Colorado college student shot for trespassing
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190273
Printed Date: 03 November 2025 at 9:08am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Colorado college student shot for trespassing
Posted By: Mack
Subject: Colorado college student shot for trespassing
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 10:26am
|
Figured I would link http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/colorado-college-student-shot-while-trespassing-29473431.html" rel="nofollow - this . . . because we haven't had a good 2nd amendment/self-defense discussion in a while. My take. No sympathy for her for getting shot and I think she should be charged. Her attorney, who said that being shot was punishment enough, apparently has difficulty understanding the difference between natural and legal consequences. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 11:24am
Paying attention Choopie? No drunk shenanigans when you get to the States.
 I'm surprised that the home owners are not getting charged. And the student is, I would expect the opposite from Boulder. And oh, I would hit it. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 11:40am
Had that happened in NY, the homeowners would be in jail already, the student would have filed a massive lawsuit and won, and the anti-gun people would be rabid. ------------- ? |
impulse418 wrote:Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 11:49am
|
I'm pretty sure if a drunk, hot college girl wanders into my room a bullet is the least of her worries.
And meh on both accounts...homeowners probably shouldn't be charged, and I'd say the bullet is lesson enough to keep her from doing it again. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 1:52pm
|
^^^ I disagree. Why, because she got stupid and broke the law and has yet to suffer legal consequences. And, before anyone says "but she was drunk," let me add that she made the decision to drink . . . and everything that happened is a consequence of that decision. In other words, she brought this on herself. -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 2:45pm
|
She can plea to probation and let it be over. I'm sure there are better uses for Colorado prison beds. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 3:27pm
I've got a reminder written on my hand, lets hope it helps. I'm used to being able to be arrested, not shot. |
Posted By: sinisterNorth
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 3:50pm
|
You get what you get. ------------- Pumpker'd; (V.) When a pump player runs up and shoots you at point blank range because you thought 20bps made you good. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 5:26pm
This is a slippery slope to saying that the public can exact legal justice without due process as long as they possess the means. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 5:55pm
Actually, this is a good point. To say that she's been punished enough by being shot is saying that the dispensation of justice on the part of the general public is a-ok, which could set a precedent for....who knows what. As far as a 'she was drunk' defense might go, that should be worth absolutely nothing. You're responsible for the actions you commit when drinking. So, I think I agree with mack 100% on this one. Despite catching a bullet, there SHOULD be legal recourse taken. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 6:07pm
|
I am a bit surprised by this: "The district attorney says the couple who shot her won't face charges because the shooting falls under Colorado's "Make My Day" law, which allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders if they feel threatened." Not the fact that they're not being charged, but the fact it's called the "Make My Day" law. Seems kind of....crass? |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 26 May 2012 at 6:10pm
It's actually not an uncommon phrasing for the law. The weapons safety class I helped with today talked about our common laws NOT constituting a "make my day law," so I imagine it's not a terribly rare thing. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: sinisterNorth
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 10:18am
Just a nickname born in Colorado. The actual terminology is the Caste Doctrine, which basically states that a homeowner can use whatever means felt necessary to fend off a home invader. It's not a law per say.
