The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

Ignoring our actual laws, my gut is that anyone seeking to do someone harm on their property should be able to be met with lethal force.

I don’t care if it is proportional, I would want that to be as asymmetric in my favour as possible.

If the criminal thinks thats unfair, don’t come on to someones property seeking to do them harm then.

Its interesting. And this got me thinking. Why is the victim of crime expected react proportionally ?

And what is proportionally for me is probably very different from my 13 year old daughter.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Its interesting. And this got me thinking. Why is the victim of crime expected react proportionally ?

And what is proportionally for me is probably very different from my 13 year old daughter.

The same reason Drinking and Driving is difficult to prosecute and stop. Money.

Lawyers don't want you killing their clients.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Its interesting. And this got me thinking. Why is the victim of crime expected react proportionally ?

And what is proportionally for me is probably very different from my 13 year old daughter.

I think the intent is to avoid a bunch of dead people on the streets and avoid escalation. When someone is at your home I think thats a bit late.

Personally in your own property you shouldn’t have to fear for your life or play a guessing game as to the criminals intent.

They have the advantage in any sort of attack on your property, they know what they seek to do, how far they are willing to go, and what they have.

You have none of that information, yet are expected to act in a manner which can put you at risk of harm to try and prevent someone else who is instigating the whole situation from being harmed.

There obviously needs to be limits, such as not shooting fleeing people, but I would rather not put too many restrictions on the homeowner/victim.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the intent is to avoid a bunch of dead people on the streets and avoid escalation. When someone is at your home I think thats a bit late.

Personally in your own property you shouldn’t have to fear for your life or play a guessing game as to the criminals intent.

They have the advantage in any sort of attack on your property, they know what they seek to do, how far they are willing to go, and what they have.

You have none of that information, yet are expected to act in a manner which can put you at risk of harm to try and prevent someone else who is instigating the whole situation from being harmed.

Ya its a quandary for me. We accept the in lack of proportionality in the criminal intent and action, and then expect the victim to be proportional in their response.

In my little monkey brain that doesn't make sense.

There obviously needs to be limits, such as not shooting fleeing people, but I would rather not put too many restrictions on the homeowner/victim.

We disagree here, I don't think a criminal stops being a criminal when they try to get away. Their life is of not of more value because they have chosen to flee IMHO.

But I can accept different view points. And I know the law isn't on my side.

 

[Eaglelord17]

We disagree here, I don't think a criminal stops being a criminal when they try to get away. Their life is of not of more value because they have chosen to flee IMHO.

But I can accept different view points. And I know the law isn't on my side.

The problem with that is once they have gone to flee they are no longer a potential threat to you. At that point it is the time for our courts and police to take over. The immediate threat is gone and the goal of self defence has been met.

Otherwise how far do you think you can pursue them and keep trying to kill them? Should the police have the same ability?

 

[KevinB]

The problem with that is once they have gone to flee they are no longer a potential threat to you.

No longer a direct threat, but still a potential threat.

The onus is on you to articulate why your continued use of force was justifiable.

At that point it is the time for our courts and police to take over. The immediate threat is gone and the goal of self defence has been met.

Otherwise how far do you think you can pursue them and keep trying to kill them?

As far as you can articulate a reasonable reason.

Should the police have the same ability?

Down here lethal force can be used on a fleeing felon.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think you could articulate a self-defence case on a fleeing felon who was carrying a long rifle.

Is that felon actually trying to leave the scene and give up crime? If so, why did they not drop the firearm and then flee?

Or are they just relocating to a more tactically advantageous position? Or, continue the crime spree elsewhere?

Context and details matter. Which is why anyone in this situation had better speak to a lawyer before talking to police.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think you could articulate a self-defence case on a fleeing felon who was carrying a long rifle.

Is that felon actually trying to leave the scene and give up crime? If so, why did they not drop the firearm and then flee?

Or are they just relocating to a more tactically advantageous position? Or, continue the crime spree elsewhere?

Context and details matter. Which is why anyone in this situation had better speak to a lawyer before talking to police.

I would say any self defence situation with or without a firearm the best response in this country is to lawyer up.

After watching the Ian Thompson case (ludicrous the lengths they went through to try and convict him of SOMETHING), you can’t trust the government to not try and make a example out of you.

 

[Halifax Tar]

After watching the Ian Thompson case (ludicrous the lengths they went through to try and convict him of SOMETHING), you can’t trust the government to not try and make a example out of you.

100%.

IMHO the Law, LEOs and Gov are not our friend.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Public order depending on principles of duty to retreat and proportionality is only sustainable as long as the public agencies to whom authority is delegated to interdict, pursue, detain, try, convict, and punish criminals can and are seen to exercise that authority sufficiently.

Liberal firearm possession laws should be a backstop in case the public authorities can't or won't exercise that delegated authority. Vigorous prosecution of people who are essentially citizens and widespread impressions of catch-and-release and low consequences for people who are essentially criminals will eventually become a much greater threat to public order than a bunch of people who choose to be armed.

 

[Booter]

I wonder if the homeowner called the police? If he did, lesson learned, don't call the police and don't even talk to them .

The crooks aren't going to call the cops, let them scamper off and they will never be back to your house again

Also, get some "protection" dogs. My uncle kept three Rottweilers on chains strung around his millions of dollars worth of commercial fishing equipment. Some thieves learned some hard lessons trying to steal boat motors and other assorted equipment from his operation.

They will and do call the cops. They will complain of being assaulted in the course of crimes etc

It’s not unusual at all.