[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn You seem to me, to be saying we should further restrict the right to protect life and property, instead of addressing the source of the problem, the people breaking the law by trespassing.

Well you interpreted wrong. I'm saying that we shouldn't be able to legally kill people for inconveniencing another.

When I own property, I shouldn't have to "expect" my property limits to be broken. If I see someone in my yard, at dark, the first question that should come up is "why is someone in my yard without my permission?" The second is to assess the situation and see if a threat exists.

If you own property you shouldn't simply shoot anything that comes on it.

If I were to walk up on this "suspect" of criminal trespass, and they do something quickly that I feel places me in danger (mainly because its dark and like most people, have trouble seeing in the dark unless my eyes are fully adjusted), things could get ugly.

Then why do you need a new law that says you can shoot them simply for being there? Why not follow old self defense precedent?

Instead of allowing situations like this to be "routine" we should be teaching people how important respect of property rights is.

We should teach people to respect property rights and we also should not have laws that make it legal for one to shoot another over the mundane.

It may be, but why should people be further put at risk by limiting innocent people (property owners) for taking a just action? Why not start an educational campaign on the "importance of respecting property rights"?

You have yet to explain why people are put at risk by not having a law vaguely state that they can essentially shoot anyone that comes onto their property. If they are entering a residence that's one thing, but just because a person steps foot on your land does not in any way shape or form indicate or presuppose violent nor malicious intent.

You know 9 times out of 10, a person wouldn't be shot for TP'ing a tree in someones yard... but it is NOT the property owner who should be obligated to justify every action he takes, when the law is quite clear... NO TRESPASSING.

I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one, we don't execute people for petty crimes. The fact that you're arguing that even if someone gets legally killed over tp'ing someones house 1 time out of 10 is alright is just completely reprehensible. The fact that this law allows for that 1 time out of 10 and makes it codified as legal means that the law should be rewritten.

You also know in many situations things don't appear as they are, especially if you are walking into a group of people, who are already breaking the law, on your land, and they don't see you coming up on them. You don't know what to expect when you challenge them to identify themselves and state their reasons for being on your property, and you don't know if theyll react by shooting at you, or simply saying "hi mr, I have a flat, can I borrow a 4-way?"

So apparently your answer is to shoot the person for good measure. What utter bs.

You know as well as I do, people sometimes do stupid things, and in cases where a law has already been broken, we should give benefit of the doubt to the property owner.

Why? In this hypothetical that is allowed for under this law they irrationally discharged their firearm into a child because they didn't determine there was a threat. So either they acted criminally reckless at best for any other state in the nation or they executed someone for a petty crime. Your choice.

Firstly, its a law about self-defense, its not a law explaining how to legally kill someone.

BS. It's extended to using lethal force against those committing criminal mischief, IE vandalism. If someone vandalizes your property, you are not in any danger. There is nothing to defend the self, you as the individual, from.

Secondly, because you think we should change the law, again, putting more restriction on the person who may be in serious threat to his life.

Once more, and I'll bold it for you this time. HOW IS SOMEONE WHO VANDALIZES YOUR PROPERTY A SERIOUS THREAT TO YOUR LIFE.

We should not be protecting law breakers, at the expense of innocent people. If a person is trespassing, that is a serious issue that can end up in serious results, and that should be known when trespassing. Do you think people coming across the border from mexico into the U.S. worry about being shot? I wonder why?

I'm glad the threat of illegals warrants us making killing legal for petty crimes. What nonsense.

You expect people to respect government "no trespassing signs" with reverance, yet can't observe the same thing for private individuals, and it just doesn't jive with me. Defense is defense, and the benefit of the doubt has to be with the property owner.

Where do you get off saying I personally don't respect private property?

I do think it is over-reaction to shoot someone "for trespassing".

I'm glad you think this is an overreaction. Now explain why it's codified in law as perfectly ok.

I can see how it could easily happen though if the situation isn't crystal clear, especially if there are multiple trespassers, and something could be interpreted as threatening.

The fact of the matter is that if a situation isn't clear you shouldn't be discharging a firearm, PERIOD.

Haha... not funny. What if I am coming out of a brightly lit house, into a dark yard taking my trash out, notice people next to me who don't see me, and just as I recognize the shape I see them throw something that looks like a brick, or drawing a gun, or pulling a knife?

So how isn't this covered under law anywhere else? If you interpret yourself to be in danger because someone's actions are reasonably threating, why do you need a new law saying that you can shoot someone even when their actions are not?

Obviously if it was identified as TP there wouldn't be an issue besides saying "GET OFF MY LAND".

Great, so explain why you need a law saying that it's ok for your first response to be with a bullet even after discovering that it is TP.

Obviously you are just trying to insult peoples intelligence and act as if accidents don't happen, while slipping in a few coy insults. Childish.

No, I'm getting pissed off that you're trying to skate around the issue and defend a law that makes the "accidents" of reckless people (or potentially people who just have a vendetta) perfectly lawful.

No kidding?!? Isn't this obvious? Try wandering your ass on to a nuclear power plant property, and see what happens. Why? Because they don't know what your intentions are, what you have on you, if you're armed, etc.

But you know what? They won't shoot you. You'll be arrested.

Why should private property be any different if there is reason to believe the property owner felt a reasonable threat? Do you deny this could happen?

Indeed, why should it be different? See above.

How have I said anything like this.... you are reaching, and as usual, running with an example you didn't even think through.

No, I'm giving an example that is allowed for under this law as further evidence as to why it should be rephrased.

Did I say I would?!? No. The fact is, accidents happen, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the property owner.

Accidents and issues that are less so, should not be made legal. Particularly when the result is death.

If you need a law to protect you should you use a firearm irresponsibly, you don't deserve a firearm. That simple.