you can't just shoot a tresspaser under any conditions. the law is not entirely clear on this point; however, and it does depend on your jurisdiction. recently, i read a case of a man who had a tool shed in the uk that was burgled on a number of occassions. the owner hid in there all night with a shotgun and you guessed it , he shot the perps. was he justified? maybe? but thats not what what was held by the court. his reaction was disproportionate and he was held liable for GBH (greivous bodily harm)and was open to civil suits.
Seriously- Buy a revolver so you don't leave your shells (evidence) all over the scene. You may be Mr. cool man with a Gloc but when they find the casing that rolled under the couch it's curtains. All you gotta do is empty the cylinders, clean your residue and dump the body. They are more reliable and nothing is cooler than swingin' out a 'Six Shooter'
This is sounding like the best option overall, I must say.
Let's discuss what to do with the dead body now. I'll go the taxidermy route. I'd ask for a "displaying record" position of his hands. Like, I 'd like to see the sucker holding the cover of the record I'm playing. Yeah, that would be cool.
Let's discuss what to do with the dead body now. I'll go the taxidermy route. I'd ask for a "displaying record" position of his hands. Like, I 'd like to see the sucker holding the cover of the record I'm playing. Yeah, that would be cool.
I like the way you think. Do you know any taxidermists who traffic organs on the side and will accept organs as payment?
I know that you can only shoot people robbing your house in very extreme circumstances. I think you have a reasonable fear of serious physical harm before you can pull out the guns.
THIS IS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW IN MOST EVERY STATE. Whether your use of deadly force is justified depends on the definition of reasonableness in your community.
You are close.
"A victim has the right to use non-deadly force in defense of his dwelling when, and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another???s unlawful entry or attack upon his dwelling. Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein. The rationale for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of inhabitants to be secure in their homes, rather than the right to defend property, as can be demonstrated by the law regarding defense of uninhabited property."
The jury would be asked to look at your "reasonable belief" from a subjective standpoint. So if you are really paranoid and ended up shooting the milkman, your paranoia would come into play. However when it comes to what force you used, that will be looked at objectively. So, in that case, what you said about commmunity standards MIGHT come into play, although it really shouldn't. THe "reasonable man" basically means someone with your charactaristics (height, weight, age, etc).
In law school we read a bunch of cases about guys who set up booby-traps in their house so that if someone trespassed, they would get shot. This sh*t is not legal anymore, as you could probably gauge from the law above.
Let's discuss what to do with the dead body now. I'll go the taxidermy route. I'd ask for a "displaying record" position of his hands. Like, I 'd like to see the sucker holding the cover of the record I'm playing. Yeah, that would be cool.
I like the way you think. Do you know any taxidermists who traffic organs on the side and will accept organs as payment?
thing is, you would have to refrigerate the body while you close the deal with the taxidermist. Keep in mind that you can't cut it in pieces if you one a realistic job. Too much trouble if you ask me. Just hand the still warm body to the 'dermist. I'm all for selling his clothes and shoes tough. It gives you the opportunity to dress your man according to your taste.
Seriously- Buy a revolver so you don't leave your shells (evidence) all over the scene. You may be Mr. cool man with a Gloc but when they find the casing that rolled under the couch it's curtains. All you gotta do is empty the cylinders, clean your residue and dump the body. They are more reliable and nothing is cooler than swingin' out a 'Six Shooter'
haha
Regarding shooting people in your home, I believe I posted about this last year but who knows. The comment about neutralizing the trespasser with one bullet isn't necessarily true at all in Colorado. We have the "Make My Day" Law. You can google it, or read about it here:
Before Make My Day, people who killed an intruder had to prove they thought they were in imminent danger of death or injury.
The law bars prosecutors from filing charges if the homeowner or occupant of a dwelling thinks an intruder is about to commit a crime and will use force -- no matter how slight -- in commission of the crime, and if the entry was unlawful or uninvited.
& as for the dude who suggested a baseball bat, thats the worst weapon on the planet, you miss your first swing, your done...
also shot gun for home protection is not a good look unless it's a sawed off...
38 or 45 way to go, most reliable...
when i had one of these i hated it...
cant wait to get back to cali, i sold all my joints when we moved to the east coast, sad day indeed...
I own two handguns and a shotgun and I don't ever envisage pointing them at people. I'm not going to risk killing someone over a fucking burglary. Practice your bat swing.
