It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I am really just tired of all the bleeding hearts on the other side of the story complaining about how robbers don't deserve death. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm tired of guns being the (false) answer to everything. The US is a case study for irreversible cultural decay and many of the world's citizens realize that. Cavalier attitudes toward human life is the common thread.
Burglars don't deserve death. Burglars risk injury or death because their right to safety is subordinated to safety of the legal resident of the dwelling. They are two very different things morally and legally.
originally posted by: Aazadan
If you're making the argument that property is worth more than lives, you're also making the argument that criminals should enter your home armed and with the intent of killing you before they take any stuff, just to be safe.
A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states.
originally posted by: rockflier
No, I argue that my life and the lives of my family trump the lives of someone who breaks into my home. There is no time to say "Time out, are you armed?" In the time required to analyze, determine, then react it is quite probable that IF they are armed, you are deceased. Or, if they are not armed, the fact that force was used to enter leads to the probable conclusion that they will use force on you. That force may, or may not, end in you and your family being deceased. I for one, am not willing to endanger my family with the "Time Out" method of protection.
That's an extremely sad commentary on American society. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
On Friday, another daughter, Kimberly Leto, 51, was stabbed to death after she happened upontwo teenagers attempting to burglarize her home, Baltimore police said.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Link to original story...
"I’m sure he and a friend, Michael Sambrano, were doing what they thought they needed to do to survive.”
originally posted by: rockflier
Conversely, if you choose not to defend yourself you embolden those who would enter and quite possibly take your life. If you think that LOE will show up and protect you, you are mistaken. It is your choice, but my contention is that armed citizens are the best deterrent to bad guys. As the saying goes "The only thing stopping bad guys with guns is good guys with guns".
originally posted by: Mikeultra
This lady didn't own a gun either. Luckily she survived and the home invader was caught. He just got out of prison. Department of Corrections doesn't fix these problems. Deadly force does!
originally posted by: Nyiah
Really, a homeowner defends their home and people are wailing about the "tragic" loss of another set of criminals? What the hell? Since when do criminals get sympathy!? Did I miss this PSA or something?
All armed citizens create is a reason for bad guys to use their guns