This looks like the Montana equivalent to first degree murder. Punishment is death (not that it will ever get that far).
Printable View
This looks like the Montana equivalent to first degree murder. Punishment is death (not that it will ever get that far).
Dangerous precedent here. What happens if the next gun owner decides not to shoot thieves in their home? One outcome is the homeowner could die... but also the negative impact on society of the thief living even if all he takes is the homeowner's stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Arguably a better way to reduce theft is not leaving your door open with a purse behind to try and lure burglars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yeah, who needs a legal or judicial system anyway? We don't need 911 or police as first responders.....we don't even lawyers or judges as arbiters. We don't even need or jails or prisons. All that requires public dollars, and taxes are theft!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
All anyone needs is a gun! That makes everyone police, prosecutor, judge, and jury all-in-one. Justice bundled! Fry 'em!
:picard:
See, the difference between you and, well, pretty much everyone else is that we all think it's not a negative impact for someone who only commits a minor crime to stay alive. Even Iranian ayatollahs only insist that thieves lose their hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Here's a tip - don't rob people's homes and you won't have an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Being able to defend your property isn't judicial punishment for a crime in any event. Fewer home invasions will take place if homeowners have carte blanche to defend themselves and their property with any means they choose to.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The homeowner had already been robbed before. Just how much should they put up with especially when police don't seem to be doing anything to stop it? Granted the police are often handcuffed by the stupid anti-entrapment laws some places have but in the end what should the homeowner have to do? Suffer attack after attack on his property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Question for everyone - you know Beware of Dog signs yes? If an intruder invades a home and then is killed by a dog should the homeowner be liable? If they aren't can we create "Beware of Gun" signs too?
Depends. If you're using the Insurance Industry as best arbiter or adjudicator ---- you could be making a huge mistake when talking about principle vs liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
He wasn't defending his property. It was premeditated, Lewk. Defense is something done in the moment, he set things up days beforehand because he wanted to kill a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Hell yes and with even better reason, because dogs are agents (not high-thinking ones but capable of their own decisions and independent action) and they can and do get free, they can and do maul people who haven't even engaged in what you would think is a capital crime. Training your dog to kill means necessarily includes training it to go after prey (because they're not capable of a true distinction) and kids are always easy prey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So let me get this straight. Burglar robs home. Dog defends home. You think burglars should be able to sue the homeowner for damages the dog did to them?
If you train a dog to kill and that dog kills someone who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime then your dog should be shot and you should probably share his fate. But if we're not doing that type of thing then you should go to prison.
What if someone with no previous convictions invades the home of a violent criminal? Who should shoot who in this scenario?
So an armed criminal enters your home. Hasn't committed a capital crime yet. Your dog attacks the criminal - dog should be killed? The fuck is wrong with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Odds are against it but if they both die shooting each other it would probably be best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I also find 'no previous convictions' a funny test considering most crimes don't lead to even an arrest.
I like this oh so quiet bit of escalation. Who said anything about armed? When was someone ever armed in any of the prior scenarios, or the real-life premeditated murder you so approve of, besides the guy you think didn't commit any crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It's their first time breaking and entering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
For one I was responding to aimless whose only qualifier was "who hasn't demonstrably committed a capital crime." For two why should the home owner have to first check to make sure the person who has invaded his home for arms before defending himself? We are also talking about dogs in this specific instance. I find it atrocious that there are people on the board who think a burglar getting bit by a dog somehow creates any liability for the homeowner.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Don't break into other people's homes. I still support the death of those who do pull that type of shit weather it is the first or fiftieth time. And my comment is really talking about the fact that people who are convicted are rarely people who just did it one time. It is a lifestyle - for example this thug. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FXew7LhcfMQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Out on bond for robbery... goes and robs another story and is the probable culprit for two other robberies. And the mom is whining about how a good Samaritan and all around fantastic citizen shot her 'baby.'
