Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
LaRue Brachter
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3586524" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I'm not really here to debate straw men. I'm commenting on the ethical and legal dilemmas of defending one's unlawful property with lethal force. Even if he were defending lawful property with lethal force, the legal limitations are narrow and necessarily vague. The line is where a cop, a prosecutor, a judge, 12 of our fellow citizens and if necessary, appellate courts say it is. I'd call that vague enough for me, a reasonable person, to stay as far away from the line as possible without unnecessarily endangering my life or the lives of my loved ones. </p><p></p><p>When I read what is alleged in this case, the two cases that immediately came to mind are Markus Kaarma and Bryon Smith.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diren_Dede" target="_blank">Death of Diren Dede - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings" target="_blank">Byron David Smith killings - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p>In both those cases, the property owners had a lawful right to protect themselves and their property against burglary, yet they both went to prison because of the heinous nature in which they went about it. In this case the defendant had multiple options that would've prevented the unnecessary death of a burglar. He chose, poorly. </p><p></p><p>As for the Feaster case, his preliminary hearing on the SYG defense is slated for July 21st, which means he's still under criminal indictment. If you want to shoot someone for stealing your property that's outside your home and try the "OSA said it was OK" defense, then jump if you feel froggy. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=garfield&number=CF-2020-259&cmid=437291" target="_blank">OSCN Case Details</a></p><p></p><p>I'm not into pyrrhic victories, but you do you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3586524, member: 1132"] I'm not really here to debate straw men. I'm commenting on the ethical and legal dilemmas of defending one's unlawful property with lethal force. Even if he were defending lawful property with lethal force, the legal limitations are narrow and necessarily vague. The line is where a cop, a prosecutor, a judge, 12 of our fellow citizens and if necessary, appellate courts say it is. I'd call that vague enough for me, a reasonable person, to stay as far away from the line as possible without unnecessarily endangering my life or the lives of my loved ones. When I read what is alleged in this case, the two cases that immediately came to mind are Markus Kaarma and Bryon Smith. [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diren_Dede']Death of Diren Dede - Wikipedia[/URL] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings']Byron David Smith killings - Wikipedia[/URL] In both those cases, the property owners had a lawful right to protect themselves and their property against burglary, yet they both went to prison because of the heinous nature in which they went about it. In this case the defendant had multiple options that would've prevented the unnecessary death of a burglar. He chose, poorly. As for the Feaster case, his preliminary hearing on the SYG defense is slated for July 21st, which means he's still under criminal indictment. If you want to shoot someone for stealing your property that's outside your home and try the "OSA said it was OK" defense, then jump if you feel froggy. [URL='https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=garfield&number=CF-2020-259&cmid=437291']OSCN Case Details[/URL] I'm not into pyrrhic victories, but you do you. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
LaRue Brachter
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom