Thursday, February 4, 2010

First-Person Shooter

If you shoot someone trespassing on your property, should the trespasser have the right to sue you?
Posted by at

11 comments:

ppatin said...

Typical trial-lawyer horseshit. If a trespasser is shot on your property then the only circumstances under which he should be allowed to sue would are if your actions are egregious that they warrant a criminal conviction. The trial lawyers and their lobby are a greater threat to this country than Osama Bin Laden.

Thu Feb 04, 01:53:00 PM EST
ppatin said...

“Burglars don’t want confrontation; they want valuables,” trial attorney Wayne M. Willoughby told the House Judiciary Committee. “Do you want to encourage protection of property at the expense of life?”

My response to his question is an absolute "Yes!" Besides, when someone breaks into your home is he going to announce that he's only stealing, rather than coming in with an intent to murder or rape? I don't give a damn what the circumstances are, if you violate someone's home then you have forfeited your right to live.

Thu Feb 04, 01:55:00 PM EST
Laura said...

no, they absolutely should not have the right to sue. if you break the law, i WILL do what is necessary to protect myself - anyone who breaks into my home is seen as an immediate threat to my personal safety. if my self preservation means they die, so be it! they/their families should NOT have the right to sue me over the results of THEIR crime!

the only people who want to continue the "right" to sue are lawyers...the evil bloodsucking kind. one of our senators comes to mind...Frosh has consistently desk-drawered as many bills as possible that would protect law-abiding citizens from bullshizzle like this.

Thu Feb 04, 02:44:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

I cant remember the exact case, but I read a case just of this nature in a law class in which someone boobytrapped an unused home of theirs, and a robber was wounded severely upon entering. It was legally established that he had a right to sue. The law values life over property, even the life of a robber over your property, so yeah.. you're only allowed to injure him to the extent that is necessary to prevent him from continuing his illegal activities, then youre supposed to get the police to deal with it.

Thu Feb 04, 03:08:00 PM EST
ppatin said...

"you're only allowed to injure him to the extent that is necessary to prevent him from continuing his illegal activities"

That whole concept is frikking absurd. When someone breaks into your home your life is ALWAYS in danger. Expecting a law-abiding homeowner who's forced to make a split-second decision to use just enough but not too much force is idiotic.

Thu Feb 04, 03:39:00 PM EST
Cham said...

Breaking into your home or trespassing?

First of all, if someone crosses your front lawn, as much as you think you have the right to kill them, as much as you'd like to kill them, no you don't have the right to shoot them, maim them or stab them. You will find that out real fast when the lawn crosser or back yard tinkler sues you for everything you have.

Second, there is a difference between breaking and entering AND trespassing. Now let's say you are sitting in your living room in the evening. Because you are watching TV you have all your lights off. You also live in the burbs in one of those vinyl sided preplanned communities where every single house looks the same. Your neighbor has friends over. One of the neighbor's friends goes to Taco Bell to get 30 burritos. He thinks he knows which house his friend lives in, but he miscalculates and YOU forgot to lock the front door. The next thing you know you have a stranger in your living room who is completely and totally confused. Do you have the right to shoot him?

Absolutely not.

Thu Feb 04, 08:20:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

Kill the lawyers that try to sue you for killing their clients that you killed breaking into your home.

That is the ONLY way to stop these BULLSHIT lawsuits.

Shysters are destroying this country
and I am glad that some folks are starting to wake up.

Trial lawyers provide NO positive economic boost to an economy. They suck money out of it by forcing one party to give another party money and they take their cut. Nothing is produced.

Thu Feb 04, 09:21:00 PM EST
History Punk said...

"Trial lawyers provide NO positive economic boost to an economy. They suck money out of it by forcing one party to give another party money and they take their cut. Nothing is produced."

Until someone needs one. Then they're all good

Fri Feb 05, 07:05:00 PM EST
Meat Confetti said...

"“Do you want to encourage protection of property at the expense of life?”"

Yes. Absolutely. In all cases, unequivocally. Next question?

Sat Feb 06, 11:12:00 AM EST
Cham said...

Protection of property at the expense of someone's life? No. I don't need my daily newspaper or my plastic lawn chairs that badly. Of course, if you are a crazed blood-thirsty boy with a power complex I could see why you would.

Sat Feb 06, 05:43:00 PM EST
reg said...

He could not because he would be DEAD

Mon Feb 08, 04:51:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)