Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The comments are great

They're going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns,"

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The comments are great

They're going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns," seems likely this will happen...

"Florida Sheriff illegally incites murder"

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"Florida Sheriff illegally incites murder" Fact check: Factually accurate

Is self defense murder now?

Originally posted by juggerman
Is self defense murder now? Fact check: No where is defence of person mentioned, just looting.

Fee fees

If someone breaks into your house the law says you have the right to defend yourself

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
If someone breaks into your house the law says you have the right to defend yourself

yes. you have the right to defend your person with lethal force. this does not apply to "defending" your possessions

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
If someone breaks into your house the law says you have the right to defend yourself Fact Check: US law The prime legal protection you may have for shooting an intruder is called the "Castle Doctrine". There is also another doctrine called "Stand Your Ground" that may provide some protection depending on the state you live in. Both of these doctrines fall under the broader umbrella of self-defense.

So is it illegal to shoot an intruder? The answer depends on whether you were acting in self-defense and whether any of these doctrines apply.

If people loot your home, you have the right to protect yourself.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
If people loot your home, you have the right to protect yourself.

however, protecting yourself ≠ protect your possessions

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
If people loot your home, you have the right to protect yourself. Fact check: correct

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
however, protecting yourself ≠ protect your possessions Fact check: Also correct

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: No where is defence of person mentioned, just looting.

Fee fees

You're defending yourself from the intruder. Robberies often turn to violence when people are home. Better safe than sorry

Originally posted by juggerman
You're defending yourself from the intruder. Robberies often turn to violence when people are home. Better safe than sorry

Fact check: correct

Originally posted by juggerman
You're defending yourself from the intruder. Robberies often turn to violence when people are home. Better safe than sorry Fact check: hypotheticalsOriginally posted by Surtur
Fact check: correct Fact check: possible Alt-right edgelord with The_Donald history

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The comments are great

They're going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns,"

It's their right to do so and denying them that right would be odd.


Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
seems likely this will happen...

It has already happened multiple times since these "protests" started. Unfortunate.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes. you have the right to defend your person with lethal force. this does not apply to "defending" your possessions

Good luck making that stick in literally any case where a mob of criminals break into homes and businesses and get shot to death. Since literally multiple cases of this exist, already, and not a single prosecution has been moved forward, it's just not going to happen.

I know you want random innocents to be harmed and their possessions taken for "reasons", but this is just going to end up with more people getting killed. You shouldn't support this.

Fact check, long double post from DDM only Voltron will read, it is his 37th Birthday.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: Also correct


Castle doctrine. Threat to person is assumed, if someone breaks into your home.

Originally posted by cdtm
Castle doctrine. Threat to person is assumed, if someone breaks into your home.

Not all states have a castle doctrine.


23 states have them:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/


But there are other laws (like "Stand your ground" that also lend themselves to these scenarios.


Edit - 2 states have a "duty to retreat" law:

Vermont
Washington D.C.


So those 2 states, you had better get out of the way and/or run. You aren't defending jack unless you have no cameras and can blindly claim they came after your person.

Originally posted by cdtm
Castle doctrine. Threat to person is assumed, if someone breaks into your home. Fact check: sort of It is important to understand the Castle Doctrine does not give the accused a license to kill or an absolute right to use deadly force. The law simply gives the accused the benefit of the doubt of using self-defense because people should feel safest in their homes and have a right to protect themselves and their families. The benefit of the doubt, however, can be taken away by the government when it can prove it is more likely than not the claimed self-defense was not justified.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not all states have a castle doctrine.


23 states have them:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/


But there are other laws (like "Stand your ground" that also lend themselves to these scenarios.


Edit - 2 states have a "duty to retreat" law:

Vermont
Washington D.C.


So those 2 states, you had better get out of the way and/or run. You aren't defending jack unless you have no cameras and can blindly claim they came after your person. Fact check: as previously stated. DDM does not read others posts.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: sort of It is important to understand the Castle Doctrine does not give the accused a license to kill or an absolute right to use deadly force. The law simply gives the accused the benefit of the doubt of using self-defense because people should feel safest in their homes and have a right to protect themselves and their families. The benefit of the doubt, however, can be taken away by the government when it can prove it is more likely than not the claimed self-defense was not justified.

