The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.
What kind of world are you endorsing here. One where a person can't approach a strangers house without fear of being shot dead?! Really? It's an absurd overreach.
The problem is the way some of these laws are written and promoting the idea that they be cleaned up so that we don't just create a whole new group of victims is not the same as opposing the concept of people having the right to protect themselves against an "actual" threat
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?And we object to your pleas to give home invaders a safe working environment.
The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?
That is a quantum leap in logic, perception and reason.
Theft is not a threat to life and should never be met with deadly force.
If the Avon lady got a little too aggressive with the door knocker ...one need only feel she wanted to damage the house...Then it's open fire, I feel threatened. Under the wording of these laws he burden of proof is only on the feeling and not to a real threat.No one is promoting that you can just shoot someone for walking up to your door in the normal fashion. That is already illegal; furthermore it isn't what happened in this case. Having someone pounding on your doors and windows in the middle of the night, and damaging them apparently, is not the same as capping the Avon lady for ringing the door bell.
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?
That is a quantum leap in logic, perception and reason.
Theft is not a threat to life and should never be met with deadly force.
If the Avon lady got a little too aggressive with the door knocker ...one need only feel she wanted to damage the house...Then it's open fire, I feel threatened. Under the wording of these laws he burden of proof is only on the feeling and not to a real threat.
You haven't read the law, apparently. I have. It doesn't say "feel".
It says:
"If the person was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, or believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and if a reasonable man in the same circumstance would also believe himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm..."
This is a necessary and ESSENTIAL provision that is in almost every state's laws. It is necessary to deal with situations where, for instance, a robber points what appears to be a real gun at you and says "your money or your life!"... and it turns out to be a fake gun after he's shot dead. Yes, this has happened. This is why the "reasonable man test" is there for "believed there to be a threat."
It would be nice if people would try to have a little knowledge about a topic before pontificating on it.
Most homes have attached gargages that access into you Kitchen and or Laundry area.
Its not the 1940s you know.
But speaking if quantum leaps in logic, is the victim supposed to know that that leaf blower is all that criminals interested in ?
Or should the home owner just ask the nice burglar ? " Are you just interested in my lawn equipment sir, or something more " ?
I don't think the law is the issue here. I think Wafer's judgment is. I can't think of too many reasonable circumstances under which an unarmed teenage girl on the opposite side of a locked door poses a threat. 2nd degree murder seems about right.
Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!"No one is opposing self defense laws. But those laws have to be written in a way that doesn't create a whole new class of victims
.................
No. You're putting words in my mouthWhere homeowners fear to defend their home and family perhaps.
unless of course you think they look threatening?No one is promoting that you can just shoot someone for walking up to your door in the normal fashion.
Having someone pounding on your doors and windows in the middle of the night, and damaging them apparently, is not the same as capping the Avon lady for ringing the door bell
Most homes have attached gargages that access into you Kitchen and or Laundry area.
Its not the 1940s you know.
But speaking if quantum leaps in logic, is the victim supposed to know that that leaf blower is all that criminals interested in ?
Or should the home owner just ask the nice burglar ? " Are you just interested in my lawn equipment sir, or something more " ?
Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!".
If this is true then you need have your guns confiscatedDon't give a ****, you pound on my door, and I repeatedly tell you to calm down and you pound more I'm gonna shoot your ass
Vin Diesel would shoot first and then ask.
Oh good grief G
Vin Diesel would shoot first and then ask.
So now door knocking is a capital offense?Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!"
Don't give a ****, you pound on my door, and I repeatedly tell you to calm down and you pound more I'm gonna shoot your ass.
So all you feel you need is a "hunch" that the thief of your lawn equipment may want to hurt someone in your family and that is all the license you need to blow him away?
What if your "hunch" is wrong and you just killed your brother-in-law who came over to borrow the thing because his is broken and wife forgot to tell you?
Do you get off free because you had a hunch and a feeling of a threat and you chose to shoot first and ask questions later?
What kind of world are you endorsing here. One where a person can't approach a strangers house without fear of being shot dead?! Really? It's an absurd overreach.
The problem is the way some of these laws are written and promoting the idea that they be cleaned up so that we don't just create a whole new group of victims is not the same as opposing the concept of people having the right to protect themselves against an "actual" threat
Wafer did not have the good sense to do that.
So now door knocking is a capital offense?
BTW McBride was shot in the face.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?