"I'm gonna roll this down like GTA!" 14 year old girl opens fire with AK-47 on police

[SG854]

Ak47 oh shit!!

♪AK-47 is the tool. Don't make me act a motherfucking fool ♪- Ice Cube

 

[Hanafuda]

laws will differ between countries but yes you're right.. though the negligence may be not having a 'slippery when wet' sign on a concrete walk way and the home owner is still responsible to cover damages.. that is why property insurance is recommened.

"If you're injured while visiting the property, one or both parties may be responsible depending on the circumstances of your accident. ... In general, the occupier of private property is responsible for maintaining a safe, hazard-free environment for visitors to the premises."

So having acessible firearms on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for not having their firearms properly restrained and most likely have their licence to own firearms revoked.).

Your quote applies to invitees, i.e. visitors with permission to be on your property or a legal right to be there (like a mailman, etc). It doesn't apply to unforeseeable trespass, and especially not a breaking/entering burglary. A homeowner can't lay a trap for a trespasser or burglar (tripwires, etc), but that's not the situation here. And again, there is no information to back up the assumption some are leaping to here that the homeowner's guns were out in plain view inside the home, let alone that they were visible from looking through a window.

Ak47 oh shit!!

AK variant rifles in the US are semi-automatic. Just another rifle.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

laws will differ between countries but yes you're right.. though the negligence may be not having a 'slippery when wet' sign on a concrete walk way and the home owner is still responsible to cover damages.. that is why property insurance is recommened.

"If you're injured while visiting the property, one or both parties may be responsible depending on the circumstances of your accident. ... In general, the occupier of private property is responsible for maintaining a safe, hazard-free environment for visitors to the premises."

So having acessible firearms on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for not having their firearms properly restrained and most likely have their licence to own firearms revoked.).

I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.

 

[SG854]

I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.

True That

 

[jefffisher]

that's like 5 minutes from my house literally been past there a thousand times riding my bike to 7/11 at midnight for some exercise and a slurpee.
honestly not even close to surprising and not the worst thing that happens around here.
didn't expect to see it online i thought it was more of a local news thing.

 

[gizmomelb]

So having acessible Knives on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for having their knives on a kitchen table and not properly put away.

If they are proper knives (ie: switch blades, daggers and other registered weapons) and not steak knives then yes, possibly - that would be for the court to decide levels of accountability and negligence. Looks like 'common sense' needs to be explained to some people.

 

[tabzer]

If they are proper knives (ie: switch blades, daggers and other registered weapons) and not steak knives then yes, possibly - that would be for the court to decide levels of accountability and negligence. Looks like 'common sense' needs to be explained to some people.

Possibly? Has this ever happened in any country in all of history?

 

[gizmomelb]

I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.

nope.

https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Possibly? Has this ever happened in any country in all of history?

common sense? yes it appears to have happened in most countries who aren't the USA or invaded by the USA

 

[tabzer]

nope.

https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/

Read your own link. There is a difference.

common sense? yes it appears to have happened in most countries who aren't the USA or invaded by the USA

Become literate.

 

[SG854]

nope.

https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/

Yes actually

From the article you linked

Trespassers, however, do not have a right to be on the homeowner’s property. In most cases, the homeowner has no obligation to protect the trespasser from dangers. This would include those invited to the home or licensees in the process of committing a crime in the home. For example, should an overnight guest attempt to steal your television in the night and injure themselves by dropping the television on their foot, the homeowner would not have a duty to protect from this danger

 

[gizmomelb]

Become literate.

wow aren't you the Pot calling the Kettle black? Your illiterate trolling is legendary.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yes actually

From the article you linked

different laws in different countries.. there is more to the world than just Murica.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bur...j0j0i67j0l5.7679j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[SG854]

wow aren't you the Pot calling the Kettle black? Your illiterate trolling is legendary.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



different laws in different countries.. there is more to the world than just Murica.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bur...j0j0i67j0l5.7679j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This thread is about what happened in the USA. The laws in other countries don't apply.

 

[gizmomelb]

This thread is about what happened in the USA. The laws in other countries don't apply.

just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well? no worries.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well? no worries.

I can't speak for the majority of our population and their tendency to lack common sense, but common sense tells me that laws from other countries don't apply to citizens of the USA unless those citizens are in the other country.

 

[SG854]

just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well? no worries.

It's common sense that someone breaking into your home un-invited is in the wrong. Taking your stuff without your permission and using it to attack police officers is always in the wrong.

 

[gizmomelb]

It's common sense that someone breaking into your home un-invited is in the wrong. Taking your stuff without your permission and using it to attack police officers is always in the wrong.

yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.. common sense averted.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I can't speak for the majority of our population and their tendency to lack common sense, but common sense tells me that laws from other countries don't apply to citizens of the USA unless those citizens are in the other country.

not having the common sense in the first place is the issue.

 

[tabzer]

yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.. common sense averted.

The definition of "accessible" is wanting for the context of this to make sense. Unfortunately, the article referred by OP doesn't go into detail in how the guns were accessed other than the fact that the house was BROKEN into. Of course, a failure to maintain possession of a firearm is a failure of the gun owner, but that's separate and unrelated to shooting police.

You could just cut to the chase and blame the big bang for your miserable existence.

 

[SG854]

yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.

Whether or not the home owner stored the guns away is irrelevant to this case when someone breaks into your home. Any chance of the intruders to be in right and have the right to sue the homeowner is out the window.

 

[Benja81]

Stupidest argument ever peddled by pro gun boomers who are trying to pass the blame. The reason they chose video games is because they didn't grow up with them, but they grew up with 3 Godfather movies lmao.

 

[gizmomelb]

Whether or not the home owner stored the guns away is irrelevant to this case when someone breaks into your home. Any chance of the intruders to be in right and have the right to sue the homeowner is out the window.

That comment is so far sidetracked from the original mention of if party a uses party b's dangerous weapon, party b should be held accountable at some level, it's amusing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Stupidest argument ever peddled by pro gun boomers who are trying to pass the blame. The reason they chose video games is because they didn't grow up with them, but they grew up with 3 Godfather movies lmao.

or it'd be John Wayne movies, or WWII movies etc. the whole issue is widespread accessibility of firearms in the USA causing a much higher number of suicides and homicides than in any other country that has permissive gun laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States