Gun laws do they work

[ColinEssex]

The reason I invented those two scenarios is as follows. The pseudo macho American males on these forums have consistently given the impression they are happy to shoot anything that moves in their house which is not family.

One or two appear to be ex military and long for bygone days when they went through a Vietnam village killing men women and children who were not incinerated by napalm.

One scenario is an unarmed girl intruder who is shot point blank face-to-face and killed.
The second scenario is a male armed with a gun who is throttled to death from behind.

From what our macho men here have said or indicated is that they are well capable and would definitely perform both scenarios without a care.

Nobody has mentioned the consequences, or any follow-up investigations, or any possible penalty - thus giving the impression that nothing will be said or done.

My motorbike in the pic is a Honda Deauville in white, it is a 650cc and is a smaller version of a Pan European.

Col

 

[RainLover]

One or two appear to be ex military and long for bygone days when they went through a Vietnam village killing men women and children who were not incinerated by napalm.
Col

Too far Colin.

These guys has suffered enough.

They don't need cheap shoots.

 

[Vassago]

One or two appear to be ex military and long for bygone days when they went through a Vietnam village killing men women and children who were not incinerated by napalm.

You mean we missed some?

Nobody has mentioned the consequences, or any follow-up investigations, or any possible penalty - thus giving the impression that nothing will be said or done.

I'm sure I have mentioned it in numerous posts. I'm not going to repeat myself. You may use the search function through this thread.

 

[ColinEssex]

Too far Colin.

These guys has suffered enough.

They don't need cheap shoots.

Oh come on Rain, lighten up. Have a day off and think about it.

American boy children are inducted into killing and guns from an early age, they have to be "macho", they go out killing animals with their fathers as soon as they can walk.
Then they join the junior military where they are taught to kill people, then they join the big soldiers where they learn to sing whilst marching and get to kill real people.

In Vietnam, they had no idea who was Viet-Cong and who wasn't, why else do you napalm whole villages? Then the ground force go in and finish the job. We've all seen the documentaries on TV and reports from US soldiers at the time.

And people wonder why gun crime in the US is rife? Or wonder why men are reluctant to give up guns?

Jesus, the answer to the gun problem is as obvious as spotting a yank tourist in London.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, regarding your question in post #870:

If you have an intruder in your house or garden and you shoot them dead. Will you be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter?
Or if you wound them, can you be done for wounding with intent?

In Louisiana, my home state, the law says that if you are in your home and are confronted by an intruder, you are allowed to immediately assume that your life is in imminent danger. You have the legal right to kill the intruder without regard to whether said intruder was armed. I.e. it is legal to shoot first and ask questions later. The police may or may not arrest you, but your legal defense would be "justifiable homicide - self defense."

The exceptions include cases where the danger isn't so clear. For instance, if you confront an the intruder who promptly drops everything and runs out of the door, clearly fleeing, then you are not allowed to shoot the varmint.

A few cases clarified the other point:

If you see them coming in a window, you do better (legally) if you wait until they are entirely inside your home before you pump them full of lead. If they are halfway in and halfway out of your window, there might be ambiguity about the imminent nature of the danger.

If you shoot to wound, you can also face liability issues. (Yes, I know... get sued for NOT killing someone. Go figure.) Therefore, the "unofficial" advice given by lawyers in Louisiana is, if you are confronted in your home, shoot to kill and don't miss.

 

[Rx_]

Well Col, I think you deserve credit for having single handed set-back US / Britt relations back to the level of 1812 when your troops assulted, invaded and burned our Capitol to the ground. LOL
Come to think of it, didn't that mess all start because your team at home didn't like the idea our team owning guns?

 

[RainLover]

Colin

I thought you were being on of those water mellons and were having a go at our troops.

I know they did it. They had to in order to survive.

Here endith the lesson.

The yanks actually believe that ahey are better off when they carry guns. Poms on the other hand get upset when you bring a parcel into the pub.

Especially when you leave it there on your way out.

All we have to worry about is out of control boomerangs and Koalas on pot.

