Think twice before announcing that party on Youtube

[Caladan 19]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

[Ban Hammer 14,702]

They have to be physically attacking you or your family. But its all determined on a subjective definition of reasonable force. If they're trying to get away you're supposed to let them.

wrong! bzzzzzzzzz.........thanks for playing.

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

correct

[DeadPoolX 9]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

I don't care about my "china" or the house or any other bit of property. Not really. Do I want to see it trashed? No, of course not. Obviously, if I spent money on those items, I'd like to keep them in good working order and not watch some wild, out-of-control maniacs destroy them; however, I'm not about to kill someone over a VCR either.

What I would shoot someone over is if and when they proved to be a threat to my family and I. These teenagers were a threat (a very large one) to the family in this article. If such a thing ever happened to my family and we (my family and I) were assaulted, I would do whatever it took to protect them. If that meant killing some teenagers, I would.

Do I want to end the life of someone who may not even be 18 years-old yet? Of course not. But I'd rather do that than see a member of my family severely injured or killed. That's why I would use a firearm to kill and I think it makes sense.

Edited October 15, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They have to be physically attacking you or your family. But its all determined on a subjective definition of reasonable force. If they're trying to get away you're supposed to let them.

wrong! bzzzzzzzzz.........thanks for playing.

I was talking about how the law has been interpreted in the UK. As this took place in the UK, that's probably apt

People have gone to jail over there for using excessive force to defend their homes. Bashing an intruder over the head with a bat might be deemed 'appropriate', but beating his head in on the floor wouldn't be.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 14,702]

They have to be physically attacking you or your family. But its all determined on a subjective definition of reasonable force. If they're trying to get away you're supposed to let them.

wrong! bzzzzzzzzz.........thanks for playing.

I was talking about how the law has been interpreted in the UK. As this took place in the UK, that's probably apt

People have gone to jail over there for using excessive force to defend their homes. Bashing an intruder over the head with a bat might be deemed 'appropriate', but beating his head in on the floor wouldn't be.

as the uk outlawed guns, it's probably not apt

[natty bumppo 297]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

"More than 100 uninvited teenagers descended on the family house, stole whisky and champagne, smashed windows and started fighting ...

David Worthy, 53, was punched in the face when he tried to turn away a group of youths, while his son Stephen, 18, was badly beaten"

China? How about personal safety and the protection of the child ?!?

Might want to consider what would have happened after the first round was expended ... propably would have been a group exodus to the exit(s). After all ... the owner is just standing his ground ... the kids would have probably trampled over each other in their haste to leave.

So ... if you were one of the offending children ... what would YOU do? Charge the homeowner ... or leave ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They have to be physically attacking you or your family. But its all determined on a subjective definition of reasonable force. If they're trying to get away you're supposed to let them.

wrong! bzzzzzzzzz.........thanks for playing.

I was talking about how the law has been interpreted in the UK. As this took place in the UK, that's probably apt

People have gone to jail over there for using excessive force to defend their homes. Bashing an intruder over the head with a bat might be deemed 'appropriate', but beating his head in on the floor wouldn't be.

as the uk outlawed guns, it's probably not apt

Again - not on farms. There was an incident a few years ago where a famer was jailed for a number of years for shooting a couple of burglars he caught fleeing his property.

[Caladan 19]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

I don't care about my "china" or the house or any other bit of property. Not really. Do I want to see it trashed? No, of course not. Obviously, if I spent money on those items, I'd like to keep them in good working order and not watch some wild, out-of-control maniacs destroy them; however, I'm not about to kill someone over a VCR either.

What I would shoot someone over is if and when they proved to be a threat to my family and I. These teenagers were a threat (a very large one) to the family in this article. If such a thing ever happened to my family and we (my family and I) were assaulted, I would do whatever it took to protect them. If that meant killing some teenagers, I would.

Do I want to end the life of someone who may not even be 18 years-old yet? Of course not. But I'd rather do that than see a member of my family severely injured or killed. That's why I would use a firearm to kill and I think it makes sense.

Thing is, you don't have an absolute right to self-defense. Your right to self-defense ends when you're no longer threatened. And depending on the state, you may have a duty to use non-lethal means if you can. (I think Florida and Texas have no duty to retreat.) It also depends on things like the time of day, the person's reasonable perception of the threat, &c. Defense of property is even more complicated.

How this is interpreted varies. But this much is clear. If you take a swing at my nose, I don't have the right to shoot you in the head. Even if it would prevent harm to my cute little nose. And that's just because it's very easy to protect my nose without killing you.

Plus, it might be worth pointing out that in the actual event, there were no deaths that needed to be prevented with guns.

There's also logistics and escalation to consider. The dad got punched from what sounds like a shoving match, and then a fight broke out during which his son was injured. I don't think the fight is his fault, but if after the first punch he'd killed some kid, there is no way the event does not escalate. Not escalating situations is also the mark of a responsible gun owner.

