Why the fuck is it illegal in some states/countries to not kill or harm someone that is a home invader/attacking...

Why the fuck is it illegal in some states/countries to not kill or harm someone that is a home invader/attacking you/coming at you with a knife?

Other urls found in this thread:

rt.com/news/352236-jail-finland-court-robbery/
dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/03/two_alleged_robbers_shot_dead/
howtogetagun.ca/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because if you kill your enemies they win.

THEY WAS GUD BOIS WHO GETTIN THEY LIFE BACK ON TRACK

FPBP

beats me.

a business i once worked for was held liable when a car thief walked in one day, took the keys to a van, drove away and crashed into a building.

It's not. The guys who got arrested probably said the wrong thing to the cops or they got an SJW prosecutor.

No jury is gonna convict you for killing someone who you think is gonna rape you, kill you, or harm your family.

But if I harm my enemies, they heal, right?
This liberal logic is so hard to master, I wish I had done a 5 years degree for that

Basically, the nanny cam has to catch you executing a dying dude on the floor at point blank.

You have tell the cops you loved killing the dude.

You have to tell the cops he surrendered and you then shot him.

If some dude high on PCP breaks into your house foaming at the mouth saying he's gonna ass rape you and then eat you, you can light that motherfucker up.

the trick is to make that cunt disappear

if anyone knows you got invaded, you're doing it wrong

my church nee' mo' money fo' dem programs.

Hah this guy gets it

He doesn't mean in middle America where it's legal, he means places where it's not legal

Living is a privilege provided by their government.
.

Get on our level.

>rt.com/news/352236-jail-finland-court-robbery/

>A homeowner in Finland has been sentenced to four years in jail and a hefty fine after fighting off three intruders who attempted to rob his house. The thieves, meanwhile, got lesser prison terms and are to be paid damages by their victim.

C U C K E D
U
C
K
E
D

Some types of guns used in home defense can be misconstrued as excessive.
I.E short barreled pump shotgun, pistol grip with the pump action handle.
Ideal for home defense. But if it comes down to it if you kill someone with it in a burglary you may get arrested with intent.

>Why the fuck is it illegal in some states/countries to not kill or harm someone that is a home invader/attacking you/coming at you with a knife?

That's legal almost everywhere though.. Basically everywhere in the civilised world. Not even in Britain will you get locked up for harming a person that's attacking you with a knife, especially not in your own home.

Oh, forgot about that. It might be illegal in Canada..

>he means places where it's not legal

Such as? Bonus points if you don't resort to memes in your answer...

>I've lurked on /k/ a little, but not too much

NFA items are a no-go because they MIGHT be used to construe intent, if the prosecutor is a cunt. It almost never happens though, and the text book case of that Ruger employee that used a registered NFA machine gun in a self defense case was eventually won by the guy defending himself. At great legal cost though.

There was a guy on /k/ who used a destructive device in home defense.
not sure what happened to him
it was a 20mm

Pretty sure that most of cali is "duty to retreat" meaning that you have to run away from your own home unless you believe you will die during the attempt.

That's what I like about MA. We vote blue all the time. ALL OF THE TIME. But despite all their pandering leftist bullshit, we keep Castle Doctrine.

It's called Duty to Retreat, which means you're supposed to run away and call the cops

Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Some of these states also have Castle Doctrine tied to Duty to Retreat, which means you're allowed to kill them only if you're unable to get away. Some of them don't, like Maryland, and that's terrifying.

Oh, also basically all of Europe.

And canada.

I'm sleep deprived and misread this at first.

The real reason is OP is there are more than a few stories about how a dindu really dindu nuttin, went up to a mans house to ask him nicely for directions, and was blown away through the door. Then the guy was found not guilty because I FEARED FOR MUH LIFE! HE WAS TRESPASSIN IN MUH CASTLE!

duty to retreat laws are basically there to try and prevent john waynes from finding excuses to legitimately shoot somebody. The problem with them is that they literally punish people defending themselves or tell people if they're being robbed they have to flee their homes.

I actually don't have a very strong opinion about this subject and think no matter how your laws are setup someone will fuck them up.

How about Finland?

>Oh, also basically all of Europe.

That's false though.. There's no duty to retreat in most of Europe. Just the requirement that you reasonably fear for your saferty or that of others. In the Netherlands and Germany self defense laws (noodweer/notwehr) can even be used to protect property. In NL definitely, Germany I'm not entirely sure but iirc the wording of their self defense article is almost exactly the same as ours, only in German.

Additionally it is also about preventing scenerios where some John Wayne yahoo stalks somebody, they turn around and go what the fuck, and they go "MY GOD HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR ME" and blow him away.

The Zimmerman Trayvon thing was almost like this but Treyvon smashed the white Hispanics head against the ground and stand your ground wasn't used as a defense. It does illustrate what is trying to be avoided though.

Basically they're trying to avoid situations where people invent excuses to shoot somebody. Duty to retreat makes inventing a bullshit excuse to kill somebody impossible, but also causes other retarded outcomes like punishing rape victems protecting themselves from dindus and it basically obligating you to be beta.

Possibly, but unlikely. From the article:
>The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.

The right to self defense doesn't necessarily mean you can butcher the people that tried to rob you... Since the details are omitted from the article (on RT, relating to Finland...), it's hard to say what the reason for the conviction was. For all we know he used that knife to torture them.. Even in the US there are some limits to what you can do in, and especially AFTER an acute self-defense situation.

>It does illustrate what is trying to be avoided though.

It doesn't, because that which you describe did NOT happen in the Zimmerman case, as you yourself also stated.

>Actually trying to defend or rationalise a duty to retreat in a situation where you fear for your safety or that of others
Bad leaf. BAD LEAF.

>live in Texas
>I actually have the lawful right to use lethal force to secure my PROPERTY in the event of nighttime theft.
>even when they are escaping with my property

This triggers the euros

There was a case here a while ago where a guy woke up to find a meth addicted ex child rapist abo who'd previously been in jail, who had broken into his home, standing outside his young daughters room in the middle of the night.
He bashed the cunt to within an inch of his life and called the police, the abo later died in hospital and the homeowner was jailed for 4 years for protecting his family.

>>live in Texas
Sup, José?
>>I actually have the lawful right to use lethal force to secure my PROPERTY in the event of nighttime theft.
Kek, you don't have that right in the event of daytime theft? Fucking cuck.
>>even when they are escaping with my property
Is this supposed to be something special? If they're escaping with your property, the unlawful assault in considered to be ongoing for the purpose of Germanic-style self defense laws, as they are still infringing your property rights.
>This triggers the euros
Hardly a hair trigger you've got there m8..

>Netherlands
>no right to violence unless physically attacked
>no weapons allowed
>Muh germanic law!
Yes, I'm the one that is cucked.

>>Netherlands
Yes.
>>no right to violence unless physically attacked
False. Hoge Raad (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), 2002 'Noodweer in de Bus' (self defense on the bus). Case law makes that very clear, and relatively recently confirmed it again (2002 is like yesterday in terms of Dutch case law). I doubt there's an English translation of the case, but you could brush up on your Dutch while you're at it.
>>no weapons allowed
False again. Hoge Raad, Bijlmernoodweer, 1986 is the standard case.. This is the most famous recent example: dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/03/two_alleged_robbers_shot_dead/
Lady got let off, her husband was convicted of illegal ownership of a firearm. Which is a misdemeanor.
>>Muh germanic law!
Germanic legal systems have pretty strong self defense provisions, yes.

Well he killed and endangered animal

*an

Juan, if you want to died just kill yourself. You don't need to try and rob houses.

>noodweer in den bus
He was let off because the court considered his attack a pre-emptive counterattack. He was going to be physically assaulted so he minimized damages to himself. It's hardly an exception to the rule of responding to violence
>be woman
>illegally carry firearm
>shoot two dudes in self defense
>all charges dropped while the nonpresent husband gets in trouble
She can only get away with this because she's a woman.

The one time California does something right.

>He was let off because the court considered his attack a pre-emptive counterattack. He was going to be physically assaulted so he minimized damages to himself. It's hardly an exception to the rule of responding to violence

He was not physically assaulted. You can also defend yourself if your property is in jeopardy, the law is clear on that too.. If neither your property or your safety (or that of others) are in jeopardy, you obviously don't have the right to commit violence on people.

>She can only get away with this because she's a woman.
>t. Legal expert

No, she could get away with it because she legitimately feared for her safety, and because the judges held that nobody can be expected to be attacked/robbed/violated and NOT defend themselves by any means necessary. In her case, using the gun she carried... Literal armed criminals have used the same kind of defense succesfully in cases where they shot other armed criminals in self defense.

I'm not saying we're Texas or the US, but your memes are pretty stale.

Because robbery is a non violent crime.
Faggots in this thread. JESUS.

