mikeq@tekred.UUCP (Quigley) (01/03/85)
Whether the legal system agrees or not, you have a basic human right (duty?) to defend your life, the lives of your family, and your property. The question is, how to do it and best avoid the ensuing inevitable legal hassles. One way is the "kill 'em and arm 'em" method. For example: when Milo had the punk in his crosshairs, he could have shouted something to make the guy turn around first, then blow him away, i.e., kill him. For heavens sake, don't wound him. Then, it helps to have an extra fingerprint-free Saturday night special lying around that can be placed in the guy's hand to "prove" that he was about to shoot you (make sure the guy's hand prints and pocket lint get all over the gun). When it boils down to either you or them, you'd better make damn sure it's going to be them! P.S. I learned this from a cop.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (01/05/85)
> > Whether the legal system agrees or not, you have a basic human right > (duty?) to defend your life, the lives of your family, and your > property. The question is, how to do it and best avoid the ensuing > inevitable legal hassles. > > One way is the "kill 'em and arm 'em" method. For example: > when Milo had the punk in his crosshairs, he could have shouted > something to make the guy turn around first, then > blow him away, i.e., kill him. For heavens sake, don't wound > him. Then, it helps to have an extra fingerprint-free > Saturday night special lying around that can be placed in the > guy's hand to "prove" that he was about to shoot you (make sure > the guy's hand prints and pocket lint get all over the gun). > > When it boils down to either you or them, you'd > better make damn sure it's going > to be them! > > P.S. I learned this from a cop. A long long time ago after my mom was widowed, we had someone come around to try and scare her off the property. I was only 5 at time, so I just sort of watched what was going on. They came around and cut the phone lines, then broke into the house. My mom, scared stiff, went downstairs with a shotgun, and shot at the guy, deliberately aiming to miss. The guy ran off alright. The sheriff came and told my mom that if she had killed him, she should have dragged him into the house and told them he was threatening her life, else they would have had to arrest her. They said they would fix it so it would look like thats what happened, and never, never wound someone, always shoot to kill if you have to shoot. They could take your house and all your possessions in a lawsuit if they survived and you couldn't PROVE your life was in danger. This seems to be a pretty stupid attitude to take. If someone is on your property causing trouble, as far as I am concerned they are dead meat if shot, and the owner has a right to do it. If you are causing trouble then you have given up your rights by not assuming your responsibilities from which you get your rights in the first place. Thats the social contract, and no one will force you to break it unless you choose to do so yourself. Trying to make people figure out 'reasonable use of force' under such stressful conditions is ridiculous. Milo
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (01/06/85)
Gee, once again I find myself in agreement with Milo, (this is getting habit forming...) Yeah, I must admit, if some hoodlum was busy breaking into my house, etc., I really don't think I should have any quarrel with the law if I ventilate him. This is just my 'internal impression', irrespective of what it says on the law book of whatever State I happen to live in. In Maryland, where I live, I have received advice from more than one cop that the appropriate thing to do is wait until whoever it is breaks in, climbs inside the house, and then blast him... Our neighbor to the north, Pennsylvania, does allow use of deadly force against anyone ON YOUR PROPERTY, as opposed to the more common INSIDE YOUR DWELLING, in circumstances where a threat would be felt by a reasonable person, (breaking in, or attempting to, is usually considered sufficient). An interesting comparison is possible with India, where breaking into houses is fairly common, (at least in Banaras, most of the houses of middle class type people have bars on the window), but violence against a person inside the house is almost unknown. Although handguns are strictly controlled there, ownership of long guns is common (at least for those who can afford them). One of the reasons people almost NEVER give for owning a gun though, is self-defense, it is almost never necessary. Very strict prosecution and long jail sentences (or death) are given to people who commit crimes against PEOPLE there though. -JCP-
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/07/85)
> PROVE your life was in danger. This seems to be a pretty stupid > attitude to take. If someone is on your property causing trouble, > as far as I am concerned they are dead meat if shot, and the owner > has a right to do it. If you are causing trouble then you have given > up your rights by not assuming your responsibilities from which > you get your rights in the first place. Thats the social > contract, and no one will force you to break it unless you choose > to do so yourself. Trying to make people figure out 'reasonable > use of force' under such stressful conditions is ridiculous. > > Milo That's the spirit, Milo! Instant Capital Punishment! And you as judge and jury. How convienent. But then I'm sure everyone agrees that stealing a TV is just as serious a crime as rape and murder! (Do I really have to put ":-)" here to indicate sarcasm?) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/08/85)
In article <4043@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes: >If someone is on your property causing trouble, >as far as I am concerned they are dead meat if shot, and the owner >has a right to do it. If you are causing trouble then you have given >up your rights by not assuming your responsibilities from which >you get your rights in the first place. Thats the social >contract, and no one will force you to break it unless you choose >to do so yourself. Trying to make people figure out 'reasonable >use of force' under such stressful conditions is ridiculous. My first reaction to this was "Milo, get serious!!!"; and then I realized that he is. Some rights don't spring from responsibilities; I hold that the right to live in peace, the right to speak your mind and the right to worship what you wish, all derive from just being human. I do think that these rights imply that in order to protect them, we have to be responsible; i.e. we must speak out if we fear that we may lose the right to free expression. Milo, have you thought about what you're saying? Some transient may wander on to your farm and steal a chicken-- and you advocate a "Shoot first, ask questions later." attitude. Do you value your chicken more than the life of another person? If so, then I understand your feelings, even though I would disagree with you. But if not, then why are you saying this? I agree that requiring people to make complex decisions in a crisis is risky-- but I see that as an argument for restraint! To err on the side of caution, when a human life is concerned, is the only act of a responsible citizen. Chris
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
> > That's the spirit, Milo! Instant Capital Punishment! And you as > judge and jury. How convienent. But then I'm sure everyone agrees > that stealing a TV is just as serious a crime as rape and murder! > > (Do I really have to put ":-)" here to indicate sarcasm?) > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Come on now Rob! If you think stealing a TV is less serious than most anything, come shout that from my front porch. -- Bronto hunter
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (01/11/85)
In article <789@reed.UUCP> lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) writes: > >Milo, have you thought about what you're saying? Some >transient may wander on to your farm and steal a chicken-- >and you advocate a "Shoot first, ask questions later." >attitude. Do you value your chicken more than the life >of another person? Forget Milo's rhetoric. When he had another human being in his crosshairs-- one who, to a pretty high degree of certainty, had perpetrated some truly awful crimes--he didn't pull the trigger. What would you have done if you had your gun trained on someone you were sure had been terrorizing you and had inflicted an awful and painful death on more than one of your dogs? Give Milo some credit for a mature and humane decision in a crisis. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA