Pistols, revolvers, GUNS, oh my!

cheddar bob · September-03-09, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

You are being silly. Cheddar said no such thing. Did you even read his post about the justifiable homicides? Do you think that any of those incidents are not justifiable homicides?

A reasonable person should have the intellect to figure out whether they are in a dangerous situation. If someone is attempting to rob or attack you, then it is obvious that deadly force is necessary. If a person called you a name, then deadly force is NOT necessary.

Other people get it, I don't know why it is so hard for sstashmoo to get it. He hasn't read any of the articles on the subject, he hasn't read the actual law, and he hasn't studied any cases on it. As everyone can plainly see, the only evidence he has submitted to support his claims is, "I was told this by a police detective. ".

So, he talked to a cop and that is his only evidence.

Simply being in your house is not justification for use of deadly force.

Someone "simple being in your house" is a crime if they don't have your permission to be there. And part of the Castle Doctrine says,
1) An intruder must be making [[or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car

-And-

2) The intruder must be acting illegally.

Michigan laws are screwy about shooting someone in your house

No, they're not. They're pretty clear. Well, they might not be clear to a person like you that can't/won't read or understand the words that are on the screen. But to everyone else here, it seems clear.

**tahleel** · September-03-09, 08:08 PM

Might I suggest getting a dog? I sit with my dog on the front porch, and play with him behind the fence in my front lot. I haven't had any problems whatsoever after I got my dog, since people are aware that I have one. Some shady looking people come up to my house, then walk across the street, to walk past my house. You can't prosecute a dog for protecting its territory when someone broke in.

-Tahleel

Lorax · September-03-09, 08:17 PM

No, but they can prosecute you for having a vicious dog if it mangles the person.

Or they will simply shoot the dog, as was done to another poster's dog during a home invasion, that, or a poisoned piece of meat.

Nothing replaces your own firearm when you are dealing with streets run by criminals.

**tahleel** · September-03-09, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

No, but they can prosecute you for having a vicious dog if it mangles the person.

Or they will simply shoot the dog, as was done to another poster's dog during a home invasion, that, or a poisoned piece of meat.

Nothing replaces your own firearm when you are dealing with streets run by criminals.

I don't think SCS is exactly "streets run by criminals." I gave a proactive approach. This would at least deter some of the day walkers that scope out homes, so they could break in at night. It's more acceptable to sit in front of your home with your dog, than to tote your gun around.

Also, dog's can hear the slightest sounds. By the time you get to your closet, take the lock off, load the bullets, your dog will already make its presence known. By simply hearing a dog barking in a house would deter most thieves.

And finally, a dog makes a better companion than a gun. I sleep with my dog every night.

-Tahleel

Stosh · September-03-09, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by tahleel

I don't think SCS is exactly "streets run by criminals." I gave a proactive approach. This would at least deter some of the day walkers that scope out homes, so they could break in at night. It's more acceptable to sit in front of your home with your dog, than to tote your gun around.

Also, dog's can hear the slightest sounds. By the time you get to your closet, take the lock off, load the bullets, your dog will already make its presence known. By simply hearing a dog barking in a house would deter most thieves.

And finally, a dog makes a better companion than a gun. I sleep with my dog every night.

-Tahleel

I have a very nice pit bull, as well as a lab mix. Between the two, most passers by walk on the other side of the street, or in the middle, warily. And there's no gun lock on at my house.

**SCS_Scooter** · September-03-09, 09:45 PM

I own two dogs. Even tho' they are large gals, they are both elderly and deaf! Who's afraid of collies anyway?

My location isn't creepy, the dogs are furry love bugs, the alarm has been installed...time for a weapon.

ccbatson · September-03-09, 10:51 PM

THe dog just needs to bark and draw attention to be a deterrent. Any would be intruder will always pick the place with the least chance of being caught.

**Sstashmoo** · September-03-09, 11:05 PM

Quote: "But to everyone else here, it seems clear."

Sure everything is cut and dried, we really need no attorneys or courts. Hell, just show em' this thread.

By the way, the "cases" you pointed out were taken out of context with extenuating circumstance. Like "couldn't be proven". If it could have been, would have been a different outcome.

Once again, I know I'm right, and you'll just be ...haha Cheddar Bob as usual...wrong.

cheddar bob · September-03-09, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Once again, I know I'm right, and you'll just be ...haha Cheddar Bob as usual...wrong.

As usual, I post a mountain of evidence to back up my claims, you post nothing but your opinion and then you claim victory in the debate. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

ccbatson · September-03-09, 11:10 PM

I know it is anecdotal evidence, however, does anyone even know a single person for whom having a gun convincingly saved their lives [[other than police, or military personnel of course).

**Sstashmoo** · September-03-09, 11:15 PM

Quote: "As usual, I post a mountain of evidence to back up my claims,"

You obviously didn't even read what you posted [[no surprise). Not one of those cases you posted was a situation where someone was simply in someone's house and got shot. There was some sort of attack in each one. Go read it. They mention "Ruling" meaning it was ruled upon. Meaning law isn't as "clear" as you think. Means you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

cheddar bob · September-04-09, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Not one of those cases you posted was a situation where someone was simply in someone's house and got shot. There was some sort of attack in each one.

Perhaps because there hasn't been a case where someone entered a stranger's house for tea and crumpets and got shot for illegally entering. By the same token, you have not supported your argument with anything. Why don't you show us where someone was convicted of murder for shooting someone that came into their house [[post 2006) illegally?

