Home Defense Variations « Gaming Outpost Discussions

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Roleplaying Games

Home Defense Variations

(26 posts) (4 voices)

Started 3 years ago by Tadeusz
Latest reply from JohnA1nut

Tags:

lists

Tadeusz
Member

In another one of my lists, or spices to add to your bland roast of world you're cooking up articles, I consider variations on how home defense is legally handled. I believe I've considered this to some degree before, but this will be somewhat different, I think.

1. "Better let them know you're coming": In wild country, when the cowboys were around the campfire, it was most unwise to quietly walk up to their campfire. You made a lot of noise before you yelled out at a distance "Hallo the camp!". Otherwise, they shot you as in self defence, and shrugged at your stupidity if it turned out you had been innocent of evil intentions.

2. "Duty to Retreat": If you have the ability to retreat, or you believe yourself to be in only mild danger, you do not have the right to use lethal force in self defence inside your own home. If the burglar breaks in the front door, and has a gun, the question is....Can you retreat to the den? And from there to the kitchen? And if alone, from there, and out the back door?

However, if you're at a junction point where your retreating would allow the burglar to get closer to a sleeping wife or children, then you do not have the necessity to retreat any further. That is, if the entrance to the hallway to the bedrooms is in the den, you don't have a duty to retreat to the kitchen.

3. "Make sure he falls inside": If the burglar is inside the house, you're fine. Go ahead and shoot him. In this regime, sometimes policemen will privately advise the homeowner to 'make sure he falls inside, even if you need to help him fall inside'. This falls into the de jure and de facto system of laws. The law may state one thing, but if policemen, for example, are happily willing to overlook evidence that the body was dragged inside, then the actual laws are something else.

4. "The Castle": Your home is your castle, and you're free to defend it and your property how you choose. You may, if you choose, shoot a fleeing burglar who is running down the street with your or a neighbour's ten dollar radio in his hands. Some defend this with the point that if you kill the burglar today, he won't be threatening an innocent homeowner next week.

5. "Night and Day": In the Bible, it seems like there was a rule. If the burglar broke in at night, he could be dealt with by lethal force. If in the daytime, he could not. It seems likely this was because in the pre-electric era one could not safely discern in the night whether the burglar was lethally dangerous whereas in the daytime one could. As a further extension, it seems likely this regime would allow the killing of an armed burglar during the daytime.

6. "Could I have some tea, guvnor?": The British, at one point, had severe enough laws against gun use in crimes that a burglar would surrender, and then politely ask for some tea while everyone waited for the police to show up.

7. "Criminal Self Defense": In a bit of law also British, but more modern, and hence lacking in what normal people call common sense, the homeowner may get in trouble. A criminal broke in, and was taken to the ground by the homeowner. The criminal was released the next day. The homeowner, a few days later, was informed that he was to stand charges for assault and battery.

8. "Turn the Other Cheek": I think this is an improper interpretation of the Bible, but some have held that you should help the burglar, and indeed offer him the silver cups to go with the silver forks he's stealing. This technique may have the virtue of causing the robber to reconsider his life of crime, and also become a Christian.

9. "Eric's Reasonable Rule": If he's trying to break in...warn him once, and then fire. If he's inside, and its not completely clear that you totally have the drop on him, or that he's otherwise at your mercy...fire until you feel he is no longer a threat. If he is stealing an item, warn him to put it down, surrender, and if he refuses then fire as needed. If he is outside the house, with property of yours, and is clearly not going to go around the house, you may fire into the air or ground, but you may not attempt to kill him.

10. "Rascist Preferences": This could be in a world such as ours, but more extreme, where if you're a minority you can do pretty much whatever you want and get off. And if you shoot a thug, he will get off, and his buds will threaten you in front of policemen who will do nothing to protect you.

Or it could be simply a more straightforward rascism...you are not a member of the elite. You shot a young punk member of the elite. You're toast.

Wed Jul 9 2008 12:47 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

11. "Make sure they are a threat, even if they're not." This kind of goes to the rule about dragging them inside. If they didn't have a weapon before they came in, make sure they have one before the police arrive. Even if said weapon has your fingerprints on it. You tell the judge "Well, I was cutting an apple with that knife and left it on the coffee table. The burglar picked it up and attacked me with it." It's your word against his, and he shouldn't be saying very much.

