Self defense in home and arrested [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Self defense in home and arrested


florida1098
11-07-2012, 16:39
California homeowner arrested after shooting alleged intruders
Published November 07, 2012
FoxNews.com


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/07/california-homeowner-arrested-after-shooting-alleged-intruders/#ixzz2BaCdqo7g

Glock20 10mm
11-07-2012, 16:44
He's a felon that was in possession of a firearm. This equals... FAIL.

ray9898
11-07-2012, 16:44
Actually...he was arrested for being a felon with a gun.

stolenphot0
11-07-2012, 16:47
http://worstprofessorever.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/nothing_to_see_here.jpg

:whistling:

dango
11-07-2012, 16:53
Catch 22........Bummer !

Kingarthurhk
11-07-2012, 16:56
He's a felon that was in possession of a firearm. This equals... FAIL.

http://ocspeakersbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/homer_simpson_doh1.gif

TBO
11-07-2012, 17:02
Some people may only exist to serve as a warning to others.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Ibew
11-07-2012, 17:19
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

SFCSMITH(RET)
11-08-2012, 06:40
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

Obviously not.

But, just as obviously, there WILL be consequences.

Averageman
11-08-2012, 06:54
When did it become illeagle for a felon to own a gun?
Just curious, because to my knowledge it wasnt when I was a kid in the 60's & 70's.

GlockPride
11-08-2012, 06:56
If they are ok to be out of prison and own a car, knife, pencil, or X why should an inanimate object matter???

Felons should be allowed guns. Why? If the bad ones want one, they're going to get one. Period!

HerrGlock
11-08-2012, 07:28
When did it become illeagle for a felon to own a gun?
Just curious, because to my knowledge it wasnt when I was a kid in the 60's & 70's.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 outlawed possession of a firearm or ammunition to anyone who has been convicted of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" which includes many state misdemeanors as well as felonies. The thing is that there is an exception state designated misdemeanors with penalties less than 2 years. People tend to just shorten that to felonies, though. If you find a 2.5 year penalty available for a misdemeanor, it would qualify for the ban.

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 07:36
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

He can defend himself...just not with a gun. He could have used a staff, a baseball bat, his hands and fists (if he were Oriental - for fans of They Called Me Bruce).

walt cowan
11-08-2012, 09:13
shoot, shovel, shut-up.

BuckeyePPC
11-08-2012, 09:20
He can defend himself...just not with a gun. He could have used a staff, a baseball bat, his hands and fists (if he were Oriental - for fans of They Called Me Bruce).

Off topic :

My former HR director got on my case because I referred to myself as Oriental (only half Japanese anyways). She said I could get into trouble because I have to call myself Asian. I stared at her and said I'm only talking about myself and calling myself Oriental as I've done all my life. She said it didn't matter. I'm Asian and not Oriental. :shocked:

Ok to go back on topic now.

fnfalman
11-08-2012, 09:29
Off topic :

My former HR director got on my case because I referred to myself as Oriental (only half Japanese anyways). She said I could get into trouble because I have to call myself Asian. I stared at her and said I'm only talking about myself and calling myself Oriental as I've done all my life. She said it didn't matter. I'm Asian and not Oriental. :shocked:

Ok to go back on topic now.

If it were me, I'd tell her that I'd report her for racial harassment.:rofl:

BuckeyePPC
11-08-2012, 10:08
I should have told her I wasn't half Japanese, I was half Okinawan but I didn't want her head to explode. :rofl:

JDennis
11-08-2012, 10:09
I have no sympathy for him. If you choose to commit crimes, become a felon, you know full and well you give up your right to firearms. The choice is ultimately up to the person. Be a good and upstanding citizen, enjoy your guns! He definitely has the right to defend himself like everyone, but not with firearms.

tarpleyg
11-08-2012, 10:12
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

No flaming here. If the guy is out of prison, then he should be able to own a gun (and vote, etc.). He's paid his debt. If he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he should still be locked up. I've never understood this.

Caver 60
11-08-2012, 10:51
If they are ok to be out of prison and own a car, knife, pencil, or X why should an inanimate object matter???

Felons should be allowed guns. Why? If the bad ones want one, they're going to get one. Period!

No flaming here. If the guy is out of prison, then he should be able to own a gun (and vote, etc.). He's paid his debt. If he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he should still be locked up. I've never understood this.

I'm on you all's side. If Charlie Manson is paroled tomorrow, he should be able to walk into a gun store and buy one, no questions asked. Except perhaps how do you want to pay for this, cash or card?

Now if he violently misuses it, then burn him or lock him up, throw the key away, and weld the door shut.

