c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 1 BM: please do not take this as an offensive attempt to challenge u guys or
anything. I truely want to have a good discussion and figure out what the
law says. and thank you for many of you in the previous thread for an useful
discussion.
let's contemplate this situation: intruder (let's say 2 intruders...) come
in (breaking glass), go on first floor, grabbing TV etc, then you are
awakened, come to stairs with gun, see intruders, shoot them on sight, both
dead.
now is it a legal defense?
now you go over their dead bodies, check out closely, found both of them had
hand guns in pocket. NOW , is it legal defense?
if the answers are different, now the circumstances on which you base your
decision are the same, your actions are the same, why would it be different
outcome regarding the law? |
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 2 This kind of discussion is pointless. Every state law is different, even the
same state, every case is different, even the same case every judge and
lawyer is different. |
k**********i
发帖数: 8706 | 3 半桶水就不要晃悠了
简单搜一下wikipedia:
The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) is the right for civilians
acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending
one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.
可见自卫的构成要件是"for the sake of defending one's own life"
shoot on sight那是murder
useful
both
had
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: BM: please do not take this as an offensive attempt to challenge u guys or
: anything. I truely want to have a good discussion and figure out what the
: law says. and thank you for many of you in the previous thread for an useful
: discussion.
: let's contemplate this situation: intruder (let's say 2 intruders...) come
: in (breaking glass), go on first floor, grabbing TV etc, then you are
: awakened, come to stairs with gun, see intruders, shoot them on sight, both
: dead.
: now is it a legal defense?
: now you go over their dead bodies, check out closely, found both of them had
|
c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 4 I was not 晃悠 , ---- I did not claim anything, just asking.
what do u say if the owner has imminent thread of life in this case?
civilians
defending
【在 k**********i 的大作中提到】
: 半桶水就不要晃悠了
: 简单搜一下wikipedia:
: The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) is the right for civilians
: acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending
: one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.
: 可见自卫的构成要件是"for the sake of defending one's own life"
: shoot on sight那是murder
:
: useful
: both
|
k**********i
发帖数: 8706 | 5 说实话，这是陪审团决定的
50-50 chance
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: I was not 晃悠 , ---- I did not claim anything, just asking.
: what do u say if the owner has imminent thread of life in this case?
:
: civilians
: defending
|
p******a
发帖数: 413 | 6 Asking the Internet for legal advise is about the second last thing you
should to do - following these advise been the last.
Go invest a few hundred bux and take a defense lesson from a qualified
training facility. Then you'd know what to do in these situation.
To answer your proposed scenario, in Washington, NO and No. If you did what
you proposed, you are highly likely to end up in jail, for a good long while. |
l******8
发帖数: 9475 | 7 在AZ, 这种情况下开枪是违法的。
both
had
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: I was not 晃悠 , ---- I did not claim anything, just asking.
: what do u say if the owner has imminent thread of life in this case?
:
: civilians
: defending
|
k**0
发帖数: 19737 | |
c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 9 ok, what if you SAW the guys pull out the gun first?
【在 l******8 的大作中提到】
: 在AZ, 这种情况下开枪是违法的。
:
: both
: had
|
l******8
发帖数: 9475 | 10 做你应该做的事。
至于什么是应该做的事， 只能先学一些当地有关的法律。
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: ok, what if you SAW the guys pull out the gun first?
|
|
|
p******a
发帖数: 413 | 11 Dude...u just don't get it do you
If you go guns blazing and IN REACTION they pulled out their pistol, shoot
you to death, they'll answer for trespassing and home invasion, but murder?
Unlikely, they are just "defending" their lives against you.
Look at it this way, if they are in your home for some quick cash, let them
take it. If you killed them, even on justified grounds, you'd lose more than
what they take (unless you are super rich of course, then you shouldn't be
here, go hire a lawyer) on legal costs. If 911 responded and saw dead bodies
, they'd be pumped up and may accidentally shoot you down. There are just so
many undesirable things that can go wrong in your strategy.
