It's pretty backwards and incredibly stupid.
To think that criminals can counter sue on any grounds is past all forms of sense.
There's a reason the fucks are label "criminals", it's not because they're upstanding citizens that the law should protect.

Quote from: challengerX on November 20, 2014, 04:32:27 AM

I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.

Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but if someone breaks into your house, the intent to cause damage is already there. Defending yourself against that intent should be an obvious reaction and in accordance with sensible laws.

Strongly agree.

Unrelated to guns but related to criminals:
Someone fell down robbing a beach home and they were able to sue the home owners, and win. Like, what then hell.

Quote from: Byrne on November 20, 2014, 05:17:57 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 20, 2014, 04:47:01 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 20, 2014, 04:32:27 AM

I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.

Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but if someone breaks into your house, the intent to cause damage is already there. Defending yourself against that intent should be an obvious reaction and in accordance with sensible laws.

Shooting and killing a person for the mere fact that they broke in or trespassed does not fall under sensible laws, imo.

I don't mean killing them, accidents happen in that regard, but defending yourself and property by driving away the offending person with force should not be against the law.

That's what I mean by I agree with you, a certain amount of force is unnecessary, but the law shouldn't enable criminals when they're the ones in the wrong.

Quote from: Flee on November 20, 2014, 04:47:01 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 20, 2014, 04:32:27 AM

I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.

Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.

lol

So if a guy breaks through your front door he's most likely there to take a shit or borrow a cup of sugar?

MUM GET THE CAMERA

Unrelated to guns but related to criminals:
Someone fell down robbing a beach home and they were able to sue the home owners, and win. Like, what then hell.

I fucking hate this shit

I have an uncle who owns a good 4 or 5 acres out in Mississipi that he lives and hunts on. One day he was out sighting in his rifles for hunting season or just outing hunting (can't remember), either way he fired his gun and the bullet entered inside a shack he has and injured a guy that was illegally on the land and poaching. So what does the scumbag do? Sue my uncle

The reason why they are investigating it as a homicide is because he wasn't in his own home. If he was in his own residence, that would be a different story.

The article is from 2013, and there's nothing about it since then. Did nothing else happen since then?

Keep in mind, an investigation is simply that. No charges filed, no convictions. Reactionary politics gets us nowhere.

Quote from: Kinder on November 20, 2014, 07:32:25 AM

I fucking hate this shit

I have an uncle who owns a good 4 or 5 acres out in Mississipi that he lives and hunts on. One day he was out sighting in his rifles for hunting season or just outing hunting (can't remember), either way he fired his gun and the bullet entered inside a shack he has and injured a guy that was illegally on the land and poaching. So what does the scumbag do? Sue my uncle

Inquistorial > Adversarial bro. Just like how Statutory/Civil > Common.

Just out of interest.

Is common law necessary adversarial? I haven't seen anything to suggest that'd be the case, but you'd know more of the minutiae than I.