------------- Pumpker'd; (V.) When a pump player runs up and shoots you at point blank range because you thought 20bps made you good. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:13am
|
I have a longer post typed up and copied, but the spam filter won't let it through. I'll search around for a bit after I post this, but I believe it was named that after expanding the castle doctrine laws in CO. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 3:33pm
| It's just another completely screwed up application of this country's sick love for vigilantism. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 3:47pm
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 3:54pm
Okay, that one I'm familiar with and I think makes much more sense/ sounds less like you cant wait to shoot someone in the face. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 5:30pm
So it's alright if someone breaks into your house? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 7:58pm
How is it vigilantism if you aren't actively seeking out the aggressor but warning them off loudly and repeatedly before shooting? ------------- 
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 8:30pm
I fixed your post ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 8:53pm
spot on. If someone was just wandering on the lawn or the yard (which i thought was the case prior to watching the video) it would be a different story. But someone coming at me in my home, my bedroom none the less when i scream at them to stop? You can bet your butt i'm going to do the exact same thing the home owner did. No reason they should be charged with anything. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 10:23pm
| Use of lethal force in this situation is not something I could ever condone. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 10:49pm
So, just hypothetically; someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, while your wife and kids are sleeping. You scream at them over and over, in the dark, to stop, etc. you wouldn't do anything? I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but nothing comes before the safety of my loved ones. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 10:51pm
Is your mentality seriously "do nothing, or kill them" and that there are no other option in between? It's not he's saying you should sit there and plug your ears and say "take my wife".... |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:07pm
I think you're watering down my position on the issue, at least as much as we may have generalized BB's. But, In the dark, at night? Absolutely. What else would you suggest? Tackling them? What if they have a gun or even just a knife? No thanks. I would be willing to bet that the majority of home intrusions that are ended by the homeowners having a gun are not violent. Rather, it's a bad guy finding out that the homeowner is prepared to defend life and family, and scampering. However, in situations like this, I think I'd do the same thing. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:08pm
|
Not saying it wasn't wrong to trespass, even though it was probably an accident, but I find it hard to believe she did anything to make the shooter fear for his life I mean come on...a giggling, falling down drunk college chick, "oh damn Cleetus, grab the Sig!" Plus a man that leaves his house so easy to walk in, yet stands near the door with a firearm? Huh? I would be thrilled if she showed up at my house like that.  Double edit: The video wouldn't play for me so I'm assuming she wondered in on accident. If she actually knowingly broke in than I void out every comment I made. ------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:42pm
|
If someone enters your house in the middle of the night and continues to approach you in your bedroom as you shout commands for them to stop, chances are they are not there with good intentions. Yes the homeowner should have had his door locked, but that does not grant people a free pass to enter his house without consent. This happens to be a horrible mistake. But, this mistake is the girl's fault for getting plastered and walking into a stranger's house in the middle of the night. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 12:02am
| To be clear, that is a false dichotomy. There are a wide range of actions between "nothing" and "shoot them." I value life much more than possessions, getting out of the house and calling the police would likely be my first response if they were unresponsive. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 8:05am
I can see it now: Homeowner: "Intruder, can you please halt your advance on my wife and I while I summon the police? If you agree to this, you may continue your assault upon us once I put the phone down." Intruder: "That sounds agreeable to me. Please let me know if the line is busy while you are trying to get through." Homeowner: "Deal." Homeowner: <picking up phone an dialing> "Yes, I'd like to report an intruder in my house. The intruder has agreed to stop their advance upon us while we call the police. Yes. Yes. OK. 10 minutes you say? Fine. Hopefully we'll be ok by the time the officers arrive. Thank you. <hanging up phone> "Intruder, you may proceed. Thank you for being patient. They should be here in 10 minutes or so." Intruder: "You are most welcome. I'll now continue my assault." Homeowner: "By all means, please continue." Intruder: "Thank you." <taking steps toward homeowners> Homeowner: <BANG> Intruder: <thud> -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 8:20am
|
It's really easy for us all to say what we would have done in that position, but without actually being there, I don't think anyone can really know if they would have acted differently. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 10:55am
Intentional or not, an "option in between" was taken. The intruder was wounded, not killed. Actually, it would be interesting to know where the homeowner was aiming; if the wounding was intentional, as in shoot the intruder in the leg to stop their advance, or if the shooter was just a bad shot. Generally in a situation like that it would be expected for the shooter to aim center of mass to minimize the chance of missing a potentially hostile target in the dark when they might only get one shot before ending up shot or stabbed. -------------
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 12:07pm
|
I cant view the video for some reason. But my question is how many of you guys sleep with a gun within arms reach? I'm assuming this had to be the case if she got in thier room and was approaching and the dude was able to get a shot/shots off. Dont they have to be locked up? Or every does every state have different rules? If I have to sleep with a gun beside me, im sure as all heck LOCKING my doors.... |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 1:55pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:38pm
