minnesota trying to redefine when deadly force is ok

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
this bill which looks like it will go to the governor redefines the use of deadly force by citizens to a very broad set of situations

i have very mixed feelings about this bill by i do like the part where if someone is on a person's property rather than just in a person's home it may be assumed that the person is committing a criminal act and force up to and including deadly force may be used, especially if the property owner feels threatened

http://news.yahoo.com/minnesotas-controversial-deadly-force-bill-advances-214918215.html
 
it's astounding that we ever let government define when, where, and under what circumstances we as a free people ever needed to be able to defend our property and lives.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's astounding that we ever let government define when, where, and under what circumstances we as a free people ever needed to be able to defend our property and lives.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, I don't think a groan is enough. I mean really?

I think that guy walking past me might threaten my life, BAM, another criminal dead.
 
Disillusioned said:
Sometimes, I don't think a groan is enough. I mean really?

I think that guy walking past me might threaten my life, BAM, another criminal dead.
Click to expand...

Kolb's example, in the article was stupid.
It's more then just saying that you felt threatened, you have to show how and why you felt threatened.
Shooting a 10 year old for stealing apples, was nothing more then someone trying to get a knee jerk reaction.

And after reading STY's posts, on this forum, I would be hard pressed to believe any explanation he would ever give.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Kolb's example, in the article was stupid.
It's more then just saying that you felt threatened, you have to show how and why you felt threatened.
Shooting a 10 year old for stealing apples, was nothing more then someone trying to get a knee jerk reaction.

And after reading STY's posts, on this forum, I would be hard pressed to believe any explanation he would ever give.
Click to expand...

That opens the door to paranoia and ideas of race and ethnicity as a reason to kill people. Imagine a tourist in New York, takes a couple wrong turns and is in a Pakistany community, he starts hearing arabic and see's some women in full face veils and freaks out thinking they're all terrorists, takes out his .45 and kills three of them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Kolb's example, in the article was stupid.
It's more then just saying that you felt threatened, you have to show how and why you felt threatened.
Shooting a 10 year old for stealing apples, was nothing more then someone trying to get a knee jerk reaction.

And after reading STY's posts, on this forum, I would be hard pressed to believe any explanation he would ever give.
Click to expand...

that's because your bias and hatred of me exposing your loved cops would lead you to actually delude yourself in to believing I was lying, even if had 18 stab wounds, 4 bullet holes, and a fractured skull before I killed whoever was assaulting me. that would be what we reasonable people call a 'lack of integrity'.
 
Yurt said:
do you believe we should be able to kill someone if they steal our car?
Click to expand...

we should be able to use reasonable force to stop the theft. if simple brandishing doesn't make the thief run off, then we'll have to shoot. If they die, then they are responsible for attempting to steal someone elses property.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
we should be able to use reasonable force to stop the theft. if simple brandishing doesn't make the thief run off, then we'll have to shoot. If they die, then they are responsible for attempting to steal someone elses property.
Click to expand...

who defines reasonable force?

i don't think killing anyone is ever justified in defense of property.
 
Yurt said:
who defines reasonable force?
Click to expand...
i'm comfortable using 'reasonable force' in the same context as law enforcement.

Yurt said:
i don't think killing anyone is ever justified in defense of property.
Click to expand...
and if that works for you, great. If my car is stolen, my families life is in turmoil. we rely on that vehicle for anywhere my wife needs to go, be it the doctor, hospital, or anywhere else. It represents a great hardship if someone steals it, so I think protecting it, even if lethal force is used, is quite reasonable.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's because your bias and hatred of me exposing your loved cops would lead you to actually delude yourself in to believing I was lying, even if had 18 stab wounds, 4 bullet holes, and a fractured skull before I killed whoever was assaulting me. that would be what we reasonable people call a 'lack of integrity'.
Click to expand...
Probably because you would be insulting the cops with your last breath, they might even decide you started it. Amazing how that works when you hate people all day long, they might not side with you.
 
rterThanYou;956786]i'm comfortable using 'reasonable force' in the same context as law enforcement.
Click to expand...

then you're ok with the government defining reasonable force.

and if that works for you, great. If my car is stolen, my families life is in turmoil. we rely on that vehicle for anywhere my wife needs to go, be it the doctor, hospital, or anywhere else. It represents a great hardship if someone steals it, so I think protecting it, even if lethal force is used, is quite reasonable.
Click to expand...

ok, you're now getting into something i was not talking about. of course if the 'property' is a matter of life and death, then different situation. for example stealing medicine.

i'm talking about property that has no impact on whether you live or not.
 
Yurt said:
then you're ok with the government defining reasonable force.
Click to expand...
i'm ok with their current definition as it applies to law enforcement use of reasonable force.

Yurt said:
ok, you're now getting into something i was not talking about. of course if the 'property' is a matter of life and death, then different situation. for example stealing medicine.

i'm talking about property that has no impact on whether you live or not.
Click to expand...

if someone wants to steal my garden gnome, i'm not going to come out guns blazing. funny how that word 'reasonable' rears it's ugly head again.
 
Yurt said:
who defines reasonable force?

i don't think killing anyone is ever justified in defense of property.
Click to expand...

Why not? I am assuming they are armed when they are attempting to steal your property. If they are unarmed and you can scare them off or get them to stop- great. But if they are armed, won't desist from their activity of taking your property, deadly force to stop them seems reasonable. I say this because statistics show most armed burglaries/robberies are done by perpetrators willing to use violence.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm ok with their current definition as it applies to law enforcement use of reasonable force.



if someone wants to steal my garden gnome, i'm not going to come out guns blazing. funny how that word 'reasonable' rears it's ugly head again.
Click to expand...

you don't want the government defining reasonable force....who defines it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top