Not "mowing down every last one." As only six were arrested, it's a safe bet that most of the kids weren't involved in violence. So if you're mowing down every last one, sorry, you're not doing it for self-defense, but to save your TV.

[natty bumppo 297]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

I don't care about my "china" or the house or any other bit of property. Not really. Do I want to see it trashed? No, of course not. Obviously, if I spent money on those items, I'd like to keep them in good working order and not watch some wild, out-of-control maniacs destroy them; however, I'm not about to kill someone over a VCR either.

What I would shoot someone over is if and when they proved to be a threat to my family and I. These teenagers were a threat (a very large one) to the family in this article. If such a thing ever happened to my family and we (my family and I) were assaulted, I would do whatever it took to protect them. If that meant killing some teenagers, I would.

Do I want to end the life of someone who may not even be 18 years-old yet? Of course not. But I'd rather do that than see a member of my family severely injured or killed. That's why I would use a firearm to kill and I think it makes sense.

Thing is, you don't have an absolute right to self-defense. Your right to self-defense ends when you're no longer threatened. And depending on the state, you may have a duty to use non-lethal means if you can. (I think Florida and Texas have no duty to retreat.) It also depends on things like the time of day, the person's reasonable perception of the threat, &c. Defense of property is even more complicated.

How this is interpreted varies. But this much is clear. If you take a swing at my nose, I don't have the right to shoot you in the head. Even if it would prevent harm to my cute little nose. And that's just because it's very easy to protect my nose without killing you.

Plus, it might be worth pointing out that in the actual event, there were no deaths that needed to be prevented with guns.

There's also logistics and escalation to consider. The dad got punched from what sounds like a shoving match, and then a fight broke out during which his son was injured. I don't think the fight is his fault, but if after the first punch he'd killed some kid, there is no way the event does not escalate. Not escalating situations is also the mark of a responsible gun owner.

Not "mowing down every last one." As only six were arrested, it's a safe bet that most of the kids weren't involved in violence. So if you're mowing down every last one, sorry, you're not doing it for self-defense, but to save your TV.

Let's see.... 100 vs 2 ... and violence has errupted targeted against the 2 ... and one was helo'd to the hospital.

Given these odds ... he was in fear for his life as the violence errupted. Wouldn't you be? Come on ... be honest ...

You seem to like the sound of the words "mowing down every last one." The question still remains unanswered ...

IF you heard a gunshot ... and ... YOU were one of the offending children ... what would YOU do? Charge the homeowner ... or leave ?

[Caladan 19]

I'm quoting 'mowing down every last one.' Judging by the arrests, this fight is six on two.

I have no doubt the guy was scared, but arguing that that gives him the right to shoot everyone on his property and that he should have done that... well, I hope it's just your inner Leonidas talking because if that's how you actually think the law works, you're going to end up charged with murder.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm quoting 'mowing down every last one.' Judging by the arrests, this fight is six on two.

I have no doubt the guy was scared, but arguing that that gives him the right to shoot everyone on his property and that he should have done that... well, I hope it's just your inner Leonidas talking because if that's how you actually think the law works, you're going to end up charged with murder.

More like Tony Montana....

[DeadPoolX 9]

The duty to retreat depends on the state.

That said, I can't believe that people are arguing that an incident where a house was trashed would have been improved with a few fatalities. There were a hundred extra people there. Are you going to shoot them all? Are you going to ensure that none of them grab the gun from you?

I don't have a problem with self-defense but this Rambo-fantasy about your china would have been protected because you would have killed a few kids doesn't sound like the talk of a responsible gun owner.

I don't care about my "china" or the house or any other bit of property. Not really. Do I want to see it trashed? No, of course not. Obviously, if I spent money on those items, I'd like to keep them in good working order and not watch some wild, out-of-control maniacs destroy them; however, I'm not about to kill someone over a VCR either.

What I would shoot someone over is if and when they proved to be a threat to my family and I. These teenagers were a threat (a very large one) to the family in this article. If such a thing ever happened to my family and we (my family and I) were assaulted, I would do whatever it took to protect them. If that meant killing some teenagers, I would.

Do I want to end the life of someone who may not even be 18 years-old yet? Of course not. But I'd rather do that than see a member of my family severely injured or killed. That's why I would use a firearm to kill and I think it makes sense.

Thing is, you don't have an absolute right to self-defense. Your right to self-defense ends when you're no longer threatened. And depending on the state, you may have a duty to use non-lethal means if you can. (I think Florida and Texas have no duty to retreat.) It also depends on things like the time of day, the person's reasonable perception of the threat, &c. Defense of property is even more complicated.

