3

10/23/2009 11:26:31 PM

be careful out there kids!

10/23/2009 11:35:40 PM

gun owners who know the gun laws and how to handle their firearms vs. someone who doesn't know either and is trying to argue with them ITT

10/24/2009 9:29:34 AM

i got tired of reading so i don't know if someone addressed this already...

but first, fagmire is trolling.

second, this is hilarious

Quote :

"i don't give a RAT'S ASS about the law, you moron...i speed, i download music, and i don't always come to a complete stop at stop signs"

speeding, rolling stops, and downloading music won't land you in jail for life. woohoo traffic violations!! your metaphor or whatever sucks.
yeah, that's kinda feeding the troll, but i thought it was hilarious so i pointed it out'

10/24/2009 9:54:30 AM

and people wonder why i carry my gun on me even in the middle of the day when I'm just driving to the grocery store. There is no specific time of day for the violent loons

10/24/2009 1:21:40 PM

ok, i've read through the entire thread, and there is some ignorance going on in here (but it seems like most everyone has the right idea). I think WDPrice said it best when he stated that the law affords you the right to defend yourself, and thats it- you pull out your gun only when you think you or someone else is in serious danger (and even this can come back to get you in the court of law), and you never pull it out if you have no intentions of using it

for those saying "shoot 'em in the legs" - I know it can be a hard thing to grasp possibly having to take someones life, but this is why the law reads like it does. It is either you (or someone else who is defenseless) or the attacker. If they are willing to attack you with a deadly weapon, you now have the right to shoot them TO DEFEND YOURSELF - not to disable them and "teach them a lesson."

Regardless of how you feel about the laws, you must obey them or be ready to deal with the consequences (which in this case would be jail time and the loss of many rights, including to bare arms or vote). The laws are in place for a reason, and it is people who don't understand them/just don't give a shit who give the vast majority of responsible gun owners a bad name and a hard time keeping the few rights we have left.

10/24/2009 1:59:09 PM

you mean, they would have to wear longsleeved shirts for the rest of their lives? wow.. that's harsh.

10/24/2009 2:08:50 PM

Quote :

"i keep two rounds of #9 shot, followed by two 1 1/8 ounce slugs in my 870 "

That's a terrible loadout.



...and how do this many people seriously think that shooting people in the legs, etc, is not a terrible, stupid idea?

10/24/2009 2:38:25 PM

it's only a couple of people- most everyone else on here realizes it isn't a good idea


only time someone would get shot in the leg by me is if I am in some sort of close proximity struggle, and that is the best I can do with what I have (ie, I can't get my gun up from my hip in said struggle)

10/24/2009 3:55:47 PM

and then it would followed about 2 seconds later by a couple of better shots.

10/24/2009 4:02:47 PM

exactly- i didn't do it when i first started going to the range, but I have started to work on my rising shots more


I would really be interested in taking one of those classes that prepare you for stuff... as well as getting a group together (with an experienced trainer of course) to practice this stuff once or twice a month, like close quarter, someone trying to take the gun, on the ground, etc...

10/24/2009 4:18:48 PM

solution...

open door, walk away, wait for him to enter

and

BANG

10/24/2009 4:29:55 PM

once again, i think there are some problems with legalities there

10/24/2009 4:32:22 PM

10/24/2009 4:34:21 PM

the laws are written very funny there... like if you saw someone breaking in through your window, you could shoot them, but if you came down and saw them there in your living room after having coming through the window, you can't... silliness if you ask me



which also raises another question- how do those "trespassers will be shot" signs hold up? is that just a scare tactic, or does posting it give you the right to follow through? if so, why not just put one of those up like an alarm system sticker and shoot anybody that you find in your house that doesn't belong there?

10/24/2009 4:39:41 PM

couldn't you claim he threatened you, and then came at you before you shot him dead?

10/24/2009 4:41:27 PM

i guess you could- but you'd need to make sure he was dead (which is another problem with leaving someone alive)

10/24/2009 4:42:36 PM

Quote :

"the laws are written very funny there... like if you saw someone breaking in through your window, you could shoot them, but if you came down and saw them there in your living room after having coming through the window, you can't... silliness if you ask me"

Actually, North Carolina has the castle doctrine, so you could shoot them. It's on the books, but the legislature is currently in the process of reaffirming your right to self defense.

