PDA

View Full Version : Outrageous.


Foeni
20-01-2007, 09:18 PM
This week in Copenhagen, an exclusive watchmaker was robbed by three armed men (the guns later on turned out to be fakes). The watchmaker draws a gun and shoots two of the men, but they both survived. Now he's being charged with attempted murder. Personally I think that's outrageous how you victimize the assaulters.

What's your general stand on owning guns and the right to defend yourself?

Mandy
20-01-2007, 09:37 PM
Holy. Crap. That is ridiculous. I think I heard a case similar to that....some thief was on the roof of a house and fell through some part that was being repaired and sued the homeowner. Personally, I'd shoot anyone that I thought was armed that was breaking into my house. My mom keeps a gun that my dad had bought some years back. I think people should have the right to defend themselves in their own home.

Seriously, theives shouldn't always assume that the people they're robbing are just going to sit back and let them do whatever they want. I've seen a lot of videos of people that fight back. I mean, it IS risky, but people do it.

Foeni
20-01-2007, 09:43 PM
It's just so typical for the Danish society. We don't punish our criminals nearly hard enough. We see them as victims. I say you should be allowed to defend yourself with any means neccesary. Regardless of how much you injure the attacker.

Seph
20-01-2007, 11:09 PM
I don't think it's right that a man who potentially could have been killed or badly beaten should be charged after defending himself. I swear criminals are getting it easy now, it's more profitable to screw up than be successful for them.

I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property, and on the issue of guns I don't see why not as anyone robbing them could potentially have one.

allied_assult
21-01-2007, 12:37 AM
That's a load of crap. I don't think someone that could have been killed by these guys should be charged with anything. It's not like he knew they were fakes or anything, and that doesn't really matter anyway. People should have the right to defend themselves against something like that.

GrimeZy
21-01-2007, 01:51 AM
What the hell, thats just bloody stupid, the robbers are the one's that are to be charged even if the Guns were fakes.

michael22
21-01-2007, 06:34 AM
now if the robbers believed they were real guns then well....DARWIN. I agree though, if a person is threatened they should be able to defend themselves unless a better less violent solution can be found. Personally I would hurl two knives into their chests and cal it a day (possibly feeling bad about it later).

mongoose
21-01-2007, 09:16 AM
I can tell you a similar case in my country.
There was a 'thief' who wanted to enter a house of a rich one , but he was not armed. I don't think he got in the house or was on the fence but i know the rich guy shoot and killed the robber. But because he is a rich guy he is free now, and has a normal life such as nothing happened. If this is justice I have nothing to say, but in my country it's nothing to expect in such cases. I don't even know if the thiesf wanted to robb the house or what, the point is he is dead.

Mandy
21-01-2007, 09:20 AM
Now imagine this; a street kid robs a guy on a train with a knife, law alows defending your property with gun, robbed guy shoots at the kid, kills him and injures two other people on the train.

Do you honestly believe this would be better?

In my statement earlier, I said it should be ok to protect your home. I dont think people should be allowed to carry around concealed weapons.

Liam
21-01-2007, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately if possession of a weapon is illegal then the watchmaker is just as much in the wrong as the two would-be burglars.

barrington
21-01-2007, 11:26 AM
I love the one about Tony Martin - he shot a burglar breaking into his home. Now the burglar is suing him for LOSS OF EARNINGS!

Foeni
21-01-2007, 12:48 PM
Unfortunately if possession of a weapon is illegal then the watchmaker is just as much in the wrong as the two would-be burglars.
Possesion of weapons is under normal circumstances illegal, and he should of course be charged with having a gun illegally. But charging him with attempted murder is ridicolous.

And really I’m not going to shoot a person in the back because he just stole my 2000 dollars plasma TV that is insured anyway. I’ll do everything I can to make sure he gets caught and justice has been done and I’ll rather spent money on more taxes for better police work than in a magnum under my pillow.
What if you or your family was in fatal danger? Would you hesitate shooting? I wouldn't. I'd do what was neccesary to stop the attacker, even if that means shooting him. It wouldn't be a pleasent thing to do, but I'd rather see a criminal dead than myself or another innocent person.

mongoose
21-01-2007, 02:12 PM
If my family is in fatal danger than i would not play Superman and try to safe them by pointing a gun at the ones treating them.


I prefere Spiderman, not Superman :p.

