Discussion in 'Off Topic 2' started by Wez, Sep 21, 2017.
I wouldn't call you stupid, unless you think that is what "sucker" means.
Either way, I leave the looking down your nose point of view to others.
I have always found it a good policy to be honest with people. I had various experiences and results in positions as a college newspaper editor, as a Navy petty officer, as a manager of engineers and technicians, and as a soccer club board member. If I need something from them, I will tell them what I expect. If they ask me what I think of them, I'll tell them. If you think you are below my nose, it's your own behavior that put you here.
Proof of a reasonable belief of imminent danger is probably enough, without the weapon (e.g. if the trespasser turned and charged forward).
The shooter committed a homicide. That’s a simple fact. It doesn’t make him or her guilty of a crime until there is a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was u justified. So you’re “guilty until proven innocent” argument is incorrect.
No, you don’t. You’re an arrogantly proud victim of your own “uneducated, folksy working man” snobbishness. Every day.
Tough one. I think there are a number of ways to prevent the trespasser who you busted without putting yourself in harm’s way. If within 10 yards and you give your order and they suddenly turn around it’s a really tough call. Why would the homeowner expose themself like that? I don’t think that’s a safe way to handle it and too likely to result in injury or death. If I had a gun, I would not be out in the open within 10 yards of the trespasser over the contents of my car, with a willingness to kill. That’s dumb.
Assuming there is ever a willingness to kill.
I've had that conversation about do you shoot someone for breaking into your empty home (you come in on them or catch them coming out) or other property, barn, tool shed, yard, vehicle etc. My thought was no I'm not going to possible kill someone over objects (especially if they haven't gotten away with any). Every circumstance is different but if you aren't a threat to my family, pets, neighbors, myself or anyone else I'm not looking to kill you. But as we have seen before some people feel threatened by a person, unarmed, laying belly down, hands out, responding to and following all directions, so they kill them.
You assume too much and don’t pay attention nearly enough.
Nicest way I can put it.
Maybe it’s projection
I haven’t been threatened with a guillotine in awhile.
Nice try. Name one assumption that isn’t a required part of your hypothetical. And where did I not pay attention.
What a dumb thing to say. The entire hypothetical is based on whether or not the shooting/killing may be justified.
So the shooter by definition had a willingness to kill.
Why are you people so stupid?
Nicest way I can put it.
“I love the uneducated!”
How would anyone threaten another with a guillotine?
Yeah, that’s not a thing.
Sure it is.
Its only happened once to me.
Creepy , funny and weird, I know.
You assumed the hypothetical was me.
You assumed the (person) wanted to kill someone.
You assumed the "homeowner" was "exposed", and you stated there were a number of ways to prevent the trespasser, but failed to list them.
Are you paying attention now?
When and by whom?