Monday, July 18, 2005

Home invasions

**I am not a lawyer, a poly-sci major, or a philosopher so my words may not be as eloquent or catchy as other policitcal blogs that we've all been posting on, so bear with me**

A discussion has started on one of my earlier posts on the subject of self-defense in one's own home. This stemmed from my dislike of Barack Obama, specifically his stance on guns and the Second Amendment. Here's a recap:

My beloved Senator (Barack Obama, Democrat, Illinois), voted against gun owner's rights.

In February 2004, in a nice suburb of Chicago, the owner of the home, Halee Demar, was charged with violating the "handgun ban" after shooting a burglar in his home. The state legislature passed a bill that would help people him from being prosecuted if they were acting in self-defense. Obama voted "no" on the bill.

So my question to everyone: Do you think it is okay to shoot an intruder in self-defense in your own home?

A fellow blogger said "What would Jesus do?" Thats a good question but I don't think God would begrudge me or send me straight to the firey depths of hell if I shot a man dead who comes into MY house with the intent to hurt my family and children.

I am a female who lives alone. I have a very good alarm system but if someone makes it in in the middle of the night, I'm shooting. People may ask "What if he wasn't armed?" Well, how the hell do I know that? I'm not going to wait and find out.

So what I'd like to know from everyone is, am I the only one out there who feels this way? And to my friends who are in law school, what is the law in regards to situations like this?


At 7:46 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...

Teacher Tori,

First, don't worry about whether or not your writing is eloquent. I can assure you that you are a greater wordsmith than your beloved George W. Bush.

Let's talk about guns. If you will go to my blog ( you will find a blog entry I wrote conerning the Constution. While I touched on many of the "hot button" constituional issues, I failed to address the 2nd Amendment specifically.

In the eyes of this progressive, no part of the Constituion experinces more abuse and perversion than the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Following a "strict construnctionalist" reading of the Constution, a manner preffered by Conservatives, one must put the Amendment into historical context.

Written in infant stages of our nation, the 2nd Amendment provided for the creation of a Militia, which would serve as a "National Guard" of sorts, protecting lands not covered by the Army or Navy. Turn with me to Article II, Section II.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Clearly, this shows that the "Militia" referenced in the 2nd Amendment represents another branch of the "Armed Forces," and does not represent the American citizenry.

Translation, the Constution guarantees the right for citizens to arm themselves with the express purpose of organizing a Militia to protect their local lands. With the advent of the National Guard, this proves unnecessary.

Gun people irk me almost as much the Rapture Right. No special interest groups crys as much as Charlton Heston's bunch of blood thirsty militants.

This country already has some of the most lenient guns laws in the world and we have one of the leading murder rates in the world to prove it.

Last night, a report on 60 Minutes showed how prior to 9/11, Osama bin Laden was able to buy assault weapons in the US.

Chew on that for a while.

At 10:53 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...

Perhaps this will lure W. William Melton out of retirement and back to the debate arena? I miss our debates already :(

I welcome arguments from any and all...

At 11:16 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...


Why don't you come by my blog and leave your thoughts on my Karl Rove post? It should make for interesting discussion...or post on any of my blog entries....Debate of any kind is positive.

At 8:51 AM , Blogger Tori said...

I am a member of the Illinois Rifle Association and the NRA :)

At 9:26 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...

Everybody stay put, I'm suing everybody in here!

I SUE YOU! And YOU!, And You!

Sorry for that outbusrt of emotion that is so graciously protected by the 1st Admendment.

Now Back to the Second Amendment!

I love guns and I love to shoot them at the range or at people that threaten my life!

I think we should all be allowed to own firearms.

Tori what kind of gun do you own?

I have my father's old Colt .45 that he used in Vietnam. I also have a Beretta 9mm. Nice, black, shiney!

At 10:04 AM , Blogger Tori said...

I have a cute little tomcat but I've shot everything from an AK's to AR's, shotguns, to SP89's.


What would you do if there was an intruder in your house that threatens your family? Beat him with a baseball bat or is that too mean?

At 10:18 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...

Tori, let's be real here,

I think Texas Cynic would just SUE HIM!!!!!!!!!

Probably Sue Him to Death!

At 10:21 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...

Coolest thing I have ever shot was a M60 machine gun!

WOW you could sure lay down some fire with that. I simple touch of the trigger would let off 5 rounds.

And when you put tracers in that thing it was like the Fourth of July!

At 10:30 AM , Blogger Tori said...

I watched my sister Ranting Republican fire a shotgun with a slug in it and it almost blew off her shoulder!

At 10:56 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...

Hell Yeah! That shit is no joke, a 12 gauge with slugs!


At 12:13 PM , Blogger Tori said...

So cynic, do you believe nobody should have guns in the US?

At 1:20 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Okay, I came out of retirement, and I'm global baby - out here in Vienna! Here's my stance. Shoot.

Now, Cynic, I admire your attempt to identify the origins and the framers intent regarding the 2nd Amendment; however, the "militia" as referenced to in the 2nd Amendment at the time the Constitution was written was meant to be basically any male at least of age 16 (or 17, I forget).

Now, in 1990 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Verdego-Urquirez (or something close to that). This was not a direct 2nd Amendment case as the Court has generally avoided these types of cases. This case specifically held, however, that "the people" as referenced in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and I believe 9th Amendments means the same thing.

By your logic then, along with Supreme Court wording, only the National Guard would be allowed Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, Freedom from unlawful searches and seizures and so on. This is faulty reasoning.

The law says (in most states) that you may only act with deadly force if deadly force is presented against you. This I have had many many debates on with professors. Basically, if an intruder enters your home with, say a baseball bat, you are only legally entitled to self defense with a similar object (albeit a baseball bat can be deadly, some courts would say it isn't so and use of a gun would be unlawful). You'd have to kindly ask the perpetrator to wait one minute while you yourself grabbed a hockey stick. Fuck that.

If someone stepped foot in my home, I'm shooting. I also have a gun and would never live in a house without one. Let's also not foregt that these Dems are the ones who will lock up a woman who used her martial arts skills to fight off an attacker who then fell and cracked his head and died. It's sick.

Like I always say: "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." Shoot away Teacher Tori.

At 5:17 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

I think it is alright to shoot anyone in your house, you should just be ready to stand trial if the state chooses to prosecute. When should the state prosecute? Well maybe when you killed someone that you could have avoided killing. What could you have done to both protect your home and avoid killing an intruder. The facts should be weighed, and if it turns out that you used deadly force without sufficient provocation than you should stand trial for manslaughter, like anyone else. Taking a life is a grave responsibility, it should be considered slightly better than allowing someone to take your life, but not by a great margin. This margin should stand the test of a court of law. Don't pack heat if you cannot provide a good defense for yourself. It might be good to train, to practice, a walk through if you will, and the onus of responsibility should be raised on anyone that uses deadly force. This does not create liability, it just clarifies it. A militia soldier should act like a soldier.

At 5:57 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...

Ranting Republican,

I'm merely using the logic conservatives wish to see used on the bench...

Hell, I've give you neo-Cons the right to read the 2nd Amendment anyway you please if you will let us progressives read the 14th Amendment the way we please.

At 6:50 PM , Blogger Tori said...

I don't think I should have to think what the intruder's intentions are before deciding what to do. "Hmm, does he have a gun, does he not?"

I doubt an intruder is breaking into my home to give me flowers or just to say "hi, how 'bout 'dem Cubs?"

My sister Ranting and I have done everything in our power to protect ourselves. We are both blackbelts, I have a security system and we happen to live alone. However, if someone breaks in, we are shooting.

mthomas, you said that taking a life is a grave responsibility, and I absolutely agree. But I happen to think breaking and entering when I am home is sufficient provocation because I don't know what his intentions are.

There are not many people I would want to kill.....besides terrorists and a few other scuzballs, and I will gladly go to trial, because as my sister says "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six."

And if it comes down to it in court, I say "He said he had a gun and said he was going to kill me and my family." And of course this would be the truth because lying under oath is illegal.

At 6:53 PM , Blogger Tori said...

Oh and I'd also like to thank Ranting from coming out of retirement. 2nd Amendment discussions are a favorite of hers and something she feels very passionate about.