Foeni
21-01-2007, 02:33 PM
If the criminals were running away i would not shoot them in the back because I'm civilized and live in a civilized country.
I've never talked about shooting anyone in the back. All I'm saying is that I'd do what I found neccesary to protect myself and my family.

Mongoose, I'm trying to start an interesting debate, which we've been in lack of here lately. Stop posting that kind of posts that adds nothing to the discussion.

Foeni
21-01-2007, 03:10 PM
I think it's wrong to automatically charge him with attempted murder.
I'll ask you this: What scenario would you rather see, a criminal hurt or and innocent person hurt?

I'd like to extend this discussion to more than just guns.

Seph
21-01-2007, 03:42 PM
I'm "fine" with hobbyists having registered arms for use in a professional club but I値l never support the idea that it is our right to protect our property with arms.

I think I would like to know flightfreaks address so I can rob him, he seems to think it wouldn't be nice to stop me taking his stuff. In fact if more people thought like flightfreak I would glady ditch my degree and start robbing people.

Or will you suggest a more appropriate soloution to defending ourselves?

Foeni
21-01-2007, 04:08 PM
I don't think you get what Flightfreak means. I, too would rather use non-violent ways, but I would, if neccesary, use violence as well. There's no point in putting yourself in danger trying to protect your TV; it's usually insured anyway.

mongoose
21-01-2007, 04:30 PM
I'll ask you this: What scenario would you rather see, a criminal hurt or and innocent person hurt?


I would see an innocent person hurt, because it comes more often in real life to see weak people hurt. Even if a criminal shots an innocent person he is accused of murder and eventualy spends the rest of his life in jail. I say eventualy because he might get out sooner and the innocent person died for nothing.
And you don't see very often someone who shoots a criminal. Theese are movies. In real life the bad guys mostly win.

Foeni
21-01-2007, 04:34 PM
I don't think he tried to kill the three robbers, that's what attempted murder means. But the fact is, another man held a gun just under his face. No wonder he responds with a gun. Just a shame he didn't kill the fucking bastard. Accidently of course (and this is not sarcastic, I don't think he should have tried to kill them).

Mandy
21-01-2007, 05:18 PM
In my conclusion to posting in this thread:

Pieter, unless you have superior ninja skills and have mastered the death grip, I am so not going to marry you. Unless Cliff is living with us too, but that would be a questionable situation. That is all.

Liam
22-01-2007, 12:07 AM
Simply owning a gun is not enough.

Without adequate training in its use I guarantee that 95% of people with a common 9mm semi automatic pistol would miss a man sized target at a range of 10 yards. Its not a matter of point and shoot with any weapon, unless you have an automatic and can go for a bit of a spray.

Unless you are trained in how to use ANY weapon, any potential attacker worth a pinch of shit will have it out of your hands and at your throat/pointed at your face before you can even blink. Criminals have been sensationalised to a ridiculous extreme and its VERY unlikely that anyone is going to walk into your home and randomly shoot you. Criminals enter homes to make a quick dollar and faced with being caught, 99% of them will opt to flee. Its when you threaten them that things get ugly. If someone is there with the purpose of hurting you, owning a weapon isnt going to help you unless you are trained.

I'm on the fence. I support licensed firearms but I can't find any reason for keeping one in the home for self defense. I have some training in using rifles and pistols and I wouldnt keep one in my house.

mongoose
22-01-2007, 12:06 PM
Well waht exactly do you mean by training ? Is it just that you shoot a few times at a target or at some cans or do you mean professional training at a gun training-place, where you have a trainer.
I personally had a hunting gun in my hand and shoot some cans on the field, and it wasn't that hard for me to have precision. But it was only some practiceing and I think it's not that hard to handle a gun.

mongoose
22-01-2007, 12:24 PM
I personally I wouldn't use a pistol or a gun against a burglar. A baseball bat would be more safer and more efficient if he is at close range and you would wait him in the right place.

Foeni
22-01-2007, 01:09 PM
Whether you would use a gun or not is, I think irrelevant, I think you should be allowed to do so if neccesary. I'm not sure how I'd react in a such situation, but I would want to have the choice. This is what I think it's all about. Pete, you keep saying people are naive if they think they can play superman, but that's not the important thing - different people react differently. What's important is that you have the right to defend yourself in a matter you find appropriate. I reckon most people would go for the lesser violent solution, very few want to have a human life on their conscience.

hasselbrad
22-01-2007, 02:33 PM
Yeah okay, but even that I don't support.