And there's a equally quiet de-escalation of the purported act we don't like. No one said "bit by a dog" your standard was killed by a guard dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
When you're staking a position, you have unarmed teens with no criminal record or even suspicion of criminal behavior who are killed for on trespass by people with guns or by their dogs but when we rebut suddenly you claim you're talking about armed hardened criminals with a long convicted track-record of murderous intent merely getting bit by a local dog who may or may not have a connection to the home-owner. Come back sometime when you're willing to be honest for more than two posts in a row, Lewk.
I wasn't going to. Jeez.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The conversation is larger than just THIS example. And the difference between bit and dead can easily occur. If someone isn't culpable for a dog biting than they wouldn't be culpable for the dog killing. Why? Because a dog bite can be lethal it just depends on the location.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
My point was if you put a sign up that says beware of dog and in ANY circumstance where a home invader breaks into your home and that dog bites OR kills said person you shouldn't be liable. Do you agree or disagree?
If you disagree than lets discuss that.
If you do agree that a home invader breaking into a house that has a clear beware of dog sign posted shouldn't be able to sue (or their family if the crook dies) would it be any different with 'beware of gun' signs?
On a broader scale the burden of determining the criminal intent (steal? murder? rape? is he armed?) should never fall on the home owner. That's asking for a situation where the homeowner hesitates and then dies. Or it creates a climate where criminals don't fear people defending their homes which of course leads to more home invasions. If a home owner hear the sound of glass breaking and his home being breached by a man in dark clothing and a mask - do you think the homeowner should have to wait to fire? Even if that means he, his belongings, his own life and that of his family could be lost? If the answer is no he shouldn't have to wait to fire than tell me specifically where you draw the line. What if the intruder isn't wearing a mask? What if it is day time and not night time? What if it is the garage and not the house?
My belief is simple. You break into someone's home than the homeowner has the right to use lethal force to protect his property because if he doesn't it increase the chance of harm occurring to the homeowner. Oh and because thugs and and thieves dying while breaking in is good news for EVERYBODY.
If you disagree than let's talk about that because
FFS Lewk, what you posted makes the Fed Ex/UPS and even my own mailman "suspicious" enough to shoot on spot. Not to mention the people who take sporadic readings from my gas or electric meter.
You should re-examine what it means for home or business security...and what you consider suspicious behavior that's "worth" paying for. *cough* even if it's being over-insured.
Fed ex goes into garages now? Who knew.
Fed-ex has left packages on side porches...that I didn't find in a "timely" manner.
Lewk, why don't you address the underlying issues that are timely?
http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/hehe.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I absolutely agree that the benefit of the doubt should be given to a homeowner who is fending off an intruder. There is no doubt in my mind that the split second decisions made in the heat of the moment could always be second-guessed, but at the end of the day the homeowner is doing what they believe is necessary. What I do see a problem with is someone whose goal is not the defense of their house, their family, and their property, but instead the murder of a thief. The two goals are at cross purposes. If this man was truly interested in protecting his family and himself he would not have intentionally left his garage open. He would not have baited it with a purse. And most damning of all, he would not have spoken to acquaintances, telling them that his goal was to kill this person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I agree that the homeowner should have the right to defend themselves and their property. There are examples of that. This just is not a good one.Quote:
My belief is simple. You break into someone's home than the homeowner has the right to use lethal force to protect his property because if he doesn't it increase the chance of harm occurring to the homeowner.
70 years it is, and at least 20. Don't know what that means in reality, for a white home owner, probably 35?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Lots of variation between states. I do know that people rarely get parole on their first try.
Your beliefs are monstrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Eh? I'm trying to save kids lives here by showing them an example of what could happen when they steal. A healthy dose of fear about doing crime will be very helpful in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
One shudders to think of what your childhood and your parents may have been like.
Quite normal really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Though fear of bodily injury/death is quite common when parents teach kids. "Look both ways so you don't get hit by a car." IE "Look both ways so you don't become crippled or road kill."
As I said earlier in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/18/as...h-boys-deaths/
Hey Lewk, maybe you should move to Bangladesh.