Somebody Robbed me =[

[TNwainwright]

I have been called a lot worse names by a lot lower class of people so thank you.

I would never expect to win the suit unless the perp was under 18 then it is the parents fault. But I always blame the parents when a scumbag of any age is out playing thug. I do feel it would prove a point and gain some national coverage.

I still don't think it's ok to sue the parents of a guy you just shot for the price of the ammo you shot him with if the guy is 18 but we're not going to agree on that clearly.

However you say you would sue regardless, what if the guy was 35 had been living on his own for a long long time. How do you know the reason he was playing "thug" was because of his parents? He could have had saintly parents but for some reason turned to crime later in life, there are all sorts of reasons people turn to crime, bad upbringing is just one of them (though admittedly probably a significant one).

 

[Aiyan]

Love it in Norway, weapons ain't allowed to have unless you got certain work that requires you to own one.

If you ain't in that and you got one, you're screwed over if found out. Works so much better imo.

 

[damule6666]

I understand its different in the US, you cant just disarm 100 million people,and criminals would still keep their guns. However here in the EU most states have fairly tight gun controls and we are a democracy.
Most EU states have low gun crime, however knife crime is an issue.

In my state, Ireland, our police dont even carry guns

And Ireland is the knife wound capitol of the world..

Taking away weapons, guns or otherwise is never the answer..

Because if you think for a moment that the person robbing and killing people bought his gun through the legal channels your a fool. The criminals will ALWAYS have theirs.. By outlawing them all you do is deprive the rest of the NON criminals the right to have and possible defend themselves..

And as for the whole shooting someone in the back AFTER they just robbed me at gun point issue!!

I would blow a hole in their back big enough to bowl through!

I would ALWAYS rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

 

[Joe Dirt]

I still don't think it's ok to sue the parents of a guy you just shot for the price of the ammo you shot him with if the guy is 18 but we're not going to agree on that clearly.

However you say you would sue regardless, what if the guy was 35 had been living on his own for a long long time. How do you know the reason he was playing "thug" was because of his parents? He could have had saintly parents but for some reason turned to crime later in life, there are all sorts of reasons people turn to crime, bad upbringing is just one of them (though admittedly probably a significant one).

It happens everyday, example: guy A is DWI, crashes and injures guy B, Guy A dies in the crash, guy B sues guy A's family for damages, pain, therapy... these cases happen all the time. In other states if you were to shoot an intruder in your home the family could sue you for loss of income. But you are gonna tell me I can't sue them for cost of clean up?

 

[TNwainwright]

I would ALWAYS rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

This makes no sense, they are no longer a threat if they are fleeing. If they turned around and came at you again or whatever (for some bizarre reason) then it would be self defence. Of course if your life is in danger this is a different issue but it is not. I can understand more while you are being mugged, it is the fact that people think it's ok to kill someone who is fleeing and no longer a threat because they stole some stuff.

 

[TNwainwright]

yes, in Texas you may stop the perp from fleeing the scene. Its not messed up its the way it should be. They also stopped being human the moment they stuck a weapon in someones face demanding what isn't theirs. Wild animals take by force not humans.

Also if put through the stress of an armed robbery and I had to put down the perp. I could and would sue the perps family for the cost of PTSD therapy and the cost of any ammo I had to use.

I didn't know someone could do that, I'm still not sure they can, I would like to see some evidence (I'm not saying I know, just that I'd need some evidence), they might be able to if the family can be shown to have been responsible. You still havn't answered how you can know that the parents are responsible though.

I still just cannot understand how you would think anyone regardless of whether they're a criminal or not is worth less than your stuff.

 

[damule6666]

This makes no sense, they are no longer a threat if they are fleeing. If they turned around and came at you again or whatever (for some bizarre reason) then it would be self defence. Of course if your life is in danger this is a different issue but it is not. I can understand more while you are being mugged, it is the fact that people think it's ok to kill someone who is fleeing and no longer a threat because they stole some stuff.

It makes sense to ME.. I dont care if it makes sense to someone like you or not.

