[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: So you think that's just? Two wrongs make a right?

No! I think if there IS a benefit of the doubt, it should be tilted toward the property owner who is ALREADY a victim of one crime by the same said perpetrator.

I have a right to feel somewhat threatened just by the FACT that someone trespassed on my land without my permission, my knowledge or my knowing of their intent. I addressing the FACT that the property owner is ALREADY a victim of one crime, if this act happens on their property.

Chaoss said: At least outside of Texas, it's not legal to just simply shoot them for engaging in criminal mischief.

I would tend to agree, though I don't know specificly. I know "castle laws" are being passed in a lot of states right now, even here in Ohio.

I don't advocate shooting someone for anything other than perceived defense, with a damn good ability to produce justification for feeling threatened.

Chaos said: If someone presents a lie to get out of punishment and a jury believes it, it doesn't matter if its a cop or soccor mom.

I agree, and I have no idea what this has to do with me, as I have not said anything about lying.

Chaos said: This still isn't justification that we should make their actions legal since they're going to get out of it anyway as you implied.

Again, I am saying if there is benefit of the doubt, it SHOULD go to the victim, and the property OWNER is the victim if this happens on his property.

Chaos said: Cops put you in fear for your life by ticketing you for jaywalking? Common... Osborn we were discussing escalation as an apparent false characterization of the use of force. Keith was trying to attribute someone being executed for Jaywalking.

I know, I was reading along from the beginning.

The point is, there is a HUGE issue of distrust between government and many people right now, and oft times the policeman is the person between the government, and the people. I think Keith was on point in the points he made, and I agreed.

Police today, in general I believe, use force far to casually and without due regard of citizens rights far to often.

I have dealt with police many times, and far more often than not, there is a lack of respect from the officer regardless of my "reception" of them.

Are all cops bad? No, but in MY experience, more often than not, they have a hard-on for authority and a disrespect towards "civillians", to use their term.

Chaoss said: If it's elitist to not want to give protection under the law to people who in the minority of gun owners actually want to shoot people over criminal mischief, than I'm an elitist. That's not my definition of elitism though.

Nor mine, which explains my confusion of why you are attributing it to me.

Chaoss said: And I agree with that point. I just don't think you have the right to execute him for simply being there.

Nor do I.

I said the person who is ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW had better not make any threatening movements, or he could be the product of my reactionary defense, due to the fact they already put pressure on me by being on private land when it is not their right to be there.

What obligation do I have to assume they AREN'T there to cause me harm?

Chaoss said: No they don't threaten lethal force for criminal mischief, sorry.

They do if the suspect does not comply, and or resists or makes a "reasonably threatening" action to justify the use of force.

Its a matter of elevation, as was being discussed.

Chaoss said: If someone decides to do something stupid after the police have made contact that's a completely different offense unrelated to the initial one.

That decision will be based on whether or not the person in question believes justice can come from trusting or complying with police.

The same can be said when a trespasser comes across an armed property owner.

Chaoss said: Presupposing that someone committing criminal mischief is immediately going to jump into a violent act is completely 100% asinine.

Much like expecting all people to comply peacefully with police 100% of the time is completely assinine, which of course, could result in a shooting for something that started out over a jaywalking incident.

Chaoss said: In terms of the use of lethal force everyone should be on equal ground if no action has been taken to indicate the intent to harm an individual or those around them. Once more, criminal mischief does not imply intent to harm PERIOD.

It does not, but, being a property owner, I am much more leery and acute to threatening actions by a trespasser than a "law abiding citizen", or a "rights respecting citizen", so I again repeat, if it is a situation where doubt exists as to who is telling the truth in a jury trial, if I am on that jury, the benefit of the doubt would go to the property owner unless SUBSTANTIAL evidence to the contrary exists.

The fact is, criminal mischief is indicative of a lack of respect of rights, so if they don't respect my property rights, why would I think they would respect my right to life?