Nunavut man has murder convictions overturned in self defence case

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Really sad how people are using hindsight to determine what someone who just faced down five armed attackers should have done, as if he was even in the right frame of mind to think about a legal defense against his actions.

Questions: how do you switch off chemicals surging through your body and affecting your system in this scene? Is the fight-or-flight response not real?

Since we have enough playing lawyers, someone can play physiologist. It can seem clear what should have happened, the issue is whether or not it was clear to the victim that had just fought for his life.

Oh sweet so this isn't murder then?

Some douchebag robbed me last year, I'm going to go shoot the fuckhead, since he's a criminal no one should really care. Good thing he moved to Canada too. Sometimes life just hands you one, but I'll be the one to hand out JUSTICE.

AgedGrunt:
Really sad how people are using hindsight to determine what someone who just faced down five armed attackers should have done, as if he was even in the right frame of mind to think about a legal defense against his actions.

Questions: how do you switch off chemicals surging through your body and affecting your system in this scene? Is the fight-or-flight response not real?

Since we have enough playing lawyers, someone can play physiologist. It can seem clear what should have happened, the issue is whether or not it was clear to the victim that had just fought for his life.

Okay, let's take two facts here:

1) He bragged about shooting people before.
2) He ran after them, outside of his own property and the closest man to him when killed was 42 metres away from him (and it's roughly 3 feet to a metre, so over a hundred feet for Americans on the board). That's far from a snap decision, seeing as he had to line up a shot at great range for his weapon and fire, not snap shots.

A history of violence (or at least claiming to have shot people), and having to take an action that involved pursuing his attackers outside his house, pulling his rifle up, and aiming at fleeing targets, one of which had fallen over and possed zero threat to him.

If he truly feared for his life, why leave the safety of his house to pursue his attackers?

Shaoken:
If he truly feared for his life, why leave the safety of his house to pursue his attackers?

Maybe he thought they were going to go get guns and return. How should anyone know? It's a matter for a jury, not speculation.

I can understand shooting to defend yourself when people burst into your room with weapons, I don't even really care about that illegal magazine; but honestly, who the hell can defend the act of chasing someone down and executing them? That is far from self defence, that is murder. I am frankly surprised this shit could slide in Canada, I thought we were above condoning unnecessary death.

Seanchaidh:

Shaoken:
If he truly feared for his life, why leave the safety of his house to pursue his attackers?

Maybe he thought they were going to go get guns and return. How should anyone know? It's a matter for a jury, not speculation.

So you're telling people not to discuss something on a discussion forum?

The right to taking lethal force for self-defense ends once the immediate threat has passed. That is an undeniable legal fact. Even if he thought they were going to get guns and return, he had the police coming, he had a much longer range weapon, and he had his house as cover.

Legally, no matter what way you look at it, he murdered them. The threat to his life for the immediate time was over, he had the police coming, he had his neighbours, and there was no evidence that they would come back. Laws don't work on "might." He had fought off the threat to his life, then chose to kill those men. The one closest to his house when he was shot and killed was 42 metres away and still running, after falling over.

Seanchaidh:

Maybe he thought they were going to go get guns and return. How should anyone know? It's a matter for a jury, not speculation.

I cant see the injured but struggling to move man being likely to suddenly zip away and get a gun with a gun already trained on him. If someones lying down on the ground likely writhing in pain THATS when its sensible to wait for the police. Not to execute him "Just to be sure" he doesnt pull some crazy super hero shiz and fly away.

AgedGrunt:

Questions: how do you switch off chemicals surging through your body and affecting your system in this scene? Is the fight-or-flight response not real?

Blatently it is. However I couldnt get in a fight and then walk into a bar and execute an unarmed helpless wounded person moments later and claim "OH THIS RANDOM EXECUTION IS OK!" even if previously that person had been a threat to me. Ive been in fight or flight situations. I cant imagine being so cold or blood lusting as to locate a crippled wounded man and savagely end his life while he had NO way of resisting or fighting back or presenting any threat to me whatsoever. Theres being in a fight or flight situation where you respond to valid threats with crazy force and theres being a psychopath who kills people who freaking cant even stand up.

No charge for the first shootings. He was defending himself. Maybe manslaughter for the man he thought MIGHT get away to injure him later maybe. Murder for the execution. Thats just cruelty and sadism.

