Yes, and neither is being an enormous fat fucker, and look where that gets people.
My point isn't that it's illegal or should be - were I American, You'd say that I'm a firm supporter of the second amendment - But if He bought it Just because he thought it was cool, or as something to show of, put on the mantelpiece, what have you - Why did he buy a Katana with a live blade, especially if he didn't know how to use it? It's not something that makes sense.
You have a point, but it might have been live when he bought. He may have just wanted a katana and it was a good deal. It may not have even had a "live" edge, he may use just swung hard enough to get the job done our of fear.
Yeah, if the intruder had been a zombie, this story would not have been newsworthy at all.
In fact, were this Dead Rising, said defender with katana would probably be in pretty good shape, as the katana destroys zombies pretty easily.
Also, Joe, I was just kidding about Castle Law. I'm well aware of the fact that I can can't just shoot someone for walking in my front door without permission, just as much as I am aware of the fact that D.C. has no Castle Law to speak of.
Except for zombies. Also, edited for a typo that completely changed the meaning of my sentence.
The police spokesman said the student who wielded the weapon had no advanced sword training. "He wasn't a ninja," Guglielmi said. "He may have been moderately trained or on the intermediate level."
You have a point, but it might have been live when he bought. He may have just wanted a katana and it was a good deal. It may not have even had a "live" edge, he may use just swung hard enough to get the job done our of fear.
Yeah, that's what I said - Why did he buy a live one - though, this question is answered somewhat by the more detailed article provided.
Also, If the blade wasn't live, he'd need more strength than most humans can muster to actually cut the guy with it, let alone cut his hand damn near off. Live just means it's got an edge, not how sharp it is. If a Blade isn't live, that doesn't mean that it's blunt, it means that it is incapable of cutting anything.
Because boys like to have cool toys and sharp things. Geez, you really had to ask that question? Why do we play with fire, even though it can be dangerous? Why do people buy overpriced replica weapons of fantasy movie props (which, by the way, are usually live)?
I think the question to ask, if you are going to ask, is why he grabbed the Katana instead of something else before going to investigate.
I still think an intruder charging you is a perfectly reasonable reason to think your life is in danger, especially if you are unsure as to any weapons he might have on his person. If he had snuck up on the trespasser and cut him from behind, that would be different.
Don't go thinking that just because you find an intruder in your house you have carte blanche to kill him. Unless he's a zombie. It's per se reasonable to kill zombies in self defense.
That's the one. Sometimes, a robber will get shot non-fatally here, and the homeowner will be sued into bankruptcy. Sometimes, the robber gets his face taken off with a 12-gauge and no one cares. Chicago is weird.
Dead mean sometimes have familes, though, that do tend to get somewhat litigious when they find out you've just given a member of their family a case of high-speed lead poisoning.
In NC, you can shoot someone on your property UNTIL they enter your house. This is the applicable part of the Castle doctrine: "...to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry..." (the rest is on Wikipedia) Notice how it involves keeping the intruder from entering, but doesn't say anything about doing something once they are inside. Once they enter your house, it's illegal to shoot them. You are supposed to run away.
It's retarded, but it came about as a preventative measure to keep battered and estranged people from inviting their spouses over, shooting them inside, and getting off by claiming that it was self-defense.
That's the one. Sometimes, a robber will get shot non-fatally here, and the homeowner will be sued into bankruptcy.
Rule 1 of shooting an intruder, kill them. Dead men don't sue. Honestly you should never pull a gun unless you intend to kill with it.
I cannot stress how true this is. Most of the time the grounds for the "If you shoot, you'd better kill" idea is that if you have to shoot someone, you must be in fear of your life. If you are in fear of your life, you are generally able to use deadly force. Anything less than deadly force is not guaranteed to stop the assailant. The chest is a much broader target than kneecaps. Plus, If you have to argue your defense in court, it's much better for you if the intruder can't testify against you, whether you were in the right or not.
Unless you practice this relentlessly, I wouldn't recommend it. Your average shooter in a home defense situation will have the following shot placement - 1)chest 2)Wall 3)Wall - and in most houses, a wall won't stop a bullet, which could end up lodged in something you don't want it lodged in. For example, a Family member.
Unless you practice this relentlessly, I wouldn't recommend it. Your average shooter in a home defense situation will have the following shot placement - 1)chest 2)Wall 3)Wall - and in most houses, a wall won't stop a bullet, which could end up lodged in something you don't want it lodged in. For example, a Family member.
I was being facetious. I don't think your everyday thief would have nearly the adrenaline necessary to require a Mozambique drill. One round of .45 would be enough in most circumstances.
Comments
Also, Joe, I was just kidding about Castle Law. I'm well aware of the fact that I can can't just shoot someone for walking in my front door without permission, just as much as I am aware of the fact that D.C. has no Castle Law to speak of.
Except for zombies. Also, edited for a typo that completely changed the meaning of my sentence.
Also, If the blade wasn't live, he'd need more strength than most humans can muster to actually cut the guy with it, let alone cut his hand damn near off. Live just means it's got an edge, not how sharp it is. If a Blade isn't live, that doesn't mean that it's blunt, it means that it is incapable of cutting anything.
I think the question to ask, if you are going to ask, is why he grabbed the Katana instead of something else before going to investigate.
I still think an intruder charging you is a perfectly reasonable reason to think your life is in danger, especially if you are unsure as to any weapons he might have on his person. If he had snuck up on the trespasser and cut him from behind, that would be different.
Although, here in Illinois, our laws are very vague. We're a borderline hold-your-ground state.
Or do you mean Stand your ground. This will explain every thing you need to know on the matter.
It's retarded, but it came about as a preventative measure to keep battered and estranged people from inviting their spouses over, shooting them inside, and getting off by claiming that it was self-defense.
I cannot stress how true this is. Most of the time the grounds for the "If you shoot, you'd better kill" idea is that if you have to shoot someone, you must be in fear of your life. If you are in fear of your life, you are generally able to use deadly force. Anything less than deadly force is not guaranteed to stop the assailant. The chest is a much broader target than kneecaps. Plus, If you have to argue your defense in court, it's much better for you if the intruder can't testify against you, whether you were in the right or not.