Reality of Gun Ownership

[This_person]

I said I would eliminate the threat. You sir said leathal force. Please don't put words in my mouth. This is why I am hesitant to engage in silly hypotheticals. Any person, except for you, would naturally assume that a person who is not surrendering, or fleeing is being aggressive.

So, when you said:

No, not at all. If the subject is not surrendering, or fleeing, then the crime has changed from non-violent to violent. One doesn't have to be physically touched to be assaulted. The threat of force, with the capability of force, is enough. Assault is not a non-violent crime.

you were suggesting you would not even consider pulling the trigger? There's not much threat if it's clear you wouldn't pull the trigger, by the way.

That's why OUR nuclear arsenal is more threatening to the world than anyone else's - we're the only country in all of history to have actually USED a nuclear weapon to end a war.

 

[PsyOps]

Some people here have said they will shoot the burglar to kill because a burglar deserves to die. He has never said this. I am sure he is only saying he will shoot to stop the threat......if they die that was not the intent.

Cops in MD are not trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shoot for center mass which has the most likelyhood of stopping the attack......there is a distinct difference.

No matter how you slice it, if smcop shoots a burglar in his home, he has instituted the death penalty; that which he stated he was against.

And I'm not concerned with what cops are trained to do. I'm concerned with cops that make statements that I interpret as advocating the removing of a citizen's right to defend themselves. I know he has stated over and over he supports a homeowner to take whatever they deem necessary but I wonder... if this was on the ballot in MD that a homeowner can shoot (to kill) an intruder, regardless of whether the burglar is armed or not, how he would vote.

 

[smcop]

Sorry, I was using your phrase.....To this, you said you would use lethal force because the crime changed to violent, even though he is not in any way threatening to you.

He is committing burglary. A non-violent crime for which you do not condone lethal force. But, now it's violent burglary, even though he is not threatening you.

In other words, when drawn out in a painful manner, you actually think the opposite of what you said originally, and actually agree with the bulk of people who are arguing with you.

Thank you.

No, I don't think the opposite of what I said originally. I originally said that I don't believe a person should be killed for a burglary. I also said I believe a person has the right to defend themself. My original point was about a person who was shot in the back while fleeing. You are adding stuff to this, but still not listening to what I am saying. This is what you quoted me as saying;

Originally Posted by smcop
Then, presented with those facts, the intruder is not presenting themself as someone who has chosen the fight option rather than the flight option. You should defend your family and home in the best manner suited for you. In my home I would eliminate the threat.

Where did I change my thought?

You just want to read it a certain way, but you can't even get that right!

 

[This_person]

I said I would eliminate the threat. You sir said leathal force. Please don't put words in my mouth. This is why I am hesitant to engage in silly hypotheticals. Any person, except for you, would naturally assume that a person who is not surrendering, or fleeing is being aggressive.

I actually have painted the person who is in your home as being aggressive, by his/her very nature of being in your home stealing your stuff. YOU suggest that the person turns to leave takes away that aggressive posture by suggesting that a fleeing person is non-aggressive. I suggest they're merely moving their aggression to another point. If that other point is still on my property at the moment, it's still an aggressive person.

 

[PsyOps]

I said I would eliminate the threat. You sir said leathal force. Please don't put words in my mouth. This is why I am hesitant to engage in silly hypotheticals. Any person, except for you, would naturally assume that a person who is not surrendering, or fleeing is being aggressive.

Your responses are full of ambiguity. Please define “eliminate the threat”. I mean can you really say for sure that if you decide to “eliminate the threat” with your gun that the result wont be death?

 

[This_person]

No, I don't think the opposite of what I said originally. I originally said that I don't believe a person should be killed for a burglary. I also said I believe a person has the right to defend themself. My original point was about a person who was shot in the back while fleeing. You are adding stuff to this, but still not listening to what I am saying. This is what you quoted me as saying;



Where did I change my thought?

You just want to read it a certain way, but you can't even get that right!

And, you said you would use whatever force you felt necessary at the moment to eliminate that threat. ELIMINATE, not contain nor minimize, nor neutralize - ELIMINATE. And, the threat presented was someone who was not distinctly being aggressive - merely not leaving.

 

[smcop]

No matter how you slice it, if smcop shoots a burglar in his home, he has instituted the death penalty; that which he stated he was against.

And I'm not concerned with what cops are trained to do. I'm concerned with cops that make statements that I interpret as advocating the removing of a citizen's right to defend themselves. I know he has stated over and over he supports a homeowner to take whatever they deem necessary but I wonder... .

LOL...I never said I was against the death penalty! In almost every post I said a person should defend themself!

if this was on the ballot in MD that a homeowner can shoot an intruder, regardless of whether the burglar is armed or not, how he would vote

There would have to be more information on how the law would read. As it stands, people in Maryland have a right to defend themselves and their homes. I agree with that. If there were a law written which stated you can kill an intruder regardless of their intent to surrender or flee, I would be opposed to that.

 

[smcop]

And, you said you would use whatever force you felt necessary at the moment to eliminate that threat. ELIMINATE, not contain nor minimize, nor neutralize - ELIMINATE. And, the threat presented was someone who was not distinctly being aggressive - merely not leaving.

Correct. Eliminating a threat who is not being aggressive can be putting them in handcuffs, and having them taken away. Once they are secure, they are no longer an inement threat.

 

[This_person]

If there were a law written which stated you can kill an intruder regardless of their intent to surrender or flee, I would be opposed to that.

So, if they're quick enough to turn around, they don't deserve the same treatment as someone who didn't hear you creeping up on them?

 

[This_person]

Correct. Eliminating a threat who is not being aggressive can be putting them in handcuffs, and having them taken away. Once they are secure, they are no longer an inement threat.