Do you know what it is called when someone comes into your house without permission? I'm sure you don't so I'll tell you, it's called "Home Invasion". Remember that term as you read what the Schwartz Law Firm has to say on the matter...

Rebuttable Presumption of Self- Defense
People acting in self-defense now have substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the new laws. When using defensive force against someone, a person is now automatically presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, as long as both the following apply:

[[a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
[[b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision [[a).13

As long as those two criteria are met, it is a rebuttable presumption of self-defense.
Here's the link, which you will never read
http://www.schwartzlawfirmpc.com/CM/...efense-act.asp

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

They mention "Ruling" meaning it was ruled upon.

No, shit? Really? They were "ruled" upon by the prosecutor. Let me explain how the legal process works: The police forward their report to the prosecutor. then the prosecutor decides if charges should be filed.

Now go see if you can dig up any evidence to support your position. If you can't, then you lose, as usual. Fail.

**runnerXT** · September-04-09, 02:12 AM

what hapenned to america?

**ejames01** · September-04-09, 06:00 AM

I know of at least two.

1. My cousin shot her ex-husband that kicked down her front door.
2. An old friend shot a guy that was trying to carjack him at a gas station.

Originally Posted by ccbatson

I know it is anecdotal evidence, however, does anyone even know a single person for whom having a gun convincingly saved their lives [[other than police, or military personnel of course).

**ejames01** · September-04-09, 06:05 AM

You are starting to sound like Karl. No one is saying that but you. I'm sorry that you are not able to figure that out, but some of us ARE able to understand when we would be in grave danger.

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Sure everything is cut and dried, we really need no attorneys or courts.

**Papasito** · September-04-09, 06:37 AM

"That's when I realized there was a casualty and saw the injured Marine, about 10 yards from where I'd stood," Jacobson would write in her journal. "For the second time in my life, I watched a Marine lose his. He was hit with the RPG which blew off one of his legs and badly mangled the other. ... I hadn't seen it happen, just heard the explosion. I hit the ground and lay as flat as I could and shot what I could of the scene."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...y/1217126.html

Guns and death fit in great with the great "peaceful" administration in power right now. How many peace loving hippies are disappointed they got another warmonger in the White House?

**ejames01** · September-04-09, 07:31 AM

What on earth does that have to do with this thread?

Originally Posted by Papasito

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...y/1217126.html

Guns and death fit in great with the great "peaceful" administration in power right now. How many peace loving hippies are disappointed they got another warmonger in the White House?

**Papasito** · September-04-09, 09:14 AM

Compare these Two Quotes

**Sstashmoo** · September-04-09, 09:31 AM

Quote: "No, shit? Really? They were "ruled" upon by the prosecutor."

Your stance has been, if someone is in your house, you have a "right" to kill them. "Rights" are inalienable and need not be ruled upon. As I said at the onset, there is some gray area [[screwy).

Seriously, think about what you're saying. According to you, one can kill anyone they want as long as they are in their house. All they have to say is they were not invited and they felt threatened. Give it a try and see how it works out for you. You read what you want to see.

The law was changed from "duty to flee". Meaning you could not stand your ground in the event of an attack. The law was changed so people could defend themselves in the event of an attack. Read your cases again and you'll see a common thread.

**ejames01** · September-04-09, 10:14 AM

I don't think Cheddar really believes that. It seems like that we are actually just arguing about what we think the other is saying. This would be easier to debate by discussing opinions about a single incident.

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "No, shit? Really? They were "ruled" upon by the prosecutor."

Your stance has been, if someone is in your house, you have a "right" to kill them. "Rights" are inalienable and need not be ruled upon. As I said at the onset, there is some gray area [[screwy).

Seriously, think about what you're saying. According to you, one can kill anyone they want as long as they are in their house. All they have to say is they were not invited and they felt threatened. Give it a try and see how it works out for you. You read what you want to see.

The law was changed from "duty to flee". Meaning you could not stand your ground in the event of an attack. The law was changed so people could defend themselves in the event of an attack. Read your cases again and you'll see a common thread.

**ejames01** · September-04-09, 10:15 AM

You can't link something from your email account.

Originally Posted by Papasito

Compare these Two Quotes

**Danny** · September-04-09, 10:24 AM

It's in the U.S. Bill of Rights that American people have the right to bear arms and states to have a militia. When guns come in to the mix, people were buying them like it no tommorow.

This would be my prophecy."He who holds a weapon, holds power against the weak and innocent."

We can thank our forefathers who wrote this second amendment. Now Americans can protect themselves against foreigners, pricipalities and other Americans from the barrow of a gun. " BANG BANG!" We are living in fear in the United States fo America, Home of free the land of Brave!

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

For Jesus sez... " Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

**Sstashmoo** · September-04-09, 11:48 AM

Quote: "It seems like that we are actually just arguing about what we think the other is saying."

If I said the sky was blue, Cheddar would say : "nahhh it's really more of a turquoise".....

Lorax · September-04-09, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "It seems like that we are actually just arguing about what we think the other is saying."

If I said the sky was blue, Cheddar would say : "nahhh it's really more of a turquoise".....

This quote pigeonholes you to a "T". And you don't even realize it.

Because in your world of conformist elitism, there is only room for black/white, up/down, and either/or. No gray areas, or "turquoise" for that matter.

Enjoy your one dimensional life.