Even in Europe she's still fighting for our guns :)

At 7:10 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...


All I can say is "Pure Country...look at them boots..."

Tori you belong in East Texas...with your guns and conservative views....

I bet you you can "shoot a buck and run a trotline"......

Do you dip as well?

At 12:51 AM , Blogger Tori said...

actually, don't laugh, but I just got back from a country bar....went line dancing in my boots and cowboy hat from Texas :)

Lord knows how I ended up in a commie state in a predominantly commie career. God has a great sense of humor.

At 2:15 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Obviously taking a life is a grave responsibility and I hope to God I never have to do it myself. But if its him or me...sorry, I look out for number one in those situations (well, in most situations, but especially in this kind of instance).

Tori's right, we have taken all necessary precautions - blackbelt, kickboxing, grappling, you name it, and it would be an intruder's biggest mistake to break into our homes, but as tough as I feel I am, if it's the middle of the night, I'm alone in my apartment, without a clue as to whether the intruder has a gun, a knife, or nothing for that matter - I'm shooting. And I do trust the courts to weed out these cases. Cuff me and take me away, I'm fine with that.

What you guys don't understand is not your fault. You're not single women living alone. If say, Cynic and I were neighbors, and some perp was casing the block, whose house do you think he would break into? Mine. There's no question. Women are brought up to be afraid of men, afraid of walking alone, and whatnot. I personally think this is wrong, and it's better to be brought up to be aware of your surroundings, and learn how to fight back -- but as tough as I am, I couldn't fight off a 6'5, 250 lb man. It's just basically that simple - I may get some good hits, but all he needs is one good hit on me, and I'm out. I'd rather shoot from a distance...(and empty my mag)...maybe reload. Kidding. But I'd shoot without hesitation if it meant my life.

Call me a crazy gun-toting Texan -- fine, I'll take that as a compliment in this case anyday.

Okay, need to go shopping! Yay Vienna!

At 2:17 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Cynic - interpreting the 2nd Amendment is not at all difficult - it's easy to look back at the Framer's intent because the 2nd Amendment is so narrow. THe 14th Amendment opens more than a can of worms. I'm open for some loose interpretation when it comes to certain 14th Amendment issues, but you really can't compare the two.

At 7:50 AM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

As much as a appriciate you basic sentiment, I couldn't fight off a 6'5'' 250 lb. man either. And that isn't even really that big.

How do you in the middle of the night know that the man breaking through your window is not a fireman trying to save you from a fire in another part of the house?

The problem is that you choose to take an the judge, jury, and execution of someone. Clearly if your family, or to some extent your person is in direct danger, you have the right to use force, however all this false bravado, "carried by 6, tried by 12, learn to count to 10..." is just fluff. When I was 8, I was staying with my friend and his father was out of town, his mother thought she heard an intruder, when she checked it out, no one was there, but she didn't know how to uncock the gun, and in the process of figuring it out she blew her foot off. This was a slightly different senerio than the husband planned on. My point is that guns are dangerous, you automatically become something like a soldier when you make the choice to pack heat, and you should train like a soldier would. I as a potential juror will hold you up to the highest degree of liability for taking a life, because if it is the difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV and you taking their life, I prefer you just try to scare them (warning shot). Not every situation is one that you personally have to use deadly force. You are not a swat team leader.

At 9:55 AM , Blogger Tori said...

How do I know they are only in there to steal my tv? I don't know that and wouldn't wait around to find out.

Should I say "um, excuse me, sir, are you here to rob me, rape me, or kill me?"

You make us gun owners sound irresponsible and untrained. I'm sorry but that wife is an idiot and does not deserve to have a gun in her house if she does not know how to properly handle it. She's lucky all she blew off was her foot.

And we are not "gun-crazy" and will shoot at anything that casts a shadow. Whenever I lived at my parent's house and came in at all hours of the night, my dad didn't grab the Beretta and emepty a mag into my chest.

I am smart enough to check out the situation first before taking a life. I'm not going to shoot a fireman or one of my future children.

hmmmmm, a warning shot. Where would I shoot this warning shot? Maybe into my ceiling? a wall? So give the bad guy knowledge that I'm armed so he has time to pull out his oozie?

And don't give me that crap that "he's just a guy who's had some bad breaks in life and needs some money so he broke in to help feed his starving family. Its not his fault." Bullshit, you'd probably blamee his misfortune on President Bush.

While the intruder's initial intent might be to just grab some of your worldly posessions, he finds out somebody is home.......he has 2 choices: Run away or kill the homeowners who can ID him.

I am not willing to wait around for him to make that decision.

I'm sure if I am unlucky enough for something like this to happen to me and I do have to take a life, that it will affect me in a deep and profound way. I get that and its nothing to be taken lightly. However, I don't see the "tried by 12 than carried by 6" to be simply fluff.

I value my life too much and will do whatever it takes to keep it.

At 11:33 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...

The best advice I can pass along is when you shoot someone on your property you should SHOOT TO KILL!

This comes from a police officer that is a friend of the family. The last thing he said you want is someone either trying to sue you after you shoot them ot someone giving another version of what they say took place.

So SHOOT TO KILL! No leg wounds or arm shots. HEad shots or chest shots!

Hell sounds good to me. I know some Lib will be outraged by this, but Fuck don;t break into peoples house to begin with!

At 11:43 AM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

Doing whatever it takes to keep my life is something I can reject without explanation. It is a primary orienting choice that keeps us ideologically separate.

I laugh at your assertion that I think Bush is responsible for violence by promoting some social vice. I don't think crime is excusable in the least, the fact that you would assume this means that you spend your time arguing with modern strawmen "liberals." I am saying that your life is equally as valuable as any other human, regardless of the threat they pose. You are not an official of the state; you have no right to shoot someone simply because she might: "Run away or kill the homeowners who can ID (her)).” If you identify someone confronting you with deadly force by all means kill, it is your choice between your life and that of the other person, and the courts will not hold you liable. However this is not explicitly stated in your fanatical gun enthusiasm, you suggest that killing is in itself noble, that you are doing something for justice by defending your property rights, that no one has the right to enter your home. I am drawing a line on that statement, that no one has the right to enter your home under the threat of violence. It is not until the person actually threatens violence in response that you can use deadly force, however. The threat of violence ups the ante, the use of violence is the last resort. Shoot first and ask questions later is a cliché. You even go as far as to suggest that all gun owners have had training. I have, you claim to have had, but is there a requirement? No, the right to bear arms is a right that comes with responsibility. It is this responsibility that is conspicuously absent in your bloviation concerning the use of deadly force. I know that I have always taught, and been taught ultimate respect for guns. This is a distinction that your “Charlton Heston bravado” misses. By the way I am a member of the NRA as well.

I also really liked your response. The point about the equalization of force between parties with respect to violence is compelling as well, they just come with caveats.

At 12:17 PM , Blogger Tori said...

mthomas, I was being sarcastic about the Bush comment :)

At 12:22 PM , Blogger Tori said...

To all my liberals on here.......I have a question for you. What would you do in this scenario?

It is 3am and you hear voices outside and a window being broken. You hear people in the house and your wife is asleep next to you and your children down the hall. You hear people downstairs moving around and someone says "go see if there is anyone upstairs and take care of it."

What would you do?

Call 911? Hell yeah, we all would.

Do you know if they are armed, nope.

If that was me, I'd send my spouse into the bedroom with a gun to protect the kids, set off my silent alert option on my security system to alert the police and take care of business.

All I want to know is what would you do in a situation like that? You all have said what you wouldn't do, I'm just interested to hear an alternative that might actually work.

At 12:36 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

I am not a liberal, but I can take a crack at your question, if that is what you would like.

Why set off a silent alarm? Don't you want the neibors to come out of their houses to provide witnesses?

Have you posted security stickers at all entry points?

Why can't you hide in the bedroom with the children as well?

It seems the real question you are asking is: how do I make sure I have covered my bases so that when I kill someone I can defend myself in court?

It is not your job to stop a crime in process, the only right that you have is to defend yourself, not to entrap a theif into a mortal confrontation.

At 6:25 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...