There NEEDS to be a deterrent to crime.. Letting them get away and "filing a claim" does NOT help the problem. I DON'T CARE IF HE IS FLEEING!!
If you blow holes in a few people like this then maybe the next will think a little harder before he robs someone!

And i know what your going to say. "or maybe the next guy will just shoot you and loot your dead body" and yes that is a possibility, but most of these people just count on sheer intimidation! You start killing them and they may think about a career change!

So i say to you, please go on letting yourself be the victim because your a spineless jellyfish.

But i say to you if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem!

 

[TNwainwright]

It makes sense to ME.. I dont care if it makes sense to someone like you or not.

So it makes sense to you to make some soudbite statement about rather being sent to trial than being dead even though your life is not actuallly in danger in the situation in question. Glad to know what we're dealing with here.

I DON'T CARE IF HE IS FLEEING!!
If you blow holes in a few people like this then maybe the next will think a little harder before he robs someone!

And i know what your going to say. "or maybe the next guy will just shoot you and loot your dead body" and yes that is a possibility, but most of these people just count on sheer intimidation! You start killing them and they may think about a career change!

That's what I would say yes. They rely on intimidation now, but they would switch tactics and just shoot you first if they thought they were going to get shot.

There are better ways to tackle crime than just to go around shooting everybody. Whether you want to believe it or not (and I know you won't, you'l probably start talking about bootstraps soon, I can't wait) Crime is caused by a number of socio-economic factors which bullets are not going to solve.

So i say to you, please go on letting yourself be the victim because your a spineless jellyfish.

Yeah shooting people in the back, so brave .

 

[damule6666]

So it makes sense to you to make some soudbite statement about rather being sent to trial than being dead even though your life is not actuallly in danger in the situation in question. Glad to know what we're dealing with here.



That's what I would say yes. They rely on intimidation now, but they would switch tactics and just shoot you first if they thought they were going to get shot.

There are better ways to tackle crime than just to go around shooting everybody. Whether you want to believe it or not (and I know you won't, you'l probably start talking about bootstraps soon, I can't wait) Crime is caused by a number of socio-economic factors which bullets are not going to solve.


Yeah shooting people in the back, so brave .

Never said it was brave. Said i would do it!

And as for continuing this with you.. No

 

[Tino]

Killing someone for robbery I agree is a massive deterent, but in all honesty they're more likely to use their weapon if there is a threat that you have a weapon also. I do believe that you should be able to defend yourself, and some of the laws here on 'reasonable force' are quite pathetic if I am honest.

But there is already a big deterent, atleast in England, which is jail time. In my opinion mugging someone for a

 

[TNwainwright]

I do believe that you should be able to defend yourself, and some of the laws here on 'reasonable force' are quite pathetic if I am honest..

Of course you should be able to defend yourself, and I can understand people thinking reasonable force laws are a little on the restrictive side. Shooting someone, (or chasing them down for that matter) as they leave the scene is not self defence.

You're right though, this is getting horrendously off topic and nobody is going to change their minds. I'm just going to stop here.

 

[Aiyan]

And Ireland is the knife wound capitol of the world..

Taking away weapons, guns or otherwise is never the answer..

Because if you think for a moment that the person robbing and killing people bought his gun through the legal channels your a fool. The criminals will ALWAYS have theirs.. By outlawing them all you do is deprive the rest of the NON criminals the right to have and possible defend themselves..

And as for the whole shooting someone in the back AFTER they just robbed me at gun point issue!!

I would blow a hole in their back big enough to bowl through!

I would ALWAYS rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Now that is why US homicide rate is so much higher then Norway. Simply because you are allowed to carry weapons. Saying our police doesn't carry weapon is correct, but it's foolish to not think they have weapons in their car. Since they have that.

Weapons ain't the answer at all, but I agree with you on one thing. You can't really go back on it, when you have stated the line of carrying weapons.

But then again, I don't see it as legit. "Since they are carrying sticks, I need a stick to defend me." <-- That's what I call fake feeling of protection and that certain things need to be redone since you can't have it like that.

So this leaves me to think that gun and weapons doesn't solve anything, but I do see the problem with already being incorperated. It is very hard to go back on it and suddenly ban every people carrying weapons.