|
I sleep with a fully loaded GLOCK on my night stand. Not only is it equipped with a light but I also have a 500+ lumen hand held, just to make sure I can illuminate my target for proper id. All my doors are locked, all opening windows have bars. My garden wall is 6ft spike topped and my garden has IR beams in it. All road access doors also have a security gate. I turn my alarm on when I sleep. I had someone trying to Bible bash the other day, their opening gambit was you have a lot of security so must live in fear, wouldn't it be nice to place your trust in someone who can take your fear away? I don't live in fear because of my security, rather I DON'T fear because I prepare. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:42pm
|
Yea, it was just a question. I thought a general rule was to have weapons locked up at all times when not in use or being worn. I know that's a big thing here, having them properly locked up in a safe area out of reach of children and all that. Guess not so much in certain states. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:45pm
|
To those who think guns are the only solution, somehow nearly every other country seems to manage without/ with far far far less. Also, they should lock their doors, idiots. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 3:03pm
|
^^^ Yes, they should lock their doors because drunks and thieves have the right to walk into other people's homes if the doors aren't locked. I would say, in regards to the wounded student, she should have used better judgement. And no one has said guns are the only solution. But they are a very handy option when faced with a threat. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 5:32pm
|
I'm all for less than lethal options. I carry pepper spray at all times. Whether it be a dog, or someone who is a threat, but not warranted to take a hollow point. If the pepper spray fails, then I will do whatever is needed to protect my safety. The last thing I want to do is go hands on, with anyone. In a home, it's a little harder. Due to the confined space, I would be concerned of using pepper spray. Because of the possible accidental exposure. (OC is no fun) I hope I am never put in that position. 1. The legal ramifications whether it be criminal or civil. 2. The mere fact of taking another persons life, does not sound pleasing. But, if I am fear for my life, I will do whatever I need to do. Which these homeowners decided themselves. It's easy to play armchair quarterback, but being awoke in the early morning, who knows what each of us would have done. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 5:37pm
Implying that drunk people have a sweet clue where they are in the world and have any judgment at all? Come on. I'm going to have to agree with choopie on this one. Guns are not a "less-lethal" option when it comes to home defense. If you aim your gun at somebody you are fully responsible as to whether they live or die. It was probably luck that the homeowner didn't kill her. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 5:45pm
| For those who would choose a less than lethal option. Other than calling the police, what would you choose? |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 5:52pm
|
There was a kid in the Milwaukee area that was running from the cops from an underage drinking party. He went into someone's house/front porch. The homeowner came out and shot and killed the kid. I haven't been keeping up with the story, but I know a lot of people want the guy prosecuted which I think is ridiculous. also:
louisville slugger. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 6:07pm
 ------------- |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 6:36pm
Pretty sure if you hit someone hard enough with a bat, you will kill them. This doesn't sounds less than lethal. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 8:34pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 8:36pm
Sorry for double post but the quotes were getting confusing.
I would be really embarrassed to confront an intruder in the middle of the night in my home and discover I had brought a bat to a gunfight. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 9:06pm
Better hope the intruder is one rung lower on the ladder of force than you are. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 9:46pm
You are legally responsible for your actions when you're drunk, even if you're blackout drunk. Doesn't matter what you do, you're responsible.
Who said that? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 9:56pm
I find so many issues with this logic. It reminds me of all the armchair lawyers in the Trayvon Martin case.
A:) Drunk people and logic. When you get yourself drunk beyond the ability to make judgement calls the world doesn't become your babysitter. If you're drunk and step into a bear trap the trap doesn't magically take compassion on the fact that you're drunk and refuse to close. If you get busted for a DWI the cop's not gonna go "well shucks, she didn't know what she was doing" because you CHOSE to impair your own judgement. She was responsible for her own actions and she put someone into a position to make a decision that I'd bet good money they didn't want to be making that night. As far as I know from the details of this story she's 100% at fault.
B:) The assumption that, because we know she was unarmed, the homeowner knew she was unarmed. Ever been walked in on in your own home by a total stranger? I have. It's incredibly unnerving and a complete shock to your system. Anyone walking into your home has the upper hand already. I highly doubt the homeowner looked at her and instantly knew she was an unarmed college student "innocently" wandering around drunk. It's foolish to just assume that someone is unarmed and endanger yourself / your family by making that assumption.
C:)Less than lethal force on home intruders. That's cute. So you take your own life into your hands and assume that someone daring enough to walk into another person's home did so with absolutely no weapons or way to assure superiority?
Here's a thought-not everybody is Chuck Norris. Let's say you do engage a person in your home-what's the guarante you'll win? You could just get your arse beat in, incur lots of lovely medical bills (or die) and still lose half your crap. I appreciate the goodwill out there, but I'm not willing to take the risk. I don't fight, have no care to fight, and hopefully will never be in a fight. Less than lethal force works on the assumption that the person you're taking down is employing less than lethal force. But you grab your baseball bat and run at a dude with a gun, or even a dude that was prepared for your baseball bat, and you just made a bad situation that much worse.
