Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://club.myce.com/f1/actual-lawsuits-
you-will-laugh-your-off-56459/

theres a whole buncha lawsuits in that link that will show it does happen... albeit these ones are pretty silly

sorry this ones my favorite...

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol,
Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished
robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the
garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the
door connecting the house and garage locked when he
pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson
found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He
subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of
dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming
the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury
agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

At 6/20/11 09:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/20/11 01:56 AM, Yorik wrote: Oh is it now? Then why have I read dozens of news articles where this exact thing happened? A quick google search will turn up results, even some where police officers/departments were sued by criminals and/or their families after they opened fire on them.

Post some of these stories. I can be pretty sure that in these cases, either somebody along the line didn't understand the legal issue, or they intentionally ignored it in order to create a more compelling story.

Sure, I'll do some googling for you.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2 009/01/family-of-home-invader-shot-by-co p-to-get-225-million.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/i ndex.ssf/2010/12/mecosta_county_homeowne r_fires.html

http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/201 0/02/ohio-burglar-sues-victim-who-shot-h im.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-New s-Archive/Article/200806412346105

http://www.wisn.com/r/9950016/detail.htm l

http://www.channel3000.com/news/9905807/
detail.html

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?
id=8145770

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre ad8470/pg1

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/
judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/

I could post plenty more, but my googling muscles are tired.

If the person trespassing on your property and threatening your life survives your self defense shooting they can claim that you used unnecessary force and take you to civil court.

The shooter can be sued for the same if they kill the intruder.

Sure, but at least in that case the only other person that witnessed what you did isn't trying to make you look bad or garner sympathy for his injuries.

If a situation comes to a point where it is worth it to shoot someone and you are legally justified to use deadly force then it is worth it to shoot to kill. I don't think there is any exception. Even police do this. That stuff about shooting to disable is movie bullshit.

Exactly, that's why the term is "seriosuly injure" or "Kill".

What are you talking about?

You never say you shot to "seriously injure" or anything like that in a self defense case. That kind of language can dig a hole for you. You can't make it a point that you had specific intentions in a case like that because you run the risk of being accused of premeditation.

Well, I don't have a gun or anything (at least I don't think anyone in my family does) but if I did, I might consider at least pointing it at someone. No wait, you can go to jail for just pointing a gun too. Well, I've never had anyone try to steal anything from him, so maybe I would just threaten to call the police. Honestly, I don't even think I've ever taken a class in school or college about how to deal with that. You'd think we'd learn more about that.

Here's all you need to know to get started on this topic: The people who are proposing there should be no right to own property are marxists. How do I know this? Because one of the core tenents of the communist manifesto is "the abolishment of private property"

Your turn to judge

The thing is, defense of property usually stops when your life is no longer in danger.

For instance, a guy goes in, and takes your laptop. While he is in your house, lethal force is legal since you can't say he is there to not hurt you. HOWEVER, if he outside running away, going to get your gun in shooting him is beyond your safety. That is where I draw the line.

Teacher told me once, if you are going to kill someone, make sure he falls IN your house lol.

At 6/21/11 08:05 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Here's all you need to know to get started on this topic: The people who are proposing there should be no right to own property are marxists. How do I know this? Because one of the core tenents of the communist manifesto is "the abolishment of private property"

Your turn to judge

Incidentally, it's also something Jesus advises all of his followers to do. Coincidence?

Even though I don't have a gun where I live, I wouldn't hesistate to use my gun to shoot some thief, especially if he/she is a drug-fueled fucker with a weapon on their person. I don't want said person to take my 360, my car, my TV, etc. and expect to get away with it without consequence, and before anyone says "wait for the police", all I can say is that unless you live near a police station, it's going to take at least 15 minutes for the cops to show up, and by that time, the perp has already done his/her damage to you and your property.

Lethal force should only be considered as a last resort, so the best way to stop them would be to shoot them in the shoulder or the knee, which would stop just about anyone in their tracks, and as long as they don't bleed out on the floor, then you can claim self-defense and be fine from a legal standpoint.

Suppose someone steals a rug in my home, runs a block down the street, and stands on it. Since he is on my property and in the process of using it, am I allowed to use force?

Honestly I've never understood why they let most people use really powerful harmful guns instead of guns that probably won't kill as easily

But I guess if it were that simple it would already be in practice rite?

At 6/22/11 06:47 AM, FurryDemon wrote: Honestly I've never understood why they let most people use really powerful harmful guns instead of guns that probably won't kill as easily

But I guess if it were that simple it would already be in practice rite?