10/24/2009 6:53:38 PM

NC law does not allow deadly force against an intruder after the illegal entry has been completed unless the intruder is imminently threatening death, serious injury, or sexual assault

(directly from the CC class handbook)

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : missed an a]

10/24/2009 7:52:31 PM

^^ NC does not actually have "castle doctrine" proper. We have a neutered version that lets you shoot people breaking in, no questions asked, but it's all off once they get inside. You have to actually be threatened once they are inside and be able to justify it.

There is a bill in the NC house right now for "real" castle doctrine, that is, if a mofo is in your house and his isn't supposed to be, and you shoot him, you're immune to civil suits or any reprisal from defending yourself. No questions asked. Currently that is not the case, but the only person that's keeping it that way right now is a lady named...

Deborah Ross.

Remember that name - she's the only reason you still have to fear losing everything you own in civil court after a justified self-defense shooting. She's sitting on that bill and won't let it out of her committee, for no other reason than that she thinks guns are icky. It passed two votes short of unanimously in the NC senate, so it's not like the support isn't there.

/soapbox

10/24/2009 8:50:57 PM

I hate Deborah Ross. She knows nothing about guns and is stonewalling the gun rights bills without even a hint of trying to learn what they're about.

10/25/2009 9:06:04 AM

^^^^nope- as FenderFreak said, we don't have the castle doctrine as most people would think of it. It plays out exactly how I said it earlier, which was re-explained by ^^

10/25/2009 4:03:31 PM

Quote :

"Actually, North Carolina has the castle doctrine"

I wish.

10/25/2009 4:10:23 PM

I've heard several officers tell me that the self defense argument can be easily made in court. Something along the lines of "the crackhead had my TV in his hands and was trying to attack me with it."

10/25/2009 4:18:43 PM

Yeah, you can make that argument. Or any argument, really. Just don't expect anyone who isn't a retard to actually believe it.

10/25/2009 5:25:54 PM

yeah, police officers are NOT lawyers. i would take anything they say regarding the law with a grain of salt. They have some familiarity with laws that the average person would not, but they are absolutely not lawyers, much less specialists in a particular facet of law.

10/25/2009 6:18:13 PM

I'd like someone to show evidence of a case in NC where a person shot a burglar in his home and actually got charged for it.

10/25/2009 8:17:23 PM

either way, you fuck around, you're going to be accountable.

10/25/2009 8:34:56 PM

i can find examples of it going to court, and even if you win that's going to be expensive

so yeah i guess that would be charged, just not convicted

[Edited on October 25, 2009 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2009 8:43:40 PM

Quote :

"BigHitSunday ^^good honest self assesment in that post i feel you man, i commend you for defending your home and as much as it pains me to say it...without hurtin that piece of shit but...i would assume you arent anticipaing legal precedings, since you posted that account on here, just somethin to think about"

Quote :

" Biofreak70 ok, i've read through the entire thread, and there is some ignorance going on in here (but it seems like most everyone has the right idea). I think WDPrice said it best when he stated that the law affords you the right to defend yourself, and thats it- you pull out your gun only when you think you or someone else is in serious danger (and even this can come back to get you in the court of law), and you never pull it out if you have no intentions of using it for those saying "shoot 'em in the legs" - I know it can be a hard thing to grasp possibly having to take someones life, but this is why the law reads like it does. It is either you (or someone else who is defenseless) or the attacker. If they are willing to attack you with a deadly weapon, you now have the right to shoot them TO DEFEND YOURSELF - not to disable them and "teach them a lesson." Regardless of how you feel about the laws, you must obey them or be ready to deal with the consequences (which in this case would be jail time and the loss of many rights, including to bare arms or vote). The laws are in place for a reason, and it is people who don't understand them/just don't give a shit who give the vast majority of responsible gun owners a bad name and a hard time keeping the few rights we have left. "

I'm staying out of most of the debates in this thread but wanted to reply to a couple of posts...

I checked and never found anything on WRAL but the N&O crime map did report it on 10/21 (Rainford and Ferndown). I think I'll pick up the next issue of "The Slammer"

I wanted to say thanks for some of the comments and I'm ok. The lump on my head's gone down and the bruise on my arm will go away. I got off easy considering he had a hammer.

Deborah Ross ...noted. Anybody want to run against her? You've got my vote.

One more observation, I think it's interesting you can almost pick out who's had the CCW class.

Stay safe out there,
Sean

[Edited on October 25, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : quotes]

10/25/2009 10:35:13 PM

[/thread]

10/26/2009 8:27:36 AM

Quote :

"Actually, North Carolina has the castle doctrine, so you could shoot them. It's on the books, but the legislature is currently in the process of reaffirming your right to self defense. "

I reassert my statement I made about the Castle Doctrine.

Look at the language of Senate Bill 928 before you state we don't have the right to shoot someone who is in our home.

The language used is the language used when the legislature is reasserting a common law right. Unless you can point to a court ruling that did away with your common law right to defend your home from an intruder when said intruder is already in your home, then you are wrong.

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2009 10:22:44 AM

^ I haven't read it, however, I'm sure it's all about perspective.

10/26/2009 10:43:38 AM

The law itself expressly states it is clarifying.

no where in statute does it state you cannot defend your home and the courts have not stated as such.

In fact, here is the law stating you have a right to self-defense.
§ 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)


[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2009 11:18:10 AM

You can shoot someone through the door if they're breaking in. Once they're in, they have to be attacking you or another person in such a way as you reasonably believe that a life is in danger to use deadly force.

So basically, kids, shoot them through the door. Don't ever let them get in.

10/26/2009 11:22:43 AM

Quote :

"You can shoot someone through the door if they're breaking in. Once they're in, they have to be attacking you or another person in such a way as you reasonably believe that a life is in danger to use deadly force. So basically, kids, shoot them through the door. Don't ever let them get in."

no, if you reasonably believe there are committing a felony in your abode you can shoot to kill. Christ, look at the law.

G.S. 14-51

10/26/2009 11:25:30 AM

Pretty much the only felonies they would be committing once inside your home is an attack on someone. Stealing your TV isn't a felony.

10/26/2009 11:26:33 AM

yes it is. It is B&E with the intent to burgal, which is a felony.

Read Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.

§ 14-51. First and second degree burglary.

There shall be two degrees in the crime of burglary as defined at the common law. If the crime be committed in a dwelling house, or in a room used as a sleeping apartment in any building, and any person is in the actual occupation of any part of said dwelling house or sleeping apartment at the time of the commission of such crime, it shall be burglary in the first degree. If such crime be committed in a dwelling house or sleeping apartment not actually occupied by anyone at the time of the commission of the crime, or if it be committed in any house within the curtilage of a dwelling house or in any building not a dwelling house, but in which is a room used as a sleeping apartment and not actually occupied as such at the time of the commission of the crime, it shall be burglary in the second degree. For the purposes of defining the crime of burglary, larceny shall be deemed a felony without regard to the value of the property in question. (1889, c. 434, s. 1; Rev., s. 3331; C.S., s. 4232; 1969, c. 543, s. 1.)



[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2009 11:30:30 AM

one google search.

Quote :

"Generally speaking, larceny of goods valued at more than $1,000 is a Class H felony punishable by up to 4-8 months in prison for a first time offender. If you have any criminal conviction on your record, however, this sentence could reach all the way to 25 months for someone with an extensive criminal history. If the amount of goods in question is valued at less than $1,000, you are facing Class I misdemeanor charges which are punishable by up to 1 year in jail, although that length of sentence is highly unlikely. However, if the goods stolen are taken directly from someone, or are a firearm or explosive, the charge is a felony regardless of the value."

http://www.mynorthcarolinadefenselawyer.com/criminal-charges/theft-shoplifting/
and the website cited it from
§ 14-72. Larceny of property; receiving stolen goods or possessing stolen goods.

10/26/2009 11:44:57 AM

Of all the police officers, CCW instructors and lawyers I have talked to, you are absolutely wrong. You can not shoot someone once they are inside your house unless they are threatening you or someone else physical well being. We do not have the castle doctrine in this state (although there are bills for this trying to be pushed through along with the ones allowing for carry in state parks). Take a class instead of relying on google. Knowing the law and understanding the law are two different things here fellas.


all the things that nutsmackr first posted are in reference to the actual act of breaking in- if you see someone coming through your window, you can shoot them, but once they are in your house, you can not shoot them unless someone is being threatend with harm. You would be surprised how many instances you can't use a gun. The whole "you don't have to retreat thing" is because outside of your house, you are supposed to run away before ever needing to pull your gun- it is a last option

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : seriously- stop googling and go talk to someone]

10/26/2009 12:18:43 PM

shi ti thought this thread was about jacking off on trailwood

10/26/2009 12:22:42 PM

Quote :

"However, if the goods stolen are taken directly from someone, or are a firearm or explosive, the charge is a felony regardless of the value.""

