Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Premier League' started by brb, May 29, 2020.
I notice hey don't wear white hoods anymore
White vigilantes with semi automatics, yeah ‘Merica.
Just out of interest, what is the law on the use of guns in America. I assume as you are allowed to own them, you must somewhere in their legal system be able to use them.
So say for example someone was looting your property, are American citizens allowed to shoot them, or can you only use a gun to prevent an attack on yourself?
The one on the left, what he's holding, it looks like a cannon!?
Pretty sure you can just shoot somebody dead if you catch them burgling your property.
The orange man fans are treated worse than slaves were...
Hence the phrase ...
"orange is the new black"
It is two o'clock in the morning, you're awakened by the sound of breaking glass. You race down the hall with your gun drawn to find a stranger crawling through your bathroom window. If you shoot him, will you be criminally charged with assault or murder? Could the intruder sue you for wounding him? In most states, the answer to the last two questions is no. However, that isn't true for all states or for all circumstances. So, what legal protection might you have if you shoot an intruder?
The prime legal protection you may have for shooting an intruder is called the "Castle Doctrine". There is also another doctrine called "Stand Your Ground" that may provide some protection depending on the state you live in. Both of these doctrines fall under the broader umbrella of self-defense.
So is it illegal to shoot an intruder? The answer depends on whether you were acting in self-defense and whether any of these doctrines apply. This article will address the elements that are needed to establish self-defense and, more specifically, the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground Doctrine.
Is it Self-Defense if I Shoot an Intruder?
The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means that if someone is charged with murder or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law.
In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
Not be the aggressor;
Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
Retreat (if possible).
How Can the Castle Doctrine Help Me if I Shoot an Intruder?
The Castle Doctrine stems from old English Common Law that holds that your home is your castle and that you have a right to defend your castle. The doctrine is an offshoot of self-defense and eliminates the requirement to retreat. Most states have some variation of the Castle Doctrine in their laws.
The prime difference between self-defense generally and the Castle Doctrine is that there's no duty to retreat and there's a presumption that deadly force was necessary. Typically, state laws can allow for the use of deadly physical force and it's legally presumed to be justified if an intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling or residence. Some states even allow the use of deadly force if there is an unlawful and forceful entry into a business or occupied vehicle.
However, not all states have codified the Castle Doctrine. States like Vermont have justifiable homicide laws and then rely on the courts to determine if force was necessary to defend one's home.
The general elements that would allow protection by the Castle Doctrine are:
There was a forceful and unlawful entry into one's home, business, or occupied vehicle;
You were not the original aggressor;
You were not engaged in criminal activity; and
You have a legal right to be where you are.
There is a split amongst the states as to whether or not deadly force can be used. The majority of states hold that any degree of physical force, including deadly force, can be used by the occupant to protect against an invader. But there is a strong minority of states, including West Virginia, that requires a reasonable belief that the intruder intended to inflict serious bodily injury.
Duty to Retreat or Stand Your Ground?
In many states, there's a duty to retreat to safety, if possible, before using force. However, in many other states, there are "Stand Your Ground" laws that remove the duty to retreat and allow a person to claim self-defense, even if they made no attempt to flee. However, even in "Stand Your Ground" states there is no license to attack without cause, and the rules vary on the ability to use lethal force.
Stand Your Ground differs from the Castle defense, as it can be used in more places than just a person's home, employment, or automobile. While the Castle Doctrine holds that there is no duty to retreat within one's home, the Stand Your Ground doctrine eliminates the duty to retreat wherever you may feel threatened.
I think most Americans have a gun in the house, I know a relation of the family did, when I went to visit. Never really thought about what circumstances are you allowed to use it in, otherwise what is the point in having it.
The church was not burned down. There was a fire in the nursery room according to the rector of the church.
I Googled most powerful legal gun in America and this is what I found.
You would probably have to ask your miscreant to wait, until you can find a table or something, before you shot him though.
Btw, joking aside, I'm not sure why I had thought the church had been burnt down, but happy to admit I was wrong
I looked back on video footage, and the fire I saw was outside the church, not quite sure how I got that confused with being inside, but I did. Maybe that explains why I didn't see any outrage over it, which was the element annoying me.
Although I don't believe in desecration either (vandalism), but that wasn't why I was arguing the point at the time, so fair enough in correcting my error of judgement.
With all the exaggeration that is going on from all quarters it is not easy to separate fact from fiction. I only knew about the church as I had seen a direct quote from the rector of the church. What is very obvious though is that Trump is not doing anything to lower the tensions in the country. He apparently very rarely goes to that church (no golf course there) and was using it as a backdrop to score points in his re-election campaign. There was nothing he said there that could not have been said from the White House.
If I lived in the US I couldn't imagine a scenario were I didn't own a firearm. You're just putting yourself at a massive disadvantage
Who the fk would condemn the church burners....... Not i...... Should have been done two thousand years ago.
Over the counter
With a shotgun
Pretty soon, everybody got one
The irony is that one of the most powerful things Jesus did (if he actually existed) was to show that faith doesn't need churches.