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.
What do you propose for the restitution and punishment for the disarmed man and the initial attacker?
originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: centarix
the 17-year-old pulled a gun on the man, took the sneakers and walked off.
Rather than calling the police, Phil took things into his own hands. He did a quick u-turn and ran over the teenager attempting to walk away with the sneakers. The thief's arm was severed in the collision
Is it without our rights to use any force we deem necessary to recover stolen property? It it reasonable to think that in the cited story, that the robber may have gotten away cleanly had he not be DISARMED.
Sadly, the confrontation was over when the gentleman decided he wanted revenge and his sneakers back. Regardless of the previous malice, the followup assault was certainly tantamount to attempted murder.
originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: TrueBrit
You are an interesting individual.
On one hand, you think that someone who shoots a person armed with a knife (I believe it was a cop in the thread I am referring to), that is trying to attack them, is a coward.
Yet you would "pull a mans arms off and beat him to death with them" for trying to steal your boots.
Why is it okay to kill someone for stealing your boots, but not okay to shoot someone that is armed with a knife and trying to kill you?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: greencmp
Just so we are clear on this greencmp, I am of the belief that the second amendment is one of the most important segments, of one of the most valuable documents ever composed for political reasons.
I support it. I am one of those Britons who finds it disgraceful that I may not carry a sword on my own nations soil.
6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a
third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny
of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any
such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance,
nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.