Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Watcher, Jun 18, 2007.
Once again, the day is saved...or should I say the ps3 is saved??
I think I missed it. How old was the kid? Did the article say?
They deserved it.
Haha, well done!
This is a way how burglars should be treated.
i would have pissed my pants...
luckily he didn't :d
Awesome! and how old was the kid? says he was a teen, but that could be anybody ranging from 13 to 19 years of age.
Yeh, however if he were to have injured him with the sword, it is he who would be in serious trouble. If they don't pose any threat to your life, you are not legally allowed to make any attack on theirs.
Lol I love the whole sword idea. I remember the post awhile ago about the 30 year old man defending a woman that was apparently being raped but it ended up just being a loud pr0n tape hah!
all i got its my ipod
and my guitar controller
i don't think i could do anything like that
very brave kid
Wrong, florida has, for a long time, defense in the home laws. You can do what your can in your home to protect your life AND property.
You break in to my house while I'm home and I WILL legally kill you.
A new law was passed last year called the "Stand your Ground" law.
It means that even in public you are allowed to defend your person or property.
We also have concealed weapons permits, so you had better be careful who you mess with here.
same in texas.. someone on ur property and u kill em, its legal
Ah well, different than the other previous universal laws. However due to federalism in certain areas like this I believe that the states can make their own laws given that the federal laws apply elsewhere. But do remember Adrian v. Krump where he was put on trial for Manslaughter and the reason he won was because it was ruled A. An accident. and B. In the faith of protecting his family. That was in Florida not too many years ago either
Florida like Texas and Alaska has some of the least restrictive use of deadly force policies in the nation.
Not to change the subject but 'castle laws' as they are commonly known pretty much allow a home owner to kill an intruder with little or no provocation or direct threat in the a fore mentioned states. A homeowner unless extremely reckless is immune from criminal prosecution here in Alaska under said circumstances.
Here in Alaska they just changed the laws last year where a citizen standing on the street has no duty to retreat. There has never been a duty to retreat from ones home or car in Alaska but there was one for common areas.
Civil liability is a different matter entirely but our legislature is working on it.
Every time a homeowner kills an intruder rummaging through their house I get a warm fuzzy feeling. One less a**hole for the tax payers to feed, house and provide medical care too.
Yep, that's the same one passed last year in Florida.
Here in the UK, we are allowed to use 'reasonable force'.
Reasonable being the key word. If you kill some one and can convince a court that it was reasonable, then you could/should get away with it.
Reasonable force can vary from person top person, for example it will be different for a 9 stone lone female as it will be for a 16 stone karate expert male.
They both would still get arrested, and (probably) put before the courts, but it will be the courts that decide.
You are allowed to 'protect' yourself, either in public or private. But cant go beyond that. So, if someone hits you and you hit them straight back because you cant get away, then that is OK. But if they hit you and you can get away but dont, or they hit once and stop, and you hit them back, then you are assaulting them.
We had a case a number of years ago. A guy called Tony Martin. He was a farmer who got burgled one too many times, so what he did was shoot a burglar dead with his shot gun, and his burgling mate in the legs. He went to jail for murder. What he did wrong was shoot the guy in the back as he was running away, so couldnt claim self defence. If he shot him in the front he would have been OK.
He was released a few years later, after public outcry at his sentence, and is now almost a national hero (well, for 5 minutes he was).
Moral - if you live in the UK, don't get caught.
Mind you, if that story had happened in the UK, and the kid was under 16, the parents would have been at fault for giving him a samurai sword. Over 16, the kid would have been prosecuted for possession of an offensive weapon, and another charge ranging from assault with a deadly weapon up to attempted murder.
Moral - don't get caught in the UK. Honestly, I was nowhere near the place. Ask my pals, they'll tell you. Oh, bleaching... er, TMI I think.
Sadly, this is true. In my country there are some very funky laws on self defence. If someone shoots at you and misses, you are not within your legal rights to shoot back (provided of course you have something to shoot back with). This probably means that you ought to give the guy a decent chance to shoot you properly before you can shoot back . God forbid that you should infringe someone's inalienable right to rob and murder you.
Of course, if you own a pig farm and live far enough from your first neighbour, the whole discussion becomes purely academic :war:
Not entirely true. It doesnt matter what age you are (over 10 years) for being done for being in possession of an offensive weapon (or sharpened bladed article). BUT, this can only be committed in a public place, and not in your own home.
The parents wouldnt get done either, as it would be difficult to establish it was given to the child and not a family ornament. Most of these swords are ornaments, and therefore not sharp, as it is illegal to sell sharpened ones (although there are still some around).