Originally posted by richjohnsonS. Carolina also. I know a kid (adult now) who went onto a guy's property on a Halloween night to make mischief. He snuck up to a sliding glass door on the guy's patio (Still OUTside the house). The owner got spooked and shot the 14 yr. old with a shotgun. No one was killed or maimed. (The owner was hospitalized for his heart condition for a few hours) Though I knew the boy (my gf's brother), the kid was in the wrong, and was charged with trespassing.
Except in Texas, or so I've heard.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe first violence was that of the vandalism. Letting violence go unpunished also teaches violence, but teaches that it is acceptable and that there are no consequences.
Violence teaches violence.
That the consequences were immediate makes more of an impression. Even a cat that has unrolled the toilet paper learns a lesson from being squirted with water if it is done immediately.
Originally posted by FMFThe law varies from State to State in the US, but all in common allow the use of deadly force, when life or serious bodily harm is threatened, personally or to others.
There was a case about 10 or 12 years ago in Britain. A somewhat eccentric man living in a converted farmhouse came downstairs to find a couple of kids grafittiing his wall. He shot one of them dead point blank with a shotgun (that he didn't have a licence for). The whole thing was seen as a grotesque tragedy rather than a moral conundrum. The Daily Telegraph, h ...[text shortened]... ionality' and that lethal force should be a right in the case of any kind of tresspass.
Some States allow use of deadly force to protect property as well. Fox urine is hardly deadly force.
When considering the use of deadly force, how much information is known varies greatly. I must assume that an intruder into my home may be armed and dangerous. If I wait to know for certain, I may well be endangering myself or loved ones.
I am licensed to carry concealed firearms, but I have no desire to kill or harm, only prevent harm to myself or anyone else in my orb. In most cases, the law in the US allows proportional responses to prevent property loss or damage by vandals. In some this extends all the way to using deadly force. Often the vandal doesn't have any problem with assaulting the homeowner who tries to stop him.
Police can't be at every incident, and most often are after the fact, taking reports, and often ineffective in finding and punishing property crimes.
Originally posted by zizouIf these "kids" were in numbers and armed with anything potentially harmful or deadly, fox urine was a mild response. Hot lead was justified, as even a dozen unarmed thugs could present a threat of great bodily harm or death.
According to accounts, there were up to a dozen tp'ers, armed with sharpended drumsticks and screwdrivers; a fifty-year-old man might have trouble ass-kicking them all. Anyway, after the first skirmish, the kids called the police, evidently certain the police would take their side against the 'evil hermit'. So far, they're right.
If they prevail in this case the message has been sent that it's OK to vandalize and threaten people's property.