Imagine everyone having guns in their home's to protect their property.
Why would a thief or anyone with bad intentions wait till you have a gun pointed at him? He'd just make sure he's the first one to hold the gun in to your face. They'd arm them self better and robberies would become more brutal.
Besides I would not like to be killed with the gun I bought to protect my self with in the first place.

And really I知 not going to shoot a person in the back because he just stole my 2000 dollars plasma TV that is insured anyway. I値l do everything I can to make sure he gets caught and justice has been done and I値l rather spent money on more taxes for better police work than in a magnum under my pillow.

I'm "fine" with hobbyists having registered arms for use in a professional club but I値l never support the idea that it is our right to protect our property with arms.

That's all well and good in theory, but the fact remains that property crimes are usually lower in areas that have higher rates of gun ownership. And, for all of the wailing about guns causing a "Wild West" mentality, those crime rates were extremely low out west in the 1800s. Why? Simple...crooks knew they risked their lives every time they climbed through someone's window. It wasn't worth the risk.
The problem with just letting them get away with the plasma because it's insured and paying taxes for better police work is that pretty soon, no one can afford insurance and the police are so overwhelmed, they can't respond to every call. The criminals become emboldened because there is no tangible consequence to their actions.
I'll give you an example. Some years ago, a few high speed chases in Tampa led to some deaths, and the TPD adopted a no chase policy. Basically, the police couldn't chase a stolen car. If they were behind a car they knew to be stolen and hit their lights, if the car took off, they weren't allowed to chase it. Guess what happened. Car theft went up over 50% in a few short months. Kids would pull up next to police cars and hold up signs that said "This Car is Stolen" and then speed away, knowing that all the police could do was radio it in. In a span of about six months, we had four cars abandoned in the parking lot of our old business location. One of our vans was stolen and wound up across town. Two other times, theives did hundreds of dollars in damage attempting to steal them.
Theives knew they could run from the police and dump the car with very little, if any, chance of being caught. Once the city realized that they had made a mistake, the chase ban was lifted. And, as one might imagine, car theft rates plummeted.
By and large, criminals are criminals because it's an easy way to get money. They choose targets based on how easy they think it will be to get in and out with the least risk to their personal well being. They move past well lit homes. They avoid large, barking dogs and alarms, and move toward those houses that don't look as risky.
There's a good reason that pretty much everyone in jail for breaking and entering says the same thing...the greatest deterrent to them is the sound a twelve gauge, pump action shotgun makes when it's cocked. They know that sound, and they don't want to be on the business end of it.

seventhson
22-01-2007, 05:41 PM
Way off-topic from the right to have/use weapons...forgive me.

The up-side of my poverty is that I do not have a lot of possessions that most thieves would be interested in stealing. If anyone wants an old cassette tape player/recorder or a 20" color TV they are free to walk into my home and I will give it to them. It's only stuff. Stuff can be replaced. I will cook you a meal if you are hungry. No need to steal anything from me, I will give it to you for free.

(-: Peace :-)

Foeni
22-01-2007, 07:06 PM
Who keeps you from going to a official weapon dealer to buy your self a gun, pistol or other arms? No one.
I never stated that it should be possible to just walk in some weapons store and buy whatever you want. Permits should be required. Besides, I've never said I was a big supporter of guns in our society, I merely said that you should be allowed to defend yourself with the means neccesary. And if you have a gun, then you should be allowed to use it if neccesary. Of course, if you don't have a permit, you should be charged with illegal possesion of a firearm.

Serious, would you shoot a burglar death for a 2000 dollar plasma tv? I hope not and if you would than I think you’re a danger for our society.
Would you shoot a burglar that threats you with your life? I hope you do and not end up shot by your self. But like said: it should stay in hand of a court to assess whether your actions were out of legal self defence or not.
No, I would not shoot a burglar to defend a TV or anything else for that matter. I think you know me well enough to know that. I've never argued for the right to use violence to defend your property, only your life or the lives of other. You may not believe it, but I fully agree that it should be up to a court of law to decide whether or not it was self-defence. I never questioned that. And that, my friend, is what makes it different from the 'wild wild west'. I do however believe that you shouldn't question the method used to stop your attacker. If it's self-defence, then it's self-defence and the fucker had it coming.