Which leaves to Norway yet again, if you are lucky enough to hear about gunshooting in whole Norway, it's usual crooks vs crooks. But it's so miniscule and seeing how tight the police have the gangs. They don't have room to have too many areas where they can have weapon. Since as fast they show up with a weapon of some sort, they are serve some years in prison. So criminals fear being caught or raided with weapons, since it will leave so many people involved open for being put in jail.

(You can't bail out in Norway)

So I yet again say, if weapon was the reason - I'm rather surprised seeing how good Norway does it then when it comes to low crimes and homicides compared to say other countries where weapon is allowed to carry/have in their home.

 

[Aiyan]

Of course you should be able to defend yourself, and I can understand people thinking reasonable force laws are a little on the restrictive side. Shooting someone, (or chasing them down for that matter) as they leave the scene is not self defence.

You're right though, this is getting horrendously off topic and nobody is going to change their minds. I'm just going to stop here.

Yeah, good measure for self defence is eye-to-eye, which is basically what we go through in the army a lot. (Special if you are on guard duty) By law, self-defence is needed when a person shows such aggresion that you can't talk your way out of it/leave the scene before it boils up.

By that, if someone hits you - you're allowed to hit back.

Now what is not allowed there is if someone hits you and you take up a knife and stabs him. That is against the law again, since you're overusing the force needed. So say he have a bat or knife, then you are free to defend with the same coin - you see something you can pick up and use, you are then ALLOWED to use it - because of your life is being in danger.

This also applies to if someone is getting attacked by a manman with a knife, then to save that person you are allowed to use any force up to his point of attacking. I.e everything up to knife.

Take up a gun and you will be charged for it, again it goes against the protocol for the force needed for the situation.

I don't think I need to explain the gun vs gun, you get the deal. This is self-defence law used in Norway in a escalating form, but if someone is stabbing another person 30 meter away and you have no chance to run towards that person, while you carry a weapon. It does say what you will choose to do.

So it is a hard theme, what is overuse of self defence, what rules should apply for certain force. What is in the greyarea - for me I think it's more about how critical situation that other person or me are in, then escalate the force thereafter.

But I believe best defence is when you can de-escalte the whole situation and just calm down the whole situation.

 

[damule6666]

Now that is why US homicide rate is so much higher then Norway. Simply because you are allowed to carry weapons. Saying our police doesn't carry weapon is correct, but it's foolish to not think they have weapons in their car. Since they have that.

Weapons ain't the answer at all, but I agree with you on one thing. You can't really go back on it, when you have stated the line of carrying weapons.

But then again, I don't see it as legit. "Since they are carrying sticks, I need a stick to defend me." <-- That's what I call fake feeling of protection and that certain things need to be redone since you can't have it like that.

So this leaves me to think that gun and weapons doesn't solve anything, but I do see the problem with already being incorperated. It is very hard to go back on it and suddenly ban every people carrying weapons.

Which leaves to Norway yet again, if you are lucky enough to hear about gunshooting in whole Norway, it's usual crooks vs crooks. But it's so miniscule and seeing how tight the police have the gangs. They don't have room to have too many areas where they can have weapon. Since as fast they show up with a weapon of some sort, they are serve some years in prison. So criminals fear being caught or raided with weapons, since it will leave so many people involved open for being put in jail.

(You can't bail out in Norway)

So I yet again say, if weapon was the reason - I'm rather surprised seeing how good Norway does it then when it comes to low crimes and homicides compared to say other countries where weapon is allowed to carry/have in their home.

Your whole country has a population roughly HALF the size of the city of New York..

So it would be fairly easy to keep all the subjects controlled.. Because you are a monarchy, thereby making you all subjects.. And kings do love to have obedient, subservient little subjects..

 

[InstantKarma]

Now what is not allowed there is if someone hits you and you take up a knife and stabs him. That is against the law again, since you're overusing the force needed. So say he have a bat or knife, then you are free to defend with the same coin - you see something you can pick up and use, you are then ALLOWED to use it - because of your life is being in danger.