If they are after your life, then it's a whole different scenario.
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: ok, what if you SAW the guys pull out the gun first?
|
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 12 It is not what we say here matters but the Judge and Jury of the case.
Leave the explanation of the law to the experts.
Just follow the simple rule：for the sake of defending one's own life
As long as your attorney can prove it, you are fine. |
b*******y
发帖数: 4304 | 13 为了个电视， 不值。 如果坏人反击， 你未必取胜。 如果为了电视杀了人， 然后贼
身上没抢根本不可能危及屋主生命， 估计这个屋主就得进监狱而且倾家荡产是肯定的
了， 一辈子就算是完了。
useful
both
had
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: BM: please do not take this as an offensive attempt to challenge u guys or
: anything. I truely want to have a good discussion and figure out what the
: law says. and thank you for many of you in the previous thread for an useful
: discussion.
: let's contemplate this situation: intruder (let's say 2 intruders...) come
: in (breaking glass), go on first floor, grabbing TV etc, then you are
: awakened, come to stairs with gun, see intruders, shoot them on sight, both
: dead.
: now is it a legal defense?
: now you go over their dead bodies, check out closely, found both of them had
|
b*******y
发帖数: 4304 | 14 罪案现场， 口供是一面， 对证据的解释是另一面。 如果被证明是做了伪证， 估计惨
得很
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: ok, what if you SAW the guys pull out the gun first?
|
H******S
发帖数: 6011 | 15 If you carry firearm, you need a lawyer. |
G******U
发帖数: 4211 | 16 You must be rich and have good stuff.
I would be glad if they will take all the electronics and sofa downstairs
so I can buy new ones. If they go after my junk stuff, I will dial 911 then
laugh at them over the phone.
If they charge to me, that's another story.
useful
both
had
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: BM: please do not take this as an offensive attempt to challenge u guys or
: anything. I truely want to have a good discussion and figure out what the
: law says. and thank you for many of you in the previous thread for an useful
: discussion.
: let's contemplate this situation: intruder (let's say 2 intruders...) come
: in (breaking glass), go on first floor, grabbing TV etc, then you are
: awakened, come to stairs with gun, see intruders, shoot them on sight, both
: dead.
: now is it a legal defense?
: now you go over their dead bodies, check out closely, found both of them had
|
c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 17 u misunderstood
it's not about the money/TV at all,
how are you sure they will stop at grabbing the TV/money? how are u sure
they will stop at the first floor? they dare to come in knowing there is a
possibility that owner is present, so they are prepared for such a
possibility, and prepared to gain advantage in a confrontation, by possibly
using guns. with this thought in mind, are you going to give them the
benefit of doubt and observe their further behavior?
then
【在 G******U 的大作中提到】
: You must be rich and have good stuff.
: I would be glad if they will take all the electronics and sofa downstairs
: so I can buy new ones. If they go after my junk stuff, I will dial 911 then
: laugh at them over the phone.
: If they charge to me, that's another story.
:
: useful
: both
: had
|
p******a
发帖数: 413 | 18 So, when you doubt, shoot to kill?
You sir, are the prime example of why people shouldn't own guns.
Again, go invest in lessons from professionals, and go with an open mind. It
will save your/someone's life one day. End of discussion |
a***a
发帖数: 8941 | 19 I do not get your guys points.
In Texas, if someone break into your house, you can just shoot him to death,
no matter he is taking your TV, or nothing. The action of breaking in
justify the use of deadly force, no matter what else he is doing next, even
if he does not have any weapon.
That is my understanding of castle doctrine.
Please correct me if I am wrong. |
w*l
发帖数: 2550 | 20 It can be legal in some states.
Is it legal to go over their dead bodies, or you have to wait for cops to do
it?
useful
both
had
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: BM: please do not take this as an offensive attempt to challenge u guys or
: anything. I truely want to have a good discussion and figure out what the
: law says. and thank you for many of you in the previous thread for an useful
: discussion.