Wed Jul 9 2008 1:58 am #
WilliamTWodium
Member

12. Automated defenses only. Your home should be properly alarmed, locked, and trapped, and failure to have done so is no excuse for committing violent crimes against a burglar. You are required to post a general warning outside of your home, but doing so absolves you of any responsibility for what may happen to a burglar who triggers your home defenses.

(Of course, there are accidental family member deaths resulting from this system, but the argument is that gun ownership is at least as dangerous and much more morally reprehensible.)

Wed Jul 9 2008 2:12 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

13. Maximum Force Allowed. You are only allowed to respond to the threat to the extent that the threat endangers you or your family. In other words, you're not allowed to use lethal force against someone who is obviously not capable of doing you lethal damage. You can incapacitate the intruder, but only to the point that they are capable of incapacitating you.

Put another way, Verne Troyer (Played Mini Me in Austin Powers) and Lou Ferrigno (Played The Incredible Hulk) If Verne Troyer broke into Lou Ferrigno's house, Lou Ferrigno is not allowed to respond with lethal force. However, if Lou Ferrigno broke into Verne Troyer's house, Verne Troyer is allowed to use lethal force.

Wed Jul 9 2008 2:20 am #
WilliamTWodium
Member

14. You break it, you buy it. Respond however you see fit, but you're responsible for the burglar's hospital bills (or funeral expenses). Also, if the burglar is acquitted, you'll be brought up on charges. However, if he's convicted, your liability is limited to his medical/funeral expenses - you're immune to suit for punitive or other damages.

The hope is that this system will encourage defenders to restrain themselves when using force against intruders. Letting them live is encouraged because it tends to more smoothly for you in court if the alleged burglar is still alive when the police arrive, and of course any unnecessary roughness comes out of your own pocket. Conversely, any injury you sustain comes out of his, regardless of who's convicted.

Wed Jul 9 2008 2:46 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

15: Kill em all, let God sort em out!!!! If they are inside your house, they have a bullseye painted on their forehead, no questions asked. The problem of course is that if you murdered your wife, you could simply say "I thought she was an intruder."

Wed Jul 9 2008 3:22 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Thanks much, guys. Now I need to add enough to make a 1d20 list...

16. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns": If you use a gun, you're in trouble, if you're the homeowner. Owning a gun is illegal, but the criminals don't care. The criminal will likely be able to plea bargain the gun charge, and the breaking and entering down to community service. You, on the other hand, as a law-abiding citizen (except for the gun ownership part) will be labelled a 'vigilante' and the book will be thrown at you. If you fire one shot, that will be 1)Reckless Endangerment of Family Members 2)RE of Neighbours 3)Illegal gun use 3)Illegal possession of a gun 4)-10)And so on. If you fire a second shot this is generally considered Premeditated Attempted Murder.

The basic logic is the police are doing a terrible job, and instead of improving, or asking for help, they attack rabidly anyone who might make them look bad by being actually effective in dealing with criminals. A 'Vigilante Killer' will have a Task Force led by the Chief DA after him, but an actual murderer will likely get some gravely overworked assistant junior DA to plea bargain with him.

17. "Feuds and Weregilds": Everyone has lots of relatives who believe in the vendetta. If you kill the burglar, you're likely to have fifty or so guys after you, even if apologetically.

"I know Cousin Stuart was a liar, a thief, and ugly to boot, but he was blood. So, stranger, I'm sorry but I have to kill you."

It is possible that the extended family will accept a payment of money, usually half the year's salary of the dead man, as payment for his life. This is more likely if you have lots of friends or a reputation as being extremely dangerous.

Certain regions have been largely depopulated by the feuds and counterfeuds that have sprung up after a burglary. The local governance is hopeful of resolving things without massive bloodshed. They tend to be pragmatic. That is, they might loan you money, or they might arrest you, and then let your enemies lynch you. Whatever restores the public peace simplest.

18. "Counting Coup": Thieves post bonds against the life of the residents and the breaking of the rules, and wear something similar to 'flag football' belts. If the homeowner manages to remove one by grabbing it, the thief is obligated by his bond to surrender. The homeowner may turn in the flag the next day at the bank for a substantial sum of money (the bond) if the thief does not surrender.