>yourself if your property is in jeopardy
*defend your property when it's in jeopardy

Obviously.

>she can carry a gun because she's scared
Then why is it illegal for her husband?
>Her use of the gun was not excessive because of the sudden violence of the robbery
I personally agree but wouldn't this make concealed carry de-facto legal in a country where it's illegal?

gr8 meme but Canada has Castle Doctrine and decent self-defense laws

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-defence-what-s-acceptable-under-canadian-law-1.1229180

howtogetagun.ca/

someone entering your home will justify use of force, potentially including lethal force

>Literal armed criminals have used the same kind of defense succesfully in cases where they shot other armed criminals in self defense.
this is also

I think the mistake most americans make when considering other countries' self-defense doctrines and laws is assuming that self-defense with a weapon is somehow illegal by grace of a weapon carried being illegal, when they are in fact going to result in entirely separate cases with entirely separate concerns

e.g. if I were to use an AR15 to defend myself in public in here in canada from someone wielding a battle axe or something, I would have to appear in court twice: once for the physical altercation, another for "why did you have a loaded AR15 in public in the first place". the cases will probably even have separate judges, or even take place in entirely different physical courts

It is still legal here - as long as you hit is front side. If it becomes illigal I move to Czech Republic or Switzerland.

Jesus Christ... Can we please just hurry up and end it all already?

>as long as you hit is front side
It's the same thing here, as well... You shoot someone in the back and you're pretty much fucked

>>she can carry a gun because she's scared

Neither I or the case said that.. Only that she could use it. You can theorhetically get a license to carry a gun legally, but not actually in this country. If you do happen to have one handy, either illegal or otherwise it's not illegal to use it.

>Then why is it illegal for her husband?

The husband in the case of the jeweler got convicted of illegal ownership of the weapon because he owned (or at least said he did, it could have been hers for all anyone knows) it. If he would have used it to stop the robbers himself, rather than his wife the result would have been the same. He would have been convicted for owning it, but not using it. IIRC ownership alone is a misdemeanor, but it's a lightly penalised offense in any case.

>I personally agree but wouldn't this make concealed carry de-facto legal in a country where it's illegal?

No, because the illegal ownership (or in same cases, improper storage of a legal firearm) of the weapon is almost always prosecuted or at least dealt with by settlement.. Usually results in a suspended sentence of a few months or (suspended) community service in cases where they're used by people with no priors in legitimate self defense cases.. Sentences are obviously higher when known criminals and/or a criminal context is involved. Carrying remains a criminal offense either way though, it's just that the use of an illegal weapon in self defense doesn't have an effect on your claim of legitimate self defense.

Basically this, except the cases would likely be coupled together and dealt with in a single case by a single court of 3 or 5 judges.

>carrying remains a criminal offense
A criminal offense that the prosecution failed to pin on her, yet the prosecutor was diligent and took time to get the husband charged with illegal possession? Additionally, US law usually considers you to be in possession of a weapon if you're carrying it around. Actual ownership of the weapon is irrelevant if you carry the gun in your purse every day.

Your nation's gun laws make very little sense if this case actually went down the way you say it did. Your self defense laws sound reasonable though.

>A criminal offense that the prosecution failed to pin on her,
She didn't carry it, at least not in public. She saw the attack happening on the CCTV from the living area of the shop, then went to the shop area and grabbed the gun. (iirc it was in the shop area anyway)
> yet the prosecutor was diligent and took time to get the husband charged with illegal possession?
He was charged with posession, because him and her both testified that he was the owner. If they'd testified she was the owner she would have been charged with owning it. It's not that illogical, is it?
>Additionally, US law usually considers you to be in possession of a weapon if you're carrying it around. Actual ownership of the weapon is irrelevant if you carry the gun in your purse every day.

Carrying it in public is of relevance too, but in the jeweler case it was never actually carried in public. In the Bijlmernoodweer case from '86 the lady was convicted of illegally carrying a firearm. Not sure of the actual penalty, but it was likely pretty mild.

Wat

I'm not going to run away if my family is in my home

Massachusetts doesnt have duty to retreat

Because crime justifies increase in government power.

If the government was effective at solving crime and allowed people to fully protect themselves, less people would support it and they would have less money / power. They would put themselves out of jobs. It is very much in their interest to keep people scared and defenseless.

Intent isn't known maple cuck

>New Jersey

Thank god I'm moving to Penn. by november.

>That diamondhead hand-guard
Fuck yeah! I got one too. Those things are lejit