okay which one of you WAKI owners is this

There's a duplicate thread in Whine and Cheese. It would be a brutal way to die. Hopefully the student was justified and wasn't retaliating for the 2 laptops and play station that were stolen the day before.
 
There's a duplicate thread in Whine and Cheese. It would be a brutal way to die. Hopefully the student was justified and wasn't retaliating for the 2 laptops and play station that were stolen the day before.

Justified? Retaliating? There was an intruder in his house. End of story. You dont have to verify intention or degree of danger. Thats how you end up dead. At least not in New Jersey that is.

While I think my 870 is a safer bet, I'd sure be happier Wakiing some intruder scumbag's arm off. :D Thats just plain cool.
 
the guy got out of jail on saturday and immediately started robbing people again. . . What a useful corrections system.
 
Unfortunately, we probably won't ever get the full story.

As far as retaliation, from my eyes, the intruder was STILL an intruder and could be argued to be a life threat.

I have a SIMPLE rule about intruders: (unless a little kid), I feel "obligated" to assume they are armed, dangerous and a life threat to myself and family.
I do not feel it is reasonable to "Assume" I am capable of preventing an intruder from brandishing a "hidden" weapon (that I can't see and don't know about) and using it to kill myself and family.

In an intrussion situation, trying to "assume" the intruder "might" not be a threat could cost me or my loved ones their lives.

"Therefore", I think it is "logical" and "rational" to be justified in "assuming" an intruder "IS" a threat to my life and my families life. Therefore, I think it is logical and rational to exterminate any such threat that intrudes into my house.

I suppose there is a slight possibility that a man died from vengeance over stolen goods. But, I would have to revert to my basic KISS rule about intruders. I think the Intruder rule should over-ride any other considerations.

And the "victim" IS the home-owner NOT the injured or killed intruder! :grumpy: - The courts should protect the home-owners - NOT the intruders! :grumpy:

The situations SHOULD be specifically viewed as: there is a potentially life-threatening intruder in my house.
And NOT somebody stole my laptop "yesterday".

Even if possibly just stealing a laptop (again), I would feel "obligated" to assume they are armed and dangerous and might KILL - either to get the laptop - or get out of the situation they were caught in to avoid consequences.

"Intruders" should not be in my house (or car, or similar personal space!)- PERIOD!

So, I would argue the kid used the "tool" for self defense.

Unfortunately, the states prosecuter will probably RAKE the poor kid through the coals. The kid will probably have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars in attorney fees. :mad:

No telling if the kid can handle it mentally or not - "it" being having killed somebody AND the "prosecution process"!!!

Interestingly, I don't think most people have a feel for what death or slow death might look like. ...... Or - more importantly - the reality of the TORTURE the prosecutors and court system will likely throw at them for defending themselves. :mad:

IMO - luckily (I think/assume ???) the intruder won't be able to fabricate "LIES" about the situation.


Based on the following (that states the intruder is dead):

The story says: "student armed with a samurai sword KILLED an intruder"

And then says: "Police are interviewing the student and his roommates, and are talking to prosecutors about whether to file charges."


Since the "intruder" is dead, I assume I have to assume the Police are talking to "Prosecutors" about filing charges against (???) the "student" for killiing in self defense????

.... Sadly, a bit expected. But, I hate when the system goes after somebody for defending themselves.


In the U.K., I guess the student would have INSTANTLY gone to prison for owning and using such a weapon - even if used for self defense.
.... I WISH the UK and similar countries would do more to prevent these laws and regulations. I assume there just might be more sheeple in the right positions to get such laws passed against knives and guns.


I fear our own country has TOO many sheeple the similarly feel our country should similarly ban knives - let alone swords and guns.

It is SO obvious and frustrating that our country is converting to "sheeplism": I come across sheeple ALL they time now.... more often than not it seems.

Inside, I get furious about people being against me having "tools" for tool use or weapons for the purpose of DEFENDING myself and family. But, it is hard to have rational conversations with most of these people.

Hell.... I find it hard to find rational or logical people anymore period. :(


It would be one thing if the sheeple were just too afraid to own knives or guns themselves, but at least understood why others have reasonable justifications for owning, carrying and using knives as tools and guns as self defense weapons.

But, the reality is most sheeple obviously feel that "others" should NOT own knives or guns for ANY reason. And these sheeple view knives and guns PRIMARILY as offensive weapons.

This mentallity is an affront to me. :grumpy: :mad:

Interesting side note: For many various and shameful historical reasons, we are rightfully taught to not be "prejudice". And I appreciate the rational behind the general meaning intended for the "generic" use of the word "prejudice".

But, in actual use, the word prejudice is vaguely defined.

I am not prejudice against race, color or religion. Although, religion (which shouldn't be discussed on specific grounds) - generally incompasses MANY DIFFERENT ways of "thinking" that often conflict severely with other peoples believes.

I don't believe our laws should be dictated by ANY religion. Sorry for those who might disagree.

I believe in surviving and NOT being a victim.

Too many sheeple seem to obviously "believe" being a victim is acceptable vs. owning something like a knife as a "Tool" or a gun as a self defense weapon should NOT be allowed or tolerated. Again, if sheeple just chose themselves not to own or use knives or guns, that is their prerogative. But, I get pretty BENT when people try to pass laws or even if just generally indicate they believe I should not be allowed to own or carry knives or own or use guns!


This mentallity conflicts with my beliefs SO violently, I don't see how I could NOT be somewhat prejudice to this line of thinking and therefore sheeple - to at least that degree.


In some ways I feel I should pity the sheeple and try to help them understand the values of knives as important tools and the values of being able to defend yourself vs. being a victim or killed. But, most sheeple I try to have these discussions with don't WANT to understand. Not rational.