I don't understand going over the list of "well he/she could have done this, this or this" in every shooting that ever happens. Sometimes harming another human is avoidable and that's fine. But situations like this are a combination of poor choices and a certain level of sense-numbing shock that you can't subject to planning or strategy-it was an unfortunate decision on this woman's part, and drunk or not, she was the one who could have ultimately prevented it. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 28 May 2012 at 11:48pm
|
I can't watch the video, so bear with me. Generally, there are three types of people that break into homes unless you have someone trying to kill you because you saw something you shouldn't have (cue DirectTV commercial). 1. Professional thieves. They wont bother you while you are home, since they have been stalking your house for a week. 2. Unprofessional thieves. People that will break into your house, steal the obvious easily accessible jewelry, Xbox, tv, etc. Likely not to attack you, but I would still hold them at gunpoint while the Police enjoy taking their time to my house. 3. Tweekers. People that will steal your crap to pawn for their next fix. These are the people that will attack you since their dependency practically leaves them feral. If someone was casually wandering through my house unresponsive at 3AM, I would assume it was number three. Sure, I will tell myself I would hold them at gunpoint(and I would be quite jumpy, since if I turn my back I am probably dead), but you never know. People make mistakes and bad judgement. A drunk girl going for her cellphone could easily look like a meth head going for a knife at 3AM in lowlight in your hallway. Also, for those of you suggesting that guns aren't necessary for home defense... you're abseloutely right. However, swinging a bat indoors isn't the easiest thing to do in small spaces, and I sure do not want to be in a knife fight. Id rather not swing a Louisville Slugger in my hallway, miss, embed the thing in drywall, and get stabbed with a crappy $10 knife. Plus, even in Countries where firearms ownership is strongly regulated, criminals still have guns. Criminals will always have guns. I wouldn't want to bring a bat, knife, axe, nunchuck, or OC to a gunfight. ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:08am
|
Remember during the London riots, bats purchased on Amazon rose 5,000%. I laughed. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 2:21am
|
M70 batton rounds out of a shotgun. My guns are locked up. The one on the nightstand is "in use". It is secured is a lock box that is easy to open, but it requires more strength than a baby can exert. I'm a firm believer in securing firearms. The less than lethal I use is the 500 lumens and a command voice. inside a house at close quaters is nowhere to mess around with less than lethal weapons. If lethal force isn't required more than likely no weapon will be required. If lethal force is you don't want to have the wrong took in your hand. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 3:48am
| How's a golf club? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 9:54am
|
^^^ Same problem as a bat; need room to use it and a lot slower than the gun/knife an intruder could have. Also significantly less range than a firearm.
-------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 10:08am
|
Sucks to be her. Home owner did the right thing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 10:12am
| Sheesh, I go 3 days without the intrawebz and miss out on one of the best discussions we've had in a long time. Thanks Comcast..... ugh! |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 10:27am
The last thing anyone wants to do is tangle with an unknown assailant in a small poorly lit area with a bat or a club. You could be the one bringing the knife to a gun fight in your own home. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 10:56am
|
I honestly can't see how anyone can argue that the homeowners werent anything but 100% correct in their actions on this one. For an experiment for anyone questioning their actions, have someone wake you up at 3am out of a dead sleep in a pitch black house and see how long it takes you to determine someones demeanor and/or intentions. As a parent, I have been startled awake a few times by one of my kids standing next to my bed staring at me like the girl from "The Ring". My wife screamed so loud once it woke up the whole house. There are some whacked out people out there and you have to assume that anyone in your house at 3 am without your consent is there with less than good intentions. In this situation, the homeowners had to make a very fast decision and they chose the safety of themselves over that of an unknown intruder. Its unfortunate that this intruder ended up being a cute drunk college kid, but crap happens.
