The entire discussion was about me as an individual because I was immediately accused of being a potential murderer for stating I would shoot a man, which is absurd.
Printable View
The entire discussion was about me as an individual because I was immediately accused of being a potential murderer for stating I would shoot a man, which is absurd.
A wild guess, but most people that carry guns and is in the riskzone of actually shooting someone has been prepared for a situation like that. You have not.Quote:
As I've pointed out before, most people carrying guns have never fired on a person, but would do so when necessary.
For someone that claim other people cant read you are missing fundemental points in others people posts. I never talked about anyone a police officer or anyone that had to discharge a weapon in self defense. My posts been about a civlian, you taking the law into his own hands and shooting someone and "Let the police come and clean the mess" ..Quote:
I guess you call anyone who's ever had to discharge a weapon in self defense or in the line of duty "acting like Rambo". Completely irrelevant point.
Ironic consider above :) But its nice how you arguments consist of "You cant read!!!" Its so illogical to begin with, yes you would know that there was a person out there somewhere that was armed and dangerous thats true. But you wouldnt know that the person in the boat in your backyard was him. Reasonably you would then go and investigate who was the person that was hiding in the boat yes? Then you could make a assessment of the situation. Or, would you just randomly just assume that omg the person in my boat in the yard is the guy everyone looking for better to shoot the person without checking whats up?Quote:
Here you are again, unable to read simple sentences and have to make the same comments repeatedly. How would I not know what? That he was unarmed and gravely wounded? I didn't even know he was unarmed until TODAY, lol. I made comments based on the information I had at the time, which was he was an armed criminal willing to shoot anyone who got in his way.
As further this thread has progressed you just changed your opinion. So its hard to keep track.Quote:
I implore you to slow down and actually read what I've said as this thread progressed, you seem to be missing some key points. If you simple want to antagonize me, make a better effort and try making real points.
You know nothing about what I've prepared for.
There is a difference between acting within the law, and taking the law in my own hands. Learn it.
I never said I would shoot someone based on an "assumption" of any kind.
My opinion has never changed. You just made assumptions to fill in what you wanted to believe I said.
You could try and read what my first post in this thread was about, it was the fascination of people writing such things like you did not you as a person. "You joke, but if I found the guy hiding in my backyard, I'd have put a few rounds in him and then called the cops to come clean up the mess. Problem solved." if you forgot what you wrote. "Clean up the mess. Problem solved" hints really at a very crude and barbaric approach to the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I know exactly what I wrote. The tone of a comment due to the disdain I have for a man who killed 4 people and wounded 250+ is discomforting to you? Oh well, I won't lose any sleep over your delicate sensibilities. You said "people like me" and stated such people "like me" would kill a man in cold blood, which is not even remotely close to what I said. You just filled in the blanks to suit your own needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Internet is filled with people like you, boasting about you would do this and that. But usally when it comes down to business you wouldnt do **** cause you are too afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Can you provide a legal paragraph that states you are allowed to shoot someone like that. From what ive read you would need to be assaulted by the person and that there would be no other way than using lethal force. Someone hiding in a boat dont really count as such scenario.
Ive not made a single assumption, all is based upon what you first post was about. That you would put a bullet in someone and then let the police clean up the mess. (Sounds really what a 15 year old would say)
What is fascinating is that the numbers you write change from post to post. 3 people is the official death toll btw. But, lets try again try and read what I wrote, not what you wrote. Did you get this time? My initial post still wasnt about you it was a general observation. This is something that I really find sad, the only reason you care cause it happend in "your own backyard (ergo US)" otherwise you wouldnt give a ****. Same time the bombings happend in Boston there was boms in Iraq killing 30 people, do you care about those people as well that died? Probably not. This ofc not you alone, this is people in general dont give a **** about things that happend outside their world view.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
And the internet is filled with people like you who don't know a damn thing about what they're commenting on. You don't know me.
I already stated the law for my area, feel free to go back and read it.
Witty reply :) Im really impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Ill go back and read through but I am sure you havent provided any source for your claim. What a suprise, I didnt even see a quote of any law either but that I didnt look for so carefully.
I'd reply, but I have no idea how to translate that disaster of a sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Just read the first part then. I didnt know it was okey for moderators to harass the users of these forums for their bad english. But I guess when there is nothing left to do the simpletongs resorts to picking on a persons lanaguage skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
That one I can translate:
"I like to engage in confrontational behavior and then want to act like a poor victim when I get back the same attitude"
So, I am still waiting for the source that you would act within the law. There wasnt any post in this thread that did suport that claim. Or should I take your personal attacks a way of saying "I dont have anything to come with" so I am just try to ridicule the opponent instead?
I quoted a wikipedia page on Maryland self-defense laws that has case notes, but I'm not going to spend 3 hours sourcing those cases for what I already know is legitimate. You can waste your own time if you like.
Okey,
Lets take out the four major points. And I found your post.