The bar is likely pretty high, as people have admitted to mowing down dozens of people trying to break into their apartment in botched gang retaliations (in the sense they hit the wrong address).


I'd guess most cases that do fail the sniff test involve murders under cover of castle doctrine, with provable motives and such.


Really, if you say it was in self defense, who will say different? The other guys dead, your word against a dead mans.

Originally posted by cdtm
The bar is likely pretty high, as people have admitted to mowing down dozens of people trying to break into their apartment in botched gang retaliations (in the sense they hit the wrong address).


I'd guess most cases that do fail the sniff test involve murders under cover of castle doctrine, with provable motives and such.


Really, if you say it was in self defense, who will say different? The other guys dead, your word against a dead mans. Fact check: unless he is unarmed on the other side of the room and/or clearly running away. Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is often murder.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: unless he is unarmed on the other side of the room and/or clearly running away. Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is often murder.

Not all homicides are murders.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not all homicides are murders. Fact check: obviously not all homicides are murders

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: obviously not all homicides are murders

Argue with this guy as he seems to have a problem with what you think:

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
murder is often murder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Argue with this guy as he seems to have a problem with what you think: fact check: murder is murder, not all homicides are murder. Reading age low?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
however, protecting yourself ≠ protect your possessions

You're free to let them into your house and do god knows what to you while you're cucked and get possibly injured/killed/and your shit stolen

Originally posted by carthage
You're free to let them into your house and do god knows what to you while you're cucked and get possibly injured/killed/and your shit stolen fact check: every case has a narrative. Murder is still murder.

In defense of self hardly, and its perfectly legal in AZ providing I'm defending myself, another person, or in my home. It must suck to be useless and unable to defend yourself from criminals

Fact check: you have no idea what someone is going to do when they violently break into your house, but you know they dont have good intentions, its their life or yours.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Fact check: you have no idea what someone is going to do when they violently break into your house, but you know they dont have good intentions, its their life or yours. Fact check: you shoot them climbing out of your window from behind? Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is murder

Originally posted by carthage
You're free to let them into your house and do god knows what to you while you're cucked and get possibly injured/killed/and your shit stolen

strawman defeated!

flawless pretend victory!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: unless he is unarmed on the other side of the room and/or clearly running away. Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is often murder.


"The lights were off"

"Looked like he had a gun"



Any variations thereof which work all the time.



A guy breaks into your home, is it reasonable to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's armed, when it takes no time at all for him to kill you as you check?


Plus, a guy can kill you without coming in armed. It's not difficult, especially in a home full of dangerous objects. (Or you can do it bare handed.. Easiest thing in the world, as we've all seen.)

Originally posted by cdtm
"The lights were off"

"Looked like he had a gun"



Any variations thereof which work all the time.



A guy breaks into your home, is it reasonable to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's armed, when it takes no time at all for him to kill you as you check?


Plus, a guy can kill you without coming in armed. It's not difficult, especially in a home full of dangerous objects. (Or you can do it bare handed.. Easiest thing in the world, as we've all seen.) hypotheticals are hypothetical, murder is murder are you saying someone would be right to kill someone for stealing a TV?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
hypotheticals are hypothetical, murder is murder are you saying someone would be right to kill someone for stealing a TV?


Not at all.


But your case is also a hypothetical. I'm saying murder is pretty hard to prove, and I'm not certain the bar of proof is any higher then "He broke into my home, I feared for my life, I reacted in a panic."


What judge will go over that with a fine tooth comb? If it was me, I'd probably kill someone, not out of a desire to murder, but out of a genuine fear that I don't know what this guy wants with me and assume the worst.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
strawman defeated!

flawless pretend victory!

>tries to broadly claim "murder" across 50 states in the country with various self defense laws
>claims a strawman

Now i know why people think you're a retard

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
fact check: murder is murder, not all homicides are murder. Reading age low?

Glad you agree with me:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not all homicides are murders.



But you might want to yell at this guy for disagreeing with you:

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
... murder is often murder.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not at all.