Our world is changing. Our laws keep getting changed. Our countries system, laws and governing people are designed to "appeal to the popular vote".

What is "written" as law has been shown and proven to be able to be "RE-written". So, Laws WILL change. More of a matter of when than if.

If the sheeple mentallity grows to become a majority, our rights to own and carry knives, own and use guns, and defend ourselves - "WILL" be infringed.

So, it frustrates and saddens me to keep seeing MORE and MORE sheeple mentallities.

rant off. :(

.
 
the guy got out of jail on saturday and immediately started robbing people again. . . What a useful corrections system.



+1


Extent of penalty and punishment for breaking into/intruding into peoples homes and stealing - along with potentially being a threat to peoples lives for committing such crimee - sounds HIGHLY suspect. :mad:

.
 
Justified? Retaliating? There was an intruder in his house. End of story. You dont have to verify intention or degree of danger. Thats how you end up dead. At least not in New Jersey that is.

While I think my 870 is a safer bet, I'd sure be happier Wakiing some intruder scumbag's arm off. :D Thats just plain cool.

I hope the kid gets off. We have an incomplete story. A neighbor heard a man crying for police with obvious fear in his voice. Let's hope that that was the college student after the attack and not the intruder before he got hacked. If it was the dead guy--self defense may be hard to prove. YMMV
 
I hope the kid gets off. We have an incomplete story. A neighbor heard a man crying for police with obvious fear in his voice. Let's hope that that was the college student after the attack and not the intruder before he got hacked. If it was the dead guy--self defense may be hard to prove. YMMV

Hahaha. True. But in most cases simply finding a person in your house is enough cause for self defense. That was my point. If there was obvious evidence showing breaking and entering, and nothing showing the student dragged the body back into the house, proof of a physical attack wouldn't be needed.

Most state laws say if you find a person in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

Agreed though; an incomplete story it is.
 
Hahaha. True. But in most cases simply finding a person in your house is enough cause for self defense. That was my point. If there was obvious evidence showing breaking and entering, and nothing showing the student dragged the body back into the house, proof of a physical attack wouldn't be needed.

Most state laws say if you find a person in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

Agreed though; an incomplete story it is.

Sure is, but the neighbor's story will play a prominent role. I'd much rather have shot him than have to try and explain why I used a sword. Another shooting and we wouldn't even have heard about it. Dead by Samuri Sword and it's national news!
 
In GA you don't have to even feel that your life is in danger. They even applied it to your automobile this past year. You have every right to protect your self and/or possesions.

When my house was broken into about 17 years ago I told the investigators had the person still been in my house I would have shot at first site. They said good, and to make sure I killed them.
If someone is the type to break in a house(esp in broad daylight) they wouldn't hesitate to kill you, so you must react first.

Haven't seen the vid yet, guess i couldn't have watched it first. My new posting style...post then go back to read and view OP's post:p
 
Hahaha. True. But in most cases simply finding a person in your house is enough cause for self defense. That was my point. If there was obvious evidence showing breaking and entering, and nothing showing the student dragged the body back into the house, proof of a physical attack wouldn't be needed.

Most state laws say if you find a person in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

Agreed though; an incomplete story it is.

That is totally dangerous BS. What if the person was a friend of someone that also lived in the house? You just dont know. Its an attitude like this that gets inocent people killed and also why people are after peoples knives and guns. Now if the guy is clearly looking to steal or the window was bustd in etc I can see you point a little better. I still thinking killing someone should be a last resort, not a precaution
 
That is totally dangerous BS. What if the person was a friend of someone that also lived in the house? You just dont know. Its an attitude like this that gets inocent people killed and also why people are after peoples knives and guns. Now if the guy is clearly looking to steal or the window was bustd in etc I can see you point a little better. I still thinking killing someone should be a last resort, not a precaution

:thumbup: I agree completely. Force should be used only if absolutely necessary. If faced with the prospect of an intruder in my house, I think the prudent thing to do would be to contact the police while either avoiding detection or escaping completely. Only if forced into a confrontation would I advocate the use of force. And if that means killing the intruder, so be it, but my first instinct would be to incapacitate.

I believe Thalestin is right, the attitude of "shoot first, ask questions later" is a good way to get innocent people killed, and why knife and gun bans are so pervasive. The reasons some would say is free reign to use as much force as possible are the same reasons to execute as much caution as possible. When an intruder is obviously hostile, I agree, you should consider the possibility that force may be necessary. But as Thalestin said, you just don't know. Immediately killing an intruder simply based on the fact that they are in your home is a dangerous attitude to have.
 
That is totally dangerous BS. What if the person was a friend of someone that also lived in the house? You just dont know. Its an attitude like this that gets inocent people killed and also why people are after peoples knives and guns. (snip)

keep this sort of attitude in Canada (or Maine for that matter...), thank you very much. :thumbdn:

and no, it's not why people are after knives and guns, they're after such things because of irrational fears, idealogical differences, and politics.
 
I would guess the screaming came after his hand was cut off and before he bled out. Just a guess though.
 
When an intruder is obviously hostile, I agree, you should consider the possibility that force may be necessary. But as Thalestin said, you just don't know. Immediately killing an intruder simply based on the fact that they are in your home is a dangerous attitude to have.

So tell me, what should I do when a non-hostile intruder invades my home? Really curious.
 
WOW, what an idiot.

1. Do not attempt to grapple someone who has a sword.

2. Steal the WEAPONS first, then come back for the electronics.


I bet sales of cheap "samurai" swords are going up as we speak!

Mall Ninjas of the world unite!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Back
Top