In the news today

[Splash!]

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed

Yes, and the consequence of that should be that they are forced to pay through the nose for the one time fire, and then accountable for actually coming through on the payment. It should not be to let the fire keep on going when something CAN be done about it.

[Carnage]

And Im sure he and everyone else would have learned their lesson even if the fire was put out.

[Kraco]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

And the police can't do anything to stop them.

Wow. I didn't think there was a country with a worse collection of laws than ours, but this article proved I was wrong. I don't know if this should make me happy or sad. I guess the UK has no laws concerning burglary. So, if you are sleeping and wake up to noises from downstairs, you can't call the police because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the unwelcome guests. A funny country.

[Ryllharu]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

And the police can't do anything to stop them.

I'm sure glad I live in the US. In many of our states, if someone is in your home without your permission (especially as the case with these students who broke in in the first place), the owner is well within their rights to shoot them. They have to be in your home though, you can't shoot them once they're running away.

The old joke is, "If you shoot a thief who is crawling out your window, make sure you drag the body back in."

There is more to it than that, and certain very real consequences depending on the specific response used, but Judicious Use of Deadly Force is authorized for those kinds of circumstances. If that happened in America, he could simply declare them as a threat to him, and if they didn't leave after that, he could shoot them. You also have to verbally warn them before you take action (assuming there was time for that). It is part of any firearm safety course in the US.

[XanBcoo]

I'm sure glad I live in the US. In many of our states, if someone is in your home without your permission (especially as the case with these students who broke in in the first place), the owner is well within their rights to shoot them. They have to be in your home though, you can't shoot them once they're running away.

Oh, Castle Doctrine...:3

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...7_snack28.html

If there's one thing America does right, it's Bloodlust. That and executing teenagers in your trailer.

[Ryllharu]

Oh, Castle Doctrine...:3

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...7_snack28.html

Bah, don't quote the first part of my post and skip the second part about how there are consequences and that every effort must be made to avoid lethal force if the situation allows for it.

First article, they left his house, that's already past the point where he could have justified it. The second article...that's just Texas, of course they'll acquit the guy.

[Carnage]

This is ridiculous. If another man breaks into your home and threatens your security, you should have every right to shoot him.

I mean if its an unarmed kid, that's one thing. But for a full adult to break into you house, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

[Animeniax]

This is ridiculous. If another man breaks into your home and threatens your security, you should have every right to shoot him.

I mean if its an unarmed kid, that's one thing. But for a full adult to break into you house, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

That's the dangerous part, how do you know if the "kid" is armed? Do you really want to give them the benefit of the doubt and then eat a bullet?

I had 2 punks, around age 14-17 kick my front door as a prank. I went outside with my gun looking for them, but they had disappeared. I think they were hiding nearby and saw I meant business, since I haven't seen them around my house the past few months since then. From the size of them they looked like full grown adults, but we've seen them around the neighborhood before and they are teens. I think I posted about it in the bitching thread, but if I had seen them that night, they'd be two dead "kids".

[Assertn]

Lol, and XanBcoo, the forum's bleeding-heart liberal, makes a b-line into the conversation. This is why Texas has the lowest reports of burglary in the country. Meanwhile in other states, a thief can trip and hurt himself in an attempt to break into your house and then SUE you for damages.

Also, when the responder was talking about sending ultras, I imagined these careening through the neighborhood:

[Animeniax]

Lol, and XanBcoo, the forum's bleeding-heart liberal, makes a b-line into the conversation. This is why Texas has the lowest reports of burglary in the country. Meanwhile in other states, a thief can trip and hurt himself in an attempt to break into your house and then SUE you for damages.

Also, when the responder was talking about sending ultras, I imagined these careening through the neighborhood

Cold-blooded man, though I agree with you on conservative values and laws governing justice and making the world a safer place. The world is over-crowded anyway, and you and me ain't nuthin' but mammals, and mammals are animals and animals do what we do.

Bwhahah! I also wondered what he meant when he referred to sending "ultras", though I'm not so much of a SC fan to think of 'lisks.

