Gotta love stupid cops

[Sand]

That's not true at all. I know kids who have borken into house and they didn't have the intention of harming the owners of the house. Whatever, you're a waste of time

 

Those kids violated the owner's property. I consider that causing harm.

[thepixiesrock]

That's not true at all. I know kids who have borken into house and they didn't have the intention of harming the owners of the house. Whatever, you're a waste of time

 

Those kids violated the owner's property. I consider that causing harm.

 

Harm worthy of death? That's ridiculous.

 

Ok really, now I'm done.

[Sand]

They have no business to be breaking into my home, and I will protect my property. If that simple concept is beyond your understanding then that is your problem.

[Nick_i_am]

Haha, in england we have somthing called 'reasonable force', it protects kids who grew up in the wrong neighborhood, on the wrong path, had the wrong friends, from brainless gun-happy morons like the above.

 

Am I talking about shotgun dude or Hades? You decide!

[Gorth]

That's not true at all. I know kids who have borken into house and they didn't have the intention of harming the owners of the house. Whatever, you're a waste of time

Lets ask a different question then: How is the owner whose house is being broken into supposed to know whether the intruders intends to harm him or not?

 

Should he call out to them and ask if they intend to harm him?

 

And if they say "Yes!" (very unlikely as they would probably harm him first and then answer questions afterwards) what then?

 

And if they say "No!", are they to be believed, considering that they are already in the progress of harming somebody by violating their home?

 

(no, I am not in favour of shooting people on sight, just curious about your answers)

[><FISH'>]

I haven't read most of this thread, and I don't know how the U.S Police Force operates, but in the United Kingdom if any tip is received about ANYONE (including Police Officers) then they must raid the house.

[><FISH'>]

Haha, in england we have somthing called 'reasonable force', it protects kids who grew up in the wrong neighborhood, on the wrong path, had the wrong friends, from brainless gun-happy morons like the above.

 

Am I talking about shotgun dude or Hades? You decide!

 

What's this "reasonable force" thing? If anything, police don't have enough powers when it comes to delinquents.

 

And I do hope you meant to say "The United Kingdom" instead of "england". Last I checked, England wasn't an independant country, and not acknowledging the other 3 is just disrespectful.

[Nick_i_am]

It's the 'stopping farmers from blowing off a kids head because he catches him messing around in his barn' law.

 

I'll disrespect your face.

[><FISH'>]

I'll disrespect your face.

 

What the hell does that mean?

[Nick_i_am]

It means your face is being disrespected, duh.

[><FISH'>]

How so?

[Dark_Raven]

Cops suck. Never around when you do need them, around when you don't.

[thepixiesrock]

That's not true at all. I know kids who have borken into house and they didn't have the intention of harming the owners of the house. Whatever, you're a waste of time

Lets ask a different question then: How is the owner whose house is being broken into supposed to know whether the intruders intends to harm him or not?

 

Should he call out to them and ask if they intend to harm him?

 

And if they say "Yes!" (very unlikely as they would probably harm him first and then answer questions afterwards) what then?

 

And if they say "No!", are they to be believed, considering that they are already in the progress of harming somebody by violating their home?

 

(no, I am not in favour of shooting people on sight, just curious about your answers)

 

You missed the point of what I was saying. I was asking if the kid deserved to die for breaking into a home with out the intention to do harm. I was never asking Hades what the kid deserved if there was a possibility that the kid was going to do harm with him. I was specifically asking if the kid deserved death for just breaking into the home. It wasn't going to go anywhere beyond that question.

[Sand]

And I say if they are breaking into my home they already have caused harm by violating my property. People don't break into places without the intention of doing harm of some sort on the owner, in either property theft/damage or physical assault.

[thepixiesrock]

Judge Hades strikes again

[alanschu]

Even one innocent death is one death too many.

 

 

Says the chap that supports the death penalty.

[alanschu]

There has to be a way to deal with extreme threats, true, but taking regular cops, training them in soldier tactics, and dressing them up in black ninja suits, balaclavas, and supressed submachineguns so they can pose for pictures is not the way to do it. When you let cops dress up and act like soldiers, they will act like soldiers when they should be acting like peace officers.

 

 

I was under the impression that SWAT teams typically are composed of people with actual military training. Anecdotal, but the one I know is.

 

 

EDIT: A quick check on the internets makes it seem like this is not the case. Yay me for being somewhat motivated.

Edited December 19, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Says the chap that supports the death penalty.

 

I am changing my mind on that issue, but as we get better at forensic science the ability to determine innocence and guilt gets better as well.

[Sand]

It wasn't going to go anywhere beyond that question.