 

[ColinEssex]

If you shoot to wound, you can also face liability issues. (Yes, I know... get sued for NOT killing someone. Go figure.) Therefore, the "unofficial" advice given by lawyers in Louisiana is, if you are confronted in your home, shoot to kill and don't miss.

Thanks Doc for a very good coherent reply as always.

I was thinking though, I would suggest that taking the life of another human being in cold blood is arguably the worst of all crimes. After all, that's why you have a death row where murderers meet the worst end.

Anyway, isn't it a shame that people have to resort to murder and are given the green light to do so just to avoid being sued.

What a strange country America is. Don't you think?

In the UK, a farmer shot and killed an intruder and was jailed for manslaughter.

Col

 

[spikepl]

@RainLover

Your comment reminds me of some Safari Park in Oz, I think it was in the Blue Mountains outside Sydney, but don't quite remember anymore, it was ages ago ...

At the entrance a huge sign, warning the visitors of the wild animals, urging everyone to remain inside their vehicle at all times, and keeping the windows closed... etc etc ... And then some wag, at the bottom of the sign, had added "Poms on bicycle welcome"

 

[Rx_]

Most everyone realizes the whole "shoot to kill to avoid liability " *unofficial* legal advice is total rubbish. Can anyone find any law firms names remotely suggesting this? Please share your source if you find it in the sane world.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I would suggest that taking the life of another human being in cold blood is arguably the worst of all crimes.

I agree with you on that, Col. The question is whether shooting a burglar when you are legitimately afraid for your life qualifies as "in cold blood." I don't happen to think that it does.

Most everyone realizes the whole "shoot to kill to avoid liability " *unofficial* legal advice is total rubbish.

Rx, you don't know me well enough to accuse me of total rubbish. I actually GOT that advice at a cocktail party where there was no retainer involved. The discussion was on purely theoretical grounds and the person discussing the question WAS a lawyer. As to "most everyone realizes..." - anyone who knows me knows that on serious questions I give serious answers. Even Col acknowledged my answer earlier. I'm sorry you don't like it. But don't get snarky with me just because it offends your tender sensibilities.

Another issue you don't take into account is that in some states in the USA's "Old South" there is a "get tough on criminals" mind-set. There is little sympathy for a perpetrator who mistakenly enters the home of a card-carrying (and pistol-carrying) NRA member.

I personally know a gentleman named Bob Tucker who was confronted in his driveway by a gun-toting miscreant. Bob, however, was also (legally) carrying. When the perp became distracted, Bob drew and fired. Shortly after the perp became distracted, he became dead. And the police investigated, but the evidence was too strong to interpret it any other way than "justifiable homicide, self defense." Bob was not even charged, much less indicted for anything. He and his wife walked away from the event with no legal blemishes, no issues, not a problem to be had. In the Old South, that happens more often than some people might like, but we are a group that tends to expect people to accept the consequences of their actions. The consequences of threatening a man's life (and wife) are usually not forgiveness.

 

[Rx_]

I apologize that you thought my statement was about your accruacy of a lawyer's statement. Good to hear that your friend Bob appears to have been treated fairly. And equally OK that people need to defend themselves. That was not the issue.

In my opinion, this advice of a licensed lawyer is wrong. Your story that included your lawyer's advice lead to the next response - "people have to resort to murder and are given the green light to do so just to avoid being sued."
The problem is Intent: Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason

While I would never doubt your story that some lawyer advised you to resort to murder just to avoid being sued. The Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys might take more issue with that lawyer than simply calling his advice rubbish.

I sincerely hope you don't plan to use this Attorney's advice as your defense or as your actual intent. It is easy to disagree with your attorney's statement at many levels.

And we can see above that his statement lead to the conclusion (right or wrong) "..that people have to resort to murder and are given the green light to do so just to avoid being sued"

My response is about the lawyers advice and the next conclusion derived from it. It is upsetting to me that any attorney would advise to kill for financial reasons.

