It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aazadan
If you choose to use a gun to defend your home that's fine. However, you have a responsibility to save the life of whoever you shoot. If you confront them, shoot them. If they don't go down shoot them again and again until they do. The second they're down, call an ambulance and give first aid. If they die due to your inaction you're a murderer and should be charged as such. From the moment you pull the trigger it's your responsibility to see they make it to trial if possible. Protection is fine, killing someone because you want to kill them outside of the justice system is not.
originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: SixX18
pump shotgun is fine.
and jacking a round into the chamber
from the feeding tube is an unmistakable sound
that a sober, level headed, intelligent person
in their right mind will sit up and pay attention to.
and the sound as a deterrent. deterrence refers to
stopping a crime from being acted upon.
since they are already in the house,
what exactly are you deterring them from doing??
let me inform you that even though the jacking of a round
from the feeding tube through the cycling of the pump action
sounds really threatening and definitive,
a home invader at two thirty in the morning is
probably drunk or high,
not level headed,
probably not intelligent,
and probably armed.
that means that as soon as you cycle the action with the pump,
you have told everyone in the room exactly where you are and with what you are armed.
originally posted by: spirited75
..a home invader at two thirty in the morning is probably drunk or high, not level headed, probably not intelligent, and probably armed. that means that as soon as you cycle the action with the pump, you have told everyone in the room exactly where you are and with what you are armed.
The bad guy is not as rational as you think he is. Well let me question and challenge you... If you're that smart, you wouldn't be in the guys house in the first place, OK? So anybody whose in your house is notably less rational than you are. Possibly critically less rational, INSANELY less rational.
Most criminals, even ones hopped up on drugs, don't want an encounter. They don't want to face an armed "victim", because its no longer a victim, its an adversary. An armed one. While I agree, keep your HD weapon, one in the pipe... you're dead wrong the effects, of "racking one". Its been proven repeatedly, criminals run at the sound. Self-preservation, is still the strongest instinct.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: Aazadan
If you choose to use a gun to defend your home that's fine. However, you have a responsibility to save the life of whoever you shoot. If you confront them, shoot them. If they don't go down shoot them again and again until they do. The second they're down, call an ambulance and give first aid. If they die due to your inaction you're a murderer and should be charged as such. From the moment you pull the trigger it's your responsibility to see they make it to trial if possible. Protection is fine, killing someone because you want to kill them outside of the justice system is not.
No, it is not my responsibility to play paramedic to an intruder I might shoot in my home. Besides, I am a pretty good shot, and if they break in, and I shoot, legally, the likelihood of them needing medical attention is very slim.
originally posted by: spirited75
there are three places that you can use deadly force even if the person that you use deadly force upon is not using deadly force on you.
1. home. 2. vehicle. 3. any other place that you have a legal right to be.
originally posted by: spirited75
why would you even consider giving a criminal CPR in the first place.
they probably have Hep C, AIDS, or some other disease.
originally posted by: spirited75
the only ammunition legal to use in a war is FMJ.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, it is not my responsibility to play paramedic to an intruder I might shoot in my home. Besides, I am a pretty good shot, and if they break in, and I shoot, legally, the likelihood of them needing medical attention is very slim.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: spirited75
there are three places that you can use deadly force even if the person that you use deadly force upon is not using deadly force on you.
1. home. 2. vehicle. 3. any other place that you have a legal right to be.
You may only use deadly force as long as the threat is still present. Once they're down and no longer a threat you're obligated to obtain aid. You can't shoot them 3 times in the chest, see them go down, and then shoot them in the back of the head. You will rightfully be found guilty of murder. If you shoot them and don't obtain aid you'll likely be found guilty of manslaughter, the courts tend to be more lenient here but are still quite clear that you're expected to try and obtain aid. Besides that it's the right thing to do if you believe in having a justice system.
originally posted by: spirited75
why would you even consider giving a criminal CPR in the first place.
they probably have Hep C, AIDS, or some other disease.
Because you are not a judge in a courtroom. You do not have the right to sentence someone to death for a crime. If they die during the self defense phase so be it, as the saying goes sh*t happens. Once they are down however they are not a threat. You have legal responsibilities at this point.
originally posted by: spirited75
the only ammunition legal to use in a war is FMJ.
I liked the description of what the bullet does. Anyways to expand on the point that I quoted the reason for this is that the goal in military combat actually isn't to kill the enemy. It's to neutralize them. FMJ's are designed to wound, this means their comrade has to look after them. By shooting one person you actually take two out of the fight. If you instead used ammunition designed to kill, shooting one only takes one down.
Most militaries in the world recognize this as advantageous in a combat scenario, and as such sign on to an agreement that they will use ammunition that's less lethal.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, it is not my responsibility to play paramedic to an intruder I might shoot in my home. Besides, I am a pretty good shot, and if they break in, and I shoot, legally, the likelihood of them needing medical attention is very slim.
Once they are down it is your responsibility. Sometimes legal defenses are made by people saying they aren't medical professionals and as such shouldn't need to render aid, but you still need to make sure an ambulance is on the way.
We expect this behavior of cops too, just look at the video of the cops that executed the man on the beach. They let him die before getting close "just incase", and most people considered that an execution. If you're not willing to get aid for a criminal, then why should the cops?
originally posted by: SixX18
So you are saying it should be one shot done. Heard that. Or neutralize them ten call 911 and say whatever happened. I'd be taking my family the heck outta there while calling for aid.
originally posted by: candlestick
they deserve it.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: intrepid
So take a life to preserve property? That's a damn skewed sense of values.
.
Forfeit your life to steal property? That's a damn weak sense of self worth.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: intrepid
So take a life to preserve property? That's a damn skewed sense of values.
.
Forfeit your life to steal property? That's a damn weak sense of self worth.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Vasa Croe
don't all these stories have those people in them saying "He/she was such a nice kid, they could never do anything like this."
First of all, sorry for the misinterpretation of gender.
Some things on ATS shouldn't be left open to interpretation.
And definitely no. Not all these have people saying such things.
But that's the world media has painted for us. I can assure you that
is an illusion.
originally posted by: 0bservant
IMO they deserved to be shot for sure, possibly in the knee caps, but not shot to death.
They were 14! Do you remember when you were 14 and how naive and fearless you were? Hell when I was going into grade 9 I thought I'd have to push a penny across the hallway with my nose.
originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: grandmakdw
To be honnest I am a bit shocked to see so many ATS-members ...or people... write that these kids got what they deserved. Maybe it was enough to shoot them in their legs..like an other replier suggested... But to make them kneel and shoot them through the back of the head..if the opportunity was there is a bit heartless and mindless to me.
originally posted by: 0bservant
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: intrepid
So take a life to preserve property? That's a damn skewed sense of values.
.
Forfeit your life to steal property? That's a damn weak sense of self worth.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: intrepid
So take a life to preserve property? That's a damn skewed sense of values.
.
Forfeit your life to steal property? That's a damn weak sense of self worth.
Your ignorance kills me. 'Murican stereotype reinforcement at it's finest.
IMO they deserved to be shot for sure, possibly in the knee caps, but not shot to death. They were 14! Do you remember when you were 14 and how naive and fearless you were? Hell when I was going into grade 9 I thought I'd have to push a penny across the hallway with my nose.