Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
From what I saw during the Eric Gardner tape, for whatever reason, the cops felt they needed him on the ground. I don't know why, but the did. Was a choke hold necessary? No. We're the 5 knees in his back necessary? No.
I will say that when the police are trying to arrest someone that actually was resisting, what they were doing to Eric Gardner resembles what they do to guys that resist. And could have been 100% right in that case.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
Waiting on response Musky.
I am not expecting any response.
Yes to your first question
And 2 your second question I don't know what is being asked of me... Nor do I really care. Having a wonderful wonderful day. I hope all of you are too.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Yikes! This shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police were actually interested in shutting down the flow of guns to gangs and terror orgs like ISIS, they would make every firearm directly traceable to the person who purchased it.
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Smart man, but u better be wise about it.
so let me get this straight as a police officer you have no problem if someone plants a gun on someone else. Chicago finest I see
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
If somebody was breaking into someone's home and the homeowner shot them, I don't really have a problem with that. I don't think its the homeowner's responsibility to ascertain intent when protecting their family- there have been countless home invasions gone badly.
If a home invader gets shot invading a home, that is on them- they bear responsibility for this occurence. Stay out of people's homes.
I don't care for the 'plant the gun in the intruder's hand' idea though. If you are feeling threatened, warn the guy off. If that doesn't work, feel free I guess, but why try and make a better case for yourself? It has the opposite effect.
If somebody was breaking into someone's home and the homeowner shot them, I don't really have a problem with that. I don't think its the homeowner's responsibility to ascertain intent when protecting their family- there have been countless home invasions gone badly.
If a home invader gets shot invading a home, that is on them- they bear responsibility for this occurence. Stay out of people's homes.
I don't care for the 'plant the gun in the intruder's hand' idea though. If you are feeling threatened, warn the guy off. If that doesn't work, feel free I guess, but why try and make a better case for yourself? It has the opposite effect.
I concur with this last statement...something about having a plan ahead of time to stage a scene makes it taste less like a reactionary plan of self defense and more like an actionary premeditated readiness to kill. It feels like an admission of guilt, ie. "I didn't have to kill him, but I did so I'd better make it look like I had to" None of this is specific to anyone here, I certainly don't mean at all to suggest last12exit wants to kill people, only that the feeling I get when a scene is tampered with (in general) is not a savory one.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Smart man, but u better be wise about it.
Fuck.
You can't be a cop.
No way.
If you are a cop and take this position on a public forum that can be traced back to you?!?!?!?
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Wow. Same here as Musky, comment is now public knowledge so suggest in the very unluckily event you "Get to shoot " someone breaking into your home and you happen to have your gun at the ready. may want to think twice about planting a gun. Felony and you've outed yourself.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.
just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
Smart man, but u better be wise about it.
Fuck.
You can't be a cop.
No way.
If you are a cop and take this position on a public forum that can be traced back to you?!?!?!?
Imagine he "was" or "is" and someone finds out about this who has a case against him. Imagine a lawyer having a field day with dan on the stand.
Ya, I must have shitforbrains. you got me, time to lock myself back in the basement .
can you please explain what you meant when you told last exit to be wise about it?
Sure, someone breaks into your house and you or a family member are in fear for your life shoot that fucker till the threat is eliminated . You know, Protect your Family. Please leave usually does not work for all you anti-GUn people just so you know
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
Sure, someone breaks into your house and you or a family member are in fear for your life shoot that fucker till the threat is eliminated . You know, Protect your Family. Please leave usually does not work for all you anti-GUn people just so you know
and the whole planting a gun part doesn't bother you as a "cop".
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
so death penalty for theft?
If you break into my house it is.
How about if you and family return home and you find burglars in your house? You have your gun in you. What do you do?
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
so death penalty for theft?
If you break into my house it is.
How about if you and family return home and you find burglars in your house? You have your gun in you. What do you do?
I don't know. I don't carry a gun. I keep it in my closet. I guess it would depend on if I could get to it or not. But I could run to my dad's house (he's my neighbor) and get one of his guns.
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
so death penalty for theft?
If you break into my house it is.
How about if you and family return home and you find burglars in your house? You have your gun in you. What do you do?
I don't know. I don't carry a gun. I keep it in my closet. I guess it would depend on if I could get to it or not. But I could run to my dad's house (he's my neighbor) and get one of his guns.
And so you now have a gun and there are burglars in your house. What do you do?
Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
so death penalty for theft?
If you break into my house it is.
How about if you and family return home and you find burglars in your house? You have your gun in you. What do you do?
I don't know. I don't carry a gun. I keep it in my closet. I guess it would depend on if I could get to it or not. But I could run to my dad's house (he's my neighbor) and get one of his guns.
And so you now have a gun and there are burglars in your house. What do you do?
I don't know. It's all about situation. I could do one of a few things. Enter my home and hope he or they aren't armed, leave and call the cops, wait for them to leave. It's never happened so I don't know what I would do.
Last-12, if you ever arrive home and see that there are people in your home that you didn't invite, I hope you choose to leave and call the police from somewhere else. I'm sincere about this - you're a member of our forum. There's nothing good to be gained by entering the house and trying to confront them, or figure out if they are armed. You'd just be putting yourself and maybe your family at risk, and if you did charge in and shoot them I'm guessing this would be seen as much less justified since it wasn't necessary for self defense.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Last-12, if you ever arrive home and see that there are people in your home that you didn't invite, I hope you choose to leave and call the police from somewhere else. I'm sincere about this - you're a member of our forum. There's nothing good to be gained by entering the house and trying to confront them, or figure out if they are armed. You'd just be putting yourself and maybe your family at risk, and if you did charge in and shoot them I'm guessing this would be seen as much less justified since it wasn't necessary for self defense.
That would likely be the outcome. I am not trying to come across like I can't wait to shoot somebody. The advantage I have against anybody that would drive a car to break in my house is that there is only one way in and one way out and I live about 100 yards off the main road. If they were on foot or on a 4 wheeler or other atv, they could go anywhere off into the woods.
Comments
I will say that when the police are trying to arrest someone that actually was resisting, what they were doing to Eric Gardner resembles what they do to guys that resist. And could have been 100% right in that case.
So it comes down to situational awareness.
And 2 your second question I don't know what is being asked of me... Nor do I really care. Having a wonderful wonderful day. I hope all of you are too.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.
But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."
Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.
This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.
I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.
If a home invader gets shot invading a home, that is on them- they bear responsibility for this occurence. Stay out of people's homes.
I don't care for the 'plant the gun in the intruder's hand' idea though. If you are feeling threatened, warn the guy off. If that doesn't work, feel free I guess, but why try and make a better case for yourself? It has the opposite effect.
None of this is specific to anyone here, I certainly don't mean at all to suggest last12exit wants to kill people, only that the feeling I get when a scene is tampered with (in general) is not a savory one.
You can't be a cop.
No way.
If you are a cop and take this position on a public forum that can be traced back to you?!?!?!?
Sure, someone breaks into your house and you or a family member are in fear for your life shoot that fucker till the threat is eliminated . You know, Protect your Family. Please leave usually does not work for all you anti-GUn people just so you know
and the whole planting a gun part doesn't bother you as a "cop".
But I do appreciate your concern.