Then you are artificially limiting the argument to the point that it is irrelevant.

[tarna]

So many responses but so little time as I am going to bed ( 11:30 here ). I cannot understand where some people can be exhibit such cowardice and claim it to be moral superiority as to to not have the balls to protect the family against an obvious agressor. Picture the scenario ( sp? ), you are sleeping in bed with your family sleeping as well. You hear your door being booted in. You are foresighted enough to have a sidearm within easy reach and have instructed your kids not to sneak in the dark and how to respond if there is an intrusion. You and your wife have access to a weapon and as it happens, you both grab one. Living in an enviroment where violence is a real possibilty, you have drilled for this. You might even have the training required to obtain a concealed/carry firearms licence. You recognise where the sound of entry is and ready yourself to invasion. Armed men(?) that you cannot see properly and that do not identify themselves enter your home. Knowing that your kids are where they need to be, Do you...

 

1) Sit on your ass and hope that the police show up in time even though you have not had the opprotunity to call them? ( when seconds count, the police are only minutes away! )

 

2) Sit on your ass and call out to the aggressors as to what their intentions are?

 

3) Protect your family and home by opening fire judiciously as the local laws allow?

 

As a home-owner, I do not have to assume or ask if the 'invader' has my best intentions at heart before opening fire upon him. I only have to assume the worst and respond accordingly. To do otherwise is to claim cowardice as 'moral-superiority'. Plain and simple...you are responsible for the lives of your family. Those that feel otherwise either have no family to be responsible to or are not worthy of having a family as they are unwilling to protect them.

 

I tend to lean toward situations being in the 'grey' zone where several inetrpretions are possible but where my family is concerned it's only black and white. If you are coming in through a window of booting in my front door and NOT announcing that you are a cop, you've got a bullet ( or worse ) coming your way. Sorry bleeding-heart liberals, that's the way it is. No sympathy for criminals where my family is concerned.

[Sand]

Right on, Tarna!

[jaguars4ever]

Even one innocent death is one death too many.

[Paragon: +10]

[Guest The Architect]

I agree with you tarna.

 

Just for the record, Sand, you don't have to kill the intruder. Nor should you intend to. If you intend to, you're willing to take away the potential possibility for that person to later on down the track make amends for their mistakes, for their crimes and become a better person. If you have the choice yet you still deny them that chance, well, I'd say you're being a jerk face.

 

Of course, I'd panic, as many would, and if I had a gun I could use to protect me and my family or friends, adrenalin, or a psychosis... something like that anyway, might get the better of me and I shoot the person dead, or you might screw up and shoot the person dead when you didn't mean to, but if an intruder/s breaks into your property, you should be planning to go for the kneecaps, the legs, or something that would slow them down and stop them... but not the head.

 

And this goes for anyone really.

 

But I agree with TPR. A teenage burglar doesn't deserve death, especially if they don't intend on harming you {they might be really drugged up... so you know, not themselves, or weren't expecting anyone to see them}.

 

Cops suck. Never around when you do need them, around when you don't.

 

Oh shut up. Stop generalising.

 

Show respect to the cops that don't suck.

 

One day one might save you or something. Would you still think they suck then?

Edited December 19, 2007 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

Aram, I'd have to disagree. There are instances where concerted paramiolitary force has to be applied. Using teh Army is inappropriate since you are expecting the agents to act within very restrictive civil law, and also to exert powers of arrest (which the Army do not possess). I don't really see what other options there are. Unless you are suggesting baking Sand into a cake and presenting him to offenders. I would be in favour of this.

 

 

The problem is that every police force and sherriff's office in the US now has a SWAT team. The calibre and accountability of these teams is obviously going to vary greatly and not for the best.

 

I don't believe it's OK to be prejudiced about cops any more than its OK to be prejudiced about any other colour.

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, as a Brit, this thread really is amusing me, and there is a sence in which, given the context, I DO acgree with the 'shoot first and ask questions later' approch, given that there is a chance that whoever broke into the home could have a gun and could be willing to use violance in order to fund his next drug fix.

 

However, all the people who are supporting 'shoot-to-kill' are opting for a first strike, no matter who or what the intruder may be.

 

What if said intruder was actually your own son, who lost his key and, stoned, fell while trying to climb into a window. It's dark, you see a shadow in the side of the room and blast away. Oooops, you just blew your own sons head off since, apparently, just pointing a gun at someone and shouting at them isn't enough of a show of force to satisfy bush-land.

 

As for the idea of it being cowardly NOT to shoot someone in the back, hahahahahahhahshdaslk;hdklsahdlsahdsha.