Quote:

---

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-611(a)

"A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

citizen's arrest.
an arrest made not by a law officer but by any citizen who derives the authority to arrest from the fact of being a citizen. Note: Under common law, a citizen may make an arrest for any felony actually committed, or for a breach of the peace committed in his or her presence.
—Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:


As for the new law, good for Florida. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to defend themselves, others, and their property. I'm glad to see that Florida agrees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Do I endanger my rep as a 'liberal' with the more 'conservative' peeps on this board if I agree you, Reaverman?
Well, I do anyway.

Chrisisall Libertarian-like

---

Quote:

---

Gotti Jr. Dodges Legal Bullet with Second Mistrial

by Nancy Solomon
All Things Considered
March 10, 2006

In New York, a federal jury deadlocks in the racketeering trial of accused mob boss John "Junior" Gotti. It's his second mistrial in eight months. Prosecutors say they'll try Gotti a third time, and the judge indicates she'll set a new trial date on Monday.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5257064&ft=1&f=1001
www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/0812gotti-bloom.html


Junior Don Behind Curtis Sliwa Shooting

By Jerry Capeci
Gangland News
June 26, 2003

As an act of revenge for badmouthing his old man on talk radio, John A. (Junior) Gotti ordered the 1992 shooting of Guardian Angels founder and radio host Curtis Sliwa, according to new evidence obtained by federal authorities.

The sensational shooting is one of several acts of mob violence that the feds have now tied to the younger Gotti, (right) Gang Land has learned.

Sources say the feds have evidence that Junior ordered crew members “to teach (Sliwa) a lesson” for his repeated portrayals of the late Dapper Don as a low life gangster who deserved to be jailed for life for his April 1992 racketeering and murder conviction.

Sliwa was shot and critically wounded by two gangsters who picked him up in a stolen taxi cab outside his East Village apartment as he left for his early morning talk show at about 5 A.M. on June 19, 1992 – four days before Gotti was sentenced to life.

Shot in the back and both legs, Sliwa underwent two operations, and spent three weeks in Bellevue Hospital. On his release, Sliwa resumed his show – co-hosted at the time with his then-wife Lisa Evers – and accused associates of Junior Gotti with being responsible for the attack.

No one has been charged in the case, and until today, none of the alleged participants has ever been named.

Sliwa often refers to the shooting on his WABC radio show – now co-hosted by radical left-wing attorney Ron Kuby. Yesterday, for example, during a promo for a health plan, Sliwa recalled how he was “shot full of lead by the Gambino family” in 1992 when he failed to practice “preventive medicine….and keep my mouth shut.”

Turncoat capo Michael (Mikey Scars) DiLeonardo, (left) who began cooperating with the feds last fall, has given the feds the lion’s share of the information concerning the several violent accusations against Junior, including the shooting of Sliwa, sources said.

DiLeonardo, a former partner with Junior in several topless bar extortion scams, has told the feds that Junior, angered by Sliwa’s continued attacks instructed his charges to “put Sliwa in the hospital” for constantly haranguing his father, as well as him and his sister Victoria on his show, in the newspapers and on guest appearances on other shows, sources said.

Here’s Junior’s cast of characters, and their roles, according to DiLeonardo’s account to the feds, sources say.

The wheelman in the plot was Joseph D’Angelo, a onetime protégé of Salvatore (Sammy Bull) Gravano. Three months earlier, D’Angelo had rattled Gravano during his testimony at John Gotti’s trial by standing up and slowly walking out and back into the courtroom shortly after the superstar turncoat took the stand.

The Ice Man

Philip Carlo
To Kill the Irishman

Rick Porrello

D’Angelo, 34, has 10 months left of a four year sentence for extortion.

The shooter was Michael (Mikey Y) Yannotti, a member of a crew headed by capo Nicholas (Little Nick) Corozzo. Yannotti, 30, and D’Angelo, have both become “made men” since the shooting.

Seconds after Sliwa (right) got into the cab at St. Marks Place and Avenue A, a man who had been crouched down in the front passenger’s seat, rose and began firing down at Sliwa who bounced from side to side trying to open either door, which were both jury-rigged shut, Sliwa said shortly after the attack.

Two blocks away, as the cab careened around the corner on Ave B and East 7th St, Sliwa dove towards the driver’s side open window – the partition between front and back seats had been removed – screaming “Code Red, Code Red” into his Guardian Angel radio. He got stuck, but was shot in the back and tumbled out into the street.

As Guardian Angels, police and an ambulance responded to his cries for help, the cab sped away and was recovered a few blocks away, where the getaway driver had waited to pick up D’Angelo and Yannotti, sources said.

Contacted yesterday, Sliwa told Gang Land: “The guys should go straight to hell without an asbestos suit. I’ve been right about this all along. This is the way the Gottis have been doing business ever since the beginning. Thank goodness that it’s starting to change. I won’t be happy though until they’re all either in jail or pushing up daisies.”

The Sliwa shooting was one of several mounted by the budding young mob leader, sources say.

Six months after the Sliwa attack, Junior was on a three capo panel running the Gambino family for his dad that authorized the Christmas Eve execution of a daring husband and wife team that had robbed several Gambino and Bonanno family social clubs in Brooklyn and Manhattan, sources said.

Sources said that the feds have determined that Gambino soldiers Dominick (Skinny Dom) Pizzonia (left) and Ronald (Ronny One Arm) Trucchio were the gunmen who executed Thomas Uva, 28 and his wife Rosemary, 31, as they did their Christmas shopping in Ozone Park, Queens.

During their brief lived success, Thomas wielded an Uzi submachinegun and Rosemary served as getaway driver as the Bonnie and Clyde pretenders rolled up scores against victims who did not report their losses to the cops.

Sources said the Bonanno family – a Bath Ave. social club operated by then consigliere Anthony Spero (right) was the first to be hit by the Uvas – had the contract to whack them, but “the work was done by the Gambinos.”

Pizzonia, 61, currently serving time for extortion, is set for release from federal prison in February. Trucchio, 51, recently pleaded guilty to state gambling charges and faces 1-to-3 years when he is sentenced next month.

As Gang Land reported last August, the FBI and Queens cops have also targeted Junior in a Mar. 13, 1983 murder during a wild barroom brawl that young Gotti allegedly started by smashing a glass in one patron’s face and finished by stabbing another one to death.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, which obtained racketeering charges in 1998 that led to Gotti’s current incarceration – he is scheduled to end his 77-month prison term next year – is looking to make a new case against Junior, sources said. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney James Comey declined to comment about the case.

“Junior is turning out to be a chip-off-the-old block,” said one law enforcement official. “He may not be coming home as soon as he thinks he is.”

His attorney, Richard Rehbock ripped the government “for leaking this old and stale information for the sole purpose of creating a very negative atmosphere about my client. This leak speaks volumes about their intent.”

www.ganglandnews.com/column336.htm

---

Quote:

---

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: NATION OF AZTLAN
A "guest worker" bill is estimated to bring in 200 million workers in the next 50 years to compete with Americans in all sectors of the job market. Stop them! Demand workplace enforcement. Demand a border fence. Call your elected officials. Make a visit to their office and give them a brick. fairUS.org has their contact information. You can email their entire staff at OutsourceCongress.org Send free faxes to congress at NumbersUSA.com F.I.R.E. has a listing of National anti-illegal immigration events that you should attend.
www.immigrationwatchdog.com

Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'
by Congrssman Charlie Norwood
Apr 07, 2006
www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13863

---

Quote:

---

AnthonyT wrote:

There is no citizen's arrest in Florida.

---

Quote:

---

A Private Investigator is, as the name implies, a private individual engaging in investigative work. The Private Investigator is not a public law enforcement officer or federal agent. A Private Investigator has no rights of arrest or detention beyond the rights given all citizens under common law (popularly known as a "citizen's arrest.").
www.floridadetectives.com/art_hiring.htm

Supreme Court of Florida:
We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12 Fla. Const. The charges brought by the JQC stem from conduct exhibited by Judge Cope while attending an out-of-state judicial conference in April 2001. The investigative panel accused Judge Cope of (1) being publicly intoxicated on two nights; (2) stealing a hotel room key belonging to two women; (3) engaging in inappropriate conduct of an intimate nature with one of the women; (4) prowling and attempting to forcibly enter the women's hotel room; (5) making a material false
statement to the police after being placed under a citizen's arrest; and (6) failing to
disclose his citizen's arrest upon returning to the bench.
www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc01-2670/op-sc01-2670.pdf


Gangsta Govt serial killer Colonel Bo Gritz attempted citizen arrest, but judge and homicidal hubby spent $100,000 of Terri's "rehab" settlement on hiring off-duty cops to kill her!