Honestly, for me this raises some further questions. How did she get to this house? Did she drive? Did friends drop her off? Is this place close enough to wherever the girl was drinking that she walked? At 3X the legal limit, it sounds like she was freaking blasted. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:16am
|
I would hope that they'll change the laws. Making it your responsibility to lock your doors up if you have weapons in the house under no lock. This was not a break in or her climbing through a window. It was a mistake on her part entering the wrong home.(for all I know it was townhouses and they all look 100% the same) I agree, she deserves to die or be seriously injured because of it, cause heck, that's just what she deserves. But I think home owners who choose to protect their home should rely on more than just the gun. How about the lock on the outside doors at nighttime. Cause in this case, it was only when a drunk girl was in the room did he wake up. If it was an actual robbery he'd probably never heard them. Quite possibly supplying robbers with more guns that aren't in the bedroom.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:22am
|
So homeowners should carry legal liability for break ins? Sounds legit. I think that Mack may have had a point about not downplaying the importance of her legal responsibility-despite the fact she was drunk and harmless she committed a crime. Wandering into soneone's house is illegal whether the door was locked or not. Being forced to keep your door locked to protect criminals is silly. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:23am
|
We live a small town and I'll bet a fair number of people around here have one of more doors unlocked at any given time. Heck, my sister in law never locks the back door of her house. Some people just started locking their car doors because we had a family of meth heads who kept breaking into cars and stealing crap out of them. Saying that the responsibility was upon the homeowners to lock their doors is preposteorous. The responsibility was on the college kid to not drink herself blotto and stumble into someones house at 3am, or the responsibility was on her friends to look after her when they saw she was stinking drunk. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:24am
|
It's easy for people to second guess the homeowners after they see a picture of a cute blonde girl on the news report. A no responsive person walking through your home at three in the morning is a whole different story. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:28am
Here in NY, a criminal who injures themselves in your home while committing a crime can sue you. This happened to my sister in law, A guy attempted to break in her home via sky light, fell through, broke his leg on the coffee table and was taken into custody by the police. The guy sued here for $30K in damages and won.  ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:38am
I can't even imagine how irritated I would be paying someone who tried to break in to my house. Makes me glad I don't live in NY. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:46am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 11:50am
The reason he won was this....she did not have a "No Trespassing" sign clearly displayed. After she told me that and then showed me the court papers, I went out and bought 12 from HomeDepot and made damn sure they are clearly displayed and in English and Spanish. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:03pm
Now it'll be a Frenchman who breaks into your house. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:07pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:09pm
* Stupid Spam filter wont let me use the fancy word for someone who can't read or write. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:16pm
|
Home owners who choose to carry should make their homes more secure. I don't see what's wrong with this. I also don't get how someone feels the need to have a loaded gun beside their bed, and not a locked door... That's real backwards to me.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:27pm
|
I can't see how someone would think it more important that a law-abiding home-owner be forced to lock their home than a drunk trespasser be charged for violating the law. That's real backwards to me. And the thing Ceesman posted . . . just wow. Edit: When did society quit holding people responsible for the consequences of their own, sometimes illegal, actions? -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:29pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:29pm
Yep....here is another good thing to know about NY, never ever put up a sign that says "Beware of Dog" because that implies you know that your dog is dangerous. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:46pm
What more proof do we need that lawyers are the spawn of Satan and should be treated as zombies and erradicated? Maybe it's time to play "cowboys and lawyers." ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:52pm
How did my door get jarred open? And where did all my baguettes go?