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
"An eyewitness said Mr. Bishop spotted a wounded invader falling in the snow and struggling to get up. Mr. Bishop raised his gun and fired at him, killing him."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Their lives were forfeit the moment they broke into his home with weapons. The only tragedy in this case is that he didn't get all five of them.

No, they really weren't. Self defense is only a justification for killing if someone's life is in immediate danger. Once they ran the danger passed and it's a matter for the police to handle.

Arguing that he was justified in killing them after they were already fleeing tells me that you either don't understand the law or simply are choosing to ignore it. Both are rather scary since legal distinctions such as this are pretty important for telling the difference between self defense and a murder in the first place, and no one is justified in deciding whether someone deserves to die when they are under no immediate threat of death.

EDIT:

Kopikatsu:
This happened in Canada. Canada's self-defense law is, essentially, "You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the property and eliminate the threat to yourself.". The five that broke into his home had a history of violence and home invasion (and he knew this prior to the incident). Had he simply scared them off then, do you think they would have all sat down in their living room for a nice cup of joe and never hurt anyone (especially Chris Bishop) again? He removed the threat from himself, as was expected of him.

Reading a bit farther down the page actually helped clear up the are you ignorant or simply ignoring the law question, so thank you for your later posts. As a Canadian who actually had to take some law courses in University, I can tell you that your understanding of the law in this matter is pretty questionable at best. First off, if there is a burglar on your property, you cannot use any force you deem necessary to remove them. If someone breaks in unarmed to rob you and you confront them with a gun, you are absolutely not allowed to shoot them unless your life is in danger. Which means that you cannot shoot someone simply for breaking into your home. If you confront them with a loaded weapon and they flee, you have removed them from the premises and there is no more threat to you and you do not have any right to kill them.

Same goes if they break in with a weapon as well. Unless they are threatening you directly with it (such as saying they will kill you or coming at you with the weapon) you can't shoot them. You may only use as much force as is actually necessary to no longer be in danger. Once someone flees, that's it. You can't harm them, and you are guilty of at least battery, and at worst murder if you injure or kill a criminal fleeing from your home. Once they flee, the imminent threat is ended and it's a matter for the police to handle, pure and simple.

I'm not sure what the definition of murder is in Canada, but generally I've understood it to require planning or premeditation. Being attacked by an armed mob and responding in the same scene with deadly force is not premeditation, which is why I offered no greater than manslaughter which describes actions occurring in the heat of the moment. However, even such a charge would be wrong.

What other non-starter analogies are being offered, such as fisticuffs in a bar or an entire year passing between a simple robbery, are totally not the same thing. I find it a bit difficult to accept any arguments that can distort the truth this much. Let's at least compare apples to apples.

Regarding the chase, forty meters is not a long distance. A good runner can do 100 in seconds. Secondly, just because you leave your home does not automatically relieve the feeling of threat nor does safety wash over emotions running hot at the time. This isn't a video game where you are sitting down mulling over moral decisions for your character.

You have to try to put yourself in a situation where your mind is racing, your heart is palpitating, tunnel vision and trauma, coping with the reality that you've narrowly escaped all sorts of brutality and death and that you are face to face with pure evil. It's not entirely unreasonable that an otherwise peaceful person could "snap" and not know how to switch off the "fight" response.

Not everyone can or wants to think to let their would-be killers and rapists go free, with a very possible chance of them escaping authorities and, you know, possibly doing this again to them or other people. I'd not fault someone for temporary insanity, and would argue this is a very extreme case requiring it. I don't believe this gives carte blanche for vigilante justice, there was a court that had to weigh this heavily and they came to a proper decision.

AgedGrunt:
I'm not sure what the definition of murder is in Canada, but generally I've understood it to require planning or premeditation.

Almost all legal systems that can be traced back to English law (including the US and Canada) use the following definition for Murder: an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.

"Malice aforethought" does not require premeditation (although some jurisdictions distinguish between premeditated and "regular" murder, see "1st and 2nd degree murder") and, in some cases, has been found with only seconds to make the decision to kill.

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
"An eyewitness said Mr. Bishop spotted a wounded invader falling in the snow and struggling to get up. Mr. Bishop raised his gun and fired at him, killing him."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Their lives were forfeit the moment they broke into his home with weapons. The only tragedy in this case is that he didn't get all five of them.