Bo Gritz Radio Show
www.theamericanvoice.com

Citizen's arrest attempt of Schiavo, judge. Green Beret Bo Gritz intervened in Ruby Ridge to escort family to safety. Former Green Beret Commander Bo Gritz is trying to conduct a citizen's arrest of Terri Schiavo's husband and the judge who ordered the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube removed so she can be legally starved. The 66-year-old retired Army Lt. Colonel with his wife, Judy, arrived in Florida from their home in Nevada yesterday with the intent of arresting anyone involved in removing the life-sustaining tube.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43347

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hi all,

I lived in Florida most of my life. (28 years) When I applied for a Concealed Weapons permit, (9 years ago) it was explained to me in excruciating and painful detail when I could and could not legally use lethal force to defend myself.

There were two scenarios I remember being discussed in class.

Scenario 1) I have a pocket knife. I am walking down the street and a man jumps me, and starts pounding me with his fists. I am battered and bruised and bloodied, and as he straddles me and pounds me, I whip out my pocketknife and eviscerate the SOB. Result? I am likely to be arrested and sent to jail and possibly convicted of a crime.

Scenario 2) I am in a parking lot. A man approaches me with a knife and threatens my life. I am armed with a concealed pistol. What am I allowed to do? I am allowed to either give him my life (no, thank you) or I can run. Now, running isn't a bad idea in this situation, especially if it gives me time to get to my gun. But I'm not allowed to do that. I am allowed to run. And run and run and run. I can hide behind cars. I can cry out for help. If he pursues me, I must run and run and run until I am physically incapable of evading him any longer. Then I can shoot him.

I thought these two scenarios were the most intrinsically stupid ideas I'd ever heard in my life. I felt like it gave the criminal who was attacking me more rights and freedoms than it gave me.

I am glad the obligation to flee has been removed. I will be equally glad when use-of-force restrictions are removed for situations where an attacker clearly intends you 'grievous bodily harm.' I don't want to have to moderate my response. He might be better at combat than I am, and treading on eggshells in my reaction is likely to make an omelette out of me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well, I don't get it. Maybe somebody could explain to me where I'm misreading.

Explain to me this. How, according to the provisions laid out by the law, if I understand it, does somebody, as an example, punching another person in the face...

a stupid and violent act in itself, warrant getting shot? How does the law protect him from being shot, for that matter?

---

Quote:

---

We're talking about a midemeanor crime, beig dealt with with deadly force, legally. And really, that's the change here right? Before you had to do everything you could to avoid a conflict...now you can just be pissed that some guy hit you in the face. Is that what I'm reading?

---

Quote:

---

I mean, come on, do we really need to change the law to keep people safe?

---

Quote:

---

I don't think so. A person fearing for his life is not going to consider the law when acting. He's going to take the action he feels is necessary. The law will sort that out later, and I bet its a rare rare thing where people are found guilty in cases of actual self defense.

That's my take so far...but maybe I'm wrong here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Nor do I buy it that many people who protect themselves from attacks legitimately, with deadly force, are very often found guilty for their part. If you have figures to prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.

---

Quote:

---

I think the former law was explicit because it didn't want abuse of the right to use handguns. It didn't want people to be able to legitimately use them for any reason but for honest self-defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Could it be possible that any of these convictions were warranted because they were the excessive use of force?

---

Quote:

---

I've got no love for the idea of burglary...and its a particularly invasive frightening crime. But it's not just done by the very dangerous, it's done by the young and stupid and its done by the desperate(which could be very dangerous but not neccesarily suicidal).

---

Quote:

---

Given a choice, the person with the home should be the one left standing if somebody were going to get hurt, but I want to know that somebody wasn't killed unnecesarily.

---

Quote:

---

I want to know that the person with the gun didn't overreact...a gun is usually a pretty good deterrent in and of itself without having to discharge.

---

Quote:

---

What about a perceived threat now though? What if you just thought somebody was looking to harm you. He came too close, too threateningly...his dimeanor too angry. Does the new law force a situation where you had to be attacked? Or is it just enough to think you are?