But your case is also a hypothetical. I'm saying murder is pretty hard to prove, and I'm not certain the bar of proof is any higher then "He broke into my home, I feared for my life, I reacted in a panic."


What judge will go over that with a fine tooth comb? If it was me, I'd probably kill someone, not out of a desire to murder, but out of a genuine fear that I don't know what this guy wants with me and assume the worst. Fact check: I have no case hypotheticals are always hypothetical, wanting to murder is wanting to murder, murder is murder not all homicides are murder

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: I have no case hypotheticals are always hypothetical, wanting to murder is wanting to murder, murder is murder not all homicides are murder


No argument there.


There's a pretty obvious difference between chasing someone down as he flees from your home, and shooting a guy you find in your home in low light because for all you know, he's there to murder you, rape your wife and kids, tie them up, and burn the house down.


That second one isn't hypothetical btw, it happened. Petit case, very tragic, a doctor was the only survivor.


But yes, I agree murder is murder.

Originally posted by cdtm
No argument there.


There's a pretty obvious difference between chasing someone down as he flees from your home, and shooting a guy you find in your home in low light because for all you know, he's there to murder you, rape your wife and kids, tie them up, and burn the house down.


That second one isn't hypothetical btw, it happened. Petit case, very tragic, a doctor was the only survivor.


But yes, I agree murder is murder. O.K. so we agree, food stuff

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The comments are great

They're going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns,"



Awesome. That is the way it should be. I haven't read the rest of comments in this thread yet but no doubt there's some little crybaby b*tch ass leftists who have a problem with it.


That sheriff should be strongly praised.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Awesome. That is the way it should be. I haven't read the rest of comments in this thread yet but no doubt there's some little crybaby b*tch ass leftists who have a problem with it.


That sheriff should be strongly praised.

Some heavy duty coping is already going on. It's spectacular:

https://i.imgur.com/KwhWsOe.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hCQhnyL.jpg

Originally posted by juggerman
Is self defense murder now?


It always has been to dipshit leftists like pooty and bash.

Fact check: Dross

Originally posted by Surtur
Some heavy duty coping is already going on. It's spectacular:

https://i.imgur.com/KwhWsOe.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hCQhnyL.jpg


LoL. Yep, already preparing people to accept that lie when it happens. Typical leftists.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
If someone breaks into your house the law says you have the right to defend yourself


It's truly quite sad that this has to be explained to grown ass men.

Originally posted by carthage
In defense of self hardly, and its perfectly legal in AZ providing I'm defending myself, another person, or in my home. It must suck to be useless and unable to defend yourself from criminals



Yet, but that's the shitty UK for you lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yet, but that's the shitty UK for you lol.


*Yep*, not "yet."

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
LoL. Yep, already preparing people to accept that lie when it happens. Typical leftists.

What's pathetic is the people who buy into the "this will be racisms fault" nonsense.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The comments are great

They're going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns," That sheriff is in the adjacent county to me. He is my hero.

@Surtur: surely there won't be people stupid enough to fall for that, right? LOL.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Surtur: surely there won't be people stupid enough to fall for that, right? LOL.

The truth is the protesters will be to blame if there is a spike.

Not that I want a spike, because if there is no spike it proves all this social distancing stuff was bullshit.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: sort of It is important to understand the Castle Doctrine does not give the accused a license to kill or an absolute right to use deadly force. The law simply gives the accused the benefit of the doubt of using self-defense because people should feel safest in their homes and have a right to protect themselves and their families. The benefit of the doubt, however, can be taken away by the government when it can prove it is more likely than not the claimed self-defense was not justified.

Fact check: this is inaccurate

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your fact-free autistic screeching has been noted

If someone owns a home you are saying they can't use lethal force to protect it?

if i/family had no means of retreat, then i could indeed use lethal force.

however if i decided to not take an easy escape and use lethal force, just because i refuse to let them snatch my stuff, i could well end up in prison eating some of that ass-flavored grape jelly.

so i hope in return that YOU remember that, so that a burglary committed by someone else does not turn into a manslaughter charge for you

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i/family had no means of retreat, then i could indeed use lethal force.

however if i decided to not take an easy escape and use lethal force, just because i refuse to let them snatch my stuff, i could well end up in prison eating some of that ass-flavored grape jelly.

so i hope in return that YOU remember that, so that a burglary committed by someone else does not turn into a manslaughter charge for you

Lets just say you came home and you saw a dude about to light your home on fire. Let us say nobody else was inside.