If the homeowner deliberately uses lethal force against a bonded thief, or if a thief operates without a bond, then the Association of Local Thieves sends an anonymyous email to the Association of Local Assassins...

This is a rough and tumble, but ultimately quite safe world.

19. "Gates and Guards": Homeowners have a panic button, and gated communities patrolled by

Wed Jul 9 2008 4:44 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

18 is intriguing. What if the thief beats up the homeowner and takes back his bond, and then later claims it was never seized in the first place? Is that allowed, or grounds for assassination?

If the thief kills the homeowner, is that stepping on the toes of the Local Assassins?

Do the Assassins wear bonds?

Wed Jul 9 2008 5:07 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

More of 19) (the computer posted me early)...

....Worrenstir attack dogs with their vocal cords bred to be defective. Guards are also very close by.

In the Prime World it is said "Cops are only minutes away when you have seconds to live", but that is less true here. Inner bedrooms are fortified. Worrenstir attack dogs will immobilize anyone moving about at night except for those they have been trained to be familar with (guards and residents). And lastly, the guard teams are usually less than two hundred yards away in a guard house sleeping, and there is always a guard keeping watch from each gatehouse.

This world realized that with the rise of robotics, old blue collar jobs in the factory were on the way out. The society could choose to try to make everyone into symbol manipulators and computer programmers even if they weren't by nature that type of person, or they could find a job that the factory guy could do well, and make a job for him. A few bright capitalists offered "Guaranteed by a million dollar bond Secure Housing", and it spread from there. Being able to live in the city, and know that the likelihood of being robbed was 1 in a hundred thousand per year was very reassuring to many people. Highly trained security guards are everywhere, and the crime rate is very, very low.

Unless you're on the job in a gun-carrying profession (like security professional), it is illegal to have a gun. And the courts tend to discourage (although not strongly) individual self-defense. Its regarded as the job for the professional fighter who is fully equipped with kevlar, rip stop fabrics, and a wide array of weapons. So even security guards who are off-duty tend to leave things to the guards on duty because an off-duty guard is not packing thirty pounds of expensive gear to help him in a fight or to make him look intimidating.

20. "Gents and Servants": Every house has servants to cook, clean, entertain the gentry with poetry or with running a role-playing game, and other functions. Sure, you could 'watch TV' and have 'robots clean', but thats what poor people do. They also tend to have a couple dog breeders in the basement of their nine thousand square foot house. These guys tend to be large, silent, and to not do very much work except for training the dogs to hunt. But if anyone comes over who's not wanted....either a rude guest, or a creditor, or a burglar at night, the cry is raised.

"Henry, Mike, turn out the dogs! And bring your shotguns!"

"Sure thing, boss." Shortly thereafter the baying of the hounds and the snarling of the wolfhounds is heard, and then Henry and Mike turn up with their shotguns, and deal with the situation. If the burglar is not fighting back, but hiding in a tree, they merely drag him down, and beat the snot out of him. If he resists, they blow him away, and feed him to the dogs for breakfast.

Wed Jul 9 2008 5:10 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

Wodium,

I'd say it was allowed for the thief to seize back his flag. I'd say he has two of them, one on each hip, and just having one of them is good enough for a homeowner.

So in a fight, I'd say the homeowner has the advantage. All he has to do is grab the flag and then hang on to it.

Course, you could go hi-tech and have electronic seals so that when the flag is ripped free it broadcasts its thief owner's defeat.

As to the thief killing the homeowner, thats one of the purposes of the bond. The thief loses his bond if he kills anyone, and its a very large chunk of money.

As to Assassins...I'm not sure.

Wed Jul 9 2008 5:18 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator
The problem Scott raises about the thief reclaiming his flag is that at that point it might not be possible to prove the thief was ever there--particularly if the homeowner is dead.

There is an old case in law in which a man set a spring gun inside his walled garden so that if anyone broke into the garden to steal his vegetables they would get shot. According to the stated facts, a boy knocked a ball into the garden, climbed over the wall, and was shot (I think not fatally) by the gun. The courts ruled that the use of the gun was potentially lethal force, and that the landowner would not be permitted to use lethal force against someone robbing his vegetable garden and therefore could not use a trap constituting lethal force to protect it.