---

Quote:

---

I do want to be pragmatic about this...not so compassionate that I give the person breaking the law a pass at the expense of law and order and the citizen's own safety. So far though, there's nothing about this bill that I think makes people safer...I think it does the opposite, actually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
A P.S. to my comment on this, should we be proud of a system that puts victims in jail because of technicalites?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But not too long ago there was a case where a guy got pissed off because he's been burgled several times. It happened again and he came down stairs and shot a kid in the back with a shotgun while the kid was running away.

He played the big victim card because he was just defending his property. I'm sorry there's a big difference between defending oneself and shooting someone in the back while they're running away.

---

Quote:

---

To be fair there's also been cases where burglars have sued the home owner because they injured themselves 'on the job' so to speak...

---

Quote:

---

...but if you don't make it clear too people that they have to do everything to get away before they even think about using deadly force you get people shooting each other in the back.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...

---

Quote:

---

Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
No one should break into another's home without EXPECTING to slip on a skate, be bitten by a dog, trip on an unfinished science project, or be shot by a nervous aggrivated bi-polar insomniac.

Am I just trippin' here?

---

Quote:

---

"Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...

---

And if he hadn't decided to shoot people in the back he wouldn't of gone to prison .

---

True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.

Quote:

---

Robbing a house hardly warrants a death sentence, a prison term perhaps, but not a death sentence.

---

True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

---

If the choice is shoot people in the back or run away then yeah.

When people pickup a weapon in these situations most often you find that the weapon is used against them. If you don't want to get hurt the best thing to do is make you presence known and ensure the intruder has a clear exit path.

It's just like cornering an animal, they'll try to flee and if your between them and freedom they'll flee through you.

---

So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

Quote:

---

I've practiced various martial arts since the age of five, I'm well aware that if someone hits me I don't get to break their neck.

---

What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

Quote:

---

Point is it doesn't matter whether your weapons are your hands or a Glock 9mm, lethal force is always the last resort and only used when it's you or them and you don't have the opportunity to escape.

---

Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

Quote:

---

Saying "they started it" is playground stuff...

---

Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a backhoe.

Quote:

---

you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.

---

Agree completely. However, the standards of excessive force should take the circumstance into account. In your example the homeowner probably should not have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid did not run then IMHO he was completely justified in killing the kid.

I do agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, and that any case involving lethal force should be closely examined, but in the end criminals should not have the ability to do what they please and get away with it just because the victims are too afraid of the law to do something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I think the problem is that people are actually arguing two separate issues, which is a major problem in how the particular law is written.

---

Quote:

---

The first issue seems cut and dried, and (though loath to say it) I agree with Finn. Someone breaks into your house or puts you into a situation in which they absolutely, 100% mean to cause loss of you or your family's life (gun drawn, knife out, gas can in hand, etc.), then the appropriate response is the use of lethal force to defend yourself.

---

Quote:

---

BUT - And here's why I highlighted AnthonyT's quote -

The second issue is more problematic. What do you do in a situation in which the attacker's goal is not to end your life? Being threatened is not an excuse for the use of lethal force. I'm sorry, someone hitting you a couple times is not an excuse to "crush their windpipe," or shoot to kill, as the Fla. law seems to allow.

Someone has a bad day, thinks you spit on his car, keyed it, eyed his girl, whatever, and takes a swing; the idea I get from AnthonyT and others in this thread is that if you have a gun, it's acceptable to use lethal or near-lethal force in a situation in which the odds are your life is not in danger because you feel threatened? That's ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Two guys have a traffic accident, one gets out of his car with fists raised and yelling, it's acceptable to "defend yourself" with a gun (or a thumb to the eyesocket) instead of walking away? Bullshit. That's why the law/issue is problematic - There's no absolute line of what constitues a dangerous threat. It seems to me that the first option should always be leaving the problem unless unable to do so. The impression I'm getting from this board is that you should only leave after you've made them a corpse. Am I getting the incorrect impression? AnthonyT?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There’s a difference between holding someone accountable for excessive force and persecuting the victim.

---

Quote:

---

If a criminal made the choice to break into a house, then that is a choice he made.

---

Quote:

---

The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the criminal, and a person should not be required by law to cower in his own house.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am not a martial artist. I don't know if my opponent is. If someone hits me more than once, I'm going to assume they mean me grievous injury.