They generally don't, if they can help it. In California they have banned all weapons chambered in .50 BMG, the round used by M2 machine guns the military has mounted on their humvees and several anti-material rifles (and probably some sporting rifles somewhere.) As far as I can understand the round is banned because the legislators believe that it is a viable anti-aircraft weapon, which is an absolute crock of shit that they have apparently convinced the ignorant majority of.

I know other countries have more serious caliber restrictions. They aren't allowed to have "big bore" guns, so anything larger than 40 caliber is banned. There's no real reason, I guess they just felt like it. Big bore guns aren't necessarily more powerful, it all depends on the cartridge and the gun firing it. But maybe "big bore" is a scary sounding term?

Like I said, all gun legislature is based on ignorance and fear.

At 6/22/11 01:57 PM, Yorik wrote:

At 6/22/11 06:47 AM, FurryDemon wrote: Honestly I've never understood why they let most people use really powerful harmful guns instead of guns that probably won't kill as easily

But I guess if it were that simple it would already be in practice rite?

They generally don't, if they can help it. In California they have banned all weapons chambered in .50 BMG, the round used by M2 machine guns the military has mounted on their humvees and several anti-material rifles (and probably some sporting rifles somewhere.) As far as I can understand the round is banned because the legislators believe that it is a viable anti-aircraft weapon, which is an absolute crock of shit that they have apparently convinced the ignorant majority of.

I know other countries have more serious caliber restrictions. They aren't allowed to have "big bore" guns, so anything larger than 40 caliber is banned. There's no real reason, I guess they just felt like it. Big bore guns aren't necessarily more powerful, it all depends on the cartridge and the gun firing it. But maybe "big bore" is a scary sounding term?

Like I said, all gun legislature is based on ignorance and fear.

I forgot to mention that Australia is the country I was talking about when I said some countries have serious caliber restrictions. Since I'm typing this anyway, I may as well ad that a lot of other countries have caliber restrictions based on their use in militaries past and present. They won't be allowed to have 9mm or .45acp, for example, but they can have .38 super. Still no real reason other than I guess they feel military weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians, which is another crock of shit.

God damn, newgrounds BBS has needed an edit button for its entire existence. How has one not been added in over a decade?

Where I live, it is legal to use lethal force if the offender is IN your house. If he is on the front porch, you can be persecuted. Even though it's YOUR front porch. Weird laws...

a friend of mine just got back from zimbabwe in africa and he told me abit about their right to defend property, apparently you are fully within your rights to kill someone with a gun as long as youve given them a warning shot, no matter where they are on your property, inside or on the lawn, my friend was witness to this rule in action. also apparently what a lot of people will do, is shoot the trespasser, and then fire another shot into the air, simulating a warning shot.

im all for defending your shit, but killin a guy over material things just seems wrong to me.

Unless truly accidental or necessary/unavoidable, I don't personally believe murder should EVER go unpunished.

At 6/23/11 08:22 PM, camobch0 wrote: Unless truly accidental or necessary/unavoidable, I don't personally believe murder should EVER go unpunished.

Self defense is not murder, so I guess I agree.

At 6/23/11 12:21 PM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote: im all for defending your shit, but killin a guy over material things just seems wrong to me.

Hey, how come you never responded in the gun restriction thread, bro?

At 6/23/11 10:03 PM, Yorik wrote:

At 6/23/11 08:22 PM, camobch0 wrote: Unless truly accidental or necessary/unavoidable, I don't personally believe murder should EVER go unpunished.

Self defense is not murder, so I guess I agree.

Murdering someone when they pose no threat to you is not self defense.

At 6/23/11 10:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/23/11 10:03 PM, Yorik wrote:

At 6/23/11 08:22 PM, camobch0 wrote: Unless truly accidental or necessary/unavoidable, I don't personally believe murder should EVER go unpunished.

Self defense is not murder, so I guess I agree.

Murdering someone when they pose no threat to you is not self defense.

How is someone that breaks into your home not posing a threat to you?

At 6/23/11 11:31 PM, Yorik wrote: How is someone that breaks into your home not posing a threat to you?

That is a good point, which is why that "Castle" exception exists. However I would claim that for the intrudee to claim self defense, even with an intruder, they must subjectively and objectively believe that they are in danger of serious injury or death. Anything less and I'd claim that their infliction of serious injury or death upon the intruder would remove self defense.

There is strong precedent that states that if you are threatened, but respond stronger than the threat, you have forfieted self defense, i.e. If someone threatens to beat you up and you shoot them, you have comitted homicide, not acted in self defense. At least in your "Castle" you don't have to retreat.