SMOKEin
11-08-2012, 11:03
Should sex offenders be out on the street living normal, everyday life? Or should they be on a registry?

maximus1079
11-08-2012, 11:10
He's a felon that was in possession of a firearm. This equals... FAIL.
^this^

Brian Lee
11-08-2012, 11:16
No flaming here. If the guy is out of prison, then he should be able to own a gun (and vote, etc.). He's paid his debt.

(oh really?)

If he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he should still be locked up. I've never understood this.

I never could agree that just because the legal system is so foolish that they let a guy out who probably should not have been let go, that the rest of us should feel that he's "paid his debt". It just isn't as simple as "paying a debt" at all. With most of our violent crimes being committed by guys on early release, I don't see how I'm the mean-minded one for feeling that I still doubt whether a particular ex-con is now somehow a nice guy who can be trusted, or that the citizenry should be expected to treat him as if he is.

Maybe a few guys actually bring their criminal mindedness to an end before being let out of jail, but for the majority I just don't buy it, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for law abiding citizens to make their own judgements on an individual case-by-case basis as to whether any one ex-con is a good person to have living next door now. This "paid his debt" idea is a drastic over-simplification that results in way too many extra crimes that should have never happened, and I wish people would stop that false (IMO) expression.... It advocates that the citizenry should completely and blindly trust the judgements of a parole board that is already KNOWN to have exhibited great incompetence during MOST of it's previous decision making.

And I fully support the idea that just because he's out of jail now, (for violent offenders) that refusing to trust him with a gun is probably a good idea - assuming that he's going to be let out anyway - which most obviously should not be, given the known track record of ex-cons in general.

Prohibiting all of them from owning guns is at least one small step toward recognition of the fact that parole boards often make big mistakes.

pizza_pablo
11-08-2012, 13:29
shoot, shovel, shut-up.
:rofl:
Should sex offenders be out on the street living normal, everyday life? Or should they be on a registry?
6 feet under!

TBO
11-08-2012, 13:31
shoot, shovel, shut-up.

How to get yourself in a jam 101

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

ray9898
11-08-2012, 13:36
I don't understand why so many think for someone to be released it has to be absolute they are "no longer a threat". People are punished for a crime by incarceration when they are found guilty. While rehabilitation is a new goal we have bestowed on the CJ system it is not a requirement. The incarceration itself for decades was simply the punishment for the crime.

We cannot lock everyone up for life, we have a Constitution that prevents excessive punishment and very few crimes can pass the life sentence test. These people will be back out on the street unless the commit one of our most serious crimes.

walt cowan
11-08-2012, 13:37
How to get yourself in a jam 101

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

he's a felon, relax.:rofl:

Carrys
11-08-2012, 14:48
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

Who said he couldn't defend himself, eh?

Myopic minds produce myopic results.:wavey:







Off topic :

My former HR director got on my case because I referred to myself as Oriental (only half Japanese anyways). She said I could get into trouble because I have to call myself Asian. I stared at her and said I'm only talking about myself and calling myself Oriental as I've done all my life. She said it didn't matter. I'm Asian and not Oriental. :shocked:

Ok to go back on topic now.

This is the thinking that has led to our Country's coming ever closer to it's demise over the last several decades.

Ya just can't tell some folks. Try not to murder 'em, eh?

jbailey8
11-14-2012, 11:00
Maybe their should be a reform that allows non violent offenders to own guns. For example I bought a lock pick tool set, in Washington, just before going to Iraq so that I could take to help pass the time. Also I thought the ability to pick locks could come in handy during silent raids. Turns out I just unlocked (or tried to unlock) peoples duffle bags when they lost their keys.

Sorry, their is a point....

Now had I brought said tools home to Virginia then I could've been charged with a felony. In Virginia its a felony to own lock pick tools unless you're in that profession. Let's say I didn't look into the law before buying them, should I lose my gun rights over a unintentional law violation? Luckily I sold them to another soldier in Washington and never had to worry about that, but it's stupid the things that you can lose your "inalienable" rights over.

Clutch Cargo
11-14-2012, 11:48
Off topic :

My former HR director got on my case because I referred to myself as Oriental (only half Japanese anyways). She said I could get into trouble because I have to call myself Asian. I stared at her and said I'm only talking about myself and calling myself Oriental as I've done all my life. She said it didn't matter. I'm Asian and not Oriental. :shocked:

Ok to go back on topic now.
Good thing you're not half-negro like our President!:wow:

tantrix
11-14-2012, 13:30
He can defend himself...just not with a gun. He could have used a staff, a baseball bat, his hands and fists (if he were Oriental - for fans of They Called Me Bruce).

This.



A similar scenario:

You lawfully defend yourself in public with a firearm you were carrying concealed without a permit (in a state that requires permits). You can be cleared on the shooting, but still get stuck with an 'illegal carrying of a weapons' charge.

TK-421
11-14-2012, 13:43
No flaming here. If the guy is out of prison, then he should be able to own a gun (and vote, etc.). He's paid his debt. If he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he should still be locked up. I've never understood this.

I might be willing to agree with you, if the chance to re-offend wasn't so high. Just because they're out of jail does not mean he's paid his debt to society, and does not mean he's no longer dangerous. The jail system doesn't work that way. They are way too crowded to worry about keeping people around. They want them in and out as fast as possible with as little fuss as possible. Haven't you ever heard that if you're sentenced to ten years in jail you're usually let go in five, or maybe even less? They don't care about rehabilitation, they care about making it look like they're doing their job, while getting people out as quickly as possible to make room for more people.

In 2007, in California alone, 93,000 parolees were returned to jail, 20,000 of which returned with new charges. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/9_cj_parolees.aspx?catid=3

That right there tells me that the criminals released are still extremely dangerous, they have not been rehabilitated, and they should not be allowed to own firearms. And remember, that 93,000 is from only California, and that data is five years old. It could be a significantly higher number now.

TheExplorer
11-14-2012, 13:59
Does the law clarify the type of felony? I didn't think so. You could be a felon for driving 100mph, that doesn't mean you are violent, just foolish.

tantrix
11-14-2012, 14:36
Does the law clarify the type of felony? I didn't think so. You could be a felon for driving 100mph, that doesn't mean you are violent, just foolish.

So are felonies for drug possession, but it's still a felony nonetheless.

Kind of like the people on sex offender registries because they were caught urinating in public...not really what you'd expect to be classified as a "sex offender".

Gallium
11-14-2012, 14:37
Should sex offenders be out on the street living normal, everyday life? Or should they be on a registry?


You mean like some 20 year old dude who drinks, gets drunk, picks up a 22 yr old, has sex with her, it's rape due to he says, she says?

Or did you mean PEDOPHILES? For which we know there is no known cure?

TBO
11-14-2012, 14:41
Does the law clarify the type of felony? I didn't think so. You could be a felon for driving 100mph, that doesn't mean you are violent, just foolish.

Where is that a felony?

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

ICARRY2
11-14-2012, 14:43
No flaming here. If the guy is out of prison, then he should be able to own a gun (and vote, etc.). He's paid his debt. If he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, he should still be locked up. I've never understood this.

Because we dont have enough money to keep every dirtbag locked up.

Without a gun they are just a little less dangerous.

I also dont understand people like you who think that if a criminal is not locked up they should be abe to own a gun. Probably how they got locked up in the first place.

TK-421
11-14-2012, 14:46
Does the law clarify the type of felony? I didn't think so. You could be a felon for driving 100mph, that doesn't mean you are violent, just foolish.

Well, if driving 100 is a felony, and you don't want your gun rights taken away, then don't drive 100. Is that really so hard? A felony is a felony. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time, or if you don't like the consequences.

Ibew
11-14-2012, 18:08
Not as Myopic as you might asertain.
Gave you a chance to dazzle me with your eloquent retort.:supergrin:



Who said he couldn't defend himself, eh?

Myopic minds produce myopic results.:wavey:









This is the thinking that has led to our Country's coming ever closer to it's demise over the last several decades.

Ya just can't tell some folks. Try not to murder 'em, eh?

NMG26
11-14-2012, 18:19
Because we dont have enough money to keep every dirtbag locked up.

Without a gun they are just a little less dangerous.

I also dont understand people like you who think that if a criminal is not locked up they should be abe to own a gun. Probably how they got locked up in the first place.

Lock them up and let them out, then there is nothing to stop them from getting a gun. The gun charge just puts them back in jail and we can not afford to keep them locked up. Circular logic.

SMOKEin
11-14-2012, 18:22
You mean like some 20 year old dude who drinks, gets drunk, picks up a 22 yr old, has sex with her, it's rape due to he says, she says?

Or did you mean PEDOPHILES? For which we know there is no known cure?

The slope is slippery and endless. In my mind, pedophiles shouldn't even be in the conversation though, as they should never be free again.

Ibew
11-14-2012, 18:28
Good idea in theory.
Who's going to lobby for the rights of felons?
(Well it's actually some misdemeanors.)

Restricting Constitutional rights needs a boogey man.

F106 Fan
11-14-2012, 18:58
It isn't just felons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.