I'm raising this because I'm wondering how it fits. In a lot of your scenarios, the question is whether the homeowner or someone working for him can use lethal force against an intruder identified as a burglar. In those circumstances, how does that transfer to some of the facts of this case--
- --if the intruder has not been identified as a burglar; under common law, someone breaking into your house to escape a deadly storm is guilty of trespass but not burglary--the latter is a double intent crime, defined technically as "breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony" such as robbery, murder, rape, or arson.
- --if the intruder is not in the family dwelling; the justification for using lethal force against someone "in the house" is that such a person is a potential threat to the life and safety of the persons living in the house. That does not apply to someone breaking into the garage or the tool shed or the pool cabana (assuming no one lives in those buildings), and therefore the justification for lethal force is absent--or is it?
- --if the force used might have killed the intruder but did not do so; a gun can be lethal force, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily kill the person shot, and many professionals are trained to maim not kill. For law enforcement officials, this is because the point of using the force is to control the situation and protect lives, and thus a fleeing suspect would be shot to prevent him from fleeing but keep him alive. In military situations, the theory is that a dead man is a casualty that will be left on the field, but a wounded man is a casualty that will require the attention of two other men to carry him from the field, and thus wounding the enemy eliminates more enemies than killing him.
Interesting ideas, I just thought I'd throw some details into the mix.

--M. J. Young
Wed Jul 9 2008 8:49 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

The problem Scott raises about the thief reclaiming his flag is that at that point it might not be possible to prove the thief was ever there--particularly if the homeowner is dead.

====I see a need for a double layer of punishment.

There is an old case in law in which a man set a spring gun inside his walled garden so that if anyone broke into the garden to steal his vegetables they would get shot. According to the stated facts, a boy knocked a ball into the garden, climbed over the wall, and was shot (I think not fatally) by the gun. The courts ruled that the use of the gun was potentially lethal force, and that the landowner would not be permitted to use lethal force against someone robbing his vegetable garden and therefore could not use a trap constituting lethal force to protect it.

==In certain of these regimes, you can defend your or a neighbour's property with lethal force. In fact, a few days ago, a man shot someone robbing his neighbour. The thief was in the driveway. The shooter was on the phone to the 911 operator who counselled him that killing someone was not an appropriate remedy to theft of property. The shooter disagreed, and I believe he's not going to be charged.

This may be the 'Castle Doctrine'.

And in one of these systems the 'gents and servants', if you resist more than modestly getting the snot smacked out of you, you'll probably be shot and turned into dog food. There is a lot of variety here, and common law as currently understood doesn't really fit a number of these worlds. The typical punishment for a first-time offense in the area by a burglar is a severe (bones broken) beating followed by being let go in the 'gents and servants' setting. This is very much different than our world...we don't allow city councilmen to have their bodyguards knock your teeth out and call it a day if you try to steal their car. Of course, you may be beaten up as you 'resist arrest', and that might well not be punished so we're not totally far from that world either.

I'm raising this because I'm wondering how it fits. In a lot of your scenarios, the question is whether the homeowner or someone working for him can use lethal force against an intruder identified as a burglar. In those circumstances, how does that transfer to some of the facts of this case--

--if the intruder has not been identified as a burglar; under common law, someone breaking into your house to escape a deadly storm is guilty of trespass but not burglary--the latter is a double intent crime, defined technically as "breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony" such as robbery, murder, rape, or arson.

====In the first 'Cowboy Campfire' regime, its understood that its your duty to clearly make sure those you approach know that you're coming and you're possessing innocent intentions. If you fail in this, they can and probably will shoot you.

I think this is a reasonable standard. If you break in to get out of a storm, its your responsibility to clearly and loudly state your presence and communicate your innocent intentions. And yes, I've broken into a house to escape a bad situation. And the first thing I did after closing the door behind me was to call out loudly enough for the homeowner to hear me.

--if the intruder is not in the family dwelling; the justification for using lethal force against someone "in the house" is that such a person is a potential threat to the life and safety of the persons living in the house. That does not apply to someone breaking into the garage or the tool shed or the pool cabana (assuming no one lives in those buildings), and therefore the justification for lethal force is absent--or is it?

