Is it normal i think it should be legal to defend yourself?

83% Normal
22 Comments

Now when I say this I don't mean simply defend yourself. By law if you have martial arts training you are registered as a deadly weapon. I think its unfair to tell a person they have no right to defend themselves IF THEY ACTUALLY know how to defend themselves. This law says that people need to be defenseless and I cant see who they are protecting with it.

Voting Results
83% Normal
Based on 30 votes (25 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 22 )
  • [Old Memory]
    10 years ago | pl

    I didn't know this was a law. I thought self defense was legal unless it was judged to have been unnecessary.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    7
    7
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Well its like this. Lets say someone was robbing your house and you attack them if its not ruled assault its self defense. However get the same person with a black belt and its equal to shooting the intruder with a pistol. Which I think is unfair since they are not actually attacking the person with an item.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        10 years ago

        I think if someone's robbing your house you should have every right to even shoot them.

        Maybe they should have thought about it before committing a dumbass crime.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        4
        4
          -
        • thegypsysailor
          10 years ago

          The law is written this way, in most states; You may not use deadly force unless you are in fear for your life or someone else's. If you have a legal fire arm, you may not use it to defend property, and you may not "shoot to wound or incapacitate". If you are in fear for your life you must "shoot to kill" or the law will determine that you were not in enough danger to warrant shooting at all.
          So, it would be exactly the same scenario for someone who is "registered as a deadly weapon"; if you do not kill your attacker, then you weren't in enough danger to warrant attacking him at all.
          I believe it is set up to force people with a CWP to judge the seriousness of a situation and not just go popping off rounds at some vague target, for a suspected offense. You can't set lethal booby traps, to protect our home and property either.
          It makes some sense in the fact that perhaps you wouldn't really want to shoot some 12 year old kid for stealing a bike out of your garage. Or, at least the law doesn't want you to.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          2
          2
            -
          • Anonymous Post Author
            10 years ago

            Yes but even if you state you are defending yourself people have still tried to sue over it. People have sued since they broken a leg in someones yard trying to rob them. This is stupid case but some have won. Some people have sued the person for getting attacked by the dog when they broke into the yard and they put down the dog. Just because laws says you are not suppose to do something does not mean a lawyer cant find some stupid way around it.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
              -
            • CozmoWank
              10 years ago

              You can sue someone over practically anything. It does not mean you are going to win.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              2
              2
          • dickwashington
            10 years ago

            couple questions if you dont mind

            1. what states is the law diffrent in and how is it diffrent?

            2. whats a CWP?

            3. now by defending property do you mean someone entering your property with out invitation or some one stealing from you?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • thegypsysailor
              10 years ago

              My CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) is reciprocated by some states and not others, so it is my assumption that the rules governing the use of deadly force are the same or similar in reciprocating states and different in those that don't.
              Entering into or trespassing on your property does not necessarily constitute a "fear for your life situation"; someone pointing a weapon at you does.
              Stealing from you without a threat is not necessarily life threatening.
              A guy walks up to you and your lady on the street and pulls a gun; you have every right to shoot him dead. The same guy steals a bike from your garage and you confront him as he rides down the driveway; you have no right to shoot him.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • Anonymous Post Author
          10 years ago

          I completely agree on that. However some robbers have sued for breaking a leg on the property of the persons house they were trying to rob. Sadly some of these robbers have won. So much for feeling safe in your own home.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            10 years ago

            Fuck that. There is too much wrong with the law.
            Enter at your own risk should be the rule.
            If you get shot or hurt while committing a crime it is their own fault.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            2
            2
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              10 years ago

              Like I said I agree but in these recent years people are using law to attack victims. I don't agree with it and find the people who would help these type of people attack victims are the worst scum on the plant.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • Couman
    10 years ago

    Since you're so sure it's a real law, how about citing us the section number? Or a court ruling? News story? Anything?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
  • RoseIsabella
    10 years ago

    I think that's just a silly urban myth.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    5
    5
      -
    • CozmoWank
      10 years ago

      I don't know where the OP is from but in many parts of the US there is the Castle Doctrine which allows the use of deadly force to protect your home.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      3
      3
  • handsignals
    10 years ago

    *someone takes my parking spot at the mall* Seven...six...two...millimeter Full Metal Jacket.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Gspyder
    10 years ago

    It is legal if you're threatened.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • TheGodThatFailed
    10 years ago

    It is here in Texas. Don't know about the other states.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Lex.Mercatoria
    10 years ago

    One always has the right to defend oneself and no municipal corporation's private statutes can void that. It's only "illegal" if one consents to that nonsense.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • AvrilLavigne
    10 years ago

    People these days - ILLOGICAL.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0