dksuddeth

got a link? I'd like to read the story.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Fire

ya know, george bush scares the shit outta me, but seeing the above article makes me have to like him at least a little- at least here we arent helpless sheep waiting for slaughter....... and good to see austrailia heading the right way too- the way i see it the law should protect me from the criminal, not the other way around.....

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

rat

and god forbid that our legal system operate under the stricture that until a person physically threatens--or takes--the life of another human being, they have not forfeitted their own right to continuing life.

__________________

Ninja

I don't think that the use of lethal force is necessary to protect your home there are plenty other ways to deter a thief, sure a bat/golf club isn't very practical (long swinging weapons in tight spaces?) but the look of a guy in his underwear wielding a kitchen knife, I would think, would be enough to make most thiefs head to the door. This of coarse changes if the would be thief is armed, in witch case I think any and all means because that guy has come in to do damage.

dksuddeth

what would you rather have? law abiding citizens with the right to life or criminals with the freedom to terrorize innocent people?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

rat

you'd rather have self-imposed death penalties for theft than have some society that believes that the punishments handed down by the courts should--hell, i dunno--maybe fit the crimes?

theft and burglary, under the common law cases provided by our nation, is not grounds for loss of life. call me crazy, but i don't think thieves should be summarily executed, and somehow--and i know this part is really nuts--the courts seem to feel the same way.


you want summary execution, the People's Republic of China is the place for you.

__________________

Seaver

Rat, the point that we're trying to make is when it's dark we dont KNOW if they're just there for the tv, or to slit our throats in our sleep. It's not our duty to figure that out.

Anyways, as long as the shotgun blast is in the front it's hard for any lawyer to to prove the intruder wasnt threatening force.

AngelicVampire

Rat: if people were executed for delibrately breaking into someone's house and attempting to steal things then maybe the burglary rate would go down? I value my property above a thieves' life... by breaking into my property he has reduced himself from a person who should be allowed rights to someone who should have none as he attempted to deprive me of my right to live in my property without fear.

Coppertop

Why wait for the intruder to threaten harm before handling him? If someone is in my house at night, I am going to assume my loved ones are in danger and will handle him accordingly. It's not as if he was invited you know. Were he so worried about his rights and/or health he could have chosen to not break into my home.

dksuddeth

I can see your point in that you're not allowed to just shoot ANY person who breaks and enters. example, broad daylight...guy crawls through the window.....you say FREEZE or GET THE F' OUT!!!!, however, as others have said, if its dark out and theres someone poking around my living room or coming down the hallway they get one chance to stop when I say so. If they don't then i'm pulling the trigger. My wife and kids are worth more than the life of a thief.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

nowthen

and another question is, do criminals *deserve* the protection of the law? in my mind, you get the protection of civilized society, only when you toe the line and are part of that society. a criminal is not, he has made a decision to drop out of that society and prey upon its members. therefore, if a person is not conforming to the law, and enters my house against the law, surely he is forfeiting the protection of the law?

but, i guess thats to much of a deep question for this thread. rightly or wrongly, i will not take chance with my family. somebody in my house, they get it. anybody else is free to take the action they feel is correct....

__________________

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them."

George Bernard Shaw

rat

the details of the article, as has been stated, involve a man shot in the back with a shotgun.

additionally, i'm not so naiive just say "wing him", but the law draws the line at a viable threat to your life, including your duty to flee. these aren't just beliefs, they're written laws. additionally, anyone shot in the back from across a room does not constitute a reasonable threat to your life.

Criminals do indeed deserve the protection of civilized society, for the simple fact that a true measure of society is how it treats those in the margins, whether they be the homeless and destitute or the hardened criminals. I'm a staunch advocate of the death penalty, when it is applied by the courts. I'm also an advocate of the 2nd Amendment. What I'm not and advocate of is vigilante justice. The whole reason we have a legal process is to protect the rights of all, and one does not forfeit their rights until they have been found guilty of a crime under the eyes of the law. Even then, with the majority of all crimes, criminals loose their right to free movement (imprisonment), not their right to life. The entire reason there lies differences, delineations, and demarcations among the various forms of criminal acts is to have the punishment fit the crime. Even a convicted felon does not forfeit their right to appeal their sentence. Guaranteeing the absolute rights of all is the only true way to have the repression of none.

As a final addendum, at the point a criminal (someone who breaks the law) forfeits their protection under society, the maxim would posit anyone who has: jaywalked, broken the speed limit, turned without signalling, changed lanes in an intersection, consumed alcohol underaged, provided alcohol to underaged people, consumed marijuana or any other illicit drugs, smoked cigarettes prior to being 18, or comitted any number of federal, state and local statute violations (including in New York City not facing the doors of an elevator and standing with one's hands at one's sides)--all those things and more, that logical maxim would say we all would have forfeited the protection of society. Hell, by that maxim, no one would be guaranteed a (relatively) fair and impartial trial, the right to an attorney, or any of the other basic rights (including privacy) that we are all guaranteed.

__________________

rat

by law, it is. and you could argue till you're blue in the face that it's not, but the law of the United States says very clearly that it is your duty to determine who they are and be able to prove a viable and real threat to your life prior to killing them. honestly, you should do some research into the subject instead of just mouthing the misconceptions you have about our legal system.

__________________

Seaver

1) Dont assume you know more than everyone.

2) The homeowner doesnt have to prove a "viable and real" threat, the state has to prove that at the time the homeowner knew he didnt posess a threat (till proven guilty.. remember that one?). Once they enter someone's elses property illegally, they give reasonable proof of being a real threat. The homeowner is not obligated to turn on the lights, giving himself away in a VERY dangerous situation, to see if the intruder has a weapon. Now you can go on the law if you like but if you did in fact graduate law school you will know that in MANY cases the intent of the law is considered more heavily than the actual word usage.

3) According to self defense laws the person who feels threatened is allowed to take whatever instant action he feels necissary as long as it's not premeditated. I.E. He cant go to his car to get a gun, but if it's right next to him he's allowed to grab and use it.

rat

as far as thinking i know more than everyone, i honestly don't. but someone even mildly acquainted with the related statutes and case law of self-defense, let alone burglarly/theft would know better than to sound off with alot of the things in this thread--especially the ones who think that killing a trespasser for simply trespassing or a burglar for simply burgling is acceptable in states like Texas. the key point i've attempted to make since the first post in this thread is that people need to do two things before posting about "what is legal": 1) speak from a point of being informed, and 2) have a position that is at least somehow grounded in fact or verifiable legal documentation/cases/rulings.

secondly, self-defense is one of the few times an accused has a burden of proof at all in our legal system. whether it simply be preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt, they have to have a legitimate claim to the fact that they honestly believed their life was threatened. does it have to be 100% verifiable? absolutely not. does it have to show that a reasonable person in a like situation would feel/think/act the same way? yes. I'm not saying anything is ironclad, but it has to fall somewhere within the realm of reason. shooting a man in the back with a shotgun who is running away from you doesn't constitute self-defense. it may constitute home-defense, but many people in this thread failed to understand that there lies a fundamental difference in the concepts of self-defense and home-defense.

as far as going off the intent of the law rather than the letter, there I agree with you. however, in the case of burglary and the subsequent acts of homeowners taking the law into their own hands, the intent of the courts and their interpretation of the law is pretty clear--vigilante justice is not something they generally appreciate. just as with any rule of life, legal proceeding, or written legislation, there will be exceptions of the rule--the point is to make people realize that they are exceptions, and not the rule.

__________________

Seaver

If you read my post I NEVER said anything about shooting a man in the back.

We finally agreed on something though, that they only have to have a reasonable claim to why they felt their life was threatened. A person breaks into your house and you meet face to face with him in a dark hallway... that's reason enough for me.

I'm not talking about the guy who hooked a gun to his doorframe, or shot a guy in the back. Which, though, is easy enough to fix by yelling HEY (not saying do this, but stating it's impossible to prove he wasnt defending himself... being shot in the front).

Lockjaw

Let me ask you...did you study the laws that pertain to this or are you conveniently forgetting what the law in Texas says in regards to deadly force?

Texas law states deadly force can be used if...
Which is what you refer to.
And even more explicit is State Statute Title 2 Chapter 9 Section 42. Which deals directly with deadly force and theft...
Rat not sure if you live here or not but the sheer fact in my 26 years and after hearing of many cases like this not one person,to my knowledge, that shot a robber in their house had a single charge filed against them that stuck.. Your statements MIGHT be true for other states but as for here...it's not true and next time YOU decide you want to clambor upon your high horse and try to tell somebody to "look it up" that you follow your own advice first.

Lebell

You keep saying this, but I can tell you with all confidence that a homeowner in Colorado does NOT have to retreat or prove that the person was a threat before using lethal force. (So shooting a buglar in the back would be perfectly legal.)

If you need proof, feel free to google Colorado + make my day law.

So perhaps it is you who should do some research before making such pronouncements.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Lockjaw

Oh BTW as far as the effort to retreat in Texas...it states...

It's very likely that a reasonable person would not retreat in their own home.

Fire

Actually, I feel that if I break into your house to steal your stuff, you should have the right to kill me- seems fair to me, but then I am not a burglar by trade either- simply put, I feel that certain things cause a person to forfiet their right to go on living- among them, rape, murder, armed robbery or entering anothers dwelling to steal something- I do not care about someone elses rights when they are violating mine- I think that we work hard for our stuff, and therefore should have rights to defend it, and I for one have no qualms about killing someone that tries to take whats mine

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

nowthen

people who argue for criminals rights make me laugh, really. i mean its a perfectly simple formula - dont break in to someones house, dont get shot.

__________________

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them."

George Bernard Shaw