I'd shoot to stop him, how about you?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lets just say you came home and you saw a dude about to light your home on fire. Let us say nobody else was inside.

I'd shoot to stop him, how about you?

any opportunity for a toughguy power-fantasy. eh surt?

if no lives were in danger (sparing the arsonist) i'd not engage. i would call the police

you would apparently choose the ass-flavored grape jelly

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
any opportunity for a toughguy power-fantasy. eh surt?

if no lives were in danger (sparing the arsonist) i'd not engage. i would call the police

you would apparently choose the ass-flavored grape jelly

Stop with this tough guy stuff. I'm not a scientist, but I can say with some certainty it doesn't take much strength or toughness to pull a trigger.

And if this is happening during looting and rioting the cops might not get there in time, what then?

Why are people so upset with the idea of people protecting themselves from criminals breaking into their homes?

@Bash, Oh and how do you feel about pets? A lot of people consider them part of the family.

Lethal force to protect a pet, yay or nay?

meanwhile i've witnessed you fantasy-kill to the point of holocaust

you fantasy-shot me like 3 times so far

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
meanwhile i've witnessed you fantasy-kill to the point of holocaust

you fantasy-shot me like 3 times so far

I've only said I'd shoot if people broke into my home or attacked me.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
any opportunity for a toughguy power-fantasy. eh surt?

if no lives were in danger (sparing the arsonist) i'd not engage. i would call the police

you would apparently choose the ass-flavored grape jelly

So you take the chance of losing all your possessions, being homeless? And what if the fire spreads to other homes before the firefighters shows up, and your lack of action ends up killing others?

What then?

Originally posted by SquallX
So you take the chance of losing all your possessions, being homeless? And what if the fire spreads to other homes before the firefighters shows up, and your lack of action ends up killing others?

What then?

already took action by calling the police

losing my home would be far preferable to doing b|tch-time. just my opinion.

get madder

^^fee-fees

we done?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i/family had no means of retreat, then i could indeed use lethal force.

https://i.imgur.com/rHjHLUB.gif

I am a bit shocked you'd say this based on our past conversations.

Here's your reward for impressing me:

https://i.imgur.com/WtHKdxE.jpg

https://media.giphy.com/media/qiMbLh4WHEZyw/giphy.gif

because it related to a discussion of law/crime. i don't engage in "what i would do, bro" keyboard tough-guy fantasies like you. sorry.

Originally posted by SquallX
So you take the chance of losing all your possessions, being homeless? And what if the fire spreads to other homes before the firefighters shows up, and your lack of action ends up killing others?

What then?


I don't even care about the homelessness and loss of sentimental objects so much.


I just think the "No lethal force" side is being unfair to anyone who hapoens to live in those homes being broken into, as if rational behavior is expected and demanded in such a situation.


You have no clue what's going on, who they are, why they're there. You will jump to conclusions.


Saying "Wait and see what they do", when your life is the one at risk by an unknown factor busting into your home, is not how I would react.


I'd grab the closest thing I can and fight for my life.



That's just me though.

Originally posted by cdtm

Saying "Wait and see what they do", when your life is the one at risk by an unknown factor busting into your home, is not how I would react.


pretty sure nobody argued that.

in the states, if you have a clear exit, without no other lives in the home at stake, you have to take it.

if you choose to kill unnecessarily, that could easily lead to b|tch-time.

surt for example, seems way too liberal over how he would use his firearm. if i had surt's compulsions i'd probably learn to suck dick just to prepare for the consequences. maybe practice on bananas...the big ones

Originally posted by cdtm
I don't even care about the homelessness and loss of sentimental objects so much.


I just think the "No lethal force" side is being unfair to anyone who hapoens to live in those homes being broken into, as if rational behavior is expected and demanded in such a situation.