Sorry Hasselbrad but how do you think it has been here the past 50 years? Compared to your country the murder and crime rates here are peanuts and I can’t complain about the insurance price either. It seems that taxes and no guns under everyone’s pillow does seem to work.

In the US it may be the only affordable way to protect your home but to be honest that says more about your country than mine.
Comparing the US with a western European country is irrelevant. Our societies are on some points very different. In the US you don't have the same kind of security that the society will look after you if you lose everything. In Europe we do. If you wanted to compare you'd have to compare two western European countries, say The Netherlands and Denmark (if we hypothetically allowed hand guns and the right to defend yourself). That would be much better grounds to compare on. Comparing two US states would probably work, too.

The case Foeni brought up are rare cases that get a lot of attention by the media because it’s good sensation and challenging for the jurisdiction in our countries.
It gives us an opportunity to discuss. But of course it's a good story, no doubt about that.

Foeni
22-01-2007, 08:21 PM
I think we're arguing on the right to own and use guns to defend yourself. Which I support and you're against. And we disagree what effect it would have on our society.

Foeni
22-01-2007, 09:52 PM
So you support legalising handguns? And not just for the elite that has been trained.

seventhson
23-01-2007, 02:25 AM
Rural Texas, unincorporated area outside city jurisdiction, large steel gate across drive entrance posted "No Trespassing" & "Guard Dog". 90lb German shepherd announces any vehicle coming up the drive toward the house. If you know Rosco & call him by name, he may not maul you when/if you step out of the truck. Bubba keeps a loaded double barrell 12-gage shotgun by the door. Good thing his kids are away at school, he doesn't use trigger locks. Wonder if Bubba's been drinking or had a fight with the ol'lady this evening.
I've known Bubba since 1976 & we're almost always happy to see each other, but I make sure to call him before I drive out to his house 'cause he'll put Rosco up & I've seen the damage that half a bottle of Jim Beam, a bad day at work & unloading both of those barrels with one pull of the triggers by Bubba can do. Doesn't even need to be able to see strait to take out a 6 foot wide swath of destruction. Hope he doesn't feel threatend when a stranger comes calling, unannounced. Who am I to question his constitutional rights to defend himself, do you want to? I have his number on voice-dial on my cell phone & I never show up unannounced. Sit Rosco, sit.

Foeni
23-01-2007, 01:31 PM
In Denmark you can be convicted even if it was self-defence. You'd get convicted for using unneccesary force.

Foeni
23-01-2007, 04:28 PM
It shouldn't be neccesary to have to have some deep thoughts about whether or not to shoot or attack in other way. If you really are in danger, then the method you use to avoid should be legal.

Mandy
23-01-2007, 06:22 PM
Yay! Let's mug Pieter! He won't fight back! Let me know when you get an iPhone.

Seriously, get some balls. If someone stabbed you just for your mp3, how do you know they won't kill you for it? Do you really wanna just take it, in case you MIGHT get charged for ANYTHING? Self-defense is legal in America. Europe is heaps fucked up. How is it not legal if someone has a knife in your back?

Mandy
23-01-2007, 06:59 PM
Yeah, the crime rate IS a lot higher than in Europe. But for those of us who aren't criminals, how are we supposed to do anything about that except defend ourselves?

And first of all, any fucking idiot who buys a gun without learning how to use it SHOULD be shot.

Foeni
23-01-2007, 07:05 PM
A court should asses whether or not we're talking self defence. But if the court decides it is in fact self defence, then I couldn't care two shits about the punk that decided to put your life in danger. If he's killed or just wounded is the same to me. I would feel no pity. Except of course, if he's killed, he won't do it again. Of course that sounds cruel, but remember who the victim is. If you shoot someone puts your life in danger, then you are the victim. Not the one you've just shot!

Mandy
23-01-2007, 07:19 PM
Like I said, you should learn how to use a gun before buying one.

And wtf, putting your gun in a drawer is so cliche and stupid.

Mandy
23-01-2007, 07:43 PM
Do you think I'd be saying "you should learn to use it if you have one" if I had one and didn't know how to use it?

Also, when you argue your points with mocking, it makes you look like a child.

Mandy
23-01-2007, 08:01 PM
Guess that makes us both children!