: let's contemplate this situation: intruder (let's say 2 intruders...) come
: in (breaking glass), go on first floor, grabbing TV etc, then you are
: awakened, come to stairs with gun, see intruders, shoot them on sight, both
: dead.
: now is it a legal defense?
: now you go over their dead bodies, check out closely, found both of them had
|
|
|
h*********2
发帖数: 2508 | 21 各州不一样的。刚回家路上收音机里正好在讲城堡法(我在Virginia)，就是只要有人闯
入你家，就认为他们会Harm Your Life, 你就可以使用deadly force, 这是解说员说的。
所以我的理解是认可城堡法的州如果有人闯进你家，不管是否搬了电视，口袋里有没有
枪，你都可以使用deadly force. 跟他口袋里有没有枪没关系，很多歹徒用的都是
weapon of opportunity, 譬如厨房里的刀，烧火棍，棒球棒etc
懂法律的给咱们普及普及 |
a***a
发帖数: 8941 | 22 Right.
It depends on whether or not the state admits castle doctrine.
So I do not understand why so many IDs above said without doubt that it is "
murder" and even laugh and criticize LZ.
的。
【在 h*********2 的大作中提到】
: 各州不一样的。刚回家路上收音机里正好在讲城堡法(我在Virginia)，就是只要有人闯
: 入你家，就认为他们会Harm Your Life, 你就可以使用deadly force, 这是解说员说的。
: 所以我的理解是认可城堡法的州如果有人闯进你家，不管是否搬了电视，口袋里有没有
: 枪，你都可以使用deadly force. 跟他口袋里有没有枪没关系，很多歹徒用的都是
: weapon of opportunity, 譬如厨房里的刀，烧火棍，棒球棒etc
: 懂法律的给咱们普及普及
|
c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 23 I think the best approach for maintainers of this board is to say
nothing except
"look for the authoritative sources"
for example
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.
"
【在 a***a 的大作中提到】
: Right.
: It depends on whether or not the state admits castle doctrine.
: So I do not understand why so many IDs above said without doubt that it is "
: murder" and even laugh and criticize LZ.
:
: 的。
|
b******o
发帖数: 5644 | 24 其实这个我也是越搞越糊涂。比如在NJ，是要躲避的。但是如果在你的房子里，就认为
是躲避的极限。
贼人在你家搬东西，你在家，你能那枪指着他吗？还是如果他客客气气的，你只有帮着
搬的份，如果你叫警察，只能等着。 |
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 25 你在家可以拿枪出来指呀，没叫你射他。都自己家拉，open carry都可以。
记得上课的时候讲解员说过一种情况，必不的已开枪前，大喊“把刀放下"，或“不要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。 |
c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 26 it would be very funny if the thief studies the law and say to you :" I'm
not causing you death or grave bodily injury, so you can not shoot me.
please make way for me", and then carries on. if that is really the case,
you have to , like above poster said, look at him till police comes.
【在 d*****h 的大作中提到】
: 你在家可以拿枪出来指呀，没叫你射他。都自己家拉，open carry都可以。
: 记得上课的时候讲解员说过一种情况，必不的已开枪前，大喊“把刀放下"，或“不要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
|
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 27 贼拿小命开玩笑呀？ 看到枪还赌你不敢开，继续搬？
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: it would be very funny if the thief studies the law and say to you :" I'm
: not causing you death or grave bodily injury, so you can not shoot me.
: please make way for me", and then carries on. if that is really the case,
: you have to , like above poster said, look at him till police comes.
