ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
The statement is irresponsible for several reasons. You've said you're a cop and you made a blanket statement implying that shooting someone just because he is there is a legal act. It's simply not in many places. In my home state, there has to be imminent danger. Your statement doesnt give any qualifiers at all.
BT, once again, you haven't been clear in one of your posts. Let me illustrate.
Here is my original post...
As far as going into the woods being the same as entering a house...you have to be kidding me, right? Here is an example for you. If you catch a guy tresspassing in one of your farm fields, does the fact that he is there give you the right to shoot and kill him? Now, put that same person in your house, it's no longer trespassing, it a burglary, home invasion, robbery, etc., and you can kill him
I've bolded the qualifiers you say I didn't give. Forget burglary, because once the guy confronts a person, it becomes a robbery. And you are the one that accused me of not reading everything
Personally, I think you have realised you are on the wrong side of the coin with this issue, and are doing anything you can to cling to some issue you are right on, and to do that, you are trying to divert the discussion to me being irresponsible, instead of the difference between entering a home, and walking on someones land. Please knock it off.
We were having a discussion about the differences between entering someones house vs going into their hunting property. My statement was made to show the difference in the two, I didn't advocate anyone do anything...that might be irresponsible.
The statement I gave was an example, and did have quailfiers, in fact, as you can clearly see, I gave specific crimes. I didn't advise anyone to do anything. You like twisting things around pretty good but the fact is there was nothing irresponsible about my posts, youquoting things out of context, omitting other relevant details (like in both your post and mine) is what is irresponsible.
Have a happy new Year.