How this is interpreted varies. But this much is clear. If you take a swing at my nose, I don't have the right to shoot you in the head. Even if it would prevent harm to my cute little nose. And that's just because it's very easy to protect my nose without killing you.

Plus, it might be worth pointing out that in the actual event, there were no deaths that needed to be prevented with guns.

There's also logistics and escalation to consider. The dad got punched from what sounds like a shoving match, and then a fight broke out during which his son was injured. I don't think the fight is his fault, but if after the first punch he'd killed some kid, there is no way the event does not escalate. Not escalating situations is also the mark of a responsible gun owner.

Not "mowing down every last one." As only six were arrested, it's a safe bet that most of the kids weren't involved in violence. So if you're mowing down every last one, sorry, you're not doing it for self-defense, but to save your TV.

Whoever said I'd "shoot them in the head?" First off, shooting someone in the head is a good deal tougher than shooting someone in the torso -- especially if they're moving around a lot, as I imagine these teens were. A gunshot wound to the torso, depending on the location of the wound, doesn't have to be fatal. Many people survive those types of injuries.

So if I shot the offender in the torso, then I wouldn't be shooting them in the head (which, by the way, doesn't have to be a fatal wound either; people have received a gunshot to the head and survived without brain damage before) and killing them. That fulfills the requirement; I've protected my family and incapacitated the threat.

Sure, there were "no deaths" that needed to be prevented. Only someone's son who was so severely injured he may have permanent spinal injuries. I'm sure that could've been prevented through the use of firearms.

In my first post, I may have said I'd "shoot each and every last one of them," but I never said I'd necessary kill all of them either, did I? There's a big difference between shooting someone and killing them. What I meant by my statement (and I've pointed this out in my following posts within this thread) was that I'd shoot the teenagers who were posing a threat; there'd be no point in shooting anyone who wasn't an immediate threat. I've even said that could be "one or two or more." I sincerely doubt that'd be all of them.

I honestly have no urge to kill anyone, let alone someone's kid. However, as I've said many, many times already, if someone proves to be a theat to my family -- and they've trespassed into my home -- I will can and will use lethal force.

[natty bumppo 297]

I'm quoting 'mowing down every last one.' Judging by the arrests, this fight is six on two.

I have no doubt the guy was scared, but arguing that that gives him the right to shoot everyone on his property and that he should have done that... well, I hope it's just your inner Leonidas talking because if that's how you actually think the law works, you're going to end up charged with murder.

Still ... 6 vs 2 is not good odds. I personally would feel threatened as one of the 2 ... wouldn't you ?

And since whiskey (alcohol) was stolen ... it wasn't ON the property ... it is IN the dwelling ... or at least that is how the story reads

(that is unless the UK has whiskey and champaign growing on trees)

YOU still havent answered my question? Why ? What's so hard about it?

In this situation YOU are in the wrong ... a shot is fired ... do you charge the homeoner or leave?

The protection is to STOP the attack with extreme measures if required ... not shoot everyone in sight. Once the attack is stopped ... what is the point to keep shooting? Or is this how YOU would have reacted ... kept shooting that is ?

Common sense and the law dictates that you stop when the threat is over.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[FVA 0]

"You people" in the U.S.? It sounds like to me you have some sort of issue with Americans. I suppose that should hardly surprise me, considering the way you're responding to this situation. I just find it sad that someone who's here, supposedly to because they wish to marry an American (one of "those people" in the U.S.) and eventually live in the United States, feels that way about their future/current spouse's countrymen.

"supposedly to because they wish to marry an American" - please explain what you meant by this: you said it because you don't know if i came here to marry an american, or you are trying to imply some sort of fraud?

you're practically saying here that if i fell crazy inlove with an american i should agree with everything my husband's countrymen are believing? hell, i don't agree with 80% of the things my own countrymen are believing. and i don't agree with the fact that the burmese government is using guns, either. i just don't like gun, and don't agree with anyone who believes that guns are a solution to something. that was a silly thing to say, and a silly argument for you to use in order to make me feel guilty i don't like guns. most of our friends here don't like/own guns. I'll make sure i'll let them know they are bad citizens because they wouldn't kill some kids that punched them.

i love my husband to death. if he would have such a warm tingly feeling about guns like most of the people in america do, i would probably have a big problem with it and i probably wouldn't have married him. My luck is that he hates guns and the fact that any psychotic person can own one here (i.e. Virginia Tech). Guns should be used more responsibly, not as random as "oh no some kid punched me *zbang**zbang**zbang* pfew, there. now we're safe!"

i'm not twisting anything. the family should've walked away. the kid was "yelling" in the dad's face. yelling is totally different that beating, isn't it? the dad was the first one to use physical violence. he should've taken his family, walk away and call the police, and i'm sure him and his kid wouldn't have beaten.

[Ban Hammer 14,702]

i just don't like gun,

we've already figured that out