|
b******o
发帖数: 5644 | 28
理论上讲是的。而且我担心NJ的小偷都知道他们的工作安全有保障。
【在 d*****h 的大作中提到】
: 贼拿小命开玩笑呀？ 看到枪还赌你不敢开，继续搬？
|
b******o
发帖数: 5644 | 29
要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
这就犯了另一个大忌，你出了枪，却没准备开火。
【在 d*****h 的大作中提到】
: 你在家可以拿枪出来指呀，没叫你射他。都自己家拉，open carry都可以。
: 记得上课的时候讲解员说过一种情况，必不的已开枪前，大喊“把刀放下"，或“不要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
|
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 30 那就喷辣椒水，让他搬不了。
【在 b******o 的大作中提到】
:
: 要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
: 这就犯了另一个大忌，你出了枪，却没准备开火。
|
|
|
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 31 拿枪出来是以防贼也有枪，防止他危害你及家人的生命， 你们这里的情况是已经知道贼没有枪，并且贼也不会伤害你，现实当中，你怎么知道呀。你出枪，在必要的时候是准备开火。
【在 b******o 的大作中提到】
:
: 要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
: 这就犯了另一个大忌，你出了枪，却没准备开火。
|
d*****h
发帖数: 1266 | 32 不说了，讨论这个真累。太多假设情况了，没什么意义。 |
l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 33 博士讲得是对的，我也很同情楼主，其他州我不清楚，德州绝对是闯进门即可毙了，不
需要楼上这么多lD费口舌了，这来源于真实案件，因为我有不少当警察的朋友，他们
就处理过不少这样的案子。句号，完了。
I do not get your guys points.In Texas, if someone break into your house,
you can just s........
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
【在 a***a 的大作中提到】
: I do not get your guys points.
: In Texas, if someone break into your house, you can just shoot him to death,
: no matter he is taking your TV, or nothing. The action of breaking in
: justify the use of deadly force, no matter what else he is doing next, even
: if he does not have any weapon.
: That is my understanding of castle doctrine.
: Please correct me if I am wrong.
|
o**d
发帖数: 3080 | 34 看来还是就在德州混吧。
，他们
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 博士讲得是对的，我也很同情楼主，其他州我不清楚，德州绝对是闯进门即可毙了，不
: 需要楼上这么多lD费口舌了，这来源于真实案件，因为我有不少当警察的朋友，他们
: 就处理过不少这样的案子。句号，完了。
:
: I do not get your guys points.In Texas, if someone break into your house,
: you can just s........
: ★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
|
s**e
发帖数: 395 | 35 Not sure about other states, but invader will be shot in our state. I asked
a retired cop before, as others pointed out, he said he would try his best
to avoid confrontation, but one does have the right to shoot, If shot was
fired, he said he would finished @&$, to avoid lengthy court battle, very
similar to what LZ suggested.
Any way, it is your house, your family and your love ones, so it is your
call. Just like that 911 operator said, cannot tell you what to do, but
you do what is necessary...
All gun owners should consider his options before the real one unfolded in
his face.
Just my two cents
Ps. If the forum consider this is too offensive, please remove |
l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 36 Ding! 呵呵！
看来还是就在德州混吧。
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
【在 o**d 的大作中提到】
: 看来还是就在德州混吧。
:
: ，他们
|
l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 37 补充一个，我来自加州但我更喜欢德州，因为我个人觉得德州佬有更多的common sense
，试想一下，坏人都杀到眼前了，善良守法的公民如我还得WS地计算一下能否开枪，这
算哪们子法律？德州万岁！无故非法入侵他人神圣不可侵犯的私人住宅，非奸即恶，杀
无赦！多简单明了正义？！
悲天悯人的人们多花些时间口水什么的劝劝哪些不想工作，喜欢半夜到访他人宅院的人
呆在家里，把Resume写好些，也许这样能够善终，阿弥陀佛！善哉，善哉！
我叫红脖是带有亲切感的。呵呵，纯个人感受。
Not sure about other states, but invader will be shot in our state. I asked
a retired co........
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
【在 s**e 的大作中提到】
: Not sure about other states, but invader will be shot in our state. I asked
: a retired cop before, as others pointed out, he said he would try his best
: to avoid confrontation, but one does have the right to shoot, If shot was
: fired, he said he would finished @&$, to avoid lengthy court battle, very
: similar to what LZ suggested.
: Any way, it is your house, your family and your love ones, so it is your
: call. Just like that 911 operator said, cannot tell you what to do, but
: you do what is necessary...