That someone can have so little disregard for human life sickens me.

Lethal force is justifiable only when your own life, or the life of a defenseless third party, is in immediate and unavoidable danger, anyone who would genuinely be capable of using lethal force in a context beyond that is mentally ill, IMO.

Shaoken:

Gergar12:

Xan Krieger:
"An eyewitness said Mr. Bishop spotted a wounded invader falling in the snow and struggling to get up. Mr. Bishop raised his gun and fired at him, killing him."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Right, and that poor murderer gets to break into people's houses with weapons. Why do you not place emphasis on the first crime.

Funny, none of the five had a history of murder.

Champthrax:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/31/chris-bishop/

Just an interesting article I was reading, though I am sure some of you may find it contentious

The Facts:
-A feud between young men resulted in a dispute at the house of the accused
-Accused called police
-The people he was feuding with, of which there were 5, broke into his house with weapons
-He retreated to his bedroom, where he readied his legal semi-auto rifle
-he swapped out the 5 round mag for an illegal 25 round mag
-When they broke into his bedroom he opened fire, and chased them as they retreated, killing 3 of them outside and leaving 2 wounded

That is just a summary, and you will have a better understanding if you read the article.

I agree with the appeal judges who overturned his murder charges. Even though he pursued his attackers, I do not have much sympathy for them as they has broken onto private property with the intent to harm.

what do you think?

It's called common sense he is not a sniper, and even snipers don't have a good chance of hitting moving targets charging at them with weapons with only 5 rounds in close quarters. The first guy even had a SWORD not just a prop sword but a samurai sword. I don't know about you but any sane person would not think that group of people would JUST injure him.

Funny, despite not being a sniper he still managed to kill all three while they were over 40 metres away from his house, all whilst they were running away ie presenting a smaller profile.

So apparantly shooting men charging him is difficult, but he managed to hit people running away from him.

A general rule of thumb is not to carry a sword, and pretend you will just injure. As soon as someone breaks into someone's house with a sword I am calling it attempted murderer hence why they are murderers.

Gergar12:

A general rule of thumb is not to carry a sword, and pretend you will just injure. As soon as someone breaks into someone's house with a sword I am calling it attempted murderer hence why they are murderers.

Ehm, no, actually, in order to be a murderer, you actually have to, you know, murder someone. But, all these rationalizations of one's desire to kill other people are interesting.

Vegosiux:

Gergar12:

A general rule of thumb is not to carry a sword, and pretend you will just injure. As soon as someone breaks into someone's house with a sword I am calling it attempted murderer hence why they are murderers.

Ehm, no, actually, in order to be a murderer, you actually have to, you know, murder someone. But, all these rationalizations of one's desire to kill other people are interesting.

Yeah they had a sword if you have that many people why would you need a sword, and think about it you see a group of men really to charge you, and have melee weapons, you would get pretty scared, and you would freak out. So you grap your rifle arm it with a illegal mag because your scared for your life, and think you will be murdered, and then you take aim, then fearing retaliation, and in that moment of what I am sure is panic you open fire again.

Gergar12:

Yeah they had a sword if you have that many people why would you need a sword, and think about it you see a group of men really to charge you, and have melee weapons, you would get pretty scared, and you would freak out. So you grap your rifle arm it with a illegal mag because your scared for your life, and think you will be murdered, and then you take aim, then fearing retaliation, and in that moment of what I am sure is panic you open fire again.

If you have a psychological analysis of the event by an expert, I'd actually be interested in reading it. But otherwise, that's conjecture and not exactly useful. It's unfoudned. It's not impossible, but it's only one of numerous possibilities, and an expert analysis, an expert source is the only way to open the box and see whether or not the cat is alive.

Shaoken:

Seanchaidh:

Shaoken:
If he truly feared for his life, why leave the safety of his house to pursue his attackers?

Maybe he thought they were going to go get guns and return. How should anyone know? It's a matter for a jury, not speculation.

So you're telling people not to discuss something on a discussion forum?

I'm telling you not to draw unfounded conclusions based on gaps in your knowledge of the facts of the case. What was the man's rationale? Is he credible in expressing it? You don't have access to his testimony; you don't know.

The Gentleman:

AgedGrunt:
I'm not sure what the definition of murder is in Canada, but generally I've understood it to require planning or premeditation.

