• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida sheriff urges homeowners to shoot intruders and ‘save taxpayers money’

Irrelevant

Lol. You realize you have no argument and so you have no choice but to say the law as exists is contemptible because drunk burglars should I guess just be pampered.
You say irrelevant, but it is no more so than your claim. Not all crimes end up being prosecuted as charged. When the homeowner shoots an 'innocent' intruder what is the compensation? There is a reason vigilante justice (civilian being judge jury and executioner) is not acceptable in America.

No, I said your view of justice is contemptible.
 
It’s irrelevant if the burglar dies or faces minor injury. Deadly force is justifiable to protect the home against home invasion, because you have a right to be safe in your own home.

If you commit felony crimes while drunk then you need to get sober, before the consequences catch up with you.
Once again for the slow witted...not every intruder (what the sheriff said) is a home invasion (what you appear to be obsessed with).
 
You say irrelevant, but it is no more so than your claim. Not all crimes end up being prosecuted as charged. When the homeowner shoots an 'innocent' intruder what is the compensation?
There is no such thing as an “innocent intruder” into an occupied residence. And in any event justification for use of deadly force is based on what the defender reasonably believed to be true, not what is actually true.
There is a reason vigilante justice (civilian being judge jury and executioner) is not acceptable in America.
What law says that?
No, I said your view of justice is contemptible.
I have communicated what the law says.
 
Once again for the slow witted...not every intruder (what the sheriff said) is a home invasion
All intrusion into an occupied residence by someone who doesn’t have a right to be there may be presumed to be home invasion by lawful occupants and they may act accordingly.
(what you appear to be obsessed with).
Because that’s all that matters in this discussion because lefties are here insisting criminals apparently sometimes do have the right to break into someone’s home. Not a surprise.

You just have to let them kill you, wouldn’t want to be a vigilante! Give me a break.
 
There is no such thing as an “innocent intruder” into an occupied residence. And in any event justification for use of deadly force is based on what the defender reasonably believed to be true, not what is actually true.

What law says that?

I have communicated what the law says.
Now you've added yourself to the judge and jury? Findings of fact are the courtroom's domain, not the legislators (and sure as shit not yours).

The act of being a vigilante is not illegal, but many of their actions are.
 
Now you've added yourself to the judge and jury? Findings of fact are the courtroom's domain, not the legislators (and sure as shit not yours).
Judge and jury is not necessary at the moment of a home invasion. This is settled law everywhere in American

It is irrelevant what they would’ve been found guilty of later.
The act of being a vigilante is not illegal, but many of their actions are.
This is a contradictory argument
 
All intrusion into an occupied residence by someone who doesn’t have a right to be there may be presumed to be home invasion by lawful occupants and they may act accordingly.

Because that’s all that matters in this discussion because lefties are here insisting criminals apparently sometimes do have the right to break into someone’s home. Not a surprise.

You just have to let them kill you, wouldn’t want to be a vigilante! Give me a break.
Right. I don't believe you can support that claim. Without the intent to commit a crime, entering a house does not always even qualify as burglary.

None of the ridiculous claims you make are true.
 
Right. I don't believe you can support that claim. Without the intent to commit a crime, entering a house does not always even qualify as burglary.
Which is irrelevant to self defense in the home, the lawful occupants may always assume the intrusion is felonious and act accordingly.

It is irrelevant what could have been proven in court later.
None of the ridiculous claims you make are true.
lol. Keep losing
^^^
Here’s the democrats outright saying they believe you should have to surrender your home to burglars
 
Judge and jury is not necessary at the moment of a home invasion. This is settled law everywhere in American

It is irrelevant what they would’ve been found guilty of later.

This is a contradictory argument
The idea that there are any non-exception laws in America is ludicrous.

"In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:

  1. Not be the aggressor;
  2. Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fistfight);
  3. Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
  4. Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
  5. Retreat (if possible)."
 
The idea that there are any non-exception laws in America is ludicrous.

"In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:

  1. Not be the aggressor;
You’re not the aggressor when someone enters your house against your wishes
  1. Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fistfight);
You are wrong on your analysis, you can use a firearm against unarmed people if you are in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. There is no law anywhere in America saying “you can’t bring a gun to a fistfight”
  1. Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
This is presumed when you’re in your own house and your house is invaded
  1. Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
Again, the attack occurred at the point of home invasion
  1. Retreat (if possible)."
There is no duty to retreat in your own home.

You are being so ridiculously wrong it’s funny
 
Party of Jesus chimes in on their pro-death penalty stance.
 
Back
Top Bottom