====Well, it really depends on whether defense of property is considered reason enough for lethal force. And note, in some of the worlds, even defense of your life is not sufficient reason for lethal force. And that too is based on recent events....the British homeowner who is gettng charged for assault and battery is a recent and unfortunately quite real case.

--if the force used might have killed the intruder but did not do so; a gun can be lethal force,

but that doesn't mean it will necessarily kill the person shot,

==This is certainly correct. I listened to a man preach who'd got something like eleven bullets across his stomach and chest and survived.
and many professionals are trained to maim not kill.

==Police are trained to shoot center mass. Shooting the guns out of hands is movie stuff.

For law enforcement officials, this is because the point of using the force is to control the situation and protect lives, and thus a fleeing suspect would be shot to prevent him from fleeing but keep him alive. In military situations, the theory is that a dead man is a casualty that will be left on the field, but a wounded man is a casualty that will require the attention of two other men to carry him from the field, and thus wounding the enemy eliminates more enemies than killing him.

==The logic behind the M-16, but this is not a fight against a large organization.

Interesting ideas, I just thought I'd throw some details into the mix.

Thu Jul 10 2008 2:06 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

I've been told that in home defense situations, where things are questionable, it helps if you used a small-caliber weapon. I keep a 22 semi automatic for home defense. I figure if I can't kill them with 10 shots at point blank range, then I probably need to go back to the practice range.

Also, it helps if the shooter is a woman, who would have more reason to believe she was in fear for her life (As in the Verne Troyer/Lou Ferrigno example.)

Also, a revolver is a better weapon to use, as they tend to hold fewer shots and have a slower shooting time. Unless said revolver is in some insanely large caliber, you can't be charged with excessive force as easily.

I've almost been shot, and almost accidentally shot someone in a home defense situation.

I walked into a friend's house, and said "Hey, it's me" (The front door was open, screen door closed, and I thought he was expecting me) I heard "click" Loudest sound I've ever heard in my life. It was the hammer on his 357 magnum being cocked. Thank God he recognized me. Needless to say, I always knock before I come in now. Even if I just go out to my car and come back in, I still knock before entering.

Another time, my brother and I were living together as roommates. He had my truck, and said he probably wouldn't be home for a few days. I told him that I was probably going to stay at my friend's house. We had guns all over the place. He came home early, and my friend had to work. So, I was home, and he wasn't expecting it, and he came home early, which I did not expect. He came in. I grabbed a shotgun and pumped it. He heard that, and thought a burglar was in the house with my shotgun, and so he came upstairs with (I believe) a 32 revolver in his hand. We met each other on the stairs, and busted up laughing.

Thu Jul 10 2008 2:31 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

I've also been told that using a pump shotgun is a good idea, but only if you shoot small bird shot. Using 00 buckshot or slugs is excessive force. Also, they can go through walls and harm someone else (Like your daughter, another reason I keep the 22, it doesn't go through walls as easily.) Plus, if they hear you pump a shotgun, you won't have to shoot them, because they will run away in terror.

Thu Jul 10 2008 3:32 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Worrying about excessive force strikes me as a self-limiting problem. Worry too much, and you'll be dead, and in the afterlife and you won't be worrying about gun size anymore.

Excessive force is not really a concern I dealt with directly in the 1d20 list. I suppose there should be a reality where if you kill him with a .22 you're okay, but if you use a .45 you're considered a murderer.

Rather silly, but so are a number of the variants. And it would have an interesting effect as most players try to get the most dangerous weapon they can wrap their hands around....

Thu Jul 10 2008 4:31 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Rather silly, but so are a number of the variants. And it would have an interesting effect as most players try to get the most dangerous weapon they can wrap their hands around....

Which to me doesn't make any sense. I'd rather have a low-tech weapon that is almost as deadly. Not as likely to be biased out, in other words. Rely on your skill, not on the weapon. Like I said, if I can't kill the intruder with 10 shots from my 22, then I probably need to go back to the practice range.

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:12 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya know what else Eric, there's an idea here somewhere....

The "He Deserved It" law. I wrote an alternate ending to The Karate Kid, where Mr. Miyagi takes Daniel back to continue being beaten by the Cobras, after Daniel tells Mr. Miyagi: "Well, Mr. Miyagi, he's the toughest kid in school and a black belt in Karate, and I thought it would be cool to spray him with a garden hose." Miyagi decides that Daniel deserved the beating for sheer stupidity, and takes him back. (That's how I feel about it, BTW)

The guy needed to be shot. "He Deserved It" and if it could be reasonably justified that the person deserved it, then no problem. What constitutes "Deserving It" I guess is a matter of conjecture.