You have no clue what's going on, who they are, why they're there. You will jump to conclusions.


Saying "Wait and see what they do", when your life is the one at risk by an unknown factor busting into your home, is not how I would react.


I'd grab the closest thing I can and fight for my life.



That's just me though.

IMO, if someone breaks into your home while you're there, it's entire reasonable and rational to assume you're in danger.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i/family had no means of retreat, then i could indeed use lethal force.

https://i.imgur.com/4lkeSKR.gif



But, no, seriously.


This is how I picture your reaction when seeing a home invader at your home:

https://i.imgur.com/CrkjGz0.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Mmly4y1.gif

https://i.imgur.com/whCTv34.gif






And this is how I picture Surtur if he sees a home invader in his home:

https://i.imgur.com/urNse25.gif

https://i.imgur.com/exyWRiK.png

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because it related to a discussion of law/crime. i don't engage in "what i would do, bro" keyboard tough-guy fantasies like you. sorry.

I'm sorry you lack the mental capacity to engage in discussion about hypothetical situations.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
in the states, if you have a clear exit, without no other lives in the home at stake, you have to take it.



No you don't. Only in two "states" do you have a duty to retreat.

Vermont and Washington DC.

23 states have a castle doctrine.


I literally just posted a link to this, earlier today, in this same thread:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not all states have a castle doctrine.


23 states have them:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/


But there are other laws (like "Stand your ground" that also lend themselves to these scenarios.


Edit - 2 states have a "duty to retreat" law:

Vermont
Washington D.C.


So those 2 states, you had better get out of the way and/or run. You aren't defending jack unless you have no cameras and can blindly claim they came after your person.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why are people so upset with the idea of people protecting themselves from criminals breaking into their homes?


Because thery're leftist pussies who'd rather run like little b*tches than protect what is theirs. They've been pussified by their leftist ideology.

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no, seriously.


This is how I picture your reaction when seeing a home invader at your home:

whatever you imagine must be true

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sorry you lack the mental capacity to engage in discussion about hypothetical situations.

don't you mean "you don't have the sac"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
https://i.imgur.com/exyWRiK.png

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://i.imgur.com/4lkeSKR.gif



But, no, seriously.


This is how I picture your reaction when seeing a home invader at your home:

https://i.imgur.com/CrkjGz0.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Mmly4y1.gif

https://i.imgur.com/whCTv34.gif






And this is how I picture Surtur if he sees a home invader in his home:

https://i.imgur.com/urNse25.gif

https://i.imgur.com/exyWRiK.png

whatever you imagine must be true

I agree. My imagination is near prophetic levels of true.

Originally posted by Surtur



euro

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because it related to a discussion of law/crime. i don't engage in "what i would do, bro" keyboard tough-guy fantasies like you. sorry.


Law doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Believe it or not even zero tolerance laws aren't unimpressed with extenuating circumstances.


A person without a license picking up a gun in defense of an officer for example.


In the case of home invasion, you said "If I can not retreat".


That works fine if it's only you. What if you live with extended family? Do you escape, call 911, and hope the kids or ailing grandparents are alright?


Do you try and get them out with you?



Murder may be murder, I agree. Maybe the law agrees its murder too.


I just know arguments like this always rely on hypotheticals in both directions, and I'm one to side with pragmatism over the law. If such law conflicted with the safety of myself, or my family.


Then you break the law and let the chips fall where they may.

Originally posted by cdtm
Law doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Believe it or not even zero tolerance laws aren't unimpressed with extenuating circumstances.


A person without a license picking up a gun in defense of an officer for example.


In the case of home invasion, you said "If I can not retreat".


That works fine if it's only you. What if you live with extended family? Do you escape, call 911, and hope the kids or ailing grandparents are alright?


Do you try and get them out with you?



Murder may be murder, I agree. Maybe the law agrees its murder too.


I just know arguments like this always rely on hypotheticals in both directions, and I'm one to side with pragmatism over the law. If such law conflicted with the safety of myself, or my family.


Then you break the law and let the chips fall where they may.

Someone brought up the argument about not doing anything about it and people die like the arsonist being caught. The time it takes the police to arrive and perhaps the fire department to arrive, perhaps his neighbors have died from smoke inhalation.

That's victim blaming, though. It's not PVS' fault someone decided to burn down his apartment and killed his sleeping elderly neighbors because PVS didn't try to stop the arsonist. PVS is the victim, in this pretend scenario.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No you don't. Only in two "states" do you have a duty to retreat.

Vermont and Washington DC.

23 states have a castle doctrine.


I literally just posted a link to this, earlier today, in this same thread:

the language is ambiguous. i see nothing which says i have the right to kill a burglar without being attacked. just says i'm not obligated to flee and may protect my property. does "property" include my computer? or does it only mean protect my actual home from arson?

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the language is ambiguous. i see nothing which says i have the right to kill a burglar without being attacked.

Do you feel like calling a home invader of an occupied residence - just a "burglar" - to be a strawman?

This scenario qualifies as robbery and home invasion which is a step up from plain burglary. Some states group burglary and home invasion in the same category such as Georgia. But robbery is the next level...it's bad news for everyone.

a4iTM-R1t6I

i keep it like this and like that

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i/family had no means of retreat, then i could indeed use lethal force.

however if i decided to not take an easy escape and use lethal force, just because i refuse to let them snatch my stuff, i could well end up in prison eating some of that ass-flavored grape jelly.

so i hope in return that YOU remember that, so that a burglary committed by someone else does not turn into a manslaughter charge for you did i miss something here?

if someone breaks into your home, they dont announce what specific illegal activity they came there to do. they might have just broken in to steal your computer, or they might have broken in to brutally rape and kill your entire family. thats not a chance i am willing to take....if someone was willing to break into MY home, i am going to assume they mean me or my family harm, and i will take the appropriate actions to protect myself and my family. as should everyone who doesnt want to become a victim.

tl;dr
stop being such a goddamn pussy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you feel like calling a home invader of an occupied residence - just a "burglar" - to be a strawman?

This scenario qualifies as robbery and home invasion which is a step up from plain burglary. Some states group burglary and home invasion in the same category such as Georgia. But robbery is the next level...it's bad news for everyone.

Doesn't answer my question. lets say I'm in a two story home, wake up to some noise downstairs. grab my pistol and walk downstairs just in time to see a thief about to walk out the door with my imac. do I have the right to shoot him in the back? I don't believe that I do, yet that iMac is my property. what do you think? That's where I was going. not strawman

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
did i miss something here?

if someone breaks into your home, they dont announce what specific illegal activity they came there to do. they might have just broken in to steal your computer, or they might have broken in to brutally rape and kill your entire family. thats not a chance i am willing to take....if someone was willing to break into MY home, i am going to assume they mean me or my family harm, and i will take the appropriate actions to protect myself and my family. as should everyone who doesnt want to become a victim.

tl;dr
stop being such a goddamn pussy.

Tough as nailz, yo. exactly why this topic can't be discussed maturely

Bash just shoot him in the legs, problem solved.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Doesn't answer my question. lets say I'm in a two story home, wake up to some noise downstairs. grab my pistol and walk downstairs just in time to see a thief about to walk out the door with my imac. do I have the right to shoot him in the back? I don't believe that I do, yet that iMac is my property. what do you think? That's where I was going. not strawman



Tough as nailz, yo. exactly why this topic can't be discussed maturely



No, I don't believe you do either.


This actually did happen. I forget if it was here or in the UK, but either way running out your door to shoot a burglar running up your walkway wouldn't end well anywhere for the home owner.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Doesn't answer my question. lets say I'm in a two story home, wake up to some noise downstairs. grab my pistol and walk downstairs just in time to see a thief about to walk out the door with my imac. do I have the right to shoot him in the back? I don't believe that I do, yet that iMac is my property. what do you think? That's where I was going. not strawman



Tough as nailz, yo. exactly why this topic can't be discussed maturely You will be shot in my own home!

uh oh! hitler is back! and he's autistic!

It's always fun being superior to hitler

go on surt, tell him what a big fan you are

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
go on surt, tell him what a big fan you are

Not a fan, just better than whoever it is. In every way

Originally posted by Surtur
Not a fan, just better than whoever it is. In every way What if they have a job?