Conservatives live in constant fear...

Fear of the black male...

Fear of homosexuals marrying....

Fear of terrorists....

Fear of personal liberty...

Conservatives want their mommy and daddy...but since most conservatives suck their parents dry...they look to the government to be their mommy and daddy....

Fuck Fear!

If I die I die....but I don't need a gun....

At 9:28 PM , Blogger Texas Cynic said...

Ok, I'm officially apathetic towards the Supreme Court nomination, Karl Rove and George Bush.

After every storm there is a sunny day:

By JAIME ARON, AP Sports Writer
July 20, 2005

IRVING, Texas (AP) -- Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith led the Dallas Cowboys back to glory with three Super Bowl wins in four years in the 1990s. So it only makes sense they're going into the team's Ring of Honor together.

And it's happening just when all three have ended their careers.

The fitting tribute to the longtime teammates nicknamed ``The Triplets'' was announced Wednesday by team owner Jerry Jones in a news conference at Texas Stadium. They will become the 13th, 14th and 15th recipients of the franchise's ultimate honor on Sept. 19 as the Cowboys host the Washington Redskins.

All three of their jerseys were draped over chairs with the stadium as a backdrop and the franchises' five Super Bowl trophies gleaming in front of them. Among other memorabilia was a picture of all three, shot from behind, as they walked off the field shoulder pad to shoulder pad.

``To be inducted into our Ring of Honor as a threesome gives us one of the most unique opportunities of any sporting team or franchise that they've ever had,'' Jones said.

Irvin retired in 1999 and Aikman followed a year later, both having spent their entire careers with the Cowboys' star on their helmets. Smith was the only one to wear another uniform, playing for Arizona the last two seasons. Although Smith's departure after the 2002 season was a bit messy, the NFL's career rushing leader reaffirmed his Dallas ties during a retirement news conference in February, and later signed a ceremonial one-day contract so he could go out as a Cowboy.

Aikman was the MVP of the crew's first Super Bowl championship and Smith was MVP of a regular season and a Super Bowl. Irvin holds every meaningful receiving record in team history and is widely regarded as the team's emotional leader during its most successful era.

As deserving and well-timed as this tribute is, it also raises the question of whether this shuts the door to the Ring for predecessors such as Drew Pearson, Harvey Martin, Ed ``Too Tall'' Jones and Charlie Waters.

Jones said the selections weren't in chronological order. ``This is all about these three men,'' he said.

If it is the start of recognizing players from the 1990s -- in other words, once Jones bought the team -- other strong candidates include Darren Woodson, Daryl Johnston and Jay Novacek. Larry Allen seems like a lock, too, once he retires.

The decision will be made by a one-man selection committee: Jones. That's also why it's unlikely former coach Jimmy Johnson will be added to that list any time soon.

Now that Aikman, Irvin and Smith have claimed this prize, the most significant career reward left is being voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Seven of the previous 12 Ring members already have their busts on display in Canton, Ohio.

``These men are all destined for the NFL Hall of Fame, that goes without saying,'' Jones said. ``They will be there.''

Irvin came up short in his first election, but will be up for consideration again in February, when Aikman will be on the ballot for the first time. Smith won't be eligible until 2010 because of the five-year waiting period after retirement.

The trio arrived separately over three straight summers, 1988-90, each a first-round pick. Irvin was the last top choice by Tex Schramm and Tom Landry, then Aikman was the No. 1 overall pick and first made by Jones.

Irvin missed most of his rookie season because of an injury, then dealt with a 1-15 season in Aikman's rookie year. Everyone's fortunes changed once Smith arrived and forced defenses to stop the run and the pass.

The Cowboys made the playoffs in 1991 and were champions following the '92, '93 and '95 seasons. They were stopped a game short of the Super Bowl in '94, making their four-year reign the most successful in NFL history.

Over the 10 seasons all three were on the roster, 1990-99, the Cowboys were 101-59, a .631 winning percentage, with six division titles and eight playoff appearances.

At 8:03 AM , Blogger Tori said...

Well, if the intruders do break in, the loud alarm will sound and the police will be called.