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:20 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Something else though with home defense, especially automated defenses, is innocent victims. I read about a case, a man bred and trained attack dogs. He was licensed to do so. The property was clearly marked with BEWARE OF DOG signs, and all of the other reasonable precautions. A 4 year old girl wandered into the yard, as 4 year old girls tend to do. She wanted to play with the doggies, and she couldn't read. The doggies just about killed her. That state passed a law soon after that such warning signs need to be clear to illiterate and non-English speakers. (IE a picture of a dog attacking you)

Thu Jul 10 2008 8:05 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

It's either Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember. Their policy on military service is that all men are required to join the military for 2 years upon their 18th birthday, or graduation from high school, or some other. Anyway, 2 years mandatory military service. Upon leaving they get to keep all of their military weapons. This is so that, in case of an invasion, the country can raise a militia of armed and trained soldiers, literally at a moment's notice. Not a bad system, if you asked me. A side effect of all of this? They also have about a 2% violent crime rate per year. Everyone knows that everyone is armed, and that breaking an entering is almost certainly a death sentence.

Thu Jul 10 2008 8:55 am #
Tadeusz
Member

John,

Possibly the players thing is due to games that did not adequately address skill, and thus pushed players toward the larger weapons. Or maybe its just "I want a beeg gun!"

It is interesting that my logic for my .45 was the opposite of yours. I figured that I'd miss a lot, but one or two shots hitting an arm of the target would be enough to do the job.

Good point about automated systems.

Supposedly in Texas there was a legal defense..."He needed killing". That would be an interesting world...any time you killed someone you went in front of the grand jury, and if they thought 'He deserved it', you got off. It would be a more irregular law, and it might be highly influenced by other factors....like if the shooter was a good looking female or was a pastor....then they're more likely to get off. (And yes, I know that defendants in our world rarely go in front of the grand jury).

Gun controllers want to say 'more guns=more gun deaths'. Switzerland disproves this. So do areas in the US which have gone to concealed carry. However, its more complicated than Heinlein's saying....An armed society is a polite society. I think culture has a lot to do with it. America with guns, or without guns is always going to be more violent than Japan. So, I think part of Switzerland's low crime rate is guns, and part is culture.

Thu Jul 10 2008 2:13 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Eric, whenever someone asks my opinion on what weapon to get for home defense, I almost always recommend a revolver. Revolvers are far more reliable than automatics, and also tend to be more accurate and more powerful. With the endorsement "Yes, you've only got 6 shots, but if you need more than 6 with a 357 magnum, either you're a very bad shot or there were 7 people there."

Is it Switzerland that has that military policy? I can never remember. I think that's a great policy. People here like to talk about the citizens defending the country in case of invasion (IE Red Dawn) but Switzerland is capable of doing it, and doing it in a reasonably organized fashion.

Thu Jul 10 2008 4:32 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Yes, Switzerland. As I heard it (thirdhand or so), their invasion defense plan is "run for the hills and burn the bridges." Considering the extreme height of Swiss hills and the vast number and importance of Swiss bridges, I gather that this would be a very effective strategy.

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:07 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Scott, if you've ever been to Washington DC, the road system is very complicated. This was intended to discourage invasion. When Washington DC was invaded, in 1812 I believe, the invasion force didn't follow the roads, and just walked in a straight line. Now all the road system does is confuse tourists.

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:25 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Washington DC isn't built in the middle of the Alps. Unless your entire army was conscripted from Loony Toons and is running very fast, it's hard to march across a canyon in a straight line without a bridge.

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:45 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Good point Scott!!!

Thu Jul 10 2008 5:50 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya know Eric, I just had a thought. In the case that I citied, about the 4 year old girl, the defensive system set itself off. As I recall from the story, the girl was quoted as saying (she did survive, barely) "I wanted to play with the doggies." That system set itself off. If not for the doggies, the girl wouldn't have wandered into the yard in the first place. A lethal security system, capable of triggering itself. How's that for irony?

Fri Jul 11 2008 9:54 am #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.