Should I be able to shoot an intruder..... - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should I be able to shoot an intruder..... (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:04:53 PM EDT

[#1]

Yes.

Darkly Humorous, since Liberal CA and Los Angeles so grossly ignore this Law in their Prosecutions -

Los Angeles County Code
Title 13 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE
Chapter 13.66 FIREARMS, BOWS AND ARROWS
Part 1. General Regulations
13.66.010 Use of weapons permitted when.

This chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Part 1, does not prohibit the discharge of any rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or firearm of any kind, or the shooting of any arrow or other missile, when necessary so to do to protect life or property, or to destroy or kill any predatory or dangerous animal. (Ord. 7730 § 1, 1960: Ord. 7381 § 1 (part), 1958: Ord. 1769 Art. 3 § 302, 1929.)

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:05:28 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lethal force should be for defense of a person, not property.

Say a guy spilled gas in your home and is about to torch it --

you live in the country and have no neighbors ... you going to let him torch it ?

or shoot him -- to stop him, it is just property after all - say a 250,000.00 home.

For the sake of this question - you are in no danger whatever he does and no one else either.

As has been said, arson is one of the exceptions under the law.

Aw bull , the law is not an issue here --- the question is should you be able to ?

I say yes , if a guy is going to destroy my home, damage it, steal property from it ------- hell yes I should be able to shoot him -- no one has said kill - they said shoot. We aren't even discussing civil liability -again the question was - should I be able to shoot them

I say yes ------------

I have been shot at as a kid with rock salt for trespassing and stealing melons.

Try that now a days ------------------------

And if the occasional miscreant should die -- people should be absolved of all criminal and civil liability if the person was breaking "any" law when they were shot ---------------- this country is so messed up we need something like that to put it on the path to being fixed.

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:17:26 PM EDT

[#3]

Shoot. Hell, if a person hasn't the respect enough to leave people's property alone, its only a line a few steps back from lacking the recognition for the sanctity of human life. Improving the gene pool is a good thing--we will become a more productive and polite people as a result of this. Incidentally, only the first few idiots will get shot, since the lesson will be learned quick.

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:21:26 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Aw bull , the law is not an issue here --- the question is should you be able to ?

The law IS the issue here. The law is what determines if you CAN legally shoot in the situation you describe.

I say yes , if a guy is going to destroy my home, damage it, steal property from it ------- hell yes I should be able to shoot him -- no one has said kill - they said shoot. We aren't even discussing civil liability -again the question was - should I be able to shoot them

And as I said, arson is already covered under the law as a situation where it is ok to use DPF. Arson is not the sole scenario people discuss when defending property through DPF, however.

And if the occasional miscreant should die -- people should be absolved of all criminal and civil liability if the person was breaking "any" law when they were shot ---------------- this country is so messed up we need something like that to put it on the path to being fixed.

Thats not the direction I think the country should go in.

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:33:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Aw bull , the law is not an issue here --- the question is should you be able to ?

The law IS the issue here. The law is what determines if you CAN legally shoot in the situation you describe.

I say yes , if a guy is going to destroy my home, damage it, steal property from it ------- hell yes I should be able to shoot him -- no one has said kill - they said shoot. We aren't even discussing civil liability -again the question was - should I be able to shoot them

And as I said, arson is already covered under the law as a situation where it is ok to use DPF. Arson is not the sole scenario people discuss when defending property through DPF, however.

And if the occasional miscreant should die -- people should be absolved of all criminal and civil liability if the person was breaking "any" law when they were shot ---------------- this country is so messed up we need something like that to put it on the path to being fixed.

Thats not the direction I think the country should go in.

Well arguing the law is pointless - I guess I misunderstood the intent of sgtar15's question.

As to the direction this country is going ------- it gets worse every day, soon the criminal element will have all the rights and we will have little to none. The system is so convoluted now it is pathetic.

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:41:38 PM EDT

[#6]

It would be very Un-Christian too.

Posted: 8/20/2004 3:57:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Well arguing the law is pointless - I guess I misunderstood the intent of sgtar15's question.

As to the direction this country is going ------- it gets worse every day, soon the criminal element will have all the rights and we will have little to none. The system is so convoluted now it is pathetic.

Why is arguing the law pointless? The law is the defining body of work that defines us as a civilized nation. Without it we have anarchy.
The pendulum has swung the other way in recognizing the importance of victims rights; I do not share your doom and gloom about our nation.

Posted: 8/20/2004 4:09:50 PM EDT

[#8]

I hate getting in on thread when its on the 3rd page or better

Intruder sounds like word play for shooting ~~Pussy~~ I mean A cat .
Especially given your publicly displayed animosity towards Felines

So I'd have to No , Don’t shoot the fucking Cat , Or a dog unless its actually
causing you physical harm . If you want to deter them then NON lethal force is just as effective ( Read BB or Pellet Gun ) Or you could set up some other trap that would inflict the appropriate level of painful stimuli . After all , it's just a dumb animal and doesn’t comprehend the consequences of its actions . Nor do they act with malice of forethought .

Of course This being the internet I might be reading this wrong , and you are indeed talking about a Human …. In that case Cap Away

Posted: 8/20/2004 4:11:44 PM EDT

[#9]

WOW!! After reading Cyanide's posts on this thread, we actually believe the same thing. (About this topic) I believe Hell will freeze over.

Posted: 8/20/2004 4:13:39 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
depends if your life, or someone elses life, is in danger.

Just property

SGtar15

Then no.

Posted: 8/20/2004 4:24:00 PM EDT

[#11]

Depends on the context in which you are asking . . .
I would say no, you should not be able to shoot an intruder for merely destroying property. . .at least not to kill

unless of course you were feeling threatened or in danger for your life. . .but you've heard all that before.
I would be pretty pissed for sure to come home and find someone taking a sledge hammer to my generator system, or whatever. . .but I would not want to kill someone over it.
definitely shoot em' in the leg though

or somewhere so they won't bleed out

Posted: 8/20/2004 4:31:00 PM EDT

[#12]

Nope.

Colt_SBR

Posted: 8/20/2004 5:01:34 PM EDT

[#13]

Maybe, depends on the situation and my frame of mind at the time. If he is just trespassing outside on my property without comimiting a serious crime no. But if he breaks into my house I'll shoot him without hesitation. I have a wife & children to protect and I can't afford not too.

Posted: 8/20/2004 5:25:37 PM EDT

[#14]

No, not over property.

maybe a good beating though.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should I be able to shoot an intruder..... (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us