: All gun owners should consider his options before the real one unfolded in
: his face.
|
P*******o
发帖数: 460 | 38 我可以理解你的看法，包括其他几位网友的类似想法，但我目前更倾向于慎重开枪的观
点。
不要忘了，社会问题是复杂的，很难有“简单明了正义”，说句有点刺耳的话，“正义
，有多少罪恶借汝之名而行”。当然我无意贬低别人保卫家人和“神圣不可侵犯的私人
住宅”的想法。
人命关天，这句老话的分量是很沉重的。
sense
asked
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 补充一个，我来自加州但我更喜欢德州，因为我个人觉得德州佬有更多的common sense
: ，试想一下，坏人都杀到眼前了，善良守法的公民如我还得WS地计算一下能否开枪，这
: 算哪们子法律？德州万岁！无故非法入侵他人神圣不可侵犯的私人住宅，非奸即恶，杀
: 无赦！多简单明了正义？！
: 悲天悯人的人们多花些时间口水什么的劝劝哪些不想工作，喜欢半夜到访他人宅院的人
: 呆在家里，把Resume写好些，也许这样能够善终，阿弥陀佛！善哉，善哉！
: 我叫红脖是带有亲切感的。呵呵，纯个人感受。
:
: Not sure about other states, but invader will be shot in our state. I asked
: a retired co........
|
h*********2
发帖数: 2508 | 39 忘了是哪里的比例，说是如果burgular碰到主人，超过70%都会attempt to kill,
avoid later recognition. 切勿以为burgular会彬彬有礼地请你帮忙搬家
sense
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 补充一个，我来自加州但我更喜欢德州，因为我个人觉得德州佬有更多的common sense
: ，试想一下，坏人都杀到眼前了，善良守法的公民如我还得WS地计算一下能否开枪，这
: 算哪们子法律？德州万岁！无故非法入侵他人神圣不可侵犯的私人住宅，非奸即恶，杀
: 无赦！多简单明了正义？！
: 悲天悯人的人们多花些时间口水什么的劝劝哪些不想工作，喜欢半夜到访他人宅院的人
: 呆在家里，把Resume写好些，也许这样能够善终，阿弥陀佛！善哉，善哉！
: 我叫红脖是带有亲切感的。呵呵，纯个人感受。
:
: Not sure about other states, but invader will be shot in our state. I asked
: a retired co........
|
b******o
发帖数: 5644 | 40
俺们俱乐部的老头说的是，上课我讲的是最保险的，但是我自己不会那样做。老头自己
是用法官，410和45colt混装。
不过，要是咱中国人有人因为这犯事，咱就搞大，搞的主流媒体都知道，然后号召中国
人捐钱打官司。到了每个中国人都会受益--原先的东亚病夫现在腰里也揣硬家伙了。
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 博士讲得是对的，我也很同情楼主，其他州我不清楚，德州绝对是闯进门即可毙了，不
: 需要楼上这么多lD费口舌了，这来源于真实案件，因为我有不少当警察的朋友，他们
: 就处理过不少这样的案子。句号，完了。
:
: I do not get your guys points.In Texas, if someone break into your house,
: you can just s........