However, I have a silent alert I keep next to my bed in case the situation arises where I can't get to the phone or I am not being allowed to. And to be honest, if I heard my neighbor's alarm going off, I'd call 911 and I'm not sure what I'd do afterwards. Go and help? Stay inside?

Yes, I have security stickers on every window and door as another deterant (sp?) Hopefully, taking all of these measures will prevent me from having to use deadly force.

I would never have all of us in the same room.......I dont want these freaks getting that close first, I'd die before that. Maybe its just my maternal instincts kicking in.

mthomas, you still have not answered my question, quit dodging. I gave you a scenario in one of my above commenets, what would you do?

And Cynic, thats a bunch of horseshit.

Quit stereotyping. I'm not afraid of black men, I happen to teach at a pretty tough high school with gangbangers everywhere. If I was THAT scared, I wouldn't work here. (I'm giving a final exam right now.)

As I have said before, I really don't care if homosexuals marry or not, doesn't seriously affect my life at all.

And as for being scared of Terrorists, hell yeah I am! I watched the video of that guy getting his head sawed off. I remember 9/11 like it was yesterday, while most liberals like to forget the horror.

Does it stop me from living my daily life, heck no. Do I have a very watchful eye, especially at airports, hell yes. That doesn't mean I'm scared, its me trying to protect my fellow Americans from the Terrorists.

I really have no idea what you are taking about when it comes to conservatives wanting their mommy and daddy. Don't we all love our parents and look to them for love, help, and guidance when we are starting out? We may suck our parents dry early on, but then we go on to make all the $$$ and employ the democrats. And we don't look to the government at all to parent us, we want LESS government, its the liberals that want the BIG government.

At 9:21 AM , Blogger Fed Up Patriot said...


Just get a big, good looking boy friend!

Hell one that likes guns too!

That should keep you plenty safe.

At 1:14 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

The key is non-lethal force. So I hear the disturbance at 3AM, I wake up my spouse and send them in the next room, the alarm has been triggered (or 911 is dialed), in the first case the loud alarm goes off. I grab by .38 and my taser (which doubles as a stun gun). I set up a point at the top of the stairs. I cover the top of the stairs with my taser hand supported with my gun hand, both weapons pointed at the top of the stairs. I yell out “ I have a .38 pointed at your head, and the police are on the way.” Unless I am a Mafioso and Rambo has been sent to burgle my house, this will scare off all intruders.

If I really think that I am the type of person that lives under some increase threat of intrusion, I can install cameras in the home, I can add high-wattage security lights, all wired into a switch by my bed (these are turned on inside and outside the house with a key on my alarm pad). The almost blinding lights on the inside of the house complement the sensor lights that I have already installed on the outside of the house (these are really cheap deterrents to crime). I could also have a panic switch rigged to a civilian grade phosphorous explosion. This would blind the intruder long enough to go downstairs and tase them (remember you have already identified that they aren’t carrying a weapon by your security cameras).

The type of planning that is necessary to equip yourself to take a life, is the same as the time needed to equip your house to prepare against crime. It is your choice, just remember that a shot in the chest or head will be counted as attempted murder, or premeditated murder in many counties. You are not the type of person who Rambo frequently visits. Sometimes bad things happen that we cannot do much about, but taking the law into your own hands is a responsibility and can almost always be avoided. There is a reason vigilantism is not legal.

At 1:18 PM , Blogger Tori said...


I agree with your action plan and would probably do the same. however, if they don't leave and start coming up those stairs....its on!

At 3:03 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

So you hide and call 911, and then what happens...police come...WITH GUNS.

At 3:46 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

The police are the law, like it or not. They have the moral imperitive to defend the public, you however have not been given that right, and if you try to assume it, you will stand trial for your hubris.

