Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 that link take you to a different article than it did me? I seriously hope so. Otherwise that creation of facts out of thin air would be bordering on frightening.It was in the video on that same page. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 See now, I don't find this justified... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/d...sec1_lnk1|70903A Kentucky man has been charged with attempted murder after he shot a 12-year-old boy in the back for ringing his doorbell during a game of Ding Dong Ditch.Jason Eberle of Louisville, was playing the game, which involves someone ringing a doorbell and running away, on Monday night with friends. The New York Post reports that after the kids rang 56-year-old Michael Bishop's bell he came out onto his porch armed with a shotgun and opened fire, hitting Eberle in the back and shoulder. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 See now, I don't find this justified...You don't want to argue that in some states a person is well within the law to open fire on any person(s) on his property? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 There is a standard understanding in law that meeting force with force is acceptable, but escalation of force must be reasonable.In other words, if a person comes at you with a knife, a gun is a reasonable escalation of force to defend yourself.If someone stands there yelling at you, responding with a gun is an over escalation of force.Also, don't shoot people in the back if you can avoid it.This guy is going away for a long time. Good riddance. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 There is a standard understanding in law that meeting force with force is acceptable, but escalation of force must be reasonable.I think that depends on the state. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 There is a standard understanding in law that meeting force with force is acceptable, but escalation of force must be reasonable.Go back to California, hippie. Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 I think that depends on the state.It does. In some states, lethal force is permitted against any trespasser. Hell, in Texas, an elderly gentleman shot a man repossessing his car at the street (he never made or attempted to make entry into the house or garage) and it was found justifiable. The only real exception in Texas is with set lethal traps, which are still considered illegal. But shoot all the burglars or trespassers you want. It is A-OK. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Ok.How about this one, justified...? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43423785/ns/wo...ews-weird_news/Bedeviled by a painful wart that no cream, ointment or doctor could cure, Sean Murphy reportedly decided to try a radical — and permanent — at-home procedure. His surgical tool: a 12-bore Beretta shotgun. In a move that seems fitting of the Wild West, rather than modern England, the security guard fortified himself with a healthy dose of the local anaesthetic — in lager form, naturally — stretched out his left hand, aimed, and pulled the trigger.Unfortunately for Murphy, the blast had collateral damage. According to The Telegraph, it blew off nearly the entire middle finger on his left hand, and left the 38-year-old facing possible prison time for illegal possession of a firearm.With just a stump to show for his efforts, Murphy appeared in court earlier this week and was handed a suspended 16-week prison sentence and 100 hours of community service......"I didn't expect to lose my finger as well when I shot it but the gun recoiled and that was it. The wart was gone and so was most of my finger. There was nothing left, so no chance to re-attach it." Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Ok.How about this one, justified...?Sure why not. If he was illegally in possession of a firearm then it is indeed well within the law to charge him for it. Just ask Plaxico Burress. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Sure why not. If he was illegally in possession of a firearm then it is indeed well within the law to charge him for it. Just ask Plaxico Burress.There was a story a while back about a guy in England who found a shotgun in a park or playground. He picked it up and went to the Police Station to turn it in. He was arrested for illegal possession of a handgun.Edit for Link to story http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Ex-sold...tail/story.htmlA former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested."I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges."I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him."At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells......Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge."The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."He wound up getting a 12 month suspended sentence. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I think that depends on the state.Not on neutral ground.On your property this is probably true.But in public, the force escalation issue remains relevant.I'd bet that is not a state by state issue.Even Texas doesn't allow you to bring a gun to defend yourself against a person why yells at you at a sporting event. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Not on neutral ground.On your property this is probably true.But in public, the force escalation issue remains relevant.I'd bet that is not a state by state issue.Even Texas doesn't allow you to bring a gun to defend yourself against a person why yells at you at a sporting event.Your post doesn't exactly pin it down that you were talking about the above so you can't fault me for my post. High five? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Your post doesn't exactly pin it down that you were talking about the above so you can't fault me for my post. High five?High Five indeed! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now