The rioting in England, a foreshadow of what's to come here?

[Cheech]

I believe that in a looting situation you should be able to defend your livelihood. If, while defending your livelihood, your personal safety is in jeapordy then you should be able to defend youself. Bodies make great sandbags with which to fortify your position.

Otherwise what do we do? Stand back and let mobs sack whole cities? If it is this easy, they'll do it again.

I thought instead of mob rule, we were calling it "market forces"?

You're right though, it is quite the paradox that doesn't leave a lot of room for the rule of law.

[Cheech]

Castle doctrine applies to the shooter, not the attacker or attackers. If the shooter is in his home or place of business and his life is threatened then he can defend his life. There is no bag limit.

My point is how do you prove that your life was threatened by each and every one of the pyramid of bodies you would have created? Unless you're using an aimbot, you're going to miss, have through-and-throughs that might hit other people, etc. My point is there would be collateral damage with a group of that size, and I don't believe castle doctrine really covers that.

[Casper]

And the hypothetical shooter would either be going to jail or will be getting the death penalty. Although there is admittedly no precedent (that comes to mind) for this, I can't imagine castle doctrine applies wholesale to a mob of people, much less if you've caused so much carnage as to create a wall of bodies.

Castle doctrine applies to the shooter, not the attacker or attackers. If the shooter is in his home or place of business and his life is threatened then he can defend his life. There is no bag limit.

In my mind, being attacked by a mob of people throwing molotav cocktails, swinging bats, etc definitely justifies deadly force. I have every right to protect my home, my family, and myself, and you can bet your ass I will if need be.

[Casper]

My point is how do you prove that your life was threatened by each and every one of the pyramid of bodies you would have created? Unless you're using an aimbot, you're going to miss, have through-and-throughs that might hit other people, etc. My point is there would be collateral damage with a group of that size, and I don't believe castle doctrine really covers that.

If you're with a group of people committing a crime, you're guilty of the crime. If during the course of a crime someone dies, you're guilty of murder. So, using that reasoning, if an angry mob comes attacking and you shoot to kill, the others in the mob are guilty of the deaths.

[Scruit]

My point is how do you prove that your life was threatened by each and every one of the pyramid of bodies you would have created? Unless you're using an aimbot, you're going to miss, have through-and-throughs that might hit other people, etc. My point is there would be collateral damage with a group of that size, and I don't believe castle doctrine really covers that.

Don't have to prove my life was threatened. Prosecutor has to prove it wasn't.

[dorifto240]

The armed forces took an oath to protect this country and it's people. Our soldiers are true Americans, Patriots. The vast majority of them, even if ordered to do so by the President himself, would never turn against American civilians. If/when anything happens here stateside, it'll be a civil war over entitlements and taxes.

True, unless the protest groups had been deemed "un-patriotic" or "enemies of the state." At that point a true American and patriot wouldn't stop firing.

Which is exactly what will happen should a revolt break out in the US, the revolutionaries will be deemed "terrorists," "traitors," and "insurrectionists." No longer Americans, the armed forces will be free from the guilt of firing on their own.

It's difficult to disobey an order doming down the established chain of command.

[Cheech]

If you're with a group of people committing a crime, you're guilty of the crime. If during the course of a crime someone dies, you're guilty of murder. So, using that reasoning, if an angry mob comes attacking and you shoot to kill, the others in the mob are guilty of the deaths.

I'll take "guilt by association fallacy" for $1000.

Not quite the way accessory/principal associations work.

[Cheech]

True, unless the protest groups had been deemed "un-patriotic" or "enemies of the state." At that point a true American and patriot wouldn't stop firing.

Which is exactly what will happen should a revolt break out in the US, the revolutionaries will be deemed "terrorists," "traitors," and "insurrectionists." No longer Americans, the armed forces will be free from the guilt of firing on their own.

It's difficult to disobey an order doming down the established chain of command.

That sounds like it came from a North Korea government broadcast.

So can I open fire on the Tea Partiers for being so un-patriotic as to be instrumental in causing economic terrorism? Causing the world to believe that America would default on her debts to the point that our credit rating is reduced and our markets are losing money by the day certainly qualifies as terrorism and an enemy of the state to me.

[Casper]

I'll take "guilt by association fallacy" for $1000.

Not quite the way accessory/principal associations work.

Works that way all the time. You and I go rob a gas station with a baseball bat and a crowbar. Attendant shoots you. You die. I'm charged with your murder. Absolutely no difference here. You're with a mob. The mob is robbing people's homes and setting them on fire. Homeowner shoots someone in the mob. The mob is responsible for his death. Had the crime not been committed, the death wouldn't have happened.

[Scruit]

I'll take "guilt by association fallacy" for $1000.

Not quite the way accessory/principal associations work.

Explain how that works then, because I know of a man who was hanged because he was a joint principal in a simple theft, was arrested, and after his arrest the other prinicpal shot and killed a police officer.

In the looting mob scenario, they don't have to be participating in the crime. Castle Doctrine doesn't judge the actions of the attacker, only the defender. If the defender is presented with a valid self defense scenario and his bullet is a through--and-through then he's not going to be held responsible to an unintended death downrange.