At 12:45 AM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

Ok, i have been reading this for a few days now. comon cynic, if someone breaks into your house there is a very good reason why it is legal in illinois to use deadly force. You should not have to make the choice of which way to protect your family in order to benefit the intruder in anyway. scenario: 3 am. burglar comes in and you hear him. You get your gun and your tazer or whatever hippy homosexual weapon mt what babbling about. You say "sir i have a gun and i called the police" now you have given up your location in the house and put yourself at risk, it doesnt have to be rambo in your house to panic and start shooting at you because obviously burglars are not the brightest people in the world because if they were Im sure theyd have fascinating jobs like all of you people which allow you to waste all ur time online chatting via personal blogs. If a person chooses to commit a crime, then it should be the victim that is taken care of first. I dont want to know why this person is in my house I would just like to go through every measure in order to make sure I do not get hurt because some douche wants my plasma or something else incredibly expensive that i will innevitably have when I am older. I should not have to think of all these different things I could do to make sure I keep this criminal alive. Someone said something about blinding him with a spotlight and using a tazer on him or something....well 007 you can try what you want but I would prefer not to come close to a man who has broken into my house and endangered my life. I would have no second thought about shooting him in the face. It is the risk the criminal is taking coming into your home. If he breaks this law you are within your own right to use deadly force, I work for the police department and I have asked them this question. The police officer also said that you should take all means possible to protect yourself. So you guys can all act like kevin from home alone and set up your littly traps for joe pesci and daniel stern, but if any of you come into my house, i dont care if my sister invited you and she forgot to tell me, you better be wearing a vest because i will literally shoot you in the face.

At 12:57 AM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

and yes i am aware the vest wouldnt help you if i shot you in the face, but i think i made my point

At 7:57 AM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

Crossing gaurd, it must be nice to live in a world that is so simple. I hope you try to shoot someone, so that you will be put in jail with the other warped criminal minds. If you can't draw a distinction between protecting yourself from a real vs. a perceived threat, you belong in tight lockdown. Your extreme position is not defendable by any legal statute in the entire country. You are flattering your oversimplified worldview to even describe it as having a point, much less that you supported anything with your tirade.

At 9:18 AM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

it is completely legal to use deadly force to protect yourself if someone breaks into your home what do you want me to say. No interpretation necessary.

At 10:50 AM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

Actually crossing guard, I want you to justify that with some evidence, your "shooting in the face" mentality is called premeditated murder. In many states the mere existence of a head wound will justify this elevated charge. In the rest of the states you are likely to be prosecuted with manslaughter. You DO NOT have the right to shoot an intruder in your home, you do however have the right to protect your life, but only after it is threatened (home invasion is not enough). Your statements above are admissible in a court of law to build this prosecution, and if you act on your stated intentions to shoot unarmed intruders in your home, I hope that they use this reckless bravado to press for the ultimate penalty, your thoughts are categorically criminal.
You clearly know nothing about the issue, and need to go back to watching TV, that is a pursuit that is more worthy of your skills.

Anyhow, I agree with Tori principally. The equalizer aspect of guns are what make them such an important right. The problem is that reason is a much more effective tool to provide justice. The demands of society and law are so constructed to ask several questions of a person who has fired at another person. No one would fault you for returning fire. No one would fault a single woman in a house from firing on an attacker who came at her with pronounced intention for violence. The existence of burglary however, as a separate crime, indicates the different nature of the action. This is intrusion into a home, with no intention for violence; the use of a weapon creates a different category of robbery. To take the life of an unarmed burglar is not a suitable punishment for the crime. I am sympathetic with the anecdotal pains of feeling violated in this way, and feeling helpless, but we do not live in a society where burglary is a capital offense, for anyone to presume to elevate that particular crime to such a level is to undo the careful construction of a legal and moral society. Announcing your presence and your intention to use force to an intruder is to recognize that you are not an executioner and submit to the justice system and forensic processes in this country. Any subversion to this principle undermines society.

At 11:01 AM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

Another point crossing gaurd, if you continue to have any dillusion that police officers and lawyers are the same, in terms of interpreting the law, you need look no further than the difference in what they are paid for legal advice. I am not aware of any precedent that would make you confident in seeking legal advice from an police officer:

"I work for the police department and I have asked them this question. The police officer also said that you should take all means possible to protect yourself."

Oh yeah? Well my momma said you are wrong...

