[QUOTE="Alexc3217"][QUOTE="MajorGamer531"]

"University of Maryland professor David Gray, who specializes in criminal law, said prosecutors must..."

"...Gray said, an individual is not expected to retreat from suspected danger in his own home."

"If the student felt he was in danger of severe bodily harm, then he was within his right to protect himself, Gray said: 'It doesn't matter if he used a gun, a sword or a frying pan.'"

From the article at Baltimore Sun.

MajorGamer531

Ambiguous comment, care to elaborate?

"University of Maryland professor David Gray, who specializes in criminal law, said prosecutors must..."

"...Gray said, an individual is not expected to retreat from suspected danger in his own home."

"If the student felt he was in danger of severe bodily harm, then he was within his right to protect himself, Gray said: 'It doesn't matter if he used a gun, a sword or a frying pan.'"

From the article at Baltimore Sun.

MajorGamer531

[QUOTE="Alexc3217"][QUOTE="MajorGamer531"]

There was no way for him to know what the person had, which is why he was dumb for going down there. For all he knew the intruder could of had an automatic weapon. Than the unarmed robber decides to lunge at him? So he should say 'wait! I should put down the sword!' and then proceed with the conflict? This is not overkill, he could of rolled over him with an m1a1 abram tank and it not been overkill. The intruder deserves no sympathy, they knew the risks and accepted them.

MajorGamer531

2. why an, automatic weapon, a weapon is enough, just sayin.

3. uhh no, he has as much right to live as anyone else, thats why we keep POWS, hell, we even kept nazi POWS alive, thats the point of having a sense of morality. Killing someone for theft is surprisingly enough IMMORAL

1. He knew that people will defend their homes by whatever means necessary.

2. Automatic weapons are pretty easy to get, it could be a variety of things more dangerous than a sword.

3. Right to live? That only applies when you are in a point where you control the situation. If the man was caught and tied up and then he got attacked by the sword, thats a violation of morals. In war we don't consider someone's right to live as they attack us. Get off your moral high horse and get in the real world.

I hate to break it to you guys, but baseball bats can be deadly as well. Not to mention the fact that being beaten to death by one is likely to be much more painful than being struck once by a sword. Haven't any of you seen Inglorious Bastards?

iLiveBy2words

[QUOTE="Hellfire-1"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]A person should have the right to defend himself, his family and his possessions within his own house with any means necessary. I say good job. One less criminal for the rest of us to worry about.MajorGamer531

There was no way for him to know what the person had, which is why he was dumb for going down there. For all he knew the intruder could of had an automatic weapon. Than the unarmed robber decides to lunge at him? So he should say 'wait! I should put down the sword!' and then proceed with the conflict? This is not overkill, he could of rolled over him with an m1a1 abram tank and it not been overkill. The intruder deserves no sympathy, they knew the risks and accepted them.

I'm sorry, but if you enter someone's premises uninvited with the intent to steal, you leave all your human rights at the DOOR. End of story.

malintenby

[QUOTE="Alexc3217"][QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] I hope you take in this logic when an intruder invades your home. Wait it out. See if he has a weapon or not. And WHEN you get shot, remember that you're the one thinking about what if he had a weapon or not. And yes, I'm laughing at you.Duckman5

No, that's just your opinion. Many people collect replica swords.