^^spot on

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:20:05 PM

^^hes talkin to the other guy

7/17/2009 12:20:15 PM

Quote :

"NC is a duty to retreat state. If you are in your home/ on your property, then you do not have a duty to retreat. But, you can/will be charged if you confront the BG and kill them without immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury. NC has a crappy Castile Doctrine. That is whey the whole issue of entering vs. already on your property already exists."

Exactly, and that's why I'm going to repeat myself once more:

Quote :

"^^ Right, you do not have a duty to retreat. That doesn't mean you may kill them for any reason... It means that IF they attack you, you do not have to attempt to escape the situation. That is the only difference between the street and the home really (Unless you catch them in the process of attempting a forced entry), but once inside they still must meet the requirements that give you the right to use lethal force.... It's just that you aren't required to try to get away before resorting to it. At least that has always been my understanding of this statute."

7/17/2009 12:20:32 PM

is that G guy quoting NC law?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : d]

7/17/2009 12:21:33 PM

Quote :

"What if they detonated a nuclear bomb in his front yard, huh!>?!?? What IF!!! I have no problem with people owning and using guns, btw. It's just ridiculous to pretend that owning a gun is the only way to reach the outcome that was reached. If jetskipro owned no gun, and said "get the fuck off my porch" these kids would have ran. If he would have sneezed the probably would have ran too. Guns are good and all, but they don't have magical powers in 90% of cases to protect you vs. other techniques."

you obviously did not watch 20/20's show on guns. the point is, is that 20/20 claimed guns are useless and can't be used as self defense tools. the point I'm making is that a gun was involved in this example and if needed, would have been a great asset. 20/20 would state that the gun would have killed a 3 year old in the next county.

7/17/2009 12:22:26 PM

I'm a girl, and yes I'm quoting NC law.

7/17/2009 12:22:45 PM

I don't know, but she is confusing NC and TX quite a bit IMO.

In TX you can seriously kill someone, even by shooting them in the back as they run away from you, over them stealing a dime from your countertop.

7/17/2009 12:22:56 PM

^^^^actually, SaabTurbo and I are both correct.

I am pretty sure I have the background and qualifications behind me on this one.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:23:06 PM

what the fuck kind of alternate reality tv are you watching

7/17/2009 12:23:10 PM

daryl has it right people.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : and saabturbo]

7/17/2009 12:23:14 PM

I'm not saying you can shoot them in the back. Once they are running you cannot persue them. You also can't start the altercation. But you have the right to defend yourself from a felony without retreating in your own home.
And this is to a reasonable person standard. But it must also be a reasonable belief. If you want to go into what all the reasonable person standard means, I will, but I don't want to throw all kinds of legal jargon in here.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 12:23:37 PM

Quote :

"the threat of armed citizens prevents crimes the THREAT of armed citizens"

those kids wouldnt have ran if you were a quadreplegic, or an unarmed woman.


its not just the threat of guns, its the general threat of a physical altercation whilst being unarmed.

btw i interpret the law the same way that Grzakas does, the one dude is right tho the law is retarded because its too gray and depends on a plethora of nuances

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : s]

7/17/2009 12:23:45 PM

Quote :

"you obviously did not watch 20/20's show on guns. the point is, is that 20/20 claimed guns are useless and can't be used as self defense tools. the point I'm making is that a gun was involved in this example and if needed, would have been a great asset. 20/20 would state that the gun would have killed a 3 year old in the next county."

no, i did not watch 20/20 show on guns. Just like I do not watch those anti-semites on New York public access and then get enraged about it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Likewise, guns don't save people, people save people.

^ a quadriplegic couldn't shoot a gun, and I bet they would have run if it was a woman, or even an old lady that said she called the cops. Why do you think the vast majority of robberies happen when people aren't home? Robbers are huge pussies in general. They aren't the super criminals tv dramas would have you believe they are.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 12:24:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying you can shoot them in the back. Once they are running you cannot persue them. You also can't start the altercation. But you have the right to defend yourself from a felony without retreating in your own home."

Oh, I wasn't saying you were saying that. But in TX the below action should be completely legal according to their statutes:

Quote :

"In TX you can seriously kill someone, even by shooting them in the back as they run away from you, over them stealing a dime from your countertop."

7/17/2009 12:25:16 PM

^^ok, I agree. watching that show is pivotal to the point I was making

7/17/2009 12:26:15 PM

I shot the nigga cuz he broke my xbox controller

7/17/2009 12:26:32 PM

In texas, you can shoot someone for stealing your neighbor's stuff too. Whole help a third party thing.
A guy did this last year, in fact, and was not charged with the death of one criminal and the injury of another.

7/17/2009 12:27:00 PM

Quote :

"Robbers are huge pussies in general. They aren't the super criminals tv dramas would have you believe they are."

haha you arent serious are you? the whole world isnt Cary, NC

7/17/2009 12:27:21 PM

The statute is written that vaguely because it's impossible to write a clearer statute that would encompass all the situations you would want it to, and not include others. It's there just so there CAN be some give and take when you go to court.

7/17/2009 12:27:49 PM

What state was it where the intruder fell through the roof onto knives, sued and won? I hate that shit. I SHOULD be able to defend myself and my property. My dog is my property and you better believe I will defend her.

Good thing I'm in Indiana now...I think....