At 11:51 AM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

"unarmed robber" is a relative term, after reading your entry I went and flat out asked my relieving police officer and she said.."you should not have to guess if the intruder is armed, if in any way you feel threatened you should do whatever you can to protect yourself"..if someone comes in my house, I am threatened. What happens that one time the person at home has a gun, uses it as leverage for the criminal to leave by announcing himself, and he gets shot...even you would be saying at that point "damn, that poor guy should have shot him". Do what you like but I refuse to be a cautionary tale....Also, if someone actually stands up for themselves they can make an example out of the criminal and that might actually differ other criminals from choosing that occupation. If they know people will shoot on sight maybe they will be far less willing to risk their lives invading a home...or if your a social darwinist, we just might argue that it is survival of the fittest and in the long run I am making it safer for the see, the criminal that cannot dodge bullets will not live to have criminal children of his own, and then only the strong criminals will survive to years down the road the criminals will be evolved enough where they wont even need to worry about being shot. So everyone wins, i protect myself for now, and the dead criminal did his part to help out his colleagues down the road. I hope you appreciate the sarcasm of this tale and find it as laughable as I do your entire point of view.

At 11:53 AM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

And dont patronize me and attack my intelligence tool, you dont even know me

At 12:43 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

"tool" what grade are you in?

Again you assert an opinion of the legal scholar "police officer." I take it you missed the point that this dosen't lend credit to your case.

You have given evidence of your intellectual abilities, and frankly I wouldn't trust you to open a jar of peanut butter.

At 3:21 PM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

Wow a jar of peanut butter, your witt is fantsastic. And yes you are the definition of a tool. You are annoying, repetetive, smug, and obviously a closet case homosexual. I am a premed student at Indiana University with straight A's presently so I don't think my intelligence is in question. And as for you, I hope the time comes when you are put into this situation and after you use ur silent alarm, blow your whistle, blind him with a phosphorus explosion, and taser him we can see how much you stick to your non-lethal opinions when your home invader you are trying so hard to protect is standing over you. Have fun with that, if you need me I'll be the safe one in my house holding my 45...good luck with the boys tool, good news, canada just legalized gay marriage....looks like you got a road trip ahead of you...hahaha god you are such my little bitch that it is pathetic...o yah, and you mentioned your mom earlier, send her over so I could show her my best gun.

At 5:24 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

CG - chatting with you is about as productive as body painting with ketchup.

You have not addressed any of the points I brought up, and by doing so fail to keep the conversation at a level worth my time. You try to suggest some level of authority, good luck there. If you are in fact a med student, I hope you don't have to take an ethics class. My secondary concern is that the state of medical school applications has fallen much lower than I ever imagined.

At 6:21 PM , Blogger crossingguard69 said...

Body painting with ketchup? hahaha... no use arguing because you wont change my opinion on self defense and I cant change your opinion on you being a pussy. When I do become a doctor you can call me and I'll write you a prescription for 2 testicles...until then have fun blogging and I hope the whole non violent thing works out well for you and your boyfriend...later dude...and by the way, just because I can flip you shit without having to throw around big words to compensate for having a small penis doesn't mean I'm unintelligent, look at it this way...i have a 27 yr old all worked up and taking time to banter with a college student over a stupid debate that holds no bearing on whether or not we disagree because I will never see you in person (I dont go to Bette concerts). Take care tool and enjoy your obviously shitty life in St. Louis, or as it is affectionately referred to as "satan's asshole"..later you huge dork

"when you dance with the devil the devil doesnt change, he changes you"

At 6:33 PM , Blogger Tori said...

Alright, alright, kiddies. gloves off. Go to Anti-Liberali in the name-calling post.

At 7:37 PM , Blogger mthomas1776 said...

I am not sure that even makes sense? Sorry Tori for my part in attracting that kind of responce.

At 9:49 PM , Blogger Tori said...

crossing guard is my and ranting republican's younger brother. i didn't think i'd admit to him, but hey, we're family. i'll call him out when he's being nuts. he may come off as a cocky ass, and he is, but he's really smart and has a halfway decent head on his shoulders.

At 1:16 AM , Blogger The Anti-Liberali said...

Crossing Guard cracks me up!!!

And I am pretty sure it is legal in the great state of TEXAS to shoot someone for just being in your home!! kthanx!


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home