Almost all legal systems that can be traced back to English law (including the US and Canada) use the following definition for Murder: an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.

"Malice aforethought" does not require premeditation (although some jurisdictions distinguish between premeditated and "regular" murder, see "1st and 2nd degree murder") and, in some cases, has been found with only seconds to make the decision to kill.

The criminal case was a very tough sell given the circumstances. I don't believe he was in the right frame of mind to make the moral decision we can freely consider at a keyboard.

And what happened doesn't make the man mentally ill. This is a very dangerous trend to start. Psychologists in the U.S. are going to be under pressure to report anyone suspicious, violating their integrity. Joe Biden even called-out a man who said "this is my baby" (a rifle) and told a crowd he wasn't sure he was fit to have that weapon. Let's leave it up to clinical experts and courts, shall we?

Generally society should err on the side of victims. I would wager that if a woman was attacked by five armed men, with intent of sexual assault or worse, and she turned it around, pursued outside of her home and killed, yet was then brought up on murder charges, the Internet would set the case on fire.

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

I live in Detroit and in Highland Park a few years back, a man caught burglars at his home- this was the 4th time he had been robbed that month. He chased a 60 year old burglar SEVEN BLOCKS until the old loser couldn't run anymore, he turned around to the homeowner and said what are you gonna do, shoot me? The homeowner shot him once in the chest, killing him.

The jury refused to convict the homeowner. Twice.

Amen.

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

So your belief is basically take things back to the wild west days? I know the US police don't have to protect the public (and most Americans are too apathetic to try and change that), but the police exist for a reason.

Why don't you just get rid of the police force, give everyone a gun and let them all enforce the law?

I live in Detroit and in Highland Park a few years back, a man caught burglars at his home- this was the 4th time he had been robbed that month. He chased a 60 year old burglar SEVEN BLOCKS until the old loser couldn't run anymore, he turned around to the homeowner and said what are you gonna do, shoot me? The homeowner shot him once in the chest, killing him.

The jury refused to convict the homeowner. Twice.

Amen.

That speaks more to how fucked up Detroit is than to how morally right it is. It's still murder.

Shaoken:

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

So your belief is basically take things back to the wild west days? I know the US police don't have to protect the public (and most Americans are too apathetic to try and change that), but the police exist for a reason.

Why don't you just get rid of the police force, give everyone a gun and let them all enforce the law?

The police can be a good investment while simultaneously not being something effective enough to rely on. Just because the police exist doesn't mean it is necessarily a good idea to put your continued safety entirely (or nearly entirely) in their hands. How much anyone does so tends to be a matter of degree-- self defense does exist as a concept, no matter how eroded some wish it would be. And the legal norms developed in more populous areas might not be as well applied to wherever this happened in Nunavut. The article says that the RCMP arrived just in time to... arrest the homeowner. Is that something you want to rely on for your protection? The people who attacked apparently had a history of home invasion and burglary, just tried to kill you, and the police hadn't yet arrived; does that speak well of the reliability of the law in protecting you from these criminals?

This is why you have to evaluate the particular circumstances beyond face value. Finding the just outcome for a case is not well-served by dogmatically applying rigid doctrines about the reasonableness of using force: the reasonableness of applying force depends on estimations of what will happen in the future. And that varies in more ways than just whether the attacker is retreating or not. If a person has ample reason to believe that the law will fail to protect him, then how can it be just to condemn him for protecting himself? It seems to me that the trial ought to turn on whether the accused had ample reason to believe that the law would fail to protect him in the future. And if that were the issue, the excluded evidence regarding the history of the burglars was quite important and a retrial is absolutely the right thing to do.

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

I live in Detroit and in Highland Park a few years back, a man caught burglars at his home- this was the 4th time he had been robbed that month. He chased a 60 year old burglar SEVEN BLOCKS until the old loser couldn't run anymore, he turned around to the homeowner and said what are you gonna do, shoot me? The homeowner shot him once in the chest, killing him.

The jury refused to convict the homeowner. Twice.

Amen.

How about you answer my question instead of trying to feint a distraction, hm? I repeat:

How is someone that is running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Vegosiux:
How about you answer my question instead of trying to feint a distraction, hm?

Because it's a stupid question without context.

Here's your stupid question with proper context: How much time may pass for you to legally shoot someone who decided to turn around in the middle of attacking you?