7/17/2009 12:28:12 PM

indiana jones?

dudes run up in houses robbin and shoot every fuckin body inbroad day



[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : d]

7/17/2009 12:28:35 PM

^^^ Not really, there are states with much better statutes and not only that, the NC statutes are clear. They don't really make a lot of sense, but I completely understand them. I really like the way it's done in TX currently to be honest, although I'd like to dial it back a notch in one or two places.

7/17/2009 12:28:51 PM

Quote :

"In texas, you can shoot someone for stealing your neighbor's stuff too. Whole help a third party thing. A guy did this last year, in fact, and was not charged with the death of one criminal and the injury of another."

There is a third party defense here too, but that does not include property at all. That is simply bodily harm. There is push for a Hold-Your-Grounds Doctrine in NC which would mean you can protect people/property in public places as well. Like a hold-up at a bank or McDonalds.

Quote :

"What state was it where the intruder fell through the roof onto knives, sued and won? I hate that shit. I SHOULD be able to defend myself and my property. My dog is my property and you better believe I will defend her."

If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was a set trap right? And you can't set a trap in your home because you can't control who it would hurt. If it's the case where the burglar just got hurt because he was stupid, then I definitely agree with you, it's ridiculous.


[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : V yeah I think so]

7/17/2009 12:29:11 PM

^isn't that the one that Rep. Ross won't schedule a hearing for and is trying to let it die in her committe?

7/17/2009 12:29:51 PM

The third party defense here would allow you to intervene in a armed robbery of a bank or mcdonalds already. If the BG has a gun and is pointing it at people that is immediate threat of death or bodily injury, an you can intervene.
I'm NOT saying that is what everyone would do, or that it is wise, but it is legal.

The knife case wasn't a trap. He fell through a sky light in the kitchen and landed on the knives. Then he sued for his injuries.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:31:56 PM

how the hell was that determined to be a set trap??

im not being a smart ass im curious as to how that was determined...did he just assume somoene would crawl on his roof to break in? and did he damage the integrity of the roof so much that an intruder would fall in onto the knives?

7/17/2009 12:32:49 PM

^^ On OCDO there was a guy who had a chance to intervene in an armed robbery and did not. I recall a lot of folks congratulating him on his actions because in the end nobody got hurt. He readied his weapon but did not go on the offensive and he remained far away.

^ Is that serious? Most traps are obviously traps dude..... How in the hell do you set up an elaborate trap for a robber in just the few seconds of time you have while they're breaking in? It's going to be completely obvious whether or not it was a set trap.

7/17/2009 12:33:25 PM

^^There's a case last year where a guy set up knives and weapons around the entrances to protect his home. A thief fell through the chimney and got hurt.

She could be talking about a different situation though.



[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM. Reason : V sorry! ]

7/17/2009 12:33:48 PM

^If you mean me, I'm a girl...

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ^it's okay I hate my username but I don't want to make an alias]

7/17/2009 12:35:26 PM

the knives could have been sitting up in the drying rack^^^

come on now dude, dont be goofy

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM. Reason : d]

7/17/2009 12:35:33 PM

too many ^ changes! I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THIS

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : too many "^" changes, not too many in your post, BHS]

7/17/2009 12:36:30 PM

fell through a chimney
They are only like 8'' in diameter if made in the last 15 years or more.

The knife case I'm refering to happened about a decade ago.

7/17/2009 12:37:14 PM

?i only added three words

7/17/2009 12:37:20 PM

we need better self-defense laws against break-ins / burglaries

7/17/2009 12:37:21 PM

^^ I guess you're just trolling son. That's pretty gay.

Although maybe you actually are that stupid. You do lose a lot and I'm sure your brain is bruised son.

^ We need better laws for Janitors like ourselves. We are completely vulnerable to attack at work. :-/

7/17/2009 12:37:33 PM

now youre being lame

i dont know anythin about this fuckin case i was asking your stupid ass what made them conclude it was a trap set, i didnt say it wasnt possible i was just asking your dumb ass how they came to that conclusion

if you have nothin but stupid bullshit to spit then you obviously dont know shit about the case

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : f]

7/17/2009 12:37:54 PM

i would have just let the kids break in and then pistol whipped them.

7/17/2009 12:38:07 PM

see but then they could sue you.

7/17/2009 12:38:44 PM

amazing how law (gun) threads usually take off.
I feel your pain wdprice3 on keeping up with the "^"


why let them break in, and then have to fix the door, and then go to jail, and pay all the legal fees..... when just saying "don't make me shoot you" works so much better.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:39:15 PM

that would be considered one of those traps set up in minutes

7/17/2009 12:39:47 PM

^^Just curious, but you said you're more qualified in here. What makes you more qualified? (Not trying to question you, just interested).

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 12:40:02 PM

^^ Yeah, it wasn't a trap son. But if it was they'd know son.

7/17/2009 12:40:45 PM

^^ send you a PM.

"I'm old and I say so" My great uncle

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:44:04 PM

haha o jesus freak, i get your handle now

cool

7/17/2009 12:45:16 PM

^Made when I was but a young and innocent freshman girl Then I found TWW.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 12:48:04 PM

there is a rapper named G-zus

7/17/2009 12:49:17 PM

OH SHIT

I didn't get that until it was just point out.

What a shitty username, now...

7/17/2009 12:49:59 PM

Yep, same here and now I totally lost all respect son. :-/

7/17/2009 12:50:33 PM

Quote :

"haha o jesus freak, i get your handle now cool :carlface:"

7/17/2009 12:51:07 PM

o god here we go

now we are really gonna see some five year olds

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : s]

7/17/2009 12:51:15 PM