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 1:23pm
The term you are looking for is "less lethal", not "less than lethal". -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 1:29pm
|
I agree that people wanting to protect themselves should probably bar their doors, just on principal. But like I said I've got bars and gates on all my OPENING windows. I also have bars on the picture windows street side. I do not have them on the picture windows on the behind the fence sides. People can get in if they want. Should this now make me liable for someone breaking in? NO. We've got some messed up laws in South Africa, my personal bugbear is the "charge the driver with murder if a pedestrian is killed" even if the pedestrian is on a road which prohibits pedestrians (all our 100kph+ highways), is not crossing at a proscribed crossing (like under a pedestrian bridge) or is stone assed drunk. It's the driver's fault. HUH? This case is a perfect representation of those "silly" rulings that get people paid for their own stupidity. Like Ceeseman said happens in NY. IMHO if you are doing something illegal it should preclude all the other events. I'm not saying you should be allowed to shoot drunk people, but unknowns in your house at 3 AM? In your BEDROOM? If they are a perceived threat then yeah. Ther perp was drunk. This was her decision. All the other events resulted from this. She was then trespassing. Willingly or not it was what she did. Her argument of "I was drunk" doesn't hold up for, say, a guy accused of date rape. Why should it work better here? The home owner defended themselves from a perceived threat. This is again stemming from the fact this chick was drunk. If she wasn't drunk she might not have trespassed. If she wasn't trespassing she wouldn't have been shot. Does getting shot suck? Yes. Yes it does. A lot. That being said something like 90% of non-self inflicted handgun shootings are surviveable. Does getting shot mean she didn't break at least one law? (I do not know the laws about public drunkeness in that area) No. She should be cooling her heels in JAIL, recouperating from a gunshot wound. Why? Because no matter what she broke the law. And now she and her friends and most people who followed the story, would know getting ass drunk and trespassing will lead to jail time. So fewer people will make the decision to get rat assed and fewer drunk people will be trespassing. A win. Fewer drunk people means less drunken sex, fewer drunked conceptions, fewer possible date rape scenarions, fewer drunk-driving incidents and fewer deaths from alcohol related issues in general. The gunowner locking his door will have a VERY minor impact on future events...... KBK PS - silly rules. My Crimson Trace Lasergrip has a warning lable on it that must be atached to the weapon which points out the laser aperture and warns against possible eye damage. Lols. the 230 grain JHP is just for kicks. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 1:40pm
 -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 7:35pm
|
For people who think that disorientated people in your house at 3AM pose no threat, I'll do a little cross forum posting. http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190276&title=its-here-people" rel="nofollow - Its here people Oh, that was across THIS forum? Oh well. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 7:43pm
But he was unarmed! ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 7:56pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 9:20pm
What's wrong than the term "Less than lethal"? ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 9:39pm
"Less than lethal" would refer to something that does not/can not kill. "Less lethal" alternatives are dangerous weapons(Bats, tasers, etc), that while they may not be intended for lethality, can inflict lethal injuries with one use. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 29 May 2012 at 10:49pm
Define "one use." If you were to start hitting someone with a bat would it be one use after you stopped or would each strike count as a separate use? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 30 May 2012 at 1:54am
I think if you stopped to rest before you started beating them again, that would count as two uses. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 30 May 2012 at 5:52am
|
Each strike would count. You'd have to be able to motivate each and every blow. Was it still necessary to stop the attack? KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 30 May 2012 at 7:52am
The officers did say that the guy was growling while he was consuming the homeless dude's face. Barking couldn't have been that far behind... -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 30 May 2012 at 4:51pm
"Less than lethal" implies that it will never kill someone, which pretty much leaves only a light poke in the arm. "Less lethal" is something that is designed to stop someone with little risk of death. An example of "less lethal" would be a TASER, or pepper spray. While these are designed to not kill people, there may be extinuating circumstances, like a heart condition or asthma, that can cause these things to be fatal. -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 2:35pm
|
We always looked at it backwards than your view point. Less Lethal pretty much doesn't exist, and Less than Lethal covers everything from OC spray to bean bag shotguns. The term Less than Lethal implies that it is designed to not be lethal (sometimes crap happens and it is lethal, but that is not the intent). Less Lethal would imply that it is Lethal just not as lethal i.e. shooting someone in the foot to stop them is less lethal than shooting the chest. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 2:55pm
Yeah, well you're wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:02pm
|
I'm guessing the definition changes in different regions. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:04pm
Maybe colloquially. The legal description is less lethal. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:13pm
|
^^^ You have to admit deadeye makes a valid point though. A 44 Magnum is significantly less lethal than a LAW but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want to be shot in the head with either one.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:47pm
|
Actually "less lethal" sounds sort of like an idionym. Either something is lethal or its not. How are you "less dead"? I know terminology doesnt always make sense, but less than lethal sounds more correct. And I know Wiki is not the end all, but:
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:54pm
|
If TASERs are "less than lethal" then how do you explain the handful of fatalities attributed to them? -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:56pm
|
^^^ I don't. Was just pointing out that there does seem to be more than one correct term according to Wiki. In fact, if you read through the entry, Wiki seems to prefer "non-lethal" over any other. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:58pm
Denial on the part of the manufacturer. They STILL claim zero fatalities. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 4:09pm
Doesn't "lethal" just mean it CAN kill you? not, it WILL kill you? If so, "less than lethal" seems even stranger. What would it apply to? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 4:33pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 4:47pm
|
I don't see how using a term that means it won't kill to describe something that can kill is "viable." -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 4:53pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |