• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What would you do? (Scenario)

P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

I don't believe one is ever justified by killing someone over property. Just my personal moral beliefs. Property shouldn't be so important that we'd take action to take a life. That being said, read my other post.

Gunslinger wrote:
Depends on whether or not the state has Castle Doctrine. Here in CO, I'd have to call the Coroner after I blew his head off. Complete justification. In other states, you may not use deadly force unless in imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm at that time. If he's leaving, it becomes problematic.
Click to expand...
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Thank you, it's been an interesting three weeks. Lack of Sleep plus a move to Colorado!
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
I don't believe one is ever justified by killing someone over property. Just my personal moral beliefs. Property shouldn't be so important that we'd take action to take a life. That being said, read my other post.
Click to expand...
Hey, Pace, how about an address. We can come steal everything that you don't have welded down that is outside. Don't have to worry about being shot do we?
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

I'm not even sure how to respond to that statement which is loaded from the start. For you to claim that somehow that because, among other things, I am a person of Faith, with a high regard to human life, that I am asking to be robbed, is ridiculous.

This type of black or white statement is what the anti-gun lobby uses to make every gun owner look like crazies who are going to start shooting every time someone looks at them the wrong way.

Human life is sacred and if you take someone's life, you better have a very good reason. If you think that reason is because someone might be taking your pink flamingos from the yard of your trailer, then you need to really look deep at what type of person you are and which way your moral or ethical compass points.

Unfortunately, television and movies promote how important "things" are, such as property, money, drugs, sex and we forget what is really important, like family, love, faith, friends, neighbors.

The things I have, the things I "own" aren't mine. I'm just using them for a while, and eventually they will turn to dust, not unlike myself.

Best,
Pace
 
buster81

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:
You have a family. You awaken to the sound of glass breaking in the front room. You grab your weapon and head out to investigate. As you get to your hallyou look down the hall and see a man who is armed that has entered your home.
Click to expand...


I fixed your story for ya. It ends as above.
 
M

Mr.FiredUp

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
164
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Pace... I'm confused. I agree that property is not worth dying over as I am a Christian man myself. What I don't understand is where anybody said this was over property. As you yourself said, you have drawn on intruders before. If this was all over property, why even draw? If you draw your weapon, you should be willing to take a life. If you did not intend to take a life being that the intruder was looking only for property, you should not have drawn your weapon. If someone is in my home I can only assume he is there for harm and will act as such. I don't believe any of us should own or carry guns with the intent to take a life, but use them to stop someone that intends to take a life without reason. If someone is in my home I can only assume they have chosen to commit a violent act. Therefore, I would kill them to save the innocent.

Carry your weapon in the hope that you never need to draw it... draw your weapon only if you plan to use it.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
Depends on whether or not the state has Castle Doctrine. Here in CO, I'd have to call the Coroner after I blew his head off. Complete justification. In other states, you may not use deadly force unless in imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm at that time. If he's leaving, it becomes problematic.
Click to expand...
Don't know what I'd do - too many unknowns.

Also I never post anything that might even in the slightest indicate an intention under any circumstances. Will not feed that dog.

Detest this type of thread - invites the unwary to step in it and it doesn't clean up so well.

Yata hey
 
buster81

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mr.FiredUp wrote:
Pace... I'm confused. I agree that property is not worth dying over as I am a Christian man myself. What I don't understand is where anybody said this was over property. As you yourself said, you have drawn on intruders before. If this was all over property, why even draw? If you draw your weapon, you should be willing to take a life. If you did not intend to take a life being that the intruder was looking only for property, you should not have drawn your weapon. If someone is in my home I can only assume he is there for harm and will act as such. I don't believe any of us should own or carry guns with the intent to take a life, but use them to stop someone that intends to take a life without reason. If someone is in my home I can only assume they have chosen to commit a violent act. Therefore, I would kill them to save the innocent.

Carry your weapon in the hope that you never need to draw it... draw your weapon only if you plan to use it.
Click to expand...
Just myopinion, but, I would phrase the bolded part as "I would stop the threat to save the innocent." Again, just my opinion, but the end result forthethreat isn't as important the protection of family and self.
 
M

Mr.FiredUp

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
164
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

I would have put "stop the threat" under any other circumstances. I used the words that I did to make a point to Pace. However, I can understand how this could be offensive to some people. Good point. Thanks for lookin' out!:)


buster81 wrote:
Mr.FiredUp wrote:
Pace... I'm confused. I agree that property is not worth dying over as I am a Christian man myself. What I don't understand is where anybody said this was over property. As you yourself said, you have drawn on intruders before. If this was all over property, why even draw? If you draw your weapon, you should be willing to take a life. If you did not intend to take a life being that the intruder was looking only for property, you should not have drawn your weapon. If someone is in my home I can only assume he is there for harm and will act as such. I don't believe any of us should own or carry guns with the intent to take a life, but use them to stop someone that intends to take a life without reason. If someone is in my home I can only assume they have chosen to commit a violent act. Therefore, I would kill them to save the innocent.