: ★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
|
|
|
a***a
发帖数: 8941 | 41 这是两回事。现在讨论的，并不是你是否应该开枪杀死一个贼的问题，而是开枪是否合
法的问题。
合法的事情，并非就是一定要去做的事情。即使从法律上说，你可以杀死一个破门进入
你家的人，但是并不等于你一定会这样做。根据情况，你也可能选择不开枪。但是这是
你个人选择。我们并不鼓励杀人，只是就事论事讨论这种情况下开枪是否合法。
LZ一开始也说了，这是讨论法律问题。
这个问题在各个不同的州，有不同的答案。但是我很奇怪，为什么一开始众ID一边倒的
指责楼主。
【在 P*******o 的大作中提到】
: 我可以理解你的看法，包括其他几位网友的类似想法，但我目前更倾向于慎重开枪的观
: 点。
: 不要忘了，社会问题是复杂的，很难有“简单明了正义”，说句有点刺耳的话，“正义
: ，有多少罪恶借汝之名而行”。当然我无意贬低别人保卫家人和“神圣不可侵犯的私人
: 住宅”的想法。
: 人命关天，这句老话的分量是很沉重的。
:
: sense
: asked
|
a***a
发帖数: 8941 | 42 在城堡法面前，既然对方已经闯入你家，那么就已经是符合“迫不得已”的定义了。
开枪是正当防卫，用不着邻居作证，用不着“解脱”。
不承认城堡法的州，是另外一回事。
要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
【在 d*****h 的大作中提到】
: 你在家可以拿枪出来指呀，没叫你射他。都自己家拉，open carry都可以。
: 记得上课的时候讲解员说过一种情况，必不的已开枪前，大喊“把刀放下"，或“不要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
|
s*******n
发帖数: 12995 | 43 对呀，都破门而入了，难道是空手的？
先打911，电话开着，同时警告疑犯，不听不逃离，再开枪。
【在 a***a 的大作中提到】
: 在城堡法面前，既然对方已经闯入你家，那么就已经是符合“迫不得已”的定义了。
: 开枪是正当防卫，用不着邻居作证，用不着“解脱”。
: 不承认城堡法的州，是另外一回事。
:
: 要过来”让邻居都听见，好为自己解脱。
|
d***r
发帖数: 221 | 44 Louisiana case: Howlleeven a Japanese student was killed on his way to trick
or trait. The shooter was inside his house, and the boy was in the yard.
The home owner yelled "freeze!" But, the boy moved because of his bad
English. Then, the guy fired, and the boy was killed. He was sentenced not
guilty by the court. |
l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 45 这位兄弟可能理解错我的意思了，我也不太明白你要表达什么，我天天带枪，你也没见我满街走乱枪扫射，对不？我天天见人，你也没见我逢人就开枪，对不？但是，我要强调但是，一旦我家被暴力闯入，背后是我的家人，退无可退，我会开枪。这是我的开枪原则，请不要偷梁换柱，混扰视听，把社会复杂也搞进来了，难道要我像阿基米德一样，和入侵犯讨论一下哲学问题然后再被人干死吗？我实在不明白这为啥不简单明了？有什么好争论的？法律都允许，有什么好指责的？家人是我生命的一切，他们生命如果受到威胁，我是不会冒任何，记住是任何，风险去犹豫要不要开枪。有人愿意用老婆孩子的生命去冒险，去实现自己伟大人格和理想，请便！！！
我可以理解你的看法，包括其他几位网友的类似想法，但我目前更倾向于慎重开枪的观
点。不要忘了，社会问题是复杂的，很难有“简单明了正义”，说句有点刺耳的话，“
正义，有多少罪恶借汝之名........
★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
【在 P*******o 的大作中提到】
: 我可以理解你的看法，包括其他几位网友的类似想法，但我目前更倾向于慎重开枪的观
: 点。
: 不要忘了，社会问题是复杂的，很难有“简单明了正义”，说句有点刺耳的话，“正义
: ，有多少罪恶借汝之名而行”。当然我无意贬低别人保卫家人和“神圣不可侵犯的私人
: 住宅”的想法。
: 人命关天，这句老话的分量是很沉重的。
:
: sense
: asked
|
f*********n
发帖数: 11154 | 46 楼主之前另外一个帖子中说过开枪之后应该伪造现场，这个被批判过，因为自卫没错，
但是伪证和假证是违法话题，不能在版面讨论。
讨论自卫用枪以及相关的法律规定，没有问题。如老兄所说，这个帖子的命题有漏洞，
每个州的法律不同；在一个州合法在另外一个州就未必合法，不能也不可能一概而论。
【在 a***a 的大作中提到】
: 这是两回事。现在讨论的，并不是你是否应该开枪杀死一个贼的问题，而是开枪是否合
: 法的问题。
: 合法的事情，并非就是一定要去做的事情。即使从法律上说，你可以杀死一个破门进入
: 你家的人，但是并不等于你一定会这样做。根据情况，你也可能选择不开枪。但是这是
: 你个人选择。我们并不鼓励杀人，只是就事论事讨论这种情况下开枪是否合法。
: LZ一开始也说了，这是讨论法律问题。
: 这个问题在各个不同的州，有不同的答案。但是我很奇怪，为什么一开始众ID一边倒的
: 指责楼主。
|
P*******o
发帖数: 460 | 47 我想说的是：枪是威力巨大的杀人利器，因此亦伴随有巨大的责任，最大程度的避免开
枪，是明智之举。就象另一位朋友帖子里提到的退休警察所言：
...I asked a retired cop before, as others pointed out, he said he would try
his best to avoid confrontation, but one does have the right to shoot,...
