• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Verbal warning or silent strike?

Sounds really tough in Canada. Guess if I was going to choose a life of crime I would go to Canada.
I agree with not wasting tax payers money on trying to fix criminals like that.
 
It's tough, however a lot of the gun violence is gang related so its usually saved for the criminals. I would say I live in a much safer place that most people. However Where I live was just deemed for the 3rd year in a row as the city with the highest crime rate per capita in Canada. There are areas with a lot of low income housing (ghetto/hood/etc...) and yes there are more incidents in those areas, but outside of those areas would be considered relatively safe suburban areas. I have more touble with wildlife than people.
 
Yeah? the gang bears and crack deer givin ya trouble? :lol: :lol:
 
The black bears are a real neusance, but a good swat with a hockey stick and they take off. They are pretty timid animals, i usually just yell and run towards them and they take off. Its their poop that bothers me most as well as their fat asses break my damn fence.
 
Your post is right on BCGuy. Our laws are way too lax and the good guys often finish far behind the criminals. We are caught in a system that insists on a fair trial and equal treatment for all...even if you are scumbag. I, like you take issue with the light sentences and country clubs we call prisons. What a waste of money.
 
I am a firm believer in the punishment should fit the crime. However on a 2nd offense, or even 3rd, it should get worse. The lack of true "punishment" nowadays is what causes the 2nd, 3rd, etc offenses. The extent or repetitive nature of the crime should dictate the severity of the punishment.
 
Archametes said:
I am a firm believer in the punishment should fit the crime. However on a 2nd offense, or even 3rd, it should get worse. The lack of true "punishment" nowadays is what causes the 2nd, 3rd, etc offenses. The extent or repetitive nature of the crime should dictate the severity of the punishment.
Click to expand...
I agree. And, more weight should be given to the offenders criminal history during sentencing, especially for violent offenders. Should be 3 strikes and you're out....it's off to a hard labor prison for the rest of your life. Make these douche bags earn their keep once locked up.

I can hear all the bleeding hearts already! We should try to rehabilitate them! What a wash out that has been for probably 90% of serious, chronic offenders.

If these scumbags were locked up or otherwise dealt with, then our cities and towns would be safer places.
 
BCGuy said:
...and basically if I want to defend my home I have to face the fact that I will be doing time.
Click to expand...

That assumes a body is found in your home. Before someone goes whining to a mod like a little girl who had her lollipop taken, I'm not advocating anything just stating a simple fact. There are those who don't believe they should be keel hauled by the judicial system for exercising their natural right to self-defense.
Now, would I give a warning? Yes, I would. I'm will to take the chance that someone breaking in hopes to do so undetected and will flee if possible upon detection. Killing is not to be taken lightly, especially those you were required to do because it was your job or even those in self defense. You remember each one, often when you would prefer not to. Why do it if you can possibly avoid it?
FWIW
YMMV
 
^ Naw that's anything from assault to bearing a loaded firearm, firing a warning shot. Punching the perp in the head while he tries to escape :) Very easy to go to jail for any one of these things here.
 
BCGuy said:
^ Naw that's anything from assault to bearing a loaded firearm, firing a warning shot. Punching the perp in the head while he tries to escape :) Very easy to go to jail for any one of these things here.
Click to expand...

New Hampshire is currently pushing this bill thru the State Senate (already passed the House) which will make self defense even more difficult. Seems like the disparities between the States are becoming even larger, with Red States relaxing restrictions on carry, self-defense, etc. and the Blue States going in the opposite direction. And of course the Feds and the UN stirring the pot on a daily basis and generally siding with the Blue States. I expect we'll see some new Executive Actions from Obama in the next few weeks.

On Tuesday, April 23, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear House Bill 135. Introduced by state Representative Stephen Shurtleff (D- Merrimack 11), HB 135 will render law-abiding citizens defenseless victims by removing consequences for criminal activity. The New Hampshire House of Representatives already undermined your inherent right to self-defense by passing the Shurtleff Criminal Protection Bill by a 189-184 vote on March 27.

HB 135 would repeal important self-defense provisions enacted in 2011, making the following changes to New Hampshire’s current self-defense laws:

Eliminates the provision that allows a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a legal right to be. This limits an individual’s ability to defend themselves or a third party from assault to their own place of residence.

Amends the definition of non-deadly force by removing the provision that specifies the act of producing or displaying a weapon is considered non-deadly force. Thus, drawing or exhibiting your firearm to intimidate a perpetrator could be considered deadly force.

Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances. The elimination of this provision removes legal protections for law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense.

Given the alarming passage of this legislation in the state House, it is critical that you contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and let them know that HB 135 is a big step in the wrong direction for New Hampshire, and will put you and your loved ones at risk. Ask committee members whether they plan to vote for the rights of law-abiding citizens or criminals.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state ... esday.aspx
Click to expand...
 
DFBonnett said:
BCGuy said:
...and basically if I want to defend my home I have to face the fact that I will be doing time.
Click to expand...

That assumes a body is found in your home. Before someone goes whining to a mod like a little girl who had her lollipop taken, I'm not advocating anything just stating a simple fact. There are those who don't believe they should be keel hauled by the judicial system for exercising their natural right to self-defense.
Now, would I give a warning? Yes, I would. I'm will to take the chance that someone breaking in hopes to do so undetected and will flee if possible upon detection. Killing is not to be taken lightly, especially those you were required to do because it was your job or even those in self defense. You remember each one, often when you would prefer not to. Why do it if you can possibly avoid it?
FWIW
YMMV
Click to expand...
Re: Verbal warning or silent strike?

Post by BCGuy » Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:32 pm
^ Naw that's anything from assault to bearing a loaded firearm, firing a warning shot. Punching the perp in the head while he tries to escape :) Very easy to go to jail for any one of these things here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

BCGuy is correct.

As far as Canadian law goes, you must justify every defensive action with what is known here as "reasonable force". You will, upon discharging your firearm within city limits (body or no body :roll: ) find yourself in jail...period. Justified or otherwise you will be arrested and charged until it can be proven you used "reasonable force". If you kill the intruder, unless you can prove he was about to snuff your life or the life of another....your ass is grass and the law is the mower!

Possibly unlike DFBonnett, BCGuy and myself have probably never killed anyone and yes, we probably don't know how it feels and dear God I hope I never do have to remember it.

Gunny's article with regard to changes to New Hampshire law would indicate that similar reasoning is about to be employed there also. More than anything, I think that these regs are designed to maintain the rule of law. However restrictive they may be, the rubber usually meets the road in the judge or jury's interpretation of the language. That can be good and bad.

No doubt these things that are often intended to help our society, but come back and bite some poor law-abiding citizen in the arse when he defends himself or his family on his own property or dwelling.

Sorry long winded - but needed the space.
 
First off, that blows for you folks in Canada you can't defend your basic right to continue to exist when someone else tries to deny you of that.

I remember taking a road trip as a kid all the way up to the upper mid west area and we decided to cross over into Canada for the day. Toronto I believe, can't remember now exactly. One thing I do vividly remember crossing at the border checkpoint we got flagged for closer inspection. Why? My dad asked and the guy proclaimed because of our TEXAS plates they were concerned about the possibility of us having guns in the car. This was way back in the late 80s or early 90s mind you too.

Back to the thread at hand. I think the sight of someone holding a firearm in their hands should be plenty of enough warning. If you are breaking and entering into somebodies home or business you already knowingly take the risk involved with that. Just my 2 cents. Whatever you do yes, I agree, know your local or state laws for your residence or business for the rules of engagement. Generally speaking if you have to confront someone do two things for sure. Stop the threat. Don't shoot to wound, scare them off or any of that nonsense, if you commit to pulling a trigger know wholeheartedly you are about to end someone's life. Second, make sure you they are facing you and not shooting them in the back.

Sadly the political climate these days tends to favor the aggressor and not the victim. Dead witnesses can't talk and you don't want the perp in court later on able to get a slick defense lawyer to to turn the tide against you. Shoot em in the back and you get some over eager prosecutor decide to go after you and make you out to be the bad guy.

Just my humble opinions so take it for what its worth. None of us are lawyers and don't preach to be one either. Do what YOU feel is morally responsible within your religious or personal beliefs and what is within the scope of the law for the area which you are bound to. YMMV.
 
jgwills said:
Sadly the political climate these days tends to favor the aggressor and not the victim. Dead witnesses can't talk and you don't want the perp in court later on able to get a slick defense lawyer to to turn the tide against you. Shoot em in the back and you get some over eager prosecutor decide to go after you and make you out to be the bad guy.

Just my humble opinions so take it for what its worth. None of us are lawyers and don't preach to be one either. Do what YOU feel is morally responsible within your religious or personal beliefs and what is within the scope of the law for the area which you are bound to. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Fortunately, home invasion type scenarios are rare here, unless you're already involved in a criminal lifestyle. There have been a few where a family home was invaded by mistake...most terrifying I'm sure. I'm not aware of any fatalities from those ones.

I don't want anyone to think I wouldn't use my firearm to defend my family...but it must be the absolute gravest of circumstances. I would certainly hope the intruder would surrender or run rather than force me to take his life. I know others have the opinion that they would rather take his life than take a chance on a repeat performance. I get that...I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. It's not me though...I'll take my chances. If he were to come back, there won't be a next time...no hesitation.

The law should certainly favor the homeowner, the person(s) put upon by the aggressor. He brought the circumstances on himself and went looking for trouble. It's unreasonable to expect a surprised and likely untrained homeowner to do anything but fight for their lives.
 
If someone breaks into my home they are not coming in to have a midnight snack with me. I am going to assume several things whether factual or not:

1) The perpetrator is out to do me harm
2) I assume there is more than one of them
3) They are high on crack or meth and not in their right mind
4) Because of #3 they may be fearless, thus a verbal warning or even racking the thing may not mean squat to them
5) They are going to be armed in some fashion

I choose to be silent. I see no reason to give a person in potentially this state of mind an advantage. If someone comes into my home uninvited in the night I can live with disposing of them. That is what they chose to do for a living. There are risks that come with that occupation.
 
If I think I can do so without getting me or a member of my family killed I will give a warning, though most likely that will be a round being chambered. I do not want to kill someone who just wanted to steal from me, only if he is a danger (and yes I understand that might not be obvious).

Luckily I live in Florida, where our self-defense laws are usually on the side of the home owners.
 
I don't want anyone to think I wouldn't use my firearm to defend my family...but it must be the absolute gravest of circumstances. I would certainly hope the intruder would surrender or run rather than force me to take his life. I know others have the opinion that they would rather take his life than take a chance on a repeat performance. I get that...I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. It's not me though...I'll take my chances. If he were to come back, there won't be a next time...no hesitation.
Click to expand...

The trouble is you never know who might come looking for revenge regardless of whether the perp goes to jail or the graveyard. Even gangbangers have family, friends, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top