary, drugs in their system, etc,
THEY MAY KEEP ON GOING.
When you shoot to stop, you are immobilizing your enemy. Immobilization from gunshot wounds and death go hand-in-hand.
Yes, there is a possibility that they might survive. HOWEVER, IF YOU WERE COUNTING ON THAT POSSIBILITY, BAD MOVE!!! YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE!!!
If you don't understand this, then please - don't own a gun for self defense. We don't need more irresponsible gun owners than there already are.
I'm gonna have to agree with TOOL.
Some fag comes into my place, and I ask him to leave, and he doesn't, and he starts taking my stuff?
Don't know about you guys, but:
1. I would indeed shoot to kill. My goal is not to have someone suffer, or teach them a lesson, my goal is to eliminate the problem as easily and with the least amount of stress possible. (stress being legal shit if he didn't die)
2. My job isn't to teach people lessons. That's their parents' job. Mine is to make sure first, I and my family are safe, and second, that my hard-earned stuff is safe. If that means killing a dude who won't leave after being asked, so be it.
Some fag comes into my place, and I ask him to leave, and he doesn't, and he starts taking my stuff?
Don't know about you guys, but:
1. I would indeed shoot to kill. My goal is not to have someone suffer, or teach them a lesson, my goal is to eliminate the problem as easily and with the least amount of stress possible. (stress being legal shit if he didn't die)
2. My job isn't to teach people lessons. That's their parents' job. Mine is to make sure first, I and my family are safe, and second, that my hard-earned stuff is safe. If that means killing a dude who won't leave after being asked, so be it.
Not with hand guns it doesn't.
Very true.
Generally, yes.
Most definitely. If you aren't prepared for the intruder to die as a result of gun shot wounds then you just aren't being realistic. Shooting people in the arm or the leg isn't what will actually stop them. Shooting them in the chest and reaching vital organs WILL stop the threat. Short of that you never know.
No, we don't.
Texas self defense law, FYI:
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
SPARTAN VI
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 8,762
I have to disagree. This is just backwards to me. How are people defending their property "the problem." The problem is the burglars\robbers, not the victims.
Remove the burglar\robber from the equation and you have no problem. Remove the gun from the equation and you have an empowered robber.
In the state of CA, my state of residence, I wouldn't be surprised if a burglar, robber, or other "home invader" were wounded during a crime and sued the home owner. This state is just fucked up like that.
It IS ok to use deadly force to defend property. It's in the Texas state constitution. See my last post.
This is why Texas is one of the greatest states in the U.S. We don't put up with crap, we don't punish the good guy and we do not feel sorry for people who break the law.
QFTMFT!
skiddy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,725
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
tell me where you live so I can some steal all your stuff, and oh take out all your monies from the accounts and leave that too, and if you try to stop me, ill hurt you.
This isn't going to get through to people because this thread is just a Texas circle-jerk, but anyway...
Just because your parents could afford to get you into a good college and you used your daddy's contacts to land a cushy well-paid job, doesn't mean you're entitled to shit like 60" HDTVs and $5000 stereos. Get over yourselves, robbers don't deserve to die. The wife-rape card is just scaremongering NRA propaganda bullshit.
Just because your parents could afford to get you into a good college and you used your daddy's contacts to land a cushy well-paid job, doesn't mean you're entitled to shit like 60" HDTVs and $5000 stereos. Get over yourselves, robbers don't deserve to die. The wife-rape card is just scaremongering NRA propaganda bullshit.
Let's pretend that I didn't earn my belongings. Are you seriously arguing that a thief is more entitled to them than I am? Does the victim not have any rights to his safety or belongings?
It IS ok to use deadly force to defend property. It's in the Texas state constitution. See my last post.
Indeed it is.
I wonder how many of you guys would REALLY attack a burglar. It's too easy to beat your chest and say bring it on, and when it actually happens, you'll be under your bed sucking your thumbs.
Actually, I know exactly what I'd do. My home was invaded once. I grabbed my shotgun, found the intruder and he was out the door faster than I could blink. I didn't have to fire a shot. By the time I saw the target, he was already moving out the door. I lost my shot quickly, and I went outside to see the guy running off.
I liked the Hydro-shocks in my .357Mag They made nice little shrooms!
Now I'm a fan of Golden Sabers. In .45 cal that is.
I'm a fan of the Golden Sabers. I've got 185gr. Remington Golden sabers loaded in my 1911 that I keep on the night stand.
Well rifles are a better bet for one shot kills or one shot being able to stop the intruder.
They won't sue you. As of September 1st 2007 the Castle Law is in effect here which protects you from civil prosecution. I'll shoot the guy until he stops moving. If he lives, I won't worry. If he dies then that's fine. He made his choice, and I made mine.
Bullshit. Your logic is flawed. How do you know that the guy is just in your house for a TV? How do you know when he'll stop? How do you know he's not going to slit your throat and rape your children, then take your TV? You have no idea what the bastard's intentions are. You can only be sure of one thing and that is that the fucker's intentions are NOT good. The best thing you can do is shoot him and make DAMN sure that he can't hurt you or your family. Which do you care about more? The thief, or your loved ones? I will defend my own with as much force as I feel is necessary at the time because they are more valuable to me than the life of some thieving piece of shit. People who see shooting and killing thieves, rapists, or whatever as "wrong" are the ones with the mental defect.
SPARTAN VI
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 8,762
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
What a crock of crap. All the nice things people have, they dont really deserve, because someone else bought them? WTF Houston, over
Yes robbers deserve to die.