This is a very general overview of a bill for self-defence .
In Feb 23 on 2012 the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act . Much of this was in response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The legislation deals with the use of deadly force, not just guns. In use of deadly force, the bill allows defenders to meet perceived threats by applying superior force until the threat has been neutralized. Defenders would no longer be obligated to retreat under the bill — they could stand and hold their ground. “Killing people should be the last resort,” Police officers are always trained to use the minimum amount of force in responding to force and this law does not give an invitation to escalation.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Police officers are always trained to use the minimum amount of force in responding to force and this law does not give an invitation to escalation.

Don't disagree. But police usually have extra force available in the form of guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc. - and are trained to shoot for specific targets. They often also have vests that protect their torsos, at least.

The homeowner has none of these and is not trained for split-second evaluation. For the homeowner confronted by an intruder, it is instant "flight or fight" - and I think the Louisiana laws in question are designed to take this difference into account. It isn't a green light for going out to kill someone. It is a green light for you, the homeowner, who is in your own home, to protect yourself under what CANNOT be considered a "normal" circumstance.

BTW, the lawyer in question prefaced his statement that the law didn't actually state that it was better to kill the intruder. He was bemoaning the fact that the concept of "misadventure" seemed to have been lost somewhere. He was specifically referring to the concept that the intruder should have known beforehand that breaking into a home was automatically dangerous, and that suing someone for injuring them rather than killing them was just another way for the criminal to win.

If you look at it as a way for a criminal to win even after getting caught and shot, then that HAS to stop. It CANNOT be permitted for a criminal to take your money in court after he fails to take it from your home. Otherwise crime actually DOES pay. OK, maybe I'm an idealist, but that simply MUST not happen. Otherwise, why DON'T we just start shooting everyone? What has happened to civilization when criminals can get away with that kind of response?

 

[RainLover]

@RainLover

Your comment reminds me of some Safari Park in Oz, I think it was in the Blue Mountains outside Sydney, but don't quite remember anymore, it was ages ago ...

At the entrance a huge sign, warning the visitors of the wild animals, urging everyone to remain inside their vehicle at all times, and keeping the windows closed... etc etc ... And then some wag, at the bottom of the sign, had added "Poms on bicycle welcome"

This thread has gone on long enough so it needs a bit of light hearted humour.

In Australia we limit our killing targets to left wing politicians and paedophiles.

 

[ColinEssex]

This thread has gone on long enough so it needs a bit of light hearted humour.

In Australia we limit our killing targets to left wing politicians and paedophiles.

And kangaroos, koalas and wombats.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Rain Lover - we have a phrase in the Old South (southern USA, that is) to the effect that "that boy needed killin'" - and the phrase often is applied to pedophiles. It isn't a legal defense, but if you saw a crowd gather after a shooting in which a pedophile was killed, you would be likely to hear that phrase. It is also often overheard being applied to recently departed wife-beaters, vicious drug dealers, and neighborhood bullies.

 

[RainLover]

Rain Lover - we have a phrase in the Old South (southern USA, that is) to the effect that "that boy needed killin'" - and the phrase often is applied to pedophiles. It isn't a legal defense, but if you saw a crowd gather after a shooting in which a pedophile was killed, you would be likely to hear that phrase. It is also often overheard being applied to recently departed wife-beaters, vicious drug dealers, and neighborhood bullies.

We tend to send the paedophiles to jail where they are known as spiders. They get special treatment from the other inmates.

Apparently it is OK to ra** Pillage and Plunder but to touch a child is not recommended.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It would appear that the lynch mob is alive and kicking down in the southern USA, I've enjoyed visiting but sure am glad I live in a civilised country.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

It would appear that the lynch mob is alive and kicking down in the southern USA, I've enjoyed visiting but sure am glad I live in a civilised country.

Brian

Col will love this.

The civil war has started again.

PS How can a war be civil.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The civil war has started again.

.

An interesting statement as many British at the time saw it as a civil war, ie that they were fighting their kith and kin and thus did not pursue it with their usual ruthlessness, a complaint made by the Empire Loyalists, not saying that was the reason we lost they were numerous but in the end down to the Froggies.

Brian