This sounds like robbery. As in, "give me your wallet/watch/something on your person/etc" rather than, "Give me your TV sitting in the living room."

Therefore, what you say does not compute with your highlighted statement.

^^Ditto.

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2009 12:23:54 PM

The law is emphatic here.

If someone is breaking into your house, you have the right to shoot them. If they cease attempting to break into your house you do not.

If someone is in your house taking your property, or you reasonably believe they will you have the right to shoot them. If they leave without taking your property or you do not believe they will attempt to take your property you do not have the right to shoot them.

The law is emphatic about this and I defy you to point to case law where this is not true.

Quote :

"This sounds like robbery. As in, "give me your wallet/watch/something on your person/etc" rather than, "Give me your TV sitting in the living room.""

Allow me to redirect you to the actual statutues in question:

§ 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

§ 14-51. First and second degree burglary.

There shall be two degrees in the crime of burglary as defined at the common law. If the crime be committed in a dwelling house, or in a room used as a sleeping apartment in any building, and any person is in the actual occupation of any part of said dwelling house or sleeping apartment at the time of the commission of such crime, it shall be burglary in the first degree.[b] If such crime be committed in a [b]dwelling house or sleeping apartment not actually occupied by anyone at the time of the commission of the crime, or if it be committed in any house within the curtilage of a dwelling house or in any building not a dwelling house, but in which is a room used as a sleeping apartment and not actually occupied as such at the time of the commission of the crime, it shall be burglary in the second degree. For the purposes of defining the crime of burglary, larceny shall be deemed a felony without regard to the value of the property in question. (1889, c. 434, s. 1; Rev., s. 3331; C.S., s. 4232; 1969, c. 543, s. 1.)

Quote :

"seriously- stop googling and go talk to someone"

I'm not using google here. I'm using my first-hand knowledge ascertained as a direct result of my employment, especially in relation to the Castle Doctrine.

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2009 12:59:35 PM

^ "to prevent ... or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry"

sounds like it's talking about the act of entering the house. Once they are inside, they are no longer engaged in forceful entry.

10/26/2009 1:16:06 PM

nutsmakr is making the most sense here

he is referring to printed law that explicitly defines larceny within a burgaled home as a felony

and its not that difficult to understand. the actual hang ups in court are most likely due to figuring out what exactly transpired in the household and whether or not property was being taken or whether or not there was a reasonable risk of some form of assault, NOT debates over what the law says.

^ why would they make the same statement twice? terminating lawful entry v.s. preventing lawful entry

sending the motherfucker back out through the window he came in v.s. well...preventing him from entering in the first place

you aint gonna catch everybody steppin through your window, sooner or later youll walk up on someone in your house and you will like them to leave, the law makes concessions for that

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM. Reason : f]

10/26/2009 1:17:38 PM

Quote :

"^ "to prevent ... or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry" sounds like it's talking about the act of entering the house. Once they are inside, they are no longer engaged in forceful entry."

no, unlawful entry is a state of being. Either one is attempting unlawful entry or they are actively engaged in unlawful entry.

All the Castle Doctrine does is change where the presumption lies, from the State to the homeowner. Under current law, the individual has to prove the underlying actions that allowed for the deadly force was present. If the Castle Doctrine is passed, the presumption moves to the homeowner and the State then has to prove that the homeowner did not act in self defense.

10/26/2009 1:20:37 PM

hah *unlawful

10/26/2009 1:22:22 PM

AKAIK...

Quote :

"(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence."

!= castle doctrine. NC law is stating that you must feel that "that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.". I believe real castle doctrine says you may shoot an intruder with no other qualifications.

10/26/2009 1:24:10 PM

larceny = felony according to the law he posted right after that dude


larceny = FELONY

nvm yall are arguing over what actual castle doctrine is...i aint got no clue lol

[Edited on October 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : f]

10/26/2009 1:25:17 PM

Quote :

"All the Castle Doctrine does is change where the presumption lies, from the State to the homeowner. Under current law, the individual has to prove the underlying actions that allowed for the deadly force was present. If the Castle Doctrine is passed, the presumption moves to the homeowner and the State then has to prove that the homeowner did not act in self defense. "

10/26/2009 1:26:15 PM