I own two handguns and a shotgun and I don't ever envisage pointing them at people. I'm not going to risk killing someone over a fucking burglary. Practice your bat swing.
So, just out of curiousity, what do you own guns for if you don't ever intend to point them at anybody? Are they for those pesky raccoons that get into your trash?
I'd be OK with shooting an intruder, but I wouldn't shoot to kill. Leg, arm, shoulder, something like that.
Shotgun is for general purpose country stuff and the handguns were from a previous life. I very rarely use them now.
We all like to think we'd be able to just disable an intruder but unless you get a clear shot, they're standing still or you are a fucking sharp marksman with an accurate weapon and a clear head you stand as good a chance of killing them as you do wounding. And even then there's a chance they'll bleed to death on your property.
Shotgun is for general purpose country stuff and the handguns were from a previous life. I very rarely use them now.
We all like to think we'd be able to just disable an intruder but unless you get a clear shot, they're standing still or you are a fucking sharp marksman with an accurate weapon and a clear head you stand as good a chance of killing them as you do wounding. And even then there's a chance they'll bleed to death on your property.
Well, you know, that's why if you own guns, you take them to the range regularly, you learn how to handle them, and you learn how to aim and keep your marksman skills clean. But you're right, never know what might happen. Or, there's always stun guns. I'll stun a mufucker til he's purple (no ayo).
Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the defendant reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent immenent and unlawful deadly force by the agressor. Deadly force may not be used to combat an immenent deadly assault if a non-deadly response will apparently suffice.
At common law, if a person can safely retreat, deadly force is unnecessary. A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-agressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreatin complete safety.
A universally recognized exception to the rule of retreat is that the non-agressor need not ordinarily retreat if he is attacked in his own dwelling place or within its curtilage [immediate surroundings land associated with the dwelling] even though he could do so in complete safety.
I know what you are saying and it pays to be in control of your weapon but the difference between the range and reality is a big one for me. I've lived in some difficult places round the world and had occasion to draw a handgun on a couple of occasions and am very grateful I didn't need to shoot. Maybe it's an age thing but the older I get the less I like guns.
I know what you are saying and it pays to be in control of your weapon but the difference between the range and reality is a big one for me. I've lived in some difficult places round the world and had occasion to draw a handgun on a couple of occasions and am very grateful I didn't need to shoot. Maybe it's an age thing but the older I get the less I like guns.
Definitely. Don't get me wrong, I don't really like guns at all. I believe it would be pretty difficult to get over ending somebody's life, whether they provoked it or not.
In law school we read a bunch of cases about guys who set up booby-traps in their house so that if someone trespassed, they would get shot. This sh*t is not legal anymore, as you could probably gauge from the law above.
They made us read those cases as well! Evidently, the booby-trap cases are the crux of a good common law education.
OK folks, you asked for it. Fun with guns on the search for raer in my backyard:
Yes yes I'm ready for the home invasion with my .22-250!
bout 16 years ago when i was 15 i accidentally stuned myself. i was walking thru the mall parking lot on the way to my homies house. the stun gun had a clip on it like a beeper, i stuck my hand in my pocket for something ZAPPPPPP!!!! i remember i was standing there in the parking lot like why the fuck am i standing here in this parking lot?!?!?!?! oh yeah i'm walking to phils house. it hurt a lil bit.
In law school we read a bunch of cases about guys who set up booby-traps in their house so that if someone trespassed, they would get shot.
my favorite is Bird v. Holbrock, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (CP 1825) where the guy who sets up the spring gun in his tulip garden because people were stealing his "valuable tullip bulbs" (which apparently in the late 1700s and early 1800s tullips were like really sought after and expensive??) And the unsuspecting errand boy climes over the wall to retrieve a peacock that strayed into the garden and triggers the gun so it shoots him in the leg.
So, just out of curiousity, what do you own guns for if you don't ever intend to point them at anybody? Are they for those pesky raccoons that get into your trash?
Guns are for three things:
1. Family protection 2. Hunting dangerous or delicious animals 3. Keeping the King of England out of your face
Comments
that's for women
you pepper spray women?
I meant napalm. I'm all fingers and thumbs today.
Real men use Sulphuric Acid >>>>>>
I'd ask for a "displaying record" position of his hands. Like, I 'd like to see the sucker holding the cover of the record I'm playing. Yeah, that would be cool.