Clearly, if they're not leaving, they're probably not going to submit to handcuffs.

 

[smcop]

So, when you said:you were suggesting you would not even consider pulling the trigger? There's not much threat if it's clear you wouldn't pull the trigger, by the way.

My God, where are you getting this stuff? Don't try to interpret what I am saying. There is no hidden meaning, read what I say and take it literally.

That's why OUR nuclear arsenal is more threatening to the world than anyone else's - we're the only country in all of history to have actually USED a nuclear weapon to end a war.

And I would assume, that between you and I...I am the only one of the two of us that has eliminated threats in our life.

 

[smcop]

Clearly, if they're not leaving, they're probably not going to submit to handcuffs.

Then this non-aggressive person you are speaking of is no longer non-aggressive are they? You can't have it both ways. This is why I was hesitant to engage in your stupid hypotheticals, because of the endless caviats you will continue to add. Pretty soon you will be talking about his spidy powers.

 

[This_person]

My God, where are you getting this stuff? Don't try to interpret what I am saying. There is no hidden meaning, read what I say and take it literally.

Well, which is it - you WOULD or WOULD NOT pull the trigger.


Nailing you down to an actual answer is a pain in the ass, you know that?

And I would assume, that between you and I...I am the only one of the two of us that has eliminated threats in our life.

Why would you assume such a thing?

 

[Novus Collectus]

No matter how you slice it, if smcop shoots a burglar in his home, he has instituted the death penalty; that which he stated he was against.

Only if they die is there a death and his intent was not to institute the death penalty or cause a death.
He has a right to use force, even "deadly force" (defined as force which may cause death) to defend his dwelling from an attack. That is not "instituting the death penalty" by any definition a rational person would use.

And I'm not concerned with what cops are trained to do. I'm concerned with cops that make statements that I interpret as advocating the removing of a citizen's right to defend themselves. I know he has stated over and over he supports a homeowner to take whatever they deem necessary but I wonder... if this was on the ballot in MD that a homeowner can shoot (to kill) an intruder, regardless of whether the burglar is armed or not, how he would vote.

He is saying you are not allowed to use deadly force commit vigilantee justice. You are only allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself, your dwelling or others from harm. He has never said you can't shoot the attacker (use deadly force) in self defense.
You are reading way too much in what he has not said to assume he is saying something else. As a police officer there are some things he cannot say without getting into trouble somehow and you are confusing his caution with an endorsment of not allowing self defense.

 

[This_person]

Then this non-aggressive person you are speaking of is no longer non-aggressive are they? You can't have it both ways. This is why I was hesitant to engage in your stupid hypotheticals, because of the endless caviats you will continue to add. Pretty soon you will be talking about his spidy powers.

It's trying to pin you down that's taking us down this road.

I'm not adding anything. YOU added handcuffs into the situation. All I said was he was there stealing your stuff, and didn't leave when you invited him out. YOU brought handcuffs and non-aggression into it.

 

[smcop]

So, if they're quick enough to turn around, they don't deserve the same treatment as someone who didn't hear you creeping up on them?

Again, this is what I said;

Quote:
Originally Posted by smcop
If there were a law written which stated you can kill an intruder regardless of their intent to surrender or flee, I would be opposed to that.

If they are turning around, then there is no intent to surrender or flee is there? You really can't get that can you?

 

[smcop]

It's trying to pin you down that's taking us down this road.

I'm not adding anything. YOU added handcuffs into the situation. All I said was he was there stealing your stuff, and didn't leave when you invited him out. YOU brought handcuffs and non-aggression into it.

Yes, I brought handcuffs into it because you said they were non-aggressive. I handcuff people who are non-aggressive. You then changed it to they wouldn't submit to being handcuffed and then I said they were no longer non-aggressive.

 

[PsyOps]

LOL...I never said I was against the death penalty! In almost every post I said a person should defend themself!

You're really all over the place and don't even realize it. Your own words:

Then you think someone who committs a burglary should get the death penalty. That's your opinion you are entitled to it. I don't.

I'm not talking about the death penalty as instituted by our legal system, and either were you in this quote of yours that I just posted.

There would have to be more information on how the law would read. As it stands, people in Maryland have a right to defend themselves and their homes. I agree with that.

Not true. If you have a means of egress you have to abandon your own home instead of "eliminating the threat". If the intruder if fleeing, you cannot "eliminate the threat". MD has created laws that make it nearly impossible to defend your own property and family; given all the rights to the criminal and taken away the right of the innocent citizen to be secure in their person.

If there were a law written which stated you can kill an intruder regardless of their intent to surrender or flee, I would be opposed to that.

How in the world do you define what an intruder's intent is? Do you ask them? How do you devise a law that forces a citizen to establish an intruder's intent first before acting? How much time do you give someone to surrender or flee? Suppose they want to flee but there only way out was through you? You're asking the citizen to make all the determinations of a crime with absolutely no training or information to go on. You demand nothing from the legal system to protect the citizen and give all the advantages to the criminal; which explains why crime is consistently on the rise; particularly in MD, VA and DC.

 

[Novus Collectus]

So, if they're quick enough to turn around, they don't deserve the same treatment as someone who didn't hear you creeping up on them?

Pretty much.

If I find a burglar in my house, they better surrender pretty damn quick because if not I am going to shoot to stop what I percieve as a valid threat regardless of if they hear me or not. But if they surrender before I shoot, then it would be homicide if I pulled the trigger after I had time to react not to.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Then this non-aggressive person you are speaking of is no longer non-aggressive are they? You can't have it both ways. This is why I was hesitant to engage in your stupid hypotheticals, because of the endless caviats you will continue to add. Pretty soon you will be talking about his spidy powers.