Results 25 to 36 of 46
-
04-24-2013, 11:21 AM #25Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
No, that is not what a vigilante is nor is that an accurate interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.
Wicked's definition is vigilante is spot on and the precise legal interpretation. The Castle Doctrine allows anyone to defend their home AND property against any person who the OWNER feels is threatening. Granted, a few Castle Doctrine states have an imminent peril clause in them, but most do not. I know in Texas, if a person is on your property and engaged in a felony, deadly force is authorized.
Take the exact same scenario with the terrorist suspect is hiding on your property and is armed, you're free to dispatch him in any manner you see fit -- deadly force or call the police; it's the property owners prerogative. Him having a weapon makes it a no-brainer. You can, and it seems like you are, argue that the *safest* thing to do may have been to retreat and call the police, but from a legal standpoint, 50 states in the country would have have found the property owner justified in using deadly force against an armed person on his property.
-
04-24-2013, 11:24 AM #26Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Didn't see this until after my last post.
I think we may have been arguing apples and oranges. I was speaking from more of a specific legal standpoint.
Yes, assessing the situation and acting in the safest manner is always best and it appears that's what this home owner did. But I also agree with NC. If he was passed out, and by all accounts he was at some point, yeah, retreat back and call the cops. Had I peaked in and this douche looked up with a gun in his hand, he'd be room temperature along with his brother.
-
Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?
im not sure if i misinterpreted your saying of "two in the head and then call the police" as if shooting him on sight at his mere presence rather than if he actually was a threat to you. i didnt know the guy actually looked and saw him, merely that he saw the boat door open. to me that warrants a call to police and not going in with guns ready to kill him on your own accord, which to me is being a vigilante, even if its just your way of protecting your property. considering the circumstances of a known intruder being hunted, youre kind of asking to be in that situation at that point. I think theres a fine line as to what is deemed necessary for protection and what isnt when using deadly force. Ive grew up in the wooded hills where a stranger walking through your yard with a gun isnt exactly uncommon, especially in hunting season. if im inside, that threat is pretty much voided unless they do something to change that obviously. I go outside after them, I just eliminated the protection of my home between us. This guy for everything he did, which was horrible and would be considered dangerous, didnt do anything to that actual boat owner besides trespass. be on alert, sure, have your gun ready, but i think the call to police comes before you shoot in that particular scenario.
-JAB
-
04-27-2013, 08:37 PM #28Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?
Multiple outlets are reporting now that the dude in the boat DID NOT have a gun.
This is getting creepy now. How far did the Boston police go? If they fired on an unarmed person, that's inexcusable.
-
04-27-2013, 08:48 PM #29
Wow. This just got a whole lot more interesting.
“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
–Eleanor Roosevelt
-
-
04-28-2013, 10:07 AM #31Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,464
Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?
-
-
04-29-2013, 09:26 AM #33Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
-
04-29-2013, 11:13 AM #35
Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?
The War on Terror is stupid, at least in name, because it is a war on a tactic.
The war should be against the people using the tactic, but stating it in those terms is not politically correct. We are not allowed to say "The War Against Militant Islamism."
I really don't have too much of a problem with shutting down a city while a bomber is tracked down in a heated chase. While it shouldn't be mandatory I think most people, when informed, would voluntarily stay home, out of the way and more importantly out of the line of fire.
Searching homes willy-nilly is something to which I am opposed. If need be they could have a judge or two with them (or available by phone) as they try and track the guy down and have the judge issue search warrants where the law and Constitution allow.
-
Re: The War on Terror - What Are We Doing Here?
This adds new meaning to the term "nanny state" which USA has become.
After arriving in the US, the bombers family received over $100,000 in state benefits
ranging from cash to food stamps to Section 8 housing.
Immigration reform will immediately put many if not most illegals on well fare.
Ron Paul said the manhunt for the bombers was scarrier than the attack.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...0g_in_benefits
RON PAUL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3014029/postsLast edited by AirFlacco; 04-30-2013 at 10:25 AM.
Bookmarks