I'm not a boxer. I wasn't in the military. How about the other guy? He obviously felt competant enough to attack me. So what am I going to do in my defense?

I am going to punch. Kick. Bite. Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him. Rather, because I want him to stop hurting me. And so I will employ every attack I can think of until he stops.

While I will not be thinking, "Break his neck" I think that might happen as I struggle to survive. As might any other of myriad injuries.

This isn't playground stuff. I don't go around inciting people to beat me up. If they do, their motives are dark. My response will be frenzied and desperate.

I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredgiblet:
True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.

---

Quote:

---

True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

---

Quote:

---

So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

---

Quote:

---

I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

---

Quote:

---

Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

---

Quote:

---

What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

---

Quote:

---

Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a backhoe.

---

Quote:

---

I do agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, and that any case involving lethal force should be closely examined, but in the end criminals should not have the ability to do what they please and get away with it just because the victims are too afraid of the law to do something.

---

Quote:

---

Would you condone execution without trial for burglary?

---

Quote:

---

Personally I don't think any crime warrants a death penalty.

---

Quote:

---

Would I put my own personal well being below my possessions? No. For a start I have insurance.

---

Quote:

---

If the choice is stand aside and let them run away or kill them when all they're trying to do is escape, I'd let them leave. That way I don't get hurt and no one has to go to court to explain why there is an unarmed corpse in their front room.

---

Quote:

---

but the failures of the court system are not an excuse for vigilantism nor murder.

---

Quote:

---

My point all along is reasonable force in trying to defend your self. If someone attacks me, even if they are trying to kill me, I will seek to incapacitate them so that I can escape.

---

Quote:

---

Now if someone's standing with their gun to your head, THEN firing your own weapon is a last resort.

---

Quote:

---

If however, you have a gun and they have a knife and they’re some distance away 'blowing them away' certainly is not the last resort.

---

Quote:

---

You should always try to run away first, if you come running down stairs pistol drawn then your going to have a confrontation

---

Quote:

---

If you escape out the back door no one gets hurt, including YOU.

---

Quote:

---

I still fail to see how misdemeanour assault or robbery warrants a death sentence.

---

Quote:

---

No, but if you don't put a stop gap on it you've got a free ticket to murder.

---

Quote:

---

If I want to kill you all I have to do is get you into my house.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I have already said that killing the kid was over the line, but given the choice of letting him go unpunished and killing him...

---

Quote:

---

Disagree but on practical reasons. Most people who are in prison for life are either repeat hardened criminals, or psychopaths. I for one do not want my tax dollars going to keep them housed and entertained for the rest of their lives. Particularly when they spend most of their time trying to get out and commit more crimes.

---

Quote:

---

Insurance is good, but again do we let the criminals do what they want? Get away when we have the ability to stop them?

---

Quote:

---

Once again, as I said lethal force should not be the first option, there are still kneecaps.

---

Quote:

---

Generally agree, however if justice cannot be found in the courts then where should we look?

---

Quote:

---

And then when he wakes up (before the police show up), he victimizes someone else, or starts looking for you personally.

---

Quote:

---

Once again though lethal force is probably not usually neccesary, force often is.

---

Quote:

---

By that point its too late, if you had shot them when they first pulled the gun...

---

Quote:

---

But they get away, the criminal escapes, there is a good chance that they will not get caught, and if they that they will get a slap on the wrist. So you have to fight the insurance company to get your stuff back, probably not getting everything, then the someone else gets robbed as well and the cycle continues.

---

Quote:

---

but once again between letting a criminal go to victimize again or the death penalty...

---

Quote:

---

First off you've already said that you would let me take all your stuff without lifting a finger (still waiting on that address).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Are you happy with the concept that someone can be executed for burglary without trial?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Seriously if someone breaks into your home to kill you then use whatever force necessary up to and including lethal to stop them. If however they entered your house to steal your VCR I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify killing them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
To protect a VCR? It must be a really good one; does it make coffee for you in the morning and everything?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Ancillary facts: Both my size, strength."

I've seen this before. I hate it when I see it. What difference does it make how big and strong someone is?

--He looked bigger when he was punching me in the f*cking face Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
(This is neglecting the whole adviso that when you point a gun you MUST shoot without hesitation.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I've seen this before. I hate it when I see it. What difference does it make how big and strong someone is?

---