Living on Land - Why Did I Leave the Water Again??

[seafox]

I wouldn't chase a guy with a shotgun because as a gun owner you have to be *responsible*. Once you choose to have a weapon, it must be used with the utmost care. Once the weapon is taken out, the situation escalates dramatically. You should do all you can before you are backed into the corner of pulling out a gun. It's not something to take lightly and is not something I would use to chase away a hooligan like this kid was. He certainly wasn't a threat to my life, which is the only occasion I would ever break out the gun for. Simply put: It's not a toy.

I remember reading something about your laws in USA. Something about being able to use a firearm on someone if they are on your property.

In New Zealand if you did that you would be prosecuted. Our Crimes Act here does say we can use reasonable force to overcome any force used on us. In reality though, if you shot an intruder the Police here would charge you and it would be up to you to prove to the Court that the force that you used was reasonable. Been a few cases here lately where offenders have been shot and the poor bastard who shot them has been charged.

Not like the old "shootem up" and no worries USA.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by seafox

I remember reading something about your laws in USA. Something about being able to use a firearm on someone if they are on your property.

In New Zealand if you did that you would be prosecuted. Our Crimes Act here does say we can use reasonable force to overcome any force used on us. In reality though, if you shot an intruder the Police here would charge you and it would be up to you to prove to the Court that the force that you used was reasonable. Been a few cases here lately where offenders have been shot and the poor bastard who shot them has been charged.

Not like the old "shootem up" and no worries USA.

There are very few states that would act any differently than what you describe.

I live in Florida and the Castle Doctrine was recently passed. It basically says that if someone is attacking you, you do not have to run away (like in the past) and can meet force with force, up to and including deadly force.
In the past, and in many states, one is required to attempt escape (run and hide) even if in ones own home. That really sucks if you ask me. And there have been instances where the victim has been charged. Then there is the lawyers that sue the victim for injuries incurred by the predator during the crime commission, AND THEY HAVE WON!!!

I am aware of the worlds perception of the US being the "Wild West".

Is it true that in Aus. since the big gun round up that the criminals use swords and knives a lot now?

I am pretty sure that in the UK the criminals feel pretty good about knowing their victim is unarmed while planning their deeds.

[liberty16]

Originally Posted by seafox

I remember reading something about your laws in USA. Something about being able to use a firearm on someone if they are on your property.

In New Zealand if you did that you would be prosecuted. Our Crimes Act here does say we can use reasonable force to overcome any force used on us. In reality though, if you shot an intruder the Police here would charge you and it would be up to you to prove to the Court that the force that you used was reasonable. Been a few cases here lately where offenders have been shot and the poor bastard who shot them has been charged.

Not like the old "shootem up" and no worries USA.

If only it were actually like that. I think the world sees an image of the "Wild Wild West" when they think about the USA. It's not necessarily accurate. If you shoot someone, the police will investigate and prosecute if they are able, but the 50 states themselves vary from liberal to conservative laws in that respect so it's impossible to generalize.