见我满街走乱枪扫射，对不？我天天见人，你也没见我逢人就开枪，对不？但是，我要
强调但是，一旦我家被暴力闯入，背后是我的家人，退无可退，我会开枪。这是我的开
枪原则，请不要偷梁换柱，混扰视听，把社会复杂也搞进来了，难道要我像阿基米德一
样，和入侵犯讨论一下哲学问题然后再被人干死吗？我实在不明白这为啥不简单明了？
有什么好争论的？法律都允许，有什么好指责的？家人是我生命的一切，他们生命如果
受到威胁，我是不会冒任何，记住是任何，风险去�: 淘ヒ灰埂Ｓ腥嗽敢
庥美掀藕⒆拥纳ッ跋眨ナ迪肿约何按笕烁窈屠硐耄氡悖。。�
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 这位兄弟可能理解错我的意思了，我也不太明白你要表达什么，我天天带枪，你也没见我满街走乱枪扫射，对不？我天天见人，你也没见我逢人就开枪，对不？但是，我要强调但是，一旦我家被暴力闯入，背后是我的家人，退无可退，我会开枪。这是我的开枪原则，请不要偷梁换柱，混扰视听，把社会复杂也搞进来了，难道要我像阿基米德一样，和入侵犯讨论一下哲学问题然后再被人干死吗？我实在不明白这为啥不简单明了？有什么好争论的？法律都允许，有什么好指责的？家人是我生命的一切，他们生命如果受到威胁，我是不会冒任何，记住是任何，风险去犹豫要不要开枪。有人愿意用老婆孩子的生命去冒险，去实现自己伟大人格和理想，请便！！！
:
: 我可以理解你的看法，包括其他几位网友的类似想法，但我目前更倾向于慎重开枪的观
: 点。不要忘了，社会问题是复杂的，很难有“简单明了正义”，说句有点刺耳的话，“
: 正义，有多少罪恶借汝之名........
: ★ Sent from iPhone App: iReader Mitbbs Lite 7.38
|
P*******o
发帖数: 460 | 48 这个故事我很久以前也听说过，虽然屋主被判无罪，但是一条人命就这样没了。另外不
知道开枪的屋主花了多少律师费？
trick
【在 d***r 的大作中提到】
: Louisiana case: Howlleeven a Japanese student was killed on his way to trick
: or trait. The shooter was inside his house, and the boy was in the yard.
: The home owner yelled "freeze!" But, the boy moved because of his bad
: English. Then, the guy fired, and the boy was killed. He was sentenced not
: guilty by the court.
|
l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 49 美费城中餐馆老板遭匪徒枪杀 案件震惊华人社区
据办案警探斯茅尔介绍，1月20日晚上7时许，两名抢匪面带着滑雪面罩闯入费城东北区
一家名为“金祥”的中餐馆声称抢劫。华人餐馆老板并无反抗。但是不知何故，抢匪开
了枪。子弹打入餐馆老板的左胸，他当场死亡。就在他被射杀的一瞬间，他的妻子抱着
一个8个月大的女婴，就站在他的身后不远处。这对夫妻有三个孩子。妻子当时抱在怀
里的是最小的一个。
"华人餐馆老板并无反抗。但是不知何故，抢匪开了枪。"
请问这条人命算谁得？请问华人餐馆老板会再乎律师费吗？请问幸存的孤儿寡母谁来关
心他们的权力？请问那些劫匪有傢您那么慈祥地关注枪的威力是巨大的，愼用之？！
借江河心的一句话赠你：You are too simple, sometime naïve!
