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.