Should it be instantaneous? What if they are presenting you with their profile and aren't done turning yet? What if they start to turn back around towards you? What if they are going to their car to get a gun? Can you legally shoot someone who is shooting over his shoulder while running away from you?

It is just as stupid as all of those questions.

Legally, if someone attacks you on your property, or even if they are just there to steal stuff, you have the right to defend yourself OR just your damn property with lethal force. Your property extends beyond the walls of your home.

Basically, I am cool with someone shooting at people from their porch who are running away while they are on your property. This seems pretty common sense to me. That's the limit, when they leave your property, you stop shooting at them.

xDarc:
Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me.

Yeah that's right. That bitch who came in to ask if you had a jack so she could change the wheel on her car had it coming. And that ten year old kid who walked in because he'd kicked his ball into your backyard was totally a threat to your life. Got to kill 'em all or you're not free.

Anyway, it's rather shocking and uncivilised that you think even an apparent theft already justifies murder. I can't but assume you've no clue into what violence actually is and are just another sheltered gun owner, because nobody who's seen violence firsthand would believe in such extremes like murder if someone nicks something. It's also a perfect illustration of why guns need to be banned. People with ideas like yours should never be allowed to carry weapons. You're a danger to society if you think like that.

xDarc:
-snip-

So I'm not getting a straight answer out of you? Alright, fair enough, just as long as we're clear. I disagree with what you said, and that's that.

Blablahb:

xDarc:
Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me.

Yeah that's right. That bitch who came in to ask if you had a jack so she could change the wheel on her car had it coming. And that ten year old kid who walked in because he'd kicked his ball into your backyard was totally a threat to your life. Got to kill 'em all or you're not free.

Oh look you're assuming again, and on top of that you're using very poor examples.

Civilized people knock on a stranger's door if they need assistance with something, not just walk in if the door is unlocked. That is impolite, and illegal here and the person doing the walking in is going to come off as a loon if they don't do so before being hauled off by the police.

Smagmuck_:
Civilized people knock on a stranger's door if they need assistance with something, not just walk in if the door is unlocked.

To get to that door they needed to cross a front yard, and probably even surrounding private land. All of which is a legitimate killing field according to what you said.

And because someone's oblivious to social norms doesn't mean you can kill them. Nobody ever killed you for being rude you know, so why believe that you should do that to others?

Smagmuck_:
That is impolite, and illegal here and the person doing the walking in is going to come off as a loon if they don't do so before being hauled off by the police.

So what if it is a loon? I had someone pull open my sliding backdoor and barge in while I was sleeping (single room so he was about five metres from the bed the moment he entered). I must've been a guard dog in a past life or something, because anything will wake me up and a noisy sliding door that urgently needs maintainance is a definately wake-up call. But I pretended to still be asleep so that if he'd do something bad I'd both be prepared, catch him unaware and have evidence in the form of stuff being destroyed or removed or an attack on me, but he stopped halfway the room and kept asking if we'd wake up. He'd found a key right outside our door and wondered if it was ours, and insisted on leaving it with us in case the owner came back. Judging by his race and accent it was a Japanese exchange student.

It's one of the strangest things that ever happened to me, but if I were to follow your example, I should've strangled the guy right there and then for daring to try and return lost keys to people while being oblivious of social norms.

And of course as kids grow up, they do kid-things. In some cases getting into silly rows about nothing, and it has happened that people went into the backyards of other kids they were fighting with and stole their toys. According to you, those kids, ussually aged 6-10 or something, should be murdered for that. Ussually though you either got it back yourself (again a valid grounds for execution according to you) and missed your toy for a few hours untill the stealing kid's parents came looking if the unexplainable new toy they spotted belonged to you. A much better solution than murder I'd say.


Not just that, but years and years back our family was on holiday, when someone walked into the holiday house's kitchen. I was scared, so was my sister. Don't remember much else as I was too young. Turned out he had smelled coffee and wanted to ask if he could have a cup, and he was really happy and polite according to my parents. He was some kind of mentally challenge type from a nearby aid facility, sort of daycare. He had been nicknamed 'the coffee monster' because one of his strange behaviours was a huge apetite for coffee. Some ten minutes later an employee from the place came around and picked him up, no harm done.

According to your argument, my father should've murdered him for being mentally challenged. I'm sorry, but that's a bit too third reichish for my taste.

