new Kansas law: you must shoot attacker or go to prison

[livingdeadmoose]

You guys have chosen the most extreme situation and dismissed the idea of compassion. Congrats. If you can't see a myriad situations short of what you described where a threat is preferable to killing someoone to preserve your safety, you 1) have no imagination and 2) possibly just aren't capable of compassion for anyone at all.

When faced with crime you can only assume the extreme. The person was already unstable enough to attack you, why should you assume they don't want to harm you?

 

[Max Power]

 

[El Chimpo]

I agree with you but if I yelled "I have a gun" when they are trying to break down the door I would hate to be arrested for saying that.

they gave up their chance at a fair play when they chose to break in imo

 

[ZERO THEORY]

Just lol.

We're not all that bad, Brother.

Look at the location and you'll find this article is referring to a 'Red State.'

Indeed. It's one of those wacky Red states where the property crimes, thefts, and assaults are astronomically lower occurrences, taxes are lower, goods are cheaper, property is more affordable, cost of living is lower, land is more abundant, resources come from in-state, and there's more public land.

I agree with you but if I yelled "I have a gun" when they are trying to break down the door I would hate to be arrested for saying that.

False. Read again.

What are you missing here? The law isn't about your right to defend yourself. It is about FORCING everyone to defend themselves in one way.

False. Read again.

 

[Nonsense]

When faced with crime you can only assume the extreme. The person was already unstable enough to attack you, why should you assume they don't want to harm you?

Thank god the law in Canada doesn't see it that way. It would be a shame to shoot an intruder you deem a rapist and murderer who was just your drunk next door neighbor in the wrong house.

 

[philth]

Thank god the law in Canada doesn't see it that way. It would be a shame to shoot an intruder you deem a rapist and murderer who was just your drunk next door neighbor in the wrong house.

Or, your husband/wife.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1745325/soldier-wife-shooting/

A solider at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina, tried to bring his wife a surprise breakfast in bed Friday morning, but as his reward for the romantic gesture, he found himself in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest.

According to police, the soldier did not attempt to sneak into the house. He simply entered through the front door as he normally would. But in the interim between his departure and return, 27-year-old Tiffany had apparently activated the house

 

[dabausplaya]

Or, your husband/wife.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1745325/soldier-wife-shooting/

That's called a Southern Divorce. You are assuming it was an accident.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

Thank god the law in Canada doesn't see it that way. It would be a shame to shoot an intruder you deem a rapist and murderer who was just your drunk next door neighbor in the wrong house.

Yea because drunk next door neighbors in the wrong house is a much bigger problem than home invaders right?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'd imagine it's a deterrent against home invasion, theft, etc.

But still Jesus

This is the Muurican way. Don't throw fists, hell don't even use a weapon to scare off an attacker. Shoot to kill or don't even bother protecting yourself in Kansas.

Maybe its to prevent people from threatening people unnecessarily with their weapons? If you know you have to actually feel threaten to use a gun you'll be less likely to just use it to intimidate someone who you don't actually think is a threat.

 

[Nonsense]

Yea because drunk next door neighbors in the wrong house is a much bigger problem than home invaders right?

The option of telling the person you have a gun and are willing to shoot would allow you to understand the situation better than just shooting everyone you seem a rapist dead.

But you seem pretty interested in just shooting anyone so go at it, the law seems on your side.

 

[Ippwnage]

The option of telling the person you have a gun and are willing to shoot would allow you to understand the situation better than just shooting everyone you seem a rapist dead.

But you seem pretty interested in just shooting anyone so go at it, the law seems on your side.

i say don't shoot them just let them go and when they home invade the next house and the moron home owners to not have a gun, those criminals can take their time and do whatever they want to the parents and kids. this sounds great.

also, i can tell you have never been home invaded.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

The option of telling the person you have a gun and are willing to shoot would allow you to understand the situation better than just shooting everyone you seem a rapist dead.

But you seem pretty interested in just shooting anyone so go at it, the law seems on your side.

LMAO. Do you intentionally try to use misnomers and falsehoods?

 

[Nonsense]

i say don't shoot them just let them go and when they home invade the next house and the moron home owners to not have a gun, those criminals can take their time and do whatever they want to the parents and kids. this sounds great.

also, i can tell you have never been home invaded.

You do see that there are middle grounds between KILL everyone and let everyone on their merry way, right?

Or don't you see that?

 

[scrubido]

I'd like to challenge any of you non-gun owners to a gun fight.

 

[Nonsense]

LMAO. Do you intentionally try to use misnomers and falsehoods?

What the shit is it that YOU don't get? The court interpreted the statute literally and narrowly, and the statute allows use of force but not threat of force. So you can shoot but not threaten to shoot. That's the law there. Explain where im wrong.

 

[Irenaeus]

Don't embarrass yourself... Despite certain portions of the Country that can't seem to get their shit together, the United States is the best Country on Earth.

You didn't read the next line, did you? I'm not debating which country is better or worse, nor which country has the most idiots. I'm saying that your idiots get more worldwide TV coverage than our idiots, hence more hypothetical cringing from hypothetical American me.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

What the shit is it that YOU don't get? The court interpreted the statute literally and narrowly, and the statute allows use of force but not threat of force. So you can shoot but not threaten to shoot. That's the law there. Explain where im wrong.

I did. A couple of times, actually.

But in this instance I was referring to you trying to twist the other guy's words and assign him villainy.

 

[Thanos]

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/...-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/



Summary: it's only self-defense if you try to kill your assailant. If you defend yourself with only the threat of force ("Back off or I'll shoot/cut/hit/etc. you!") you cannot claim self defense and will go to prison for assault or aggravated assault.

Oh how I hope someone I hate steps on my foot now

 

[Darkballs]

A poorly written law by republicans to show how big their dicks/guns are.

As the law is written, if I had to respond with self-defense but didn't have a gun on me, I'm going to jail. Not to mention how it conflicts with preexisting self-defense laws. Just a crap law based on ideology not common sense.

 

[johnyboy]

Well the rule is not exactly like the article is trying to make it out to be