Quote:
(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
Quote:
(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
This one confuses me, would you investigate "suspcious activity" with bring your gun with you? Seems weird if your first thought would be who the hell is on my boat? Either way, bringing a gun into the fold would be imo provoking the situation or for that matter being the aggressor.Quote:
(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict
Shooting someone even if the person commited murders and detonating a bomb would be excessive since the situation at hand doesnt require you shooting the person. Your life isnt at immediate risk until he does a action that would make you believe just knowing that the person is dangerous doesnt put your life at risk.Quote:
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.
And the last two
Is it reasonable consider that the person as far as we know would just be hiding in your boat? Obviously you think so but .. You would be able to contain the situation with lesser force than shooting someone as well.Quote:
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatened or actual harm.
So, you would probably get away with it but thats cause USA is a twisted country not cause it was right thing to do.
Knock it off, both of you.
Carrying a weapon on my own property is within my rights, and is in no way aggression or provocation. Trespassing on my property with a weapon is.
My life isn't at immediate risk if I find an armed (as stated, my assumption at the time of the comment) fugitive who has killed 4 people already, one in a massive shootout during his last attempted capture? I can only laugh at that. The last time they tried catching him he opened fire in the streets and threw bombs at people, and my life isn't in danger when I'm standing right in front of him? ROFL
And of course you end with an anti-American comment, as if we're the only country in the world with problems. Not that self-defense laws are a problem in any way, lol.
So, you would bring a gun with you?Quote:
Carrying a weapon on my own property is within my rights, and is in no way aggression or provocation. Trespassing on my property with a weapon is.
I think this is where the biggest issue between our opinions, you would assume he would automatically do something or posses a automatic threat for you just for existing without actually showing any hostile signs. Thou your first post about this dont specify anything, it just stated that you would put bullets in him. Your life could be in danger depending on how he would acted sure, he could act with hostility towards you and then it could be very well be within your rights to shoot him. But just existing doesnt pose a immediate threat towards you, he would need to do something obviouslly.Quote:
My life isn't at immediate risk if I find an armed (as stated, my assumption at the time of the comment) fugitive who has killed 4 people already, one in a massive shootout during his last attempted capture? I can only laugh at that. The last time they tried catching him he opened fire in the streets and threw bombs at people, and my life isn't in danger when I'm standing right in front of him? ROFL
Not really, if you think your country dont have several issues with gun-laws and things related its very sad. Tho you seem to have taken this thread personally from the start even thou my initial opinions where never about any specific person just a general observation of behaviour. So I guess its not surprsing that you would yet again be on your toes when someone mentions your precious USA in a negative manner. Self defense is just fine, the way you worded things in your inital posts not so much. If we would make a bunch of assumptions of how the scenario would unfold your behavior and acting could be warranted. But at the time that I posted my first post we already knew a certain amount of facts of the person. So everyone should have acted within those facts.Quote:
And of course you end with an anti-American comment, as if we're the only country in the world with problems. Not that self-defense laws are a problem in any way, lol.
Someone is lurking around my yard and there's blood on my boat? Yea, I'm grabbing my gun because I have no idea what's out there.
Why would I assume he wouldn't be hostile towards me? Had he not murdered 4 people already? No, I'm sure he's actually a nice guy and I'm totally not in any danger whatsoever, rofl. I never said anything about shooting him just for existing, that's just something else you made up as you love doing so much.
I already said there are issues with gun laws, try keeping up. Why would I not take your ridiculous comments personally when they were in response to my posts? You're rude and judgmental as you make outrageous assumptions about people you know nothing about, assumptions based on nothing because you've made most of the **** up in your head.
LIAR, you know exactly what is out there.
I hope you're being sarcastic, if not that's an idiotic statement. The guy who actually checked the boat had no idea what was back there when he went to it, otherwise he likely wouldn't have approached at all and just called the cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
You saidQuote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
^^ you know who it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
LIAR.
How would I know who it is before I found him? That makes zero sense, lol. The guy who actually found him didn't know, but somehow I'm supposed to?
So you don't know who he is, but you'd shoot him anyway? Or you think you can make a 100% positive ID and then shoot him.
This is mind bottling.
The guy who had his face plastered all over the media? Is there something unrealistic about making the ID that I'm missing? All this is moot anyway since it turned out he was just laying there unarmed.
You think you can make a 100% positive ID and then shoot him, as he was laying there unarmed? Why don't you think this is a ****ty situation for any society to be in :/
What? No, my point is I wouldn't have shot him since he was laying there unarmed and pathetic, lol. My assumption was that was he was armed and still unwilling to surrender and wanting to kill people. Are you trolling me? :/
Nah, its Friday. No troll here.
You shouldn't be shooting this guy though. You are pretty much just making a mockery of your justice system.
If you mean in general, that's too broad a statement to make, it would depend on circumstances. In this particular case with hindsight, sure I can agree with you on not shooting him, I already said as much. That doesn't mean the situation didn't have the potential to warrant lethal force by a civilian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Potentially, sure. I'd rather see him get caught, questioned, his cell also caught and then sentenced to life in prison rather than the easy way out of just being killed.
There was never going to be any cell. They pretty much knew that before he was caught, questioning him only confirmed what they already knew. Catching him alive was never worth losing more lives, that's all. In the end they did what was best, which was surprising because usually cop killers don't come out alive.