'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

Is someone in your house in the middle of the night just a thief?

 

You mean 100% of the time? 75%, 50%, 25%, 5% of the time?

 

No, many times a thief also decides to Rape or harm others present in the home or runs into someone getting a drink or snack.

It is not simply about material possessions as resident communists might think.

 

How can you know ???
You can't.

 

You train your family to drop to the floor by code word. Then if the situation happens you shoot several times until there is quiet. You ask questions later. You don't get carried by six. You and your family are waaay more important than the stranger in your house. In fact, they don't count at all.

 

You can never know the true intentions of a home invader.

Too many children disapear in the middle of the night or are murdered.

It is not about silly toasters or stupid televisions
(Obsolete) or other replaceable items.

I am surprised no mention was made of a theif trying to steal the last roll of TP !

 

When would you give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

None of which even begins to answer the question being presented.

For what purpose? Why should the life of the individual who has made the conscious decision to victimize someone else for their own benefit, be regarded as having any importance in the equation?

 

They understood the difference; just didn't know how far things would go in terms of the destructive power possible. That doesn't change the fact they still believed people should be equipped to match the average soldier.

I'm saying we should have had an honest debate about it in this country; not allowed the government to pull an end run around our Constitutional rights.

 

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.

So it does appear, based on statistics, that majority of time it is about material possessions.

 

You realize the 5th amendment doesn't apply to private citizens acting in self defense...... right? They're not a court of law they don't owe notice and the right to be heard ffs.

 

"'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'"

it's not normally, sometimes cops step in front of the car to stop them, at that point their life is in danger and then they can shoot, I would assume the same rules apply to civilians

if your not in danger, reach for your phone and take a picture, give it to the cops, call 911

losing your car is better then losing your freedom, that is why you have insurance

"The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest."

if he drove towards him, he was justified, if he was backing up then he was not, shooting him through the drivers side window makes me think not, but if he had to jump out of the way, then shot, maybe

 

Its his word against the thief. At lease he has not stolen any more cars!

 

How many times does someone have to be murdered in what is supposed to be a property crime, for it to be an issue in need of being addressed?

 

someone running down the street with your toaster oven is not a threat.

 

What in bloody hell are you going on about?

 

Stats. Or most likely your opinion.

 

If they are leaving with a tv, it's obvious.

 

I can't murder. How about you?

 

Because, they are hungry.

 

I agree. So where is your line in the sand?
Start the debate.

 

Folks around here steal because they're junkies.

 

How is such known by the victim until long after the fact? Explain such.

 

It is a simple question. How many victims have to be murdered in incidents that appear to be property-related crimes, before it can no longer be dismissed as being based solely on property?

 

Hungry for what precisely, that justifies their actions? What about whatever hunger is experienced by the victim of the criminal act, does that simply not count?