Carry your weapon in the hope that you never need to draw it... draw your weapon only if you plan to use it.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion, but, I would phrase the bolded part as "I would stop the threat to save the innocent." Again, just my opinion, but the end result for the threat isn't as important the protection of family and self.
Click to expand...
:)
 
hopnpop

hopnpop

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
630
Location
Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'm on board with the question of "when did this become about property?". This is about safety and protecting myself and my family. The BG is armed, therefore, myself and my loved ones are in danger. If he's only there to steal property, he shouldn't have come armed. We, as homeowners and family members, don't know his intentions and if he's armed, we must assume that he is willing to do harm to us. The rules of engagement (don't fire unless fired upon) do not apply in my house. And they shouldn't in yours, either.
 
hopnpop

hopnpop

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
630
Location
Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
imported post

Mr.FiredUp wrote:
I would have put "stop the threat" under any other circumstances. I used the words that I did to make a point to Pace. However, I can understand how this could be offensive to some people. Good point. Thanks for lookin' out!:)


buster81 wrote:
Mr.FiredUp wrote:
...If someone is in my home I can only assume they have chosen to commit a violent act. Therefore, I would kill them to save the innocent...
Click to expand...
Just myopinion, but, I would phrase the bolded part as "I would stop the threat to save the innocent." Again, just my opinion, but the end result forthethreat isn't as important the protection of family and self.
Click to expand...
:)
Click to expand...
***ALWAYS stay away from phrases that include "I would kill them"!!!*** Never say these words, and more importantly, NEVER TYPE THEM!! If you were to have to use lethal force after posting something like this, attourneys would jump all over a statement like that and spin the hell out of it. Remember the "shoot to stop" phrase? Utilize it! It could make a world of difference in court, God forbid you ever end up there. Saying "I had to shoot to stop him" keeps you in a "victim" court. Saying "I shot to kill him" tends to imply that you're the agressor of the two and he is more the victim. Just remember that our statements here can always be looked back on and used against us.
 
M

Mr.FiredUp

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
164
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

hopnpop wrote:
Mr.FiredUp wrote:
I would have put "stop the threat" under any other circumstances. I used the words that I did to make a point to Pace. However, I can understand how this could be offensive to some people. Good point. Thanks for lookin' out!:)


buster81 wrote:
Mr.FiredUp wrote:
...If someone is in my home I can only assume they have chosen to commit a violent act. Therefore, I would kill them to save the innocent...
Click to expand...
Just my opinion, but, I would phrase the bolded part as "I would stop the threat to save the innocent." Again, just my opinion, but the end result for the threat isn't as important the protection of family and self.
Click to expand...
:)
Click to expand...
***ALWAYS stay away from phrases that include "I would kill them"!!!***    Never say these words, and more importantly, NEVER TYPE THEM!!  If you were to have to use lethal force after posting something like this, attourneys would jump all over a statement like that and spin the hell out of it.  Remember the "shoot to stop" phrase?  Utilize it!  It could make a world of difference in court, God forbid you ever end up there.  Saying "I had to shoot to stop him" keeps you in a "victim" court.  Saying "I shot to kill him" tends to imply that you're the agressor of the two and he is more the victim.  Just remember that our statements here can always be looked back on and used against us.
Click to expand...

Good point. It would have been a better decision for me to attempt to send a private message to Pace instead of posting those words on the forum. I was coming from the point of when Pace said he feels like it is not ok to kill over property. If he was in the house armed, he has put my family in immediate danger and I would only draw my weapon in the intent to use it. I was just using the word that he used. Once again, good point and I will avoid that word in the future.
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Add this to the scenairo. You do as the OP siad except that you are starting down the stairs from your upstairs and you live in a state without Castle Doctrine. In other words you have a duty to retreat. Retreating in this case is not an option as the BG has blocked the retreat unless you happen to have another set of stairs and then you have to take you family into account. You have determined that he is a BG and not your nephew (in most cases) and has a weapon. You open fire and kill the BG. Even without CD in this case you are probably on good footing as you are trapped upstairs. However you wait around until the BG fires shots and runs out the door you better not go after him in most cases. If you shoot him in the back be prepared for a long, lenghty and expensive trial even a state wwith CD..
 
hopnpop

hopnpop

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
630
Location
Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
imported post

100% agreement with both the previous posts, Mr Fired Up and PT111. Sorry if I was over-criticizing Mr's comment - I don't mean to dictate one's speech! I just wanted to point out the possibility of legal backlashing from the wording posted here. After re-reading my last post, I thought I may have come off a little strongly. Looks like you caught my drift, tho. It may seem stupid what difference a slight change of wording can make, but IMO, it could make a hell of a difference in court... God forbid any of us ever end up in that situation. Thanks for taking my post the way I intended and not taking offense to criticism.

PT - sorry you're in a "duty to retreat" state. Hopefully that will change. Seems as tho CD is catching on tho. Michigan was a "duty to retreat" state not long ago, and thankfully that was overturned. In your scenario, upstairs, blocked exit, I agree that you'd have a firm footing in court. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that even if the intruder didn't fire any shots, his being armed and blocking your exit should be sufficient grounds for using whatever available means of defense you have. Combine that with already having 911 on the line and you got yourself an even better situation.

I say: step 1- grab something to defend yourself. step 2- call 911 if you have "safe" access to a phone. Know the protocol for calling 911 when you're armed to help ensure that you're not ID'd as the BG when they arrive. No matter how hard your adrenaline is pumping when the cavalry shows up, do whatever they tell you to! If not, there stands a good chance of being falsly ID's as the BG and you're in a whole new danger. Remember, the cops' adrenaline is pumping, too.

Holy crap, I think I just caught myself preaching. I'll STFU now! LOL
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

hopnpop wrote:
100% agreement with both the previous posts, Mr Fired Up and PT111. Sorry if I was over-criticizing Mr's comment - I don't mean to dictate one's speech! I just wanted to point out the possibility of legal backlashing from the wording posted here. After re-reading my last post, I thought I may have come off a little strongly. Looks like you caught my drift, tho. It may seem stupid what difference a slight change of wording can make, but IMO, it could make a hell of a difference in court... God forbid any of us ever end up in that situation. Thanks for taking my post the way I intended and not taking offense to criticism.

PT - sorry you're in a "duty to retreat" state. Hopefully that will change. Seems as tho CD is catching on tho. Michigan was a "duty to retreat" state not long ago, and thankfully that was overturned. In your scenario, upstairs, blocked exit, I agree that you'd have a firm footing in court. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that even if the intruder didn't fire any shots, his being armed and blocking your exit should be sufficient grounds for using whatever available means of defense you have. Combine that with already having 911 on the line and you got yourself an even better situation.

I say: step 1- grab something to defend yourself. step 2- call 911 if you have "safe" access to a phone. Know the protocol for calling 911 when you're armed to help ensure that you're not ID'd as the BG when they arrive. No matter how hard your adrenaline is pumping when the cavalry shows up, do whatever they tell you to! If not, there stands a good chance of being falsly ID's as the BG and you're in a whole new danger. Remember, the cops' adrenaline is pumping, too.

Holy crap, I think I just caught myself preaching. I'll STFU now! LOL
Click to expand...

I am in SC which was recently changed to a CD state. Long story but I took the CWP class twice. the first time was before CD was passed and the second time shortly after. The instructor was very good on explaining CD and the difference so it was quite a change from the first time I took the class.

One thing that I find is that the majority of people, even those whowho are quite knowlegeableabout firearms, are very confused about both the CD and DTR laws. There is lots of incorrect information on both floating around on the Internet and a lot of assumptions made that can get you into all kinds of trouble even if you think you are following the letter of the law.

I was in no way intending my post at you and hope it was not taken that way. In SC we have both the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws but neither is a license to kill or a shoot first law as the media tries to make it out to be.If you get down and studyall three (CD, DTR and SYG) you find that they all have the same four rules of common sense aboutdefending yourself:

1. You must be in a place where you have the right to be

2. You must not be committing a crime at the time

3. You must not bepart of the instigation of the incident

4.The amountof forceused must be relative to the situation.

Number 4 is usually where the confusion comes in and duty to retreat is aimed much more at an incident outside the home than in it but caught a lot of people inside their homes defending themselves.

If you cover those four rules of defending yourself you will probably find yourself in good shape with or withour CD. Castle Doctrine is about defending yourself and home, not about offense or retribution.
 
M

Mr.FiredUp

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
164
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

hopnpop wrote:
100% agreement with both the previous posts, Mr Fired Up and PT111. Sorry if I was over-criticizing Mr's comment - I don't mean to dictate one's speech! I just wanted to point out the possibility of legal backlashing from the wording posted here. After re-reading my last post, I thought I may have come off a little strongly. Looks like you caught my drift, tho. It may seem stupid what difference a slight change of wording can make, but IMO, it could make a hell of a difference in court... God forbid any of us ever end up in that situation. Thanks for taking my post the way I intended and not taking offense to criticism.

PT - sorry you're in a "duty to retreat" state. Hopefully that will change. Seems as tho CD is catching on tho. Michigan was a "duty to retreat" state not long ago, and thankfully that was overturned. In your scenario, upstairs, blocked exit, I agree that you'd have a firm footing in court. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that even if the intruder didn't fire any shots, his being armed and blocking your exit should be sufficient grounds for using whatever available means of defense you have. Combine that with already having 911 on the line and you got yourself an even better situation.

I say: step 1- grab something to defend yourself. step 2- call 911 if you have "safe" access to a phone. Know the protocol for calling 911 when you're armed to help ensure that you're not ID'd as the BG when they arrive. No matter how hard your adrenaline is pumping when the cavalry shows up, do whatever they tell you to! If not, there stands a good chance of being falsly ID's as the BG and you're in a whole new danger. Remember, the cops' adrenaline is pumping, too.

Holy crap, I think I just caught myself preaching. I'll STFU now! LOL
Click to expand...
In response to what you said about me... You're right, I did get your drift. It's good to have like minded individuals give intelligent suggestions (like yours) about things like that. As long as we continue to try to be understanding with each other instead of combatant, we can really do some learning here in this forum.
Yay open carry!:celebrate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top