There is general agreement that persons who are at unacceptably high risk for committing firearm-related violence should not be permitted to purchase or possess firearms. Under federal law, individuals who seek to purchase firearms from licensed dealers must first undergo a background check to verify that they are eligible to do so. Felons, persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses or subject to domestic violence restraining orders, controlled substance addicts, and certain others are prohibited.1 Some states have enacted broader controls, including more comprehensive prohibitions and, in some cases, a requirement that nearly all gun sales include a background check.2 In 2008, federal and state agencies conducted 9,900,711 background checks on potential firearm purchasers, of which 147,080 (1.5%) resulted in a denial of purchase.3


http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IneligibilityJTrauma.pdf

Notice that even misdemeanor offenses can result in the loss of the right to own a firearm.

In addition, in California, you can not use deadly force to protect property. If the bad guys walk in, steal your HDTV while you are watching it and walk out the door without ever threatening you, you can not shoot them. Nor can you attack them with any other deadly weapon such as a baseball bat.

You genuinely have to be in fear for your life INSIDE your home and the bad guy(s) must have the means to threaten your life (like a knife, screwdriver or any other potentially deadly weapon).

California is not a safe place to live now that Govenor Brown has emptied out the prisons and dumped the convicts onto the overcrowded local jails where they are simply cut loose. And if the former state prisoner is still held in the local jail, some other bad guy is cut loose because the jails simply can't hold any more people. I think the govenor cut loose about 40,000 felons! One way or another, 40,000 criminals are on the loose.

Remember that somewhere in excess of 80% of released felons will wind up back in prison (if space is available). The idea of rehabilitation is a joke. These people are dangerous!

Richard

TK-421
11-14-2012, 19:13
It isn't just felons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.


http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IneligibilityJTrauma.pdf

Notice that even misdemeanor offenses can result in the loss of the right to own a firearm.


And you know what the solution is? Don't commit the crime. Duh. :rofl:

Ibew
11-14-2012, 19:21
And you know what the solution is? Don't commit the crime. Duh. :rofl:

Just being cynical,But how many Felonies does the average Joe commit a day?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

CBennett
11-14-2012, 20:13
When did it become illeagle for a felon to own a gun?
Just curious, because to my knowledge it wasnt when I was a kid in the 60's & 70's.

i was born in 69 and its been b4 i was born. I semi agree with it. I think the law should be with violent felons not just any. But since my opinion means nothing it is what it is.

rustygun
11-14-2012, 20:25
Should sex offenders be out on the street living normal, everyday life? Or should they be on a registry?


No sex offenders should be dead. Would love to see violent predators like that considered capital criminals. Not the statutory rape crowd like a girl who lies about her age and some dumb guy didn't check her I.D. But the violent scumbags who hurt kids or the old or women need to go away....preferable quickly.

TK-421
11-14-2012, 20:30
Just being cynical,But how many Felonies does the average Joe commit a day?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

It sounds more like the only reason they're committing felonies is because the court system is so far behind everybody else, not the fact that they're willfully committing felonies. To me, it sounds more like they're not doing anything actually wrong, but the courts are so far behind, and the laws so vague, that it gets classified as a felony. But if the courts weren't behind, and the laws weren't so vague, and people educated in what the laws affected were the ones writing the law, then it wouldn't be a felony.

Wyoming
11-14-2012, 21:05
When did it become illeagle for a felon to own a gun?
Just curious, because to my knowledge it wasnt when I was a kid in the 60's & 70's.

May 1968

Wyoming
11-14-2012, 21:14
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

(Flamesuit on).

Yes. When you make decisions they may have long term unintended consequences.

Have a one night stand, make a baby, pay child support for 18 years. Kid grows up a waist of skin because you weren't around to be a good Dad. Keep paying in money and tears.

Drink too much. Run a red light. Kill a person. Go to prison. Can't own guns or vote the rest of your life.

You are responsible for you. All the time.

Have fun.

larry_minn
11-14-2012, 21:16
I have no sympathy for him. If you choose to commit crimes, become a felon, you know full and well you give up your right to firearms. The choice is ultimately up to the person. Be a good and upstanding citizen, enjoy your guns! He definitely has the right to defend himself like everyone, but not with firearms.

While I don't know his crimes. You do realize there are thousands of folks who have had their gun "RIGHTS" taken away and have NOT done anything wrong? As some others posted there are reasons (other then being a convicted rapist) to lose your gun rights.
Also folks who are innocent have/will plea guilty to (lesser charge) not realizing long term costs.

sns3guppy
11-14-2012, 21:17
What if he had'nt been armed?

What then? Does his prior conviction prevent him from defending himself?

Remember that stupid cliche that the "gun" crowd likes to mumble under their breath like some kind of anthem..."better to be judged by twelve than carried by six?"

Now he gets to be judged by twelve (again).