Intruder in your home at 3 AM - if you live in Toronto, don't hurt the perp . . .

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Then did I just misunderstand your post? (Absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended nor implied.) Because I felt like you were omitting the long-winded yet critical points I emphasized, that's all.

Some people seem to feel that if I'm arguing an intruder has to be a threat, I'm setting up some huge protection around him. I'm not. In almost all cases, the mere fact that a person has broken into your house and there are people in the house is sufficient justification to regard the intruder as a threat. So go ahead and shoot him.

What I'm talking about are the exceptions. Cases where the person was clearly a burglar but isn't a threat. For example, you walk in the front door and you see a burglar fleeing out the back door. You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?

These may seem like stupid questions. But there are people who apparently would argue the point. They say things like, "he breaks into my house and I can do whatever I want to him" or "I'm going to make sure I finish him off so he doesn't sue me". These people aren't limiting themselves to just self-defense.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by grude

Shit isn't harsh language illegal in the UK? I thought if you called a guy you catch burgling your apartment a thief you'd be brought up on charges, hurting his self esteem and all.

The wikipedia article on self defense in the UK has a single word, don't.

Brit here and I pretty much agree with the law here, and this case (without knowing all the details yet).

Someone breaks into your house they've committed a crime. You assault someone, you've committed a crime. Now obviously we should take account of whether someone was using force to defend themselves and the incredible shock and fear of seeing an intruder at night.

But once the threat is basically neutralized you don't get to live out your sadistic fantasies -- why the hell should you? There's a line to be crossed and clearly the authorities felt in this case that it had been.

[kwimby]

Originally Posted by Mijin

(without knowing all the details yet)

That's why I said wait and see what the prosecutor does with it. And in a related angle, as another poster mentioned in jumping to his conclusion - it's been over a year. I suspect it will be a rather difficult case to get a conviction.

Should be an interesting trial.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I know you're a smart poster; I've read your posts for a decade. With respect, you are ignoring or minimizing a very critical and relevant part of the problem.

Nobody but a mad person is arguing that simple burglary deserves the death penalty nor deadly force. The problem is, as has been stated by me hundreds of times on here, when someone is in your house you have no idea what exactly they're planning to do.

I and my girl are rather small women. We're both rape survivors, myself a survivor of multiple sexual assaults. If there is a large uninvited male in our house late at night, or really at most any time, we don't know what he's going to be doing. I drop the "rape" card into this conversation perhaps unfairly, but to illustrate that not all people have the same view of how threatening someone may or may not be. I cannot count the number of large men who scoff and say "if someone's in my house, I'd just deck him! I ain't afraid of no dude!"

So he has the Playstation under one arm - do I know he doesn't have a gun and won't fire a couple of shots to "scare" us? Or maybe he has a jewelry box and decides silencing a witness is just something he'll do because he's panicking? Especially, if one of us is there alone, what if he decides everything's been nice and quiet so far, maybe he wants to fuck around with us a little, maybe a little bit of molestation, slap me around, or worse? Maybe he wants to force one of us to take him to more jewelry, etc., and when we're in the lonely upstairs bedroom have a little bit of "fun?"

I hate, hate, hate it when the scenario is set up of the inoffensive criminal who is just in the house to steal the goods, and will kindly tip his metaphorical bowler hat as he leaves with a polite "ma'am." The only way you know that the threat has ended is when you no longer see nor have any evidence that the person is present or has the ability to threaten you.

A strange person committing a crime in your house is a terrifying thing. It's all very well for folks to argue calmly on a message board a year ex post facto about who should have done what when with the textbook logic of Spock. And no, you will never find me advocating shooting at someone who I only see the rapidly vanishing backside of, nor who is down on the floor and dropped their weapon. And yes I agree it's foolish to go chase someone down with a knife when you have an easy exit, legal or not. But let's not cast responding with lawful force to home invasions by criminals as being giving someone the death penalty for burglary.

Damn it all, I have a right to be safe in my house and secure from being victimized herein, and when a person illegally enters this house to commit a crime or crimes unknown to me, I shouldn't be required by the law to wait until I'm down on the floor bleeding and he's unzipping his trousers before I can shoot at him - provided I would even be able to. If we