Originally posted by Surtur
Not a fan, just better than whoever it is. In every way
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What if they have a job?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What if they have a job?

Nothing changes, still superior.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's always fun being superior to hitler


Yeah, because it's obviously so hard to be lol.

what does hitler do for a living?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, because it's obviously so hard to be lol.

I just love that Pooty is too scared to admit it's him.

Feel bad for his kids, daddy has no sac.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just love that Pooty is too scared to admit it's him.

Feel bad for his kids, daddy has no sac.

he who smell't it, dealt it. now I think it was you

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what does hitler do for a living? **** knows, heas in a vat, clone in Brasil the possibilities seem endless Bash.

maybe the kids can find another role model, minus the man boobs and shame

cowards as fathers are really bad

feel bad for those poor kids

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he who smell't it, dealt it. now I think it was you I'm guessing Flystar or Lord of Brooklyn.

*smh* just feel sorry, put the kids in foster care

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he who smell't it, dealt it. now I think it was you

Prove it.

Originally posted by Surtur
maybe the kids can find another role model, minus the man boobs and shame

cowards as fathers are really bad

feel bad for those poor kids Yeah well, I'd love to trade ad hominems kid, but I have a wife and child to get back to. laters, I'm sure you're a great looking guy and all the girls want you.

surt you seem very triggered. was that your sock account? I've already seen you make an unauthorized second account so I have suspicions now

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yeah well, I'd love to trade ad hominems kid, but I have a wife and child to get back to. laters, I'm sure you're a great looking guy and all the girls want you.

Hey son: grow a sac soon, your kids will appreciate a dad who is a man and not a coward

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Doesn't answer my question. lets say I'm in a two story home, wake up to some noise downstairs. grab my pistol and walk downstairs just in time to see a thief about to walk out the door with my imac. do I have the right to shoot him in the back? I don't believe that I do, yet that iMac is my property. what do you think? That's where I was going. not strawman

Only in Texas can you legally shoot someone in the back while they are walking away with your stuff.

Didn't we already have this conversation?



Another much more realistic and likely scenario: you hear noise downstairs. You walk downstairs, someone is stealing your iMac. You shoot them right in the face. They die. You're in the clear with every single Castle Doctrine state and if you want to claim it, in almost all states if you state it looked like they had a gun in the dark. The exception would be Vermont and Washington D.C.



Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Tough as nailz, yo. exactly why this topic can't be discussed maturely

You said your deviated septum was from fighting so at least no one can call you a p*ssy. Hot headed, maybe, but definitely not a p*ssy.

lol

Originally posted by Surtur
I just love that Pooty is too scared to admit it's him.

Feel bad for his kids, daddy has no sac.

Originally posted by Surtur
maybe the kids can find another role model, minus the man boobs and shame

cowards as fathers are really bad

feel bad for those poor kids


Especially if any of them are boys. They'll grow up to be just like their daddy: no balls.

This thread took a turn for the homoerotic. Now you're talking about someone else's bollocks in details...

Originally posted by carthage
You're free to let them into your house and do god knows what to you while you're cucked and get possibly injured/killed/and your shit stolen

Pretty much this.

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
did i miss something here?

if someone breaks into your home, they dont announce what specific illegal activity they came there to do. they might have just broken in to steal your computer, or they might have broken in to brutally rape and kill your entire family. thats not a chance i am willing to take....if someone was willing to break into MY home, i am going to assume they mean me or my family harm, and i will take the appropriate actions to protect myself and my family. as should everyone who doesnt want to become a victim.

tl;dr
stop being such a goddamn pussy.

Virtue signaling to the point of death sounds like a good way to die

Originally posted by Badabing
That sheriff is in the adjacent county to me. He is my hero.

If someone strolled into my home attempting to take things out, I guess I could sit down with them and have a conversation with them over some tea.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes. you have the right to defend your person with lethal force. this does not apply to "defending" your possessions Yes it does? You have the legal right to defend your property by any means necessary.

