Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 you can defend your property, but not with lethal force. But how do you know the level of force that is going to be applied to you by the criminal in question? Aren't you in a react situation at that point? If a criminals lunges at you how long to you have to question his intent and ability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I think it has already been shown that A) he didnt "seek" out "stalk" or whatever nefarious term you choose to use, the burglar, he went to investigate an unsecured entry and brought a means of protection (thank goodness!) just in case. The garage was attached, at least indirectly. c) The burglar lunged at him D) There are Castle doctine protections for him (at least according to another poster) i don't know what "indirectly attached" means. it was detached according to an article i read, and looks detached in the image posted. here is what i heard directly from someone who works for security at hopkins: "it is a safe bet to say he WILL get charged. the student used more force than was being used against him - apparently balto city has a "restraint" policy where basically you can use as much force as the intruder but past that, you're supposed to call the cops and let them handle it." i admit complete ignorance of the law in this case and i'm just going by what this person said. although jsut to give conservatives another thing to take umbrage to, i will say it is an ugly and ignorant thing to take pride in defending your posessions (as opposed to your body) with lethal force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I took this comment as a form of "justification""the kid probably did a criminal background check on the guy, and knowing his existing criminal record, was therefore qualified to serve as executioner." maybe he wasnt justifying per se, but he certainly is painting the victim of the crime as the bad guy for protecting himself and his property. Well you shouldn't think of that as any sort of justification, because it isn't. Sometimes there are two bad guys. Think of murderous OJ Simpson and perjuring, racist police officer Mark Fuhrman. OJ is much worse, but it is not unreasonable to discuss what a tool Fuhrman was, or whether Fuhrman should have done something differently. It is not a justification for OJ, it is a comment about Fuhrman. Simple black and white "pick a side and yell" posts are not your style. Leave them to the stupider members of the Tailgate. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 One can question vigilanteeism without "supporting criminals."Vigilantism hardly applies in this case. That word conjures up notions of cold blooded planning or taking the law into your own hands with clear intent of punishing a criminal. In this case it sounds more like reaction. The individual with the sword had no way of knowing what he was going to encounter or what was going on. He ran into an unarmed man and is lucky for it. Had the criminal had a gun that sword wouldn't have been much help. If the guy lunged at him what happened here was a reaction not a plan to punish a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I took this comment as a form of "justification""the kid probably did a criminal background check on the guy, and knowing his existing criminal record, was therefore qualified to serve as executioner." maybe he wasnt justifying per se, but he certainly is painting the victim of the crime as the bad guy for protecting himself and his property. so because i think the kid acted wrongly, that means the burglar was in the right? total logic fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 to me, what is even more bizarre that a samurai sword was used, is that the intruder had 29 prior convictions!!!!! WTH???? Looks like the intruder became the victim of a three swipes law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I took this comment as a form of "justification" bad argument that has now sidetracked you from your point. don't give your opponent a back door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Vigilantism hardly applies in this case. That word conjures up notions of cold blooded planning or taking the law into your own hands with clear intent of punishing a criminal. In this case it sounds more like reaction. The individual with the sword had no way of knowing what he was going to encounter or what was going on. He ran into an unarmed man and is lucky for it. Had the criminal had a gun that sword wouldn't have been much help. If the guy lunged at him what happened here was a reaction not a plan to punish a criminal. I don't know if vigilanteeism applies here. I don't know what happened yet. I haven't made any comments on the merits. I was just pointing out that it is unfair to scream that someone is "siding with the criminals!" whenever one of these discussions comes up. It happened with that Texas guy who shot the burglar at the house next door. It happens every time. It's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Looks like the intruder became the victim of a three swipes law. a joke so bad it's funny. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I don't know if vigilanteeism applies here. I don't know what happened yet. I haven't made any comments on the merits. I was just pointing out that it is unfair to scream that someone is "siding with the criminals!" whenever one of these discussions comes up. It happened with that Texas guy who shot the burglar at the house next door. It happens every time. It's stupid. In that case I agree with you. For now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Looks like the intruder became the victim of a three swipes law. Badabing! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 so because i think the kid acted wrongly, that means the burglar was in the right? total logic fail. tell you what.....I'm totally retract my statement of accusing you of justifying the burglar, but i honestly hope that you will at least consider that the sword wielding young man was justified in his actions (at least from all appearances). sorry for getting cranky too. I often get upset when personal protection is demonized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 tell you what.....I'm totally retract my statement of accusing you of justifying the burglar, but i honestly hope that you will at least consider that the sword wielding young man was justified in his actions (at least from all appearances).sorry for getting cranky too. I often get upset when personal protection is demonized. fair enough. i don't take issue with the differing (and reasonable) opinion. just the personal attacks. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggmatic Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I don't get it. The guy goes to defend his home and possibly himself. He personally investigates the situation. It's dark. He doesn't know if the intruder is armed (thus taking a weapon - poor choice or not). He finds the guy, the guy comes at him. What's he supposed to do? Consult a flow chart? Does intruder display knife? --> Yes --> Proceed With Samurai Assassination Does intruder display knife? --> Uknown --> Wait for the PC Police Look, unless the home resident SAW no knife, it should be fighting time. Someone lunges at you in the dark? It's you or them. I'm not taking a chance on it being me. The other thing we are assuming is that the guy knew it was only a "thief". Sorry, you break into my house, you are here to hurt me or my family. You're toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I thought it said "Hopkins student kills instructor with samari sword." phew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I'm not saying that the victim committed a crime, but to those who think its impossible to commit murder just because someone breaks into your house, go watch Ed Norton curb stomp that guy in American History X. Its a hypothetical, but that was murder, not defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I was just pointing out that it is unfair to scream that someone is "siding with the criminals!" whenever one of these discussions comes up. It happened with that Texas guy who shot the burglar at the house next door. It happens every time. It's stupid. If ya not fur us,Yer agin us :saber: In cases such as this any lessening of justification of appropriate use of force IS siding against the homeowner ect. You certainly can call it seeking justice or such,but it has negative effects on the one that used force and is certainly supporting the criminals rights. Being second guessed from the cheap seats is no fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocet Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Now it's up to me to round out the thread with the stupidest post in it. I feel sorry for the guy who died. Just going on what the article says, dude was a criminal, yes. But at his age and with all those priors, the picture that emerges is one of a total Loser. He got caught a lot, that is evident. Not too smart. His actions ended up getting him the death penalty for B&E. :doh: Sure, a good slow painful death is appropriate for guys like the Carr brothers of Wichita fame. They are just hate and sadistic malevolence in the flesh. But this dude who broke in sounds like one hapless, pitiable individual. The guy who performed the coup de grace is also screwed by the loser's actions. There is no win in this one. Dumbass post, like I said. No good defense available for it since it isn't based on solid reasoning, only in feeling sorry for a dead loser. velocet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 If ya not fur us,Yer agin us :saber: In cases such as this any lessening of justification of appropriate use of force IS siding against the homeowner ect. You certainly can call it seeking justice or such,but it has negative effects on the one that used force and is certainly supporting the criminals rights. Being second guessed from the cheap seats is no fun. Maybe so. But sometimes second guessing is appropriate, especially when one of the two parties is stone dead, and we only have the word of the other one as to what happened. Sometimes excessive force IS used, you know. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Not a great defense choice in confined space but he seems to have made it work. Good for him. Someone should tell him about that great self defense weapon recently invented known as the shotgun. well if he had one of those cerimonial sets, there were three sizes. the middle one works best. but ive always said, screw a gun, someone comes into my house, im grabbing a sword and waiting til they push open the door....bye bye hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 don't give your opponent a back door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayouBrave86 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 sunstone??http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=141295 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=141488 EXACTLY who I was thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 as it was explained to me by someone close to the situation, the law in that particular jurisdiction is you are only allowed to use as much force as is used on you. seems weird, but that's what they said. No offense, but that's horse****. So you can only stab an intruder after you yourself have been stabbed? And please don't spew any crap about the intruder not having a weapon. There was no way this kid could have known if the guy had a weapon or not. I guess if somebody breaks into your house and lunges at you, you would call a timeout and ask him if he has any weapons on him so that you could apply the appropriate amount of force to defend yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Maybe so. But sometimes second guessing is appropriate, especially when one of the two parties is stone dead, and we only have the word of the other one as to what happened. Sometimes excessive force IS used, you know.:whoknows: Sure it is appropriate at times,just as killing is. A thief on someone else's property?...I'm giving the resident plenty of reasonable doubt....but I'm funny that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 OMG, now they are going to ban knives, swords and all other bladed objects. what has he done to our rights? After all, the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything swords and knives, so they get to take them now, right? who knew that swords kill? :evilg: Arms is short for Armaments. Armements are tools of war, thus the right to keep and bear samurai swords is protected by the second amendment . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.