[kenberg]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-19, 07:38, said:

[/size]

The word assault was used carelessly, I don't really know what happened there except that they had knives and wanted to rob.

The point for the spannish law is that you should not shot at someone who gets in rage at you and wants to puch your face.

From what I understand they make distinctions for body/sharp/powder levels and you are allowed only to defend yourself on the same level. Wich is odd since I bet you are not suposed to have/carry an arsenal so you can pick the correct matching weapon each time.

Right, I wasn't trying to hang you for a casual choice of words.

For me, there would be two separate issues:

a. Immediate practicality. If I am in immediate fear of my life, I do what I have to do now and consult a lawyer later. Fortunately, this has never happened. So I am speaking hypothetically, but this is how I would expect/hope I would react.

b. How should the law be written? The fact is that some people can have some pretty wild ideas. This case in Florida a while back comes to mind. Again I do not know the details but this white guy was at least following and maybe stalking this black guy. This led to a confrontation and the white guy shot and killed the black guy. In the course of the confrontation the white guy may well have feared for at least his general well-being, perhaps even for his life. But what the hell did he expect when he set out to tail someone? Imo, the starting point of the problem is the gun the white guy was carrying. If he were unarmed, it might have occurred to him that playing vigilante was not really a smart idea. If he thought there was a reason to be suspicious he could call the cops. As I get it, the only thing suspicious was that the guy he was tailing was young and black. But whatever, playing Wyatt Earp is really dumb, and the easy availability of guns simply enables this idiocy.

So I would like the law, if possible, to say something like "If you are minding your own business and someone attacks you in a way that reasonably could make you fearful for your life then yes, you get to do what you have to do. But if you act like an idiot and it ends badly, we will hold you responsible."

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2013-February-19, 08:27, said:

Right, I wasn't trying to hang you for a casual choice of words.

For me, there would be two separate issues:

a. Immediate practicality. If I am in immediate fear of my life, I do what I have to do now and consult a lawyer later. Fortunately, this has never happened. So I am speaking hypothetically, but this is how I would expect/hope I would react.

b. How should the law be written? The fact is that some people can have some pretty wild ideas. This case in Florida a while back comes to mind. Again I do not know the details but this white guy was at least following and maybe stalking this black guy. This led to a confrontation and the white guy shot and killed the black guy. In the course of the confrontation the white guy may well have feared for at least his general well-being, perhaps even for his life. But what the hell did he expect when he set out to tail someone? Imo, the starting point of the problem is the gun the white guy was carrying. If he were unarmed, it might have occurred to him that playing vigilante was not really a smart idea. If he thought there was a reason to be suspicious he could call the cops. As I get it, the only thing suspicious was that the guy he was tailing was young and black. But whatever, playing Wyatt Earp is really dumb, and the easy availability of guns simply enables this idiocy.

So I would like the law, if possible, to say something like "If you are minding your own business and someone attacks you in a way that reasonably could make you fearful for your life then yes, you get to do what you have to do. But if you act like an idiot and it ends badly, we will hold you responsible."

Ken:

We are talking about Florida.

[mike777]

OH THE IRONY!!!!


ROBBERS dressed as cops steal 50$million in diamond heist in Belgium.


The European way of thinking is: Why would it be harsh? He may not have initiated the confrontation (which -to European standards- is still uncertain), but he did pull the trigger, didn't he? Sure, there are mitigating circumstances (which certainly will reduce the sentence), but in the end, he chose to take a life where he could have run away (and give up the jewelry in the store). There are insurances to share the material loss. We all agreed to let the police handle these things but the jeweler decided that he was above that.

--


Belgian police are searching for eight masked gunmen who took less than five minutes to pull off one of the most spectacular diamond heists in recent years, stealing precious stones worth about £30m (US$50m) from the hold of a Swiss-bound plane on a Brussels runway.

The biggest diamond theft in recent years took place at Brussels airport just before 8pm on Monday night, the prosecutor's office said.

The men, who were armed with machine guns and dressed in police uniforms,
http://www.guardian....s-airport-plane

[blackshoe]

Nuke 'em 'til they glow.

[nige1]

Recently, a respected Olympic athlete believed a dangerous intruder hid in his bathroom. He appreciated that it might be irresponsible to use his machine-gun to defend himself. Instead, he neutralised the threat with careful shots from his hand-gun through the locked door. Gun-control freaks are free to imagine possible horrific outcomes, had this upright citizen been armed with only a cricket-bat.

[Scarabin]

nige1, on 2013-February-20, 12:39, said:

Recently, a respected Olympic athlete believed a dangerous intruder hid in his bathroom. He appreciated that it might be irresponsible to use his machine-gun to defend himself. Instead, he neutralised the threat with careful shots from his hand-gun through the locked door. Gun-control freaks are free to imagine possible horrific outcomes, had this upright citizen been armed with only a cricket-bat.

I guess that unless you have been the victim of violence (such as a "Glasgow kiss") you cannot envisage the paranoia of living in a country prone to home invasions. I suggest however it would be responsible to check the background before making merry little quips about real people.

[blackshoe]

Re: paranoia, I tend to agree with the ASW frigate skipper. He was talking to a reporter who was riding the ship for an ASW exercise. The reporter asked him "aren't you being a little paranoid about this submarine?" The skipper replied "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough?"

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Common saying amongst submariners: "There are two kinds of ships in the ocean: submarines, and targets".

[onoway]

nige1, on 2013-February-20, 12:39, said:

Recently, a respected Olympic athlete believed a dangerous intruder hid in his bathroom. He appreciated that it might be irresponsible to use his machine-gun to defend himself. Instead, he neutralised the threat with careful shots from his hand-gun through the locked door. Gun-control freaks are free to imagine possible horrific outcomes, had this upright citizen been armed with only a cricket-bat.

According to his own statement he slept with his balcony doors wide open, which seems a bit strange for someone paranoid about home invasion. Also, although he had a permit for one gun, the one he used apparently he didn't have a permit for. The thought that came to my mind