All Fired Up!!

[#1]

An intersting commercial from Glock
Glock Gun

[#2]

Now if that was Texas, he'd not have woken up, cos they have a law stating you have the full right to shoot someone dead if they step onto your property, just make sure they are dead otherwise you get in trouble (yeah, I've not worked that part out yet either!!)...

[#3]

if they don't die from it yours isn't the only version of evens that can be heard, lets remember people its the survivor who writes reports not the deceased, its also the living who sue and if you shoot someone your liable to pay their medical bills until after your proven in a court of law to have been in the right .......

[#4]

Clearly a faked USA town scene. There  was only one lock on the door.

[#5]

Quote from: twocvbloke

Now if that was Texas, he'd not have woken up, cos they have a law stating you have the full right to shoot someone dead if they step onto your property,

Common in a lot of States apart from Texas.

Quote from: nanotm

your liable to pay their medical bills until after your proven in a court of law to have been in the right .......

Not true. The injured party has to sue in order to get medical expenses.

[#6]

Quote from: artmo

Common in a lot of States apart from Texas.

Not entirely, Texas is the only state that has the specific law that if anyone steps onto your property, regardless of who they are, you have the right to shoot them dead (they refer to it as the "Make my day" law), other states have variations of this law which only go so far as allow the shot-dead part to be in self defence, or as a complete last resort, other states don't even allow people to shoot in defence, mostly the northern "yankee" states (as my friend in Texas calls them), but that said, the gun laws over there are getting changed all the time, due to guns being sold to or access given to certain types that really shouldn't have guns, so it can change, just a wait and see thing...

[#7]

Officially known as 'Stand your ground' Laws 20 States have them. Did you follow the Zimmerman trial in Florida recently?

Quote

Introduced in 1985 as the Homeowner Protection Act, "make my day" gives Colorado residents the right to shoot and kill an intruder if they believe the person intends to commit a crime and use physical force, "no matter how slight." That extraordinary right stops at the door. Front porches and backyards don't count. In other words, to shoot and kill an intruder in the home, a homeowner need only reasonably believe a trespassing person might use any measure of physical force on any occupant of the home. The law is explained here.

Quote

The Florida law permits deadly force wherever someone "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm" to himself or another. They have no duty to retreat. More than 20 states, not including Colorado, have such laws.

[#8]

Those are the northern state's laws, according to the resident of texas I'm friends with, the law that governs him is "anyone who steps onto your property", be this someone stepping on your lawn in a suspicious manner to someone attempting to make their way into your house, and funnily enough, it works, very few people actually attempt to wander onto private property (such as scrap thieves do in this country) as they know full well they may leave the property in a body bag...

[#9]

Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia,Louisiana, Nevada, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee - would you call these Northern States

[#10]

Okay, I'll use my friend's terminology, the "Yankee" states, aka the ones who follow the northern states in their laws and policies...
dick:quote

[#11]

You really are getting confused. The 'Southern' States I listed all have a 'Stand your Ground' Law.

[#12]

But not the same law that Texas has, hint hint flippin' hint...

[#13]

Each State has its own law but they are all similar. Florida in particular allows you to shoot anyone on your property.

[#14]

This may help you understand:

Quote

10  2086 (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by: - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31#sthash.8SsGQcys.dpuf

[#15]

Yes, that is indeed part of the Texas state law on self defence quoted there...
Full code here:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Ain't the same as elsewhere in the US though...