This also applies to if someone is getting attacked by a manman with a knife, then to save that person you are allowed to use any force up to his point of attacking. I.e everything up to knife.

Take up a gun and you will be charged for it, again it goes against the protocol for the force needed for the situation.

See, even more than restrictive gun laws, this is the attitude that makes me nuts. It's the same law in Canada, and likely other places that I would/will never live.

If someone attacks me, or some other person in my vicinity, they don't deserve a fair fight. I owe them nothing, and I will do whatever it takes to end the aggression, whether it be by gun, knife, or crowbar.

I'm not a violent guy and have never been in a fight in my life (48 years now), but gawd forbid the criminal gets hurt as result of their crime!

 

[tfotos77]

And no your stuff is not worth more than a human life no criminal or not.

I disagree with you. My crap is worth way more than the guy who is trying to rob me. Believe me, someone is dying and it isn't me. I couldn't give two gorilla biscuits about jerk offs that would rather terrorize someone than work hard for their own crap.

 

[CRPercodani]

Debating is cool but lets all try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

 

[LenMan]

not trying to argue. just something i heard once...

"gun control is an idea based on the premise that criminals aren't out there selling and stealing guns."

 

[vanedor]

See, even more than restrictive gun laws, this is the attitude that makes me nuts. It's the same law in Canada, and likely other places that I would/will never live.

[FONT=&quot]This sort of attitude makes me sick. Don

 

[dragon2611]

On a purely technical note.

A lot of these phones have GPS these days , can the network operator not remote activate the GPS function (and maybe even the Camera) if the police request i?

I mean I don't see any Technical reason why the devices couldn't have this capability you already have the required hardware, a 2way data connection + gps + camera.

Might stir up a hornets nest in terms of privacy though if the feature was implemented but it might make people less interested in nicking phones if whenever they're switched on they send out a "I am here"

 

[Aerimus]

This is why I carry this in my pocket. (Illegally, but in chicago on the trains, I really don't give a rats ass about the law when my life may be on the line)

Not to be all political...but I don't know how that helps? I mean, he is alive and well and simply out a phone for a few days while it's replaced. If he had a gun, what's he gonna do? Pull it out on the guy that already has a gun pointed at him? Then he ends up dead and without a phone...not sure how that helps?

 

[InstantKarma]

[FONT=&quot]This sort of attitude makes me sick. Don&#8217;t you realize that you are far more victim of your fear than victim of crime?[/FONT]

Gee, thanks Dr. Freud. Now I see the light.

[FONT=&quot]If criminals believe you might have a gun and actually threaten them, they will start being more violent. Burglar will start bringing guns with them when they invade houses. Sure, you might kill some of them, but many innocent people will also suffer from scared trigger-happy thieves.[/FONT]

Or maybe, they'll stay the **** home and look for a job.

Your hypothesis is based on the naive belief that thieves are peaceful souls who won't resort to violence unless forced to.

 

[ElasticNinja]

WOW I thought all those tv shows and documentaries were over dramatic

Seems not


And the death penalty?



BTW anyone seen Bowling for Columbine

 

[OfTheDamned]

This makes no sense, they are no longer a threat if they are fleeing.

I'm not agreeing with or condoning shooting anyone in the back, but I will say that a fleeing criminal is still a criminal and therefor still a threat. The threat may no longer be mine, but they are still a threat to others. Someone who is will to walk up to a person, stick a gun in their face and take their belongings is not doing this for the first time or the last.

[FONT=&quot]This sort of attitude makes me sick. Don

 

[TNwainwright]

I'm not agreeing with or condoning shooting anyone in the back, but I will say that a fleeing criminal is still a criminal and therefor still a threat. The threat may no longer be mine, but they are still a threat to others. Someone who is will to walk up to a person, stick a gun in their face and take their belongings is not doing this for the first time or the last.

I was responding to people who were saying it was self defence or justifiable because criminals are somehow subhuman.
What you say has some truth to it, but it's still not self defence, and shooting them so they can't hurt others is vigilante justice. Don't get me wrong it's more understandable than "because he stole my EVO", but it's still wrong.