You think those bodies were 'donated'? Intruders on Dr Gunther von Hagens Malibu estate, every one of 'em.
And just to note: Thes One clearly has learned more than 3 Card Monte from the O.G.s...!
You are close.
"A victim has the right to use non-deadly force in defense of his dwelling when, and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another???s unlawful entry or attack upon his dwelling. Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein. The rationale for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of inhabitants to be secure in their homes, rather than the right to defend property, as can be demonstrated by the law regarding defense of uninhabited property."
The jury would be asked to look at your "reasonable belief" from a subjective standpoint. So if you are really paranoid and ended up shooting the milkman, your paranoia would come into play. However when it comes to what force you used, that will be looked at objectively. So, in that case, what you said about commmunity standards MIGHT come into play, although it really shouldn't. THe "reasonable man" basically means someone with your charactaristics (height, weight, age, etc).
In law school we read a bunch of cases about guys who set up booby-traps in their house so that if someone trespassed, they would get shot. This sh*t is not legal anymore, as you could probably gauge from the law above.
thing is, you would have to refrigerate the body while you close the deal with the taxidermist. Keep in mind that you can't cut it in pieces if you one a realistic job. Too much trouble if you ask me. Just hand the still warm body to the 'dermist. I'm all for selling his clothes and shoes tough. It gives you the opportunity to dress your man according to your taste.
haha
Regarding shooting people in your home, I believe I posted about this last year but who knows. The comment about neutralizing the trespasser with one bullet isn't necessarily true at all in Colorado. We have the "Make My Day" Law. You can google it, or read about it here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20050606/ai_n14663032
Before Make My Day, people who killed an intruder had to prove they thought they were in imminent danger of death or injury.
The law bars prosecutors from filing charges if the homeowner or occupant of a dwelling thinks an intruder is about to commit a crime and will use force -- no matter how slight -- in commission of the crime, and if the entry was unlawful or uninvited.
I own two handguns and a shotgun and I don't ever envisage pointing them at people. I'm not going to risk killing someone over a fucking burglary. Practice your bat swing.
So, just out of curiousity, what do you own guns for if you don't ever intend to point them at anybody? Are they for those pesky raccoons that get into your trash?
I'd be OK with shooting an intruder, but I wouldn't shoot to kill. Leg, arm, shoulder, something like that.
We all like to think we'd be able to just disable an intruder but unless you get a clear shot, they're standing still or you are a fucking sharp marksman with an accurate weapon and a clear head you stand as good a chance of killing them as you do wounding. And even then there's a chance they'll bleed to death on your property.
Well, you know, that's why if you own guns, you take them to the range regularly, you learn how to handle them, and you learn how to aim and keep your marksman skills clean. But you're right, never know what might happen. Or, there's always stun guns. I'll stun a mufucker til he's purple (no ayo).
At common law, if a person can safely retreat, deadly force is unnecessary. A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-agressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreatin complete safety.
A universally recognized exception to the rule of retreat is that the non-agressor need not ordinarily retreat if he is attacked in his own dwelling place or within its curtilage [immediate surroundings land associated with the dwelling] even though he could do so in complete safety.
Definitely. Don't get me wrong, I don't really like guns at all. I believe it would be pretty difficult to get over ending somebody's life, whether they provoked it or not.
If I could rid the world of two things, it would be GUNS and GUNS.
Everybody in New Brunswick has a rifle! My neighbour, who runs a bed and breakfast, has something like sixty rifles. Handguns are a different story.
They made us read those cases as well! Evidently, the booby-trap cases are the crux of a good common law education.
OK folks, you asked for it. Fun with guns on the search for raer in my backyard:
Yes yes I'm ready for the home invasion with my .22-250!
Beer and guns shouldn't mix.
my favorite is Bird v. Holbrock, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (CP 1825) where the guy who sets up the spring gun in his tulip garden because people were stealing his "valuable tullip bulbs" (which apparently in the late 1700s and early 1800s tullips were like really sought after and expensive??) And the unsuspecting errand boy climes over the wall to retrieve a peacock that strayed into the garden and triggers the gun so it shoots him in the leg.
I love that story.
Guns are for three things:
1. Family protection
2. Hunting dangerous or delicious animals
3. Keeping the King of England out of your face