我不喜欢在版上斗嘴，这个话题到此结束，我不会再回帖了。
【在 P*******o 的大作中提到】
: 这个故事我很久以前也听说过，虽然屋主被判无罪，但是一条人命就这样没了。另外不
: 知道开枪的屋主花了多少律师费？
:
: trick
|
h*********l
发帖数: 615 | 50 大家春节快乐 心平气和讨论
就像前面兄弟说的 应该把 “合法”和“个人尺度”分清楚 如前人所言法律各个地方
都不同 法官也不同 jury也不同 就不多说了
从CCW课上跟有经验的美国中老年人沟通学习 我结论自己的“个人尺度”是: 我个人是
肯定会get ready to fire 但是能跑掉就跑掉 如果有家人跑不掉 就拿枪守在一处 决
不要sweep the house太危险 太容易confrontation
即使在合法的前提下 我如果没有觉得生命受到威胁 仅仅财产而已 我也不会开枪
另一个case 如果觉得没有退路了 贼人上来找你藏身处 不论法律怎么定义 i will do
what i should
不是针对楼主 前几天有人发帖子说 “在屋外遇到贼刚出来 真希望老婆当时手里有枪
在屋里把他打死了”我真不希望版上任何持枪的人有这样的观点 |
|
|
h*********l
发帖数: 615 | 51 哥们 心平气和 我想你在曲解别人的意思 PistolLeo在这种情况下如果情况有时间出枪
他会开枪的
LZ之前确实讨论过贼人手里没枪的情况
况且咱们是有枪的人之间讨论 你有想过这个餐馆老板有枪吗 之前打算买枪吗 如果没有 这个论题就变成“每个开餐馆的开店是不是都应该拥枪？”
【在 l***1 的大作中提到】
: 美费城中餐馆老板遭匪徒枪杀 案件震惊华人社区
: 据办案警探斯茅尔介绍，1月20日晚上7时许，两名抢匪面带着滑雪面罩闯入费城东北区
: 一家名为“金祥”的中餐馆声称抢劫。华人餐馆老板并无反抗。但是不知何故，抢匪开
: 了枪。子弹打入餐馆老板的左胸，他当场死亡。就在他被射杀的一瞬间，他的妻子抱着
: 一个8个月大的女婴，就站在他的身后不远处。这对夫妻有三个孩子。妻子当时抱在怀
: 里的是最小的一个。
: "华人餐馆老板并无反抗。但是不知何故，抢匪开了枪。"
: 请问这条人命算谁得？请问华人餐馆老板会再乎律师费吗？请问幸存的孤儿寡母谁来关
: 心他们的权力？请问那些劫匪有傢您那么慈祥地关注枪的威力是巨大的，愼用之？！
: 借江河心的一句话赠你：You are too simple, sometime naïve!
|
P*******o
发帖数: 460 | 52 拥枪的哥们疾恶如仇的一面，咱可以理解。不过送我的那句话还是请他自己留着吧。
没有 这个论题就变成“每个开餐馆的开店是不是都应该拥枪？”
【在 h*********l 的大作中提到】
: 哥们 心平气和 我想你在曲解别人的意思 PistolLeo在这种情况下如果情况有时间出枪
: 他会开枪的
: LZ之前确实讨论过贼人手里没枪的情况
: 况且咱们是有枪的人之间讨论 你有想过这个餐馆老板有枪吗 之前打算买枪吗 如果没有 这个论题就变成“每个开餐馆的开店是不是都应该拥枪？”
|