[XanBcoo]

Lol, and XanBcoo, the forum's bleeding-heart liberal, makes a b-line into the conversation. This is why Texas has the lowest reports of burglary in the country. Meanwhile in other states, a thief can trip and hurt himself in an attempt to break into your house and then SUE you for damages.

I don't think it's cool to murder people for trespassing.

Look at my heart.

It's bleeding.

[Pandadice]

Wait a minute, I can't shoot them after they're off my property? .. well it's a good thing I didn't report the last two guys I killed.

[XanBcoo]

Cold-blooded man, though I agree with you on conservative values and laws governing justice and making the world a safer place.

It's the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?source=...951961ff9ba31d

Bah, don't quote the first part of my post and skip the second part about how there are consequences and that every effort must be made to avoid lethal force if the situation allows for it.

First article, they left his house, that's already past the point where he could have justified it. The second article...that's just Texas, of course they'll acquit the guy.

Oh, I wasn't so much replying to you as I was mocking Castle Law in general. Responding to anything less than a life-threatening situation in self-defense using deadly force is ridiculous.

I'm happy there are systems in place to allow for self-defense. I am disgusted by the vigilantism and blood lust it stirs up in trigger-happy rednecks.

[Assertn]

I don't think it's cool to murder people for trespassing.

I don't think its cool to be trespassing. What does it say about the law when people are fully aware of it, yet break it anyway?

In all seriousness, though, imagine yourself in that old guy's position. Say you see a bunch of guys sneaking around stealing your friend's personal stuff. You call the authorities, but it's very likely that by the time they arrive, the thieves will be long gone. What do you do? If your answer is "sit and wait," then I'm going to have to accuse you of either being naive in thinking everything will pan out just fine, or being a coward because confrontation is scary.

So let's say you decide to confront them. Now you're in a situation where either:
A) the suspects surrender
B) the suspects flee
C) the suspects attack

Sure, surrender would be ideal, but you don't know what's going on through their heads. You don't even know what they're carrying or what they're capable of. Unless you're going out there with a weapon, I highly doubt they'll surrender, so you need to be in a position of power before you can even challenge them. Now you have a weapon, and the targets might also have weapons, and now the situation escalades.

This is basically exactly what happened as far as the story narrated. The old guy didn't sound like he was Yosemite Sam waiting for the chance to shoot up some varmints. He was in a state of panic and knew he had to do something. He found himself in a dangerous position and reacted the way he felt he needed to in order to dissolve the conflict. Sure, he could've just shot them in the legs, but I wasn't there, so I'm not going to make that call.

Honestly, I think its really easy for any of us to just sit here in our warm comfy rooms sipping on chai tea lattes and argue that justice always prevails and that the system will keep us safe. Meanwhile we watch on as 15 year old girls get raped, or allow our planes full of passengers to be hijacked just because a couple guys brought box-cutters onboard, all because we're not "certified law enforcers." I think it's awesome to see a community look out for one another, and it was brave of someone to risk their life to protect someone else's possessions, and its arrogant to believe that if you suddenly found yourself in a similar position, you would be able to handle the situation like any upstanding saturday-morning cartoon superhero.

[Animeniax]

It's the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?source=...951961ff9ba31d

Definitely "tough on crime" doesn't work as a system of social control to prevent deviance, but what I'm primarily concerned with is protecting me and mine, and if laws allow that, then I'm all for them.

I don't think its cool to be trespassing. What does it say about the law when people are fully aware of it, yet break it anyway?

In all seriousness, though, imagine yourself in that old guy's position. Say you see a bunch of guys sneaking around stealing your friend's personal stuff. You call the authorities, but it's very likely that by the time they arrive, the thieves will be long gone. What do you do? If your answer is "sit and wait," then I'm going to have to accuse you of either being naive in thinking everything will pan out just fine, or being a coward because confrontation is scary.