Foeni
24-01-2007, 04:26 AM
It's the immediate assumption, I'm pointing out. He shot someone that held a gun to his face, then he must he attempting murder. I'd say call it self defence until proven differently. He's in jail right now during the investigation, because he shot two robbers the world's better off without.

hasselbrad
24-01-2007, 01:11 PM
Any of you ever had a gun pointed at you? I have. I was robbed at gunpoint when I was living in Atlanta. Handed over $60 and walked away unharmed. Funny thing is, I wish I'd had a gun and had shot and killed the guy. Why? Because apparently my action, or lack thereof, helped to embolden him. He was subsequently responsible for a string of robberies and rapes across the north part of Atlanta. Eventually, he wound up shooting one of his victims.

I agree with Pieter that there needs to be some sort of official inquiry. People can't use "self defense" as carte blanche for murder. However, those who kill in self defense should be given the benefit of the doubt when faced with a weapon, even if that weapon turns out to be a toy. That jeweler had no idea that they weren't going to kill him. To my way of thinking, if you brandish a weapon in the course of a robbery, you have declared to your victim that if you don't get what you want, you are willing to injure and/or kill. I don't give a rat's ass or a flying fuck what your "true intentions" are. Has a criminal ever taken the stand and said that, "yes...I intended to kill the gas station attendant"? No. Everyone hides behind the "things went wrong...I didn't mean to kill anyone" defense.

Foeni
24-01-2007, 03:09 PM
But think about it. Jewelery shoots two out of three burglars and injures them severe.
I never said they were severely injured.

You tell me, how a jewelery can shoot two out of three burglars that have him at gun point? That are effectively threatening his life. That is imo impossible. I don't think that is what happened.
If they had the intention of killing him than they would have the moment they walked in the shop.
Firstly, their guns were fake, so of course they didn't have the intention of killing him. But how would the watchmaker know that, as far as I know they weren't even masked, so if the robbery was succesful he would be a witness.
Apparently there was a bit of a struggle in a tiny room, he could easily have shot one of them in the back by accident. Besides, they were violently attack by armed men, how do you expect a watchmaker to know for certain when he's in fatal danger and when he's not?

You know what i think has happened? He shot them while they were actively robbing his shop, braking the glass and putting jewelery in bags or when leaving the shop with his property and that is the difference. He did not shoot them out of self defense, he was protecting his property.
Eyewitnesses saw a robber holding a gun under the watchmaker's chin. I'd say that's pretty life threatening seen from his point of view.

I agree with Pieter that there needs to be some sort of official inquiry. People can't use "self defense" as carte blanche for murder. However, those who kill in self defense should be given the benefit of the doubt when faced with a weapon, even if that weapon turns out to be a toy. That jeweler had no idea that they weren't going to kill him. To my way of thinking, if you brandish a weapon in the course of a robbery, you have declared to your victim that if you don't get what you want, you are willing to injure and/or kill. I don't give a rat's ass or a flying fuck what your "true intentions" are. Has a criminal ever taken the stand and said that, "yes...I intended to kill the gas station attendant"? No. Everyone hides behind the "things went wrong...I didn't mean to kill anyone" defense.
Exactly what I mean. I never talked for letting people use self defense as a carte blanche for murder.

Pete, you seem to think all the crime in the US is a product of the way their society is formed. It's formed a lot different than yours or mine, and still we see armed robberies and criminals with guns. There will always be criminals, and you need to stop feeling sorry for them. They drew the first gun, not their victim.

mongoose
24-01-2007, 07:16 PM
Man Flightf. you have missed your career. You should have become a lawyer.
I couldn't say all that things you mentioned above. Keep up the good work, and when I kill a bulgarian :p I will call you to defend me :icon_lol:

Foeni
24-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Pete, due to the ongoing investigation, all information regarding what happened isn't out yet. I.e. what the security cameras show. So I can't really judge whether or not it was legal self defense or not. I have no doubts it was what I'd consider self defense, though.
Actually, as much as you say I'm missing your point, I think you're missing mine as well. No, I do not think people should be able to use self defense as a carte blance to commit murder. But once it's proven, by a court of law, that you've been threatened in any way that could be considered just slightly dangerous, I think you have the right to defend yourself. Regardless of the injuries on your 'victim'.
Eyewitnesses saw a robber holding a gun under the watchmaker's chin.
Yes, I did use as an argument that an eyewitness saw the robber hold a gun under the watchmaker's chin, because that's the source the public has at this moment - as I said, due to the ongoing investigation.

Really i don't get what you're going on about, on the one hand you say that people should not get a carte blanche and on the other hand you're going on about how outrages it is that a jewellery is being charged with attempt to murder and taken in too custody while you in fact know nothing.
At the time he was arrested, neither did the police. They learned that two robbers had been shot, and he was arrested for attempted murder. I think they should investigate first, witnesses tell that he was being held up at gun point. I say that smells like self defense.

hasselbrad
25-01-2007, 03:59 PM
The small room in the back may very well have been where he keeps loose diamonds. Or, more to the point where the theives thought the loose gems are kept. What you are failing to realize is that the situation could have very easily gotten out of hand because the theives became distracted. That's usually what happens when robberies go bad. The shopkeeper doesn't (or isn't able to) produce what they want and they begin to threaten him or her. Once confusion sets in, theives become agitated, and that's usually when someone gets hurt.
That's what happened in the case of my assailant. When he moved from robbery to rape, the police said the stakes were raised and each situation became more unstable. Eventually, stress takes over and someone gets hurt badly. The woman he shot didn't die.
From the limited amount of information, I would imagine one (no more than two) of the thieves went into the back room with him. There aren't going to be three guys standing there with three toy pistols at his chin, moving about the store in unison like some Benny Hill skit. What you fail to take into consideration is that most thieves aren't as slick as Ocean's 11. Criminals get confused. Adrenaline causes them to do stupid things. Perhaps they had masks, but left them in the getaway car. Things rarely, if ever, go according to plan.
The greater point in all of this can be summed up in something my father told me when I was young.
"Don't ever aim a gun at something you don't intend to kill."
That can be expanded to cover knives too. Your example of the knife wielding MP3 player thief is all well and good, but if a criminal pulls a weapon in a robbery, then whatever the response, the criminal brought upon him/herself.
Do I think an MP3 player is worth taking a life over? No.
But then, it's not really up to me if someone with a knife is willing to make it so.

As for American crime rates, Brussels has almost double the murder rate of New York City. This excerpt from an article from an old Weekly Standard is quite interesting.

Last year, London saw more serious assaults, armed robberies, and car thefts than New York; 2002 could see London's murder rate exceed the Big Apple's.

The same pattern can be seen throughout Europe--indeed, in much of the developed world. Crime has recently hit record highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, and a host of other major cities. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office (the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Justice) found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.

Americans, on the other hand, have become much safer. Preliminary 2001 crime statistics from the FBI show America's tenth consecutive year of declines in crime. While our homicide rate is still substantially higher than most in Europe, it has sunk to levels unseen here since the early 1960s. And overall crime rates in this country are now 40 percent below the all-time highs of the early 1970s. In 1973, nearly 60 percent of American households fell victim to property crimes. In 2000 (the most recent data available), only about 20 percent did. Among the economically powerful democracies in the Group of Seven, only the Japanese now have a lower victimization rate than the United States.

Foeni
25-01-2007, 06:58 PM
How can you have no doubts about whether it was legal self defense or not if even apparently the legal authorities doubt about it?
I said I had no doubts that it was self defense. Never said legal self defense.

I could kill you with a knife, if i threat you with a knife because i want your mp3 player you apparently think it's your right to kill me. That's what you're saying, thats what you're pleading for. I think it's quite absurd to kill someone because he wants your mp3 player.
Mp3 player = Life?
How can I know you're not going to stab me? These things do happen. And I'd rather shoot to be sure, than I'd just be hoping he wouldn't harm me. Besides, as brad says, as soon as he pulls a knife at me, he has brought the response upon himself.

If i want to kill you I'd do it right on the spot, i would not threaten you I'd just do it and take your mp3 player after killing you. If you resist you think the life of your own and that criminal is less worth than a 100 dollars mp3 player.
What if I saw you coming towards me with a knife without saying anything, then I'd presume you are going to harm me, and therefor I would find it reasonable to shoot.

I'd never pay a hundred bucks to save that kind of criminal's life.

Is it legal self defense when you shoot a criminal because he threatened you for your mp3 player? Or did you end up murdering him in attempt to protect your property?
I should be legal self defense to shoot a criminal that tries to rop me for my mp3 player if he draws some kind of weapon, or in any other way sends signals that he might have intentions to harm me.

]QUOTE=Flightfreak]Do you expect a criminal to walk in to your jewelery and ask you kindly without threatening you, "could you please put all the jewelry in a bag".
I think not, he'll threaten you. He'll act like or say give me the cash or I'll kill you. For you that's enough to give you the right to kill the criminal without any legal consequence.[/QUOTE]
Yes.

Criminals are failures of society. Criminal are created by society, a society that failed in their surroundings, in their environment.
Bah. It's not the society's fault that people choose to be criminals. There's plenty of poor, badly educated people that deal with their problems in a legal way.

You won't stop crime by punishing it in a more violent way simply because criminals get created in crime, a surrounding were society failed.
I believe that legalising defending yourself you will keep the unarmed criminals from doing their crimes. Unarmed criminals don't all of the sudden decide to use a gun, that's quite a step.

hasselbrad
25-01-2007, 09:41 PM
I chose New York because it's the largest city. I assume Brussels is as well.
I also looked up New Orleans, which has been on a tear of killing as of late, but I couldn't get a good figure. I am slammed as well, so I only had time to do cursory research. My point in this whole thing is that as a criminal, if you threaten someone else's life, whether you intend them any harm or not, you put yourself at risk of having deadly force used against you.
If someone runs past and snatches a purse or an MP3 player, should the victim have the right to shoot them? Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about here. If eyewitnesses saw one of these men put a gun to this man's chin, that is a life threatening action, whether the gun was real or not. The jeweler could have no idea that his life wasn't in danger.
If you want a clear cut example of excessive deadly force, I'll give you one. A fine, upstanding citizen robbed a local restaurant owner at gunpoint and ran out of the building. The owner went outside, got into his car and proceeded to run the guy down in the street. Killed him. Excessive? Yeah. But after seeing the guy's rap sheet, I think even you could be hard pressed to find any sympathy. That's a clear cut case of someone being out of danger, but taking the law into their own hands.

As for not using Detroit...it's a goddamn zoo. That would be like using Fallujah as an example. :p

Norseman
25-01-2007, 10:11 PM
I don't, and will never own a gun. I don't think shooting people solves much. It will probably just lead to more aggressive attackers in the first place, since they know their victims have the means, and will use it to defend themselvs. I also believe that if you shoot someone you are a murderer and should be treated like one.

hasselbrad
25-01-2007, 10:28 PM
I don't, and will never own a gun. I don't think shooting people solves much. It will probably just lead to more aggressive attackers in the first place, since they know their victims have the means, and will use it to defend themselvs. I also believe that if you shoot someone you are a murderer and should be treated like one.

Nope. Most criminals that are interviewed say the same thing. They look for easy targets, and easy targets are the places that don't appear to have guns. Any criminal, unless they are cracked out of their skull, will rob the house with the Honda Insight covered in Kerry bumper stickers instead of the one with the Ford Bronco covered in Bush and NRA stickers, period.

Norseman
26-01-2007, 02:11 PM
Yes, maybe so. But I still will never have a gun, mostly because i never will have use for it and it's a prinsiple. Too easy to just shoot someone these days...sigh.

Never mind me, not much happening where I live.:fencing:

KeiraIsFIT
26-01-2007, 05:42 PM
i use a baseball bat :D but the weird thingy at the top on pistols that you pull back is too hard to pull back, well on a Desert Eagle it is, but still, so Baseball bat for me :D or one of many, many hockey sticks

Foeni
28-06-2007, 05:13 PM
The case ended today. Fortunately he was not convicted for attempted manslaughter. He got 6 months for possesing 3 armed weapons.
The D.A. wanted him behind bars for 2 years..

Leonie
28-06-2007, 05:33 PM
Justice, then.

I reckon, anyone having a gun-like object and aiming it in your general direction while stealing all your stuff? You have every right in the world to have a go at him.

No one finds himself accidentally robbing a jewelery shop. The jeweller was on his own, they were taking his income away, and threatening his life.

If you can, shoot them. The world will be a better place.

However, it wasn't legal for the jeweller to have weapons, so he was rightly punished for that. I don't particulary promote the legality of guns (cause people are stupid), nor do I support the death penalty (cause you're never sure you've got the right person) BUT in the event that a bunch of people are robbing the shop you make a living from, and they seem like they might take your life along with the rest of your stuff? Hurt the bastards as much as you can. Caught redhanded.