Now, if you set up with SAW and mow down everyone in sight then you're gonna be in trouble - but if you are shooting at targeted inidividuals that are attackign you, and you miss, well the shot was still justified. We don't punish the result, we punish the intent. Self defense is a standard defense to the mens rea of what would otherwise be murder. The actus reus is not a matter of dispute.

Is there a legal precedent for a valid self-defense shoot that misses the bad guy and hits an innocent?

Edited August 9, 2011 by Scruit

[Casper]

That sounds like it came from a North Korea government broadcast.

So can I open fire on the Tea Partiers for being so un-patriotic as to be instrumental in causing economic terrorism? Causing the world to believe that America would default on her debts to the point that our credit rating is reduced and our markets are losing money by the day certainly qualifies as terrorism and an enemy of the state to me.

S&P said $4 trillion needed cut over the next ten years or they would drop the US's credit rating. They didn't even cut $1 trillion. S&P dropped the rating, as they promised. How in the world do you blame the Tea Party, damn near the only ones wanting to cut more, for that? :lol: :lol:

[dorifto240]

That sounds like it came from a North Korea government broadcast.

Of course it does, because at that point America wouldn't be so different in action from North Korea.

So can I open fire on the Tea Partiers for being so un-patriotic as to be instrumental in causing economic terrorism? Causing the world to believe that America would default on her debts to the point that our credit rating is reduced and our markets are losing money by the day certainly qualifies as terrorism and an enemy of the state to me.

Not really, but a good attempt. To begin with you're currently acting as an individual at this point, not as part of a legitimate, uniformed military unit. Secondly, since you're not a part of a unit in this situation, you don't have any orders that have been issued to you. Thirdly, war has not been declared on the Tea Party by the United States Government.

[kawi kid]

S&P said $4 trillion needed cut over the next ten years or they would drop the US's credit rating. They didn't even cut $1 trillion. S&P dropped the rating, as they promised. How in the world do you blame the Tea Party, damn near the only ones wanting to cut more, for that? :lol: :lol:

You obviously didn't take the right college classes buddy

[wht_scorpion]

Blame the jobs going over seas every thing we buy are made over seas their stock market is holding our is dropping so where the problem just my 2 cents.

[Cheech]

Thirdly, war has not been declared on the Tea Party by the United States Government.

Since when has the US government ever let that statute stop them? I can think of about 8 "exceptions" off the top of my head...

[Cheech]

Blame the jobs going over seas every thing we buy are made over seas their stock market is holding our is dropping so where the problem just my 2 cents.

Hong Kong's exchange (Hang Seng) is down 17.2% from the end of April to now. NYSE is down 9.94%

[kawi kid]

Ours would be the same if it wasn't for quanitive easing 1 & 2

[dorifto240]

Since when has the US government ever let that statute stop them? I can think of about 8 "exceptions" off the top of my head...

If you keep overusing that image it will lose it's effectiveness. Granted, it hasn't stopped any president from Nixon onwards, but there really is supposed to be a declaration of war from Congress.

[shittygsxr]

I wish it was politically motivated and was the beginning of change but it is a bunch of people that immigrated there for entitlement and fear losing them .England loves giving away entitlements more than we do.

[Casper]

I wish it was politically motivated and was the beginning of change but it is a bunch of people that immigrated there for entitlement and fear losing them .England loves giving away entitlements more than we do.

[Casper]

Good read: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/jedlz/dear_america_regarding_the_london_riots/

I am a born and bred Londoner. I have lived in London my whole life, and you, my cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, should quit talking about shit if you know nothing about it.

These riots are not about race, they're not about the death of Mark Duggan (aka Starrish Mark), they're the lower-class scum bags taking advantage of a terrible incident. I should make it clear, not all lower-class families are scum, there are some rather unfortunate people on the lower side of the margin, it is not these people I am calling scum; It is the benefit scroungers, the typical council house family that doesn't work, sells drugs, buys drugs and has 5-6 children and uses the benefits from those children as income.

Sounds familiar...

[obesityrules]

wtf, how old is that kid in the yellow jacket?

[John]

wtf, how old is that kid in the yellow jacket?

welcome to photoshop meme 2009...

[motocat12]

On 8/9/2011 at 12:56 AM, Casper said:

I don't think we're at the tipping point, but I think it's pretty close.

Bump

[redkow97]

The cities are going to be in trouble. The suburbs will remain insulated. 
 

and if shit does come into the suburbs, we’ll see how many ‘Ken commandos’ can actually shoot. There are a lot of firearms in wealthy neighborhoods...  my ex-wife’s neighbor has a PALLET of .223 in his basement. I miss Joe. He was good people. 
 

my current neighborhood is still somewhat of an unknown. Tom next door is a super nice guy, and seems to have a good tool set. We have borrowed things from each other that suggest a degree of self-sufficiency. Not sure if he has firearms in the house. 
 

what concerns me a bit is the number of scorned ex-wives on my street. My fiancé was one of them. She has 2-3 friends whose divorces are still pending. I am nice enough to clean the carb on their mower, use the chain saw to take down small trees for them, and generally keep them from paying for shit their ex-husbands should have been taking care of ...but i can’t be protecting multiple houses from a mob.