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

I doubt even the most fucked up countries follow such standards. That's even worse than an eye for an eye. That's basically a life for an eye.

And why stop there. Let's also make it legal to shoot people who spray graffiti or litter.

Fisher321:

No, I'm calling the people that always cry out "Call the Cops" or "He didn't have to shoot them" pussies. I think its the Army mentality that I have. Seeing the enemy retreat doesn't mean they quit, they will just regroup and rearm for the next attack. So the best thing to do is to eliminate them for good and they will never pose a threat again.

On retrospect that was a little harsh. I think its the sickness that I'm currently dealing with and the lack of sleep that is causing some clouded judgement. Sorry to offend anyone.

Yet as a soldier shooting down a wounded and unarmed enemy on the ground is considered a war crime.

Blablahb:
...nobody who's seen violence firsthand would believe in such extremes...

Leave it to a sheltered European who has never seen violence firsthand to say that someone would who has experienced violence firsthand would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later. That's the single biggest reason people arm themselves in the first place.

generals3:

I doubt even the most fucked up countries follow such standards.

What's fucked up is worrying about the rights of criminals in the middle of a home invasion.

There are also very distinct differences between breaking and entering, home invasion, trespassing and vandalism. Home invaders, people who break in when someone is home, are fair game. Anything less mandates forced victimization in your own home, and that is no basis for any society I want to be part of- where criminals have more rights than you do.

xDarc:
Leave it to a sheltered European who has never seen violence firsthand to say that someone would who has experienced violence firsthand would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

Erm, have you not read much of Blablahb's posts, or are you calling him a liar?

thaluikhain:

xDarc:
Leave it to a sheltered European who has never seen violence firsthand to say that someone would who has experienced violence firsthand would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

Erm, have you not read much of Blablahb's posts, or are you calling him a liar?

Considering he's willing to assault people over a joke, I'd say he's got no moral highground to criticize someone's act of self defense. He even slandered me for mine.

xDarc:

generals3:

I doubt even the most fucked up countries follow such standards.

What's fucked up is worrying about the rights of criminals in the middle of a home invasion.

There are also very distinct differences between breaking and entering, home invasion, trespassing and vandalism. Home invaders, people who break in when someone is home, are fair game. Anything less mandates forced victimization in your own home, and that is no basis for any society I want to be part of- where criminals have more rights than you do.

No. People who are a threat to your life are fair game. Someone lying on the ground wounded is not. Saying just because you entered into someone's home you are basically ok to kill regardless of what happens is messed up.

Once a burglar or just anyone who breaks into your home isn't a threat to your life he's no different from a vandal, thief or whatever.

And how is that giving criminal MORE rights than you? As far as i know i don't advocate to make it legal for criminals to shoot people. Not giving you the right to execute wounded and unarmed people =/= giving you less rights than criminals since criminals don't enjoy these rights either.

generals3:

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

Okay, explain this to me, I'm obviously too stupid to understand:

How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

Basically, once you break into someone's home- you forfeit your right to live. Sounds fair to me. Don't want to die? Don't go breaking into people's homes. If you should happen to turn around and run, too bad, you should have ran faster.

I doubt even the most fucked up countries follow such standards. That's even worse than an eye for an eye. That's basically a life for an eye.

Not even that, it's a life for an attempt to possibly take an eye. However unlikely and stupid, sword man could have just been using it to threaten the guy. It'd be stupid, but still possibly.

And why stop there. Let's also make it legal to shoot people who spray graffiti or litter.

Well I think what xdarc meant was "anyone who tries to kill someone forfits his right to life" not "break into someone's house and they have free range to murder you."

Then again, the case they listed was that someone just broke into someone's house and ran off, never threatening the home owner, who then promptly shot him in the middle of the street and was cleared of murder charges twice, which speaks more about how fucked up Detriot is in terms of morality and priorities and rule of law.

xDarc:
There are also very distinct differences between breaking and entering, home invasion, trespassing and vandalism. Home invaders, people who break in when someone is home, are fair game. Anything less mandates forced victimization in your own home, and that is no basis for any society I want to be part of- where criminals have more rights than you do.

Yet you're arguing to give criminals, in this case murderous gun owners who think they can kill anyone for walking in their garden or home, more rights than other people.

You're contradicting yourself. A symptom of the fact that there's no logic or arguments to found in your desire to legalise murder.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked