You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re not going to “cook” what these folks do with meat smoked in their own smokehouse for the better part of a day.
http://www.saltlickbbq.com/pages/FAQ.html
These cooking processes aren’t easily duplicated by someone with home equipment. But then if you’re happy with what you can do, by all means just throw whatever you can find on a grill. 
You can’t have possibilities as justification for killing somebody. You shoot the burglar that breaks into your house. His brother might decide to kill you and your family in revenge for you killing his brother. If you catch a burglar in your home, are you therefore justified in killing his entire family? If not, why is it reasonable to think a burglar might kill you in the future but not reasonable to think somebody whose brother you killed might try to kill you?
The last thing he’ll ever do.
Why do you assume the intruder is being truthful? His actions of just seconds earlier should make you think twice about believing anything he says.
There is a similar, and very famous and controversial case in the UK, that of the farmer Tony Martin. Good article on Wikipedia. In 1999 he shot and killed a burglar in his house, and was given life imprisonment for murder, largely on the grounds that the force he used was not reasonable. This was later reduced to 5 years for manslaughter on appeal.
There are all sorts of wrinkles in the case (my favourite being that another burglar who was injured by Martin in the same incident tried to sue him for loss of earnings) but a big majority of people in the UK were against the murder conviction. How do you calculate, in a scuffle in the dark, when your previously safe sanctuary has been invavded by hostile unknown entities (sounds a bit Twilight Zone, but you know what I mean), what is reasonable force?
I read somewhere that a lot of spur of the moment murders done by ordinary people of family members or close friends are often shockingly violent and brutal, far more so than professional hits, but this is because ordinary people just don’t know how much force it takes to kill someone. So once they’ve started they keep hitting/slashing until they are completely sure that person isn’t getting up again. Most of us are just not practised in using violence with precision (a friend of mine accidentally broke her sister’s nose on her wedding day when all she had wanted to do was give her a light slap - she was crying, long story).
The other argument is that the burglar forfeits all their rights as soon as they intrude, but I’m a little more uncomfortable with that.
Does a person in the process of committing a felony have a right to escape?
We had a burglar shot (one shot from a handgun) and killed here back in July 2010. The burglar was on court ordered electronic monitoring (of course the homeowner had no way of knowing) and had managed to tamper with the device to remove it without setting off an alarm. The homeowner was not injured and was not charged.
About 90 minutes later a family was pistol whipped in an unrelated home invasion.
Goes to show that the homeowner in the first incident had no way of knowing whether the burglar intended to do him violence. General community response was that the homeowner was in a most unfortunate situation and was well justified in his use of deadly force.
Someone is discovered in my house in the dead of night. Before shooting him, I will ask him to sit down with me and take a short test. No pressure, of course. This will be a multiple-choice test of 20 questions. I will decide whether he will live or die based on the answers…
Not as such, but one generally doesn’t have a right to use deadly force to defend oneself from someone who is running away.
Because really good, and I mean really good,not anything at Applebee’s or what have you, smoked BBQ is goddamn culinary artistry. And takes more than 9 hours to prepare. It’s probably cheaper to fly to Texas (or VA, TN or NC) and buy BBQ than it is to buy all the equipment and supplies you need to make BBQ yourself.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Every time I hear about some wacky legal case in Canada, it’s always about someone being charged with something, but never convicted. And then everyone reacts as though the accused had been convicted.
Why is there a sub-thread about BBQ in here?
No, but private citizens generally have a duty to retreat rather than use deadly force if they have the opportunity to do so.
Perhaps the more pressing question is: why isn’t there a sub-thread about BBQ in every thread?
It’s not an issue of there being a right to escape. The issue is the right to self-defense. You have the right to defend yourself from a criminal. But if the criminal is running away from you, what exactly are you supposedly defending yourself from? If you shoot the criminal at this point, you’re no longer acting in self-defense - now you’re shooting him for some other non-justifiable reason like revenge or fear or panic.
He went downstairs to put his shoes back on?
He claims he was there to buy pot so why did he take off his shoes and go upstairs?
It’s the Pit. Of course there’s BBQ here.
On the one hand, I don’t want to shoot the (mostly) harmless drunk who has wandered into my house by mistake. On the other hand, I don’t think that a criminal who knows that he’s breaking and entering my house should expect to be able to B&E in complete safety. Even if he retreats when he realizes that he’s been caught. If someone wants to minimize the risk of being shot as an intruder, then he should refrain from intruding. And on the gripping hand, I know that there are some people who would gladly lure gangsta wannabes in, just to blow them away.
The thing is, if you startle someone, you can’t count on a rational response right away. This means that if you’re burgling houses, you need to accept that your activity is inherently dangerous. The inhabitants of those houses have no way of knowing if a burglar is dangerous or not, and they don’t have much time to make up their minds.
I have no sympathy for Johnson.
Nobody’s saying burglary is allowed. But I think most people are not going to argue burglary is a capital offense. You don’t see people calling for the death penalty at burglary trials.
So you don’t have the right to kill somebody just because they’re robbing your house - the morality is the same regardless of whether you shoot them in the act or put them in the electric chair six months later. Burglary isn’t a crime worth killing for.
The issue is self-defense. You’re not justified in killing an intruder because he’s committing burglary. You are justified in killing an intruder if he’s threatening you or somebody else.
But once that threat is gone, the justification vanishes. You’re not justified in killing somebody because they were in your house thirty seconds ago if they’re running away from you now.
And most juries are going to go as far as they can in seeing the situation from the homeowner’s point of view. Which is fair in my opinion. The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt.
But the principle still applies. The homeowner has to show that he had reasonable grounds to feel he was being threatened and he didn’t shoot just because of the burglary.
I think the only problem is that he didn’t finish the guy off. If he had killed him dead, he couldn’t have whined about being mistreated by his victims.
Shee-it, he claims he’s a Texan but his body has been in Minnesota so long that none of the Texas cells remain. Give him bologna and ketchup and tell him it’s bar-b-q. He’ll probably believe it. Er, I assume so, though I’ve only been in Texas long enough to drive through, with a stop at Dealy Plaza.
As for the actual topic, we had a crazy neighbor who would sometimes let himself in. Wife got a baseball bat for if she couldn’t convince him to leave, but it was aluminum so bouncing off his skull would give a dissatisfying clunk instead of a proper crack. He moved away so I was not embarrassed by the dreadful sound the bat made.
See, bar-b-q and home defense can go together if your main interest is correctness.