A question on the right to self defense
- Thread starter kkelso
- Start date
If someone isn't on your property, gun or not, the bst thing to do is call the police if you feel threatened. If he comes on your property with a gun, you should be allowed to kill him. If he tries or succeds to get in your house, it doesn't matter if you know he's armed or not, as far s I'm concerned, he forfiets all his right to good health. Even if he is running out of the house, he is fair game. If the police shoot at a criminal who is running away, they are allowed, why can't we? Criminals have more rights in our houses than we do these days. If I was on a jury where someone killed or assaulted an intruder, I would vote not guilty every time, nobody could change my mind. More people should have that mindset, then we would be allowed to defend ourselves without having to worry about jail time. Remember folks, It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
No matter what transpires in the end the cops will try and take your guns.
911 paranoia has them wanting to take guns away from law abiding people.
If you answer a question about your shooting ability and you have an argument with another person the first person can use your words to the cops. You words can and will be used against you. the cops want to get your guns even if you prove your point, You are in the wrong no matter how you look at it .
911 paranoia has them wanting to take guns away from law abiding people.
If you answer a question about your shooting ability and you have an argument with another person the first person can use your words to the cops. You words can and will be used against you. the cops want to get your guns even if you prove your point, You are in the wrong no matter how you look at it .
Is this a legal question, and if so in what jurisdiction - Ontario or elsewhere?
Or, is this a hypothetical morality-ethics question?
Or, is this a hypothetical morality-ethics question?
Always fire 3 shots.
A warning shot and it should be into a wall
A shot to disable the assailant
And a terminal shot
The order in which they are fired is up to you
A warning shot and it should be into a wall
A shot to disable the assailant
And a terminal shot
The order in which they are fired is up to you
It's hard to ignore the legalities. What legal or moral right do you have to use deadly force for 1-4?kkelso said:
For five is the man armed, are you in fear of your life? The fact that you are in your own house in most North American jurisdictions would eliminate the necessity of "retreat."
Absolutely you have the right to use deadly force for 6 & 7.
Ah, you didn't write that in your first post.kkelso said:
The person has entered your house univited with a firearm. You need to give them warning "drop the gun" - at that point - if they don't you have a good legal argument that you were in fear of your life and that use of deadly force was permissible.
If he didn't announce that he was the police, and he had no legal reason for being there, doesn't matter. Police aren't exempt from the law (and cops DO break the law as demonstrated recently with a cop caught DUI).Mencken said:
Aardvark154 said:
This is a "hypothetical morality-ethics question", so jurisdiction does not come into it. I suppose the reason I worded it the way I did was the presumption that in this exact situation, with my kids sleeping upstairs, I probably wouldn't be thinking about the the law.
I'm sure I would be concerned. But in the two break-ins and one robbery I've experienced in my life I was not standing there ticking points of law off my fingers, I was reacting on instinct. Of course all of those were before I had kids.Brill said:You aren't concerned they might have to visit daddy in jail?
All of that being said, the subject of the question is what you feel is acceptable.
