Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Doesn't matter. It only matters if a judge thinks your actions were justified under the criteria set forth by the law.
Spoken like a true amateur. There's absolutely nothing to refute my position and claims about what happened. Obviously, if you do something stupid like shooting them point blank to finish them off, there's going to be a problem. Forensics will quickly show that you went beyond removing the threat. Finish them off at range, where you stand. And no, it isn't a judge, it's a jury. It's more than likely that if what happened falls along the lines of most home self defense cases, you won't even be charged. You should look up Castle or "Make my day" law. In Colorado and other places you have the right to kill even if the person is fleeing.
Quote:
The Colorado law differs from the traditional legal notion of self-defense in several ways. A person need not feel threatened to invoke force. In fact, the law provides that property crimes, not just violent crimes, are grounds for use of force.
Straight from the Arizona statutes, which is considered a stand-your-ground law:
Quote:
A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN THREATENING TO USE OR USING PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON IF THE PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVES HIMSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON TO BE IN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY AND THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IS THREATENED OR USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY OR FORCEFULLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY OR FORCEFULLY ENTERED, A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE, OR HAD REMOVED OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON'S WILL FROM THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE.
B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
Spoken like a true amateur. There's absolutely nothing to refute my position and claims about what happened. Obviously, if you do something stupid like shooting them point blank to finish them off, there's going to be a problem. Forensics will quickly show that you went beyond removing the threat. Finish them off at range, where you stand. And no, it isn't a judge, it's a jury. It's more than likely that if what happened falls along the lines of most home self defense cases, you won't even be charged. You should look up Castle or "Make my day" law. In Colorado and other places you have the right to kill even if the person is fleeing.
Err.. I was speaking from Canadian Law, not American. If the offense is serious enough, you can elect trial by jury or by judge alone. Killing an intruder in your home can fall into that category, hence why I said judge, although jury could apply as well depending on the charge.
American law is not always correct, but it sure as **** got the SYG and CD laws right.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
American law is not always correct, but it sure as **** got the SYG and CD laws right.
I agree.
I was just saying that it was wrong to assume I was speaking about American law in general when I responded. I was speaking from the law of the country in which I currently reside, that's all.
Dead men tell no tales. And can't testify against you.
Nothing like a quote from a Disney World attraction to lighten things up (Pirates of the Caribbean for anyone confused).
Seriously though, if a guy is shot dead in your bedroom, there is forced entry at your front door and he has a weapon even a knife on him do you really think a jury is going to hang the guy who awoke in the middle of the night to an intruder in his OWN home that he works hard to pay?
Someone breaks into your home, at night, they are there to kill you. Never assume otherwise. If you have loved ones in the home with you, you have to assume that they will be killed if something happens to you. Running away is rarely an option. I'm not saying shoot the guy dead without warning. Your ability to do that varies by jurisdiction. But he (or she, even) isn't there to be your friend.
The folks who say "just run away and let the police handle it" have lived horribly sheltered, naive lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzoublues29
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForzaZuffa
Absolutely this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
Actually, chances are they are not.
I have to agree with Buddha. Chances are if somebody breaks into your home at night not only are they not there to kill you, they probably didn't think you were home.
I have to agree with Buddha. Chances are if somebody breaks into your home at night not only are they not there to kill you, they probably didn't think you were home.
Well, that's a stretch...after all, how many people generally aren't home at night?
I would, however, agree that they probably didn't think you'd know they were there before they left.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 04-09-2012 at 07:21 PM.
I have to agree with Buddha. Chances are if somebody breaks into your home at night not only are they not there to kill you, they probably didn't think you were home.
Yeah, but nothing botches up a robbery quite like an unexpected person being home when they shouldn't be. I'm pretty sure no one in the movie Panic Room would have had their lives threatened if Jodie Foster wasn't there. Do you really want to take the chance that they won't eliminate a potential witness if they stumble on you?
I have to agree with Buddha. Chances are if somebody breaks into your home at night not only are they not there to kill you, they probably didn't think you were home.
but once they're there, can you really take that risk?
I'm not talking about unloading a Tommy gun into someone just because they happen to have a toe over your property line here, but once they're already IN YOUR HOUSE, all bets are off, and expecting someone to make a rapid tactical analysis and divine their exact intent is asking too much.
I have to agree with Buddha. Chances are if somebody breaks into your home at night not only are they not there to kill you, they probably didn't think you were home.
Something like 10 percent of robberies end in serious violence against the homeowner. Of those, I'd imagine the overwhelming majority were startled and began shooting or what not. They very likely did not enter with the intent of murder.
Still doesn't mean I won't shoot them if they break into my bedroom. Even if its only a 1 in a 100 chance, you can be damn sure I'm not willing to risk it.
Something like 10 percent of robberies end in serious violence against the homeowner. Of those, I'd imagine the overwhelming majority were startled and began shooting or what not. They very likely did not enter with the intent of murder.
Still doesn't mean I won't shoot them if they break into my bedroom. Even if its only a 1 in a 100 chance, you can be damn sure I'm not willing to risk it.
And almost everyone (if not everyone) in this thread would back you, legally, for doing this.
All most of us are arguing is that, if someone breaks into your home, that doesn't immediately say you can go kill him if you so choose.
I think, if someone breaks into your home and then barges into your bedroom, the likelihood that the criminal is there to try and kill you goes wayyyyyyyyy up from if the criminal breaks in and doesn't come near your bedroom.
I think, if someone breaks into your home and then barges into your bedroom, the likelihood that the criminal is there to try and kill you goes wayyyyyyyyy up from if the criminal breaks in and doesn't come near your bedroom.
There's no time for such a distinction. What if you have kids in the home? What if there were clear signs that someone was home at the time? Always assume the worst. You have every legal right to, and for good reason. No one who enters your home illegally is up to good, nor should they be given the benefit of the doubt. I realize that in Canada, where there isn't a locked door in the whole country , that this is somewhat of an extreme concept.
Sure there is. If you're not given any, then you are absolutely within your rights to use whatever force is necessary. Someone bursting through your front door doesn't shoot the clock to T-minus 0.00 instantly.
Keep in mind that we're (well, I'm) talking in generalities, not in specifics. Of course every situation will be different, but if someone breaks into your house where you're sleeping on a second floor that is a good 5-10 second stair climb, and the robber doesn't even start up them, you can't honestly say you have no time to make a distinction on the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
What if you have kids in the home?
Get up and stratigize a plan to protect them. If you have one kid, or multiple kids in a single room, take your weapon and proceed to that room. If there's multiple kids in multiple rooms, consider what way the criminal would have to go to enter either room and position yourself in a place where you'd be protected and have a clear shot at the robber should he go there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
What if there were clear signs that someone was home at the time?
Such as what?
People leave lights on when they're not home at night all the time. If you're awake and within short distance from the front door when someone breaks into your house, of course you're legally allowed to use whatever force necessary. That's a different situation from "burglar breaks into your house at night while everyone's asleep in their rooms with distance from the front door".
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Always assume the worst.
I disagree wholly. I'd prefer to assume the most likely, and defend my person and the persons I care about passively rather than attack (ie, if the criminal comes near me or where my family is, I'd take action, if not, I don't risk a confrontation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
You have every legal right to
Sadly, in the US, you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
and for good reason.
I disagree. There's not a good reason to make assuming the worst in any situation where assuming isn't the only way to make a rational decision legally acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
No one who enters your home illegally is up to good
Sure. But not everyone who enters your home illegally is up to killing you or anyone else in the home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
nor should they be given the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree. I value the life of strangers too much to assume that anyone who enters my dwelling is instantly there to kill me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
I realize that in Canada, where there isn't a locked door in the whole country , that this is somewhat of an extreme concept.
Pretty much. And it's not only in Canada. Britain, France, Sweden, hell, most of Europe it's an extreme concept.
Sure there is. If you're not given any, then you are absolutely within your rights to use whatever force is necessary. Someone bursting through your front door doesn't shoot the clock to T-minus 0.00 instantly.
An extremely overt break in doesn't put you in the red zone? Naivety. America is a culture of force and differs in how most view what constitutes self-defense. If my car is in the driveway or if the person simply kicks down the door, they are there to kill me. To state or think otherwise is to needlessly put your life in jeopardy for the sake of giving an unsavory stranger the benefit of the doubt.
Sure there is. If you're not given any, then you are absolutely within your rights to use whatever force is necessary. Someone bursting through your front door doesn't shoot the clock to T-minus 0.00 instantly.
Keep in mind that we're (well, I'm) talking in generalities, not in specifics. Of course every situation will be different, but if someone breaks into your house where you're sleeping on a second floor that is a good 5-10 second stair climb, and the robber doesn't even start up them, you can't honestly say you have no time to make a distinction on the situation
That's incredibly foolish. You're asking homeowners to be mindreaders. And 5 second might be time enough to allow you to find and prepare your weapon to fire. MIGHT. It's not like people walk around their homes with their shotguns over their shoulders.
You have too much to lose to take a risk here. If you try to spend time puzzling over their intent, and they were there to kill you, you're dead. If that happens 1 time out of 100, you're asking people to die for the sake of your own personal moral clarity.
An extremely overt break in doesn't put you in the red zone?
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Naivety. America is a culture of force and differs in how most view what constitutes self-defense.
Definitely. You're too worried about the specifics, though. I'm talking in generalities. How many times do I have to say this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
If my car is in the driveway or if the person simply kicks down the door, they are there to kill me.
No. They. Are. NOT. Period, end of story.
You can pretend all you like that opening your door uninvited is lethal to you, but you can't defend that position statistically, rationally or morally.
It's not entering your dwelling that's lethal, it's what they do after that. That's what you should be basing your actions on, not that they entered your place illegally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
To state or think otherwise is to needlessly put your life in jeopardy for the sake of giving an unsavory stranger the benefit of the doubt.
In the US, legally, you're right. Morally and ethically, I think you're absolutely wrong. As noted, the percentage chance that someone who breaks into your house while you're there is going to kill you, in any situation is extremely miniscule. The fact is your life is not in extreme jeopardy, just potentially endangered. Actively removing that potential threat, IMO, when other, less lethal options are available, isn't morally right to me.
Of course, again, I value life over everything else. The only situation I allow for a life to be taken actively is when the situation is clear that someone's going to die. IMO, a break in doesn't make it a clear situation where someone is going to die.
That's incredibly foolish. You're asking homeowners to be mindreaders.
Where am I asking homeowners to be mind-readers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
And 5 second might be time enough to allow you to find and prepare your weapon to fire. MIGHT. It's not like people walk around their homes with their shotguns over their shoulders.
Sure, so if they come up your stairs, and you have your gun ready, you're okay to shoot them. If they stay right at your stairs and don't move, you're probably okay to shoot them, too. If they move away from the stairs, then you're not okay to go down to confront them and shoot them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
You have too much to lose to take a risk here.
I don't think getting your gun and putting yourself in a position where you're not likely to see the robber unless the robber comes after you is risky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
If you try to spend time puzzling over their intent, and they were there to kill you, you're dead.
Again, I disagree. If you put yourself in a position where the only way you're going to see the robber is if the robber goes up your stairs, then you're in an excellent position to take him by surprise and keep yourself alive. You're mistaking "puzzling over intent" with "putting yourself in a position where intent is going to decide whether the robber lives or dies".
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
If that happens 1 time out of 100, you're asking people to die for the sake of your own personal moral clarity.
No, I'm not. Again, my moral position and actions based off them are most likely not going to result in you dying, and are practically infinitely more likely to result in the criminal not dying, too.
I wish I could find the story...I'll keep trying.....
But there was a man who had his house broken into, didn't have a gun AND he was too old to physically fight back or protect himself. House gets robbed. Word on the street gets out that this guy can't defend himself or his own house. Well either the same or different (can't remember) robbers come BACK TO THE HOUSE a week later or whatever...and this time the guy's got a gun. Shoots the robbers. Less robbers on the street, house never gets robbed again.
Unless it's bloody blindingly obvious, such as an intruder spotting you AND IMMEDIATELY TURNING TO RUN, intent is all but impossible to determine within the timeframe you have to ensure your survival if a violent attack is imminent.
There are other ways to tell intent other than reading minds. You do know that, right? I mean, i even included a way (if he goes up the stairs, his intent is reasonably obvious to be something physically dangerous, if he doesn't, then it's reasonably obvious his intent is not murder), but apparently that's not good enough for trigger happy folks like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Unless it's bloody blindingly obvious, such as an intruder spotting you AND IMMEDIATELY TURNING TO RUN, intent is all but impossible to determine within the timeframe you have to ensure your survival if a violent attack is imminent.
for the 500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 time...
If an attack is imminent, then go for it. Someone knocking down your door and not heading anywhere near where people are is not an "imminent" attack.
There are other ways to tell intent other than reading minds. You do know that, right? I mean, i even included a way (if he goes up the stairs, his intent is reasonably obvious to be something physically dangerous, if he doesn't, then it's reasonably obvious his intent is not murder), but apparently that's not good enough for trigger happy folks like you.
for the 500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 time...
If an attack is imminent, then go for it. Someone knocking down your door and not heading anywhere near where people are is not an "imminent" attack.
I wish my house had an upstairs. Then we could distinguish the difference between an intruder's intent.
Intruders are usually coked up or tweakin on PCP....if something startles them...there's no telling what they're gonna do next. So if they hear another person going for a gun or knife or running to hide....they could turn from trying to steal jewelry to potentially take your life.
Also....if my home is getting broke into...I'm gonna take my gun and shoot until this guy can't come back and hit my house again. I don't want my **** stolen....so I'm not gonna let him.
There are other ways to tell intent other than reading minds. You do know that, right? I mean, i even included a way (if he goes up the stairs, his intent is reasonably obvious to be something physically dangerous, if he doesn't, then it's reasonably obvious his intent is not murder), but apparently that's not good enough for trigger happy folks like you.
for the 500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 time...
If an attack is imminent, then go for it. Someone knocking down your door and not heading anywhere near where people are is not an "imminent" attack.
For the 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 time.
How the flying spaghetti monster do you know when an attack is imminent, when the first sure sign of an imminent attack is actually being attacked?
If breaking into your residence isn't enough for you, what standard of evidence would be sufficient short of already being in immediate jeapordy of life and limb? Where do you draw the line? What does a guy have to be doing before it's enough to protect your own life against?
Since "already attacking you" is completely unacceptable for obvious reasons, but you are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner once a breakin is already taking place, I need to know what you consider sufficient.
I wish my house had an upstairs. Then we could distinguish the difference between an intruder's intent.
Intruders are usually coked up or tweakin on PCP....if something startles them...there's no telling what they're gonna do next. So if they hear another person going for a gun or knife or running to hide....they could turn from trying to steal jewelry to potentially take your life.
Also....if my home is getting broke into...I'm gonna take my gun and shoot until this guy can't come back and hit my house again. I don't want my **** stolen....so I'm not gonna let him.
If you pick my house, you've made a big mistake.
Sure. Let me say it again: I'm working on a general hypothetical.
If you live in a one-floor home or are downstairs when the criminal breaks in, you're absolutely okay to use whatever force necessary to defend yourself. My argument is particularly against those that say that, if someone breaks into your house, you should be allowed to use any level of force, regardless of what the situation is or how far you'd have to go to be able to use that force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
For the 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 time.
How the flying spaghetti monster do you know when an attack is imminent, when the first sure sign of an imminent attack is actually being attacked?
You don't. Where do I say that you need to know that he's going to attack you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
If breaking into your residence isn't enough for you, what standard of evidence would be sufficient short of already being in immediate jeapordy of life and limb? Where do you draw the line? What does a guy have to be doing before it's enough to protect your own life against?
Since I don't feel like saying this again, I'll just quote myself with the response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7
Sure, so if they come up your stairs, and you have your gun ready, you're okay to shoot them. If they stay right at your stairs and don't move, you're probably okay to shoot them, too. If they move away from the stairs (addendum: meaning they're not heading towards you or anyone else in the house), then you're not okay to go down to confront them and shoot them.
There are other ways to tell intent other than reading minds. You do know that, right? I mean, i even included a way (if he goes up the stairs, his intent is reasonably obvious to be something physically dangerous, if he doesn't, then it's reasonably obvious his intent is not murder), but apparently that's not good enough for trigger happy folks like you.
for the 500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 time...
If an attack is imminent, then go for it. Someone knocking down your door and not heading anywhere near where people are is not an "imminent" attack.
I understand your logic, I just think you're trying to apply it to a situation where logic usually goes by the wayside. We're not all pre-programmed to to react similarly under duress. Regardless of what the perpetrator's intent is, the homeowner should always be given the benefit of the doubt. If a person in that situation freaks out and overreacts, I think they ought to be cut some slack and not always held to the strictest letter of the law.
Your viewing it as a property crime that may lead to violence, like it's an academic exercise or something. Most view the very nature of home invasion as a violent act and a direct assault on everything you hold dear. Personally, I think it's comparable to r*pe.
And no, it isn't a judge, it's a jury. It's more than likely that if what happened falls along the lines of most home self defense cases, you won't even be charged. You should look up Castle or "Make my day" law. In Colorado and other places you have the right to kill even if the person is fleeing. 
, that this is somewhat of an extreme concept.