Also keep in mind the revolving door nature of crime and punishment. Even if the two burglars were arrested, they'd most likely be out within a couple of years under plea bargain or for some other bs reason (jail overcrowding). I wouldn't want to risk them coming back for revenge or just to burglarize our homes again.

[Pandadice]

Also keep in mind the revolving door nature of crime and punishment. Even if the two burglars were arrested, they'd most likely be out within a couple of years under plea bargain or for some other bs reason (jail overcrowding). I wouldn't want to risk them coming back for revenge or just to burglarize our homes again.

So you have literally 0 faith in the deterrent jail philosophy? You know, the whole reason we send people to jail, punishing them in the hopes that they'll learn from their mistakes. :|

so someone who's either driven to desperation through starvation or other equally inhumane circumstances, or the person is clinically mentally insane, breaks in. Therefore, when they try to take your flat-screen TV, you gotta blow their brains out.

Seriously guys, normal people don't just rob houses. I mean, punk kids break in to get some adrenaline rush, and because it's hip to be an outlaw. But if you want to kill some naive kid because they were trying to be cool, then I gotta go back to the bloodlust thing. But really, those sub-human degenerates are only pressured to break into your house because they can't do anything else. "No way dude, it's the mafia breaking into my house with fully-automatic machine guns to steal my new laptop!" right...

[Ryllharu]

So you have literally 0 faith in the deterrent jail philosophy? You know, the whole reason we send people to jail, punishing them in the hopes that they'll learn from their mistakes. :|

None whatsoever, and that is largely because of the way we treat people who have served their time and go free. There is a overwhelming stigma on a person who has gone to jail. They're not really able to get a normal job because they made some stupid mistake in the past. Yes, there are surely people who wind up in jail and can't be trusted afterward, but that's largely a part of why they were in jail in the first place. But the problem is everyone gets treated like that, regardless of the circumstances.

The social system surrounding incarceration leads them to wind up back in jail. They aren't allowed the chance to get back on their feet and lead a normal life again, so they end up getting desperate once again.

[Carnage]

Not complicated: You break into a home, you pay the consequences.

[Animeniax]

So you have literally 0 faith in the deterrent jail philosophy? You know, the whole reason we send people to jail, punishing them in the hopes that they'll learn from their mistakes. :|

so someone who's either driven to desperation through starvation or other equally inhumane circumstances, or the person is clinically mentally insane, breaks in. Therefore, when they try to take your flat-screen TV, you gotta blow their brains out.

Seriously guys, normal people don't just rob houses. I mean, punk kids break in to get some adrenaline rush, and because it's hip to be an outlaw. But if you want to kill some naive kid because they were trying to be cool, then I gotta go back to the bloodlust thing. But really, those sub-human degenerates are only pressured to break into your house because they can't do anything else. "No way dude, it's the mafia breaking into my house with fully-automatic machine guns to steal my new laptop!" right...

Actually I'm in school learning about criminal justice and the numbers don't lie and the entire US prison/justice system has failed and does not work. Prison sentences and even the death penalty are not significant deterrents to crime. Sending people to jail/prison does not work for the vast majority, it only serves to make them better criminals or postpone their criminal activity.

As Ryllharu said, it's a self-fulfilling mechanism that virtually guarantees people will stay in the system. Without the power to fix the system, common citizens like you and I have only one effective means of dealing with criminals, and that's with lead.

[Pandadice]

I'm sorry, my last post wasn't fully expressed. My point was that these people don't need to "face the consequences," these people simply need help. So a desperate crack addict breaks in to your house to steal your TV so they can get their next fix. They don't need to be shoot and killed, they need to be rehabilitated and given the ability to straighten their life out (uhg. I hate the sound of that phrase. it makes me sound like I'm some superior human who has the right to judge other people's life choices...). You might say "so what, it's just some insane crack addict who doesn't contribute anything to society anyways," and I'd say so the person made some bad calls when they were younger. You could very well have done the same wrong yet easy to make choices had you been in their shoes. Don't try to act like because you come from a privileged upper-middle class (or even high class) family you're a better human than they are.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.