@OP

If you're willing to possibly get shot over stealing your neighbor's PS3, I think you might just be assisting Darwin.

Basically, I support the Right to Defend Property as a matter of principle.

Anyway, who was it that said the only reason man has government is to protect his property? I'll never remember.

I think the shoot to wound deal has some flaws. What if the intruder has a gun, you shoot said intruder in leg or arm and they just happen to whip out there gun and shoot you. What if the intruder is hopped up on crack or what ever, you shoot to wound and they don't react as a normal person would they could charge you and use there own physical strength and maybe extra strength from what ever drug that messes with you like that and or they could use a knife or bat or something and come after you. What if that intruder is fleeing and happens to shoot at you if they feel threatened. What if the drug crazed intruder flees the scene because you didn't shoot him because YOUR LIFE wasn't in great danger. The intruder goes on a crime spree and breaks into the homes of those who dont own guns or those that ARE AGAINST GUNS and breaks in puts there life's in danger.

At 7/10/11 07:43 PM, CrypticPoptart wrote: How is this even still argued about? It's like the death penalty. If you're for it, you're a terrible human being. If you think you have the right to kill me because I stole something from you, you're even worse.

The rule is supposed to allow people to protect themsevles when they feel their safety is threatened. When someone has illegally entered another's home, our society, and thus the laws, reflect that we feel very threatened and have the right to be able to protect ourselves.

At 7/10/11 09:09 PM, CrypticPoptart wrote: Sorry for the double post, but I get if said robber is running off with your life's savings you want to stop him, but there are alternatives to "shoot in face".

Hence the doctrine of "proportionality".

I'd say if they steal something from you but all they do is threaten to punch you and run and you shoot you and the thief should go to jail. But if they threaten to shoot you and you shoot them then if there not dead they should go to jail or be sentenced to death.

The argument is that people will be less likely to commit a crime if there is a decent chance that they'll be shot by a person who doesn't have to keep them alive (like a cop does). Me, personally, I think it certainly reduces the chances for repeat offenses.

At 6/20/11 01:56 AM, Yorik wrote:

At 6/20/11 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm gonig to have give a negatory on both of these comments. Wounding is always better. Yorik's comment that you can be sued if you wound but not if you kill is an absolute fallacy.

Oh is it now? Then why have I read dozens of news articles where this exact thing happened? A quick google search will turn up results, even some where police officers/departments were sued by criminals and/or their families after they opened fire on them.

If the person trespassing on your property and threatening your life survives your self defense shooting they can claim that you used unnecessary force and take you to civil court. It's already hard enough as it is to endure the stress of trying to convince the law that your use of force was justified without the "victim" accusing you of unlawful use of force and suing you for damages, stress and whatever else they can cook up. Whether or not anyone will actually take their side is another matter (though that has definitely happened several times before) you are still going to go through a legal battle with this person and probably even their family.

If a situation comes to a point where it is worth it to shoot someone and you are legally justified to use deadly force then it is worth it to shoot to kill. I don't think there is any exception. Even police do this. That stuff about shooting to disable is movie bullshit. It's not a good idea to cripple or maim someone whether you look at it morally, legally, logically, common sensically or any other way you could think about it.

I was taught to "shoot to stop"; aim for center of mass and fire until no more threat exists. Fancy "shoot to kill" or "shoot to incapacitate" are a bit complex in a very shaky situation; and if you are shooting at a human being, the situation is shaky. If you are a nice guy, pray the target survives; if not so nice, hope he or she dies slow or painful. By the way, when running away, sex and age may be hard to determine. The best bet: take reasonable precautions. make sure as many people as possible know that you take precautions, (this means knowing how to safely handle a firearm if you decide to keep one) and hope the situation never arises.

In my opinion it's not only defending property but defemding yourself. Thief is not poor and running. He is armed and he is gonna kill you for your money and belongings. It's natural tp protect yourself I think

At 8/6/11 07:59 AM, loledeye wrote: In my opinion it's not only defending property but defemding yourself. Thief is not poor and running. He is armed and he is gonna kill you for your money and belongings. It's natural tp protect yourself I think

Yeah this is true except for the HUGE chasm between burglary and murder. We might as well connect flirting and aggravated rape 1.

Hell, the vast majority of break-ins aren't even robberies.

I think lethal force should be allowed if you suspect the thief has a weapon of any type. Or you could pull off a Death Wish and booby trap the windows in your house and such. Wouldn't that be nice to wake up in the middle of a night to a man screaming because he jumped on a bed of nails from the window? Also, look at it this way, better him then you. He tried to rob you anyway!