It's up to the court to decide if the force you used to protect your property and your possessions was reasonable.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Yes it does? You have the legal right to defend your property by any means necessary.

It's up to the court to decide if the force you used to protect your property and your possessions was reasonable.

Bashar is just nuts and living in his own make belief world.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes. you have the right to defend your person with lethal force. this does not apply to "defending" your possessions So you just let them take all your stuff youve worked for ?

Originally posted by Insane Titan
So you just let them take all your stuff youve worked for ?

Duh, only after you ask for their address so you can send them a thank you card for cleaning your house of material possessions.

cool coping party. I brought lots of doritos

Originally posted by dadudemon
in almost all states if you state it looked like they had a gun in the dark. The exception would be Vermont and Washington D.C.
.

So basically lie to the police since I would use a flashlight (to indentify as well as temp-blind them) instead of blindly killing someone in the dark. at that point they would either attack or flee. you feel free to be dirty harry and lie to the cops (or accidentally kill a non-criminal), but remember: practice on big bananas

Sure you would.

"you're a pussy! tell you what I would do bro" *typing power fantasies on their keyboards to impress other keyboard rambos, no self awareness*

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

I feel like the kind of people who would shoot looters in their homes, probably don't need the sheriff to tell them to do it. But maybe I'm wrong...

You mean, smart people?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cool coping party. I brought lots of doritos



So basically lie to the police since I would use a flashlight (to indentify as well as temp-blind them) instead of blindly killing someone in the dark. at that point they would either attack or flee. you feel free to be dirty harry and lie to the cops (or accidentally kill a non-criminal), but remember: practice on big bananas


What kind of portable flashlight are you using?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You mean, smart people?

I don't know, I would assume there's cases where using a gun to protect yourself in a burglary situation may be sensible, if your life is in danger, on the other hand I think it could also escalate the situation and put you in much more danger than hiding or even just yelling at burglars may have done. Seems like a difficult situation, hard to judge, but I'm not sure going into it with the intent or even the desire to kill is necessarily conducive to the best decision making.

I mean I don't think normal burglars should be killed, that seems excessive, but then you don't know if they don't want to hurt your as well.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"you're a pussy! tell you what I would do bro" *typing power fantasies on their keyboards to impress other keyboard rambos, no self awareness* dont start throwing a temper tantrum just because most logical people dont agree with your "open door policy" when it comes to people breaking into their homes.

lol

Originally posted by cdtm
What kind of portable flashlight are you using?

in ddm's scenario (someone downstairs rummaging in the dark), literally any flashlight would work. pupils dilate to see in the dark, which is why even a moderately bright light is temporarily blinding. can't believe I have to explain this to adults

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
dont start throwing a temper tantrum just because most logical people dont agree with your "open door policy" when it comes to people breaking into their homes.

lol

he said, throwing a tantrum, with no self awareness

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
in ddm's scenario (someone downstairs rummaging in the dark), literally any flashlight would work. pupils dilate to see in the dark, which is why even a moderately bright light is temporarily blinding. can't believe I have to explain this to adults



he said, throwing a tantrum, with no self awareness



DDM's scenerio is crap though.


If its so dark, how is the looter even able to rummage valuables over garbage?

Originally posted by cdtm
DDM's scenerio is crap though.


If its so dark, how is the looter even able to rummage valuables over garbage?

ddm presented the scenario as an excuse for killing via shooting them (in the dark).

like this guy did: www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/12/ohio-father-fatally-shoots-suspected-intruder-who-turned-out-to-be-his-teen-son

also: why the buffoonery? was I making too much sense?

Originally posted by Artol
I don't know, I would assume there's cases where using a gun to protect yourself in a burglary situation may be sensible, if your life is in danger, on the other hand I think it could also escalate the situation and put you in much more danger than hiding or even just yelling at burglars may have done. Seems like a difficult situation, hard to judge, but I'm not sure going into it with the intent or even the desire to kill is necessarily conducive to the best decision making.

I mean I don't think normal burglars should be killed, that seems excessive, but then you don't know if they don't want to hurt your as well.

If someone breaks into a house knowing that people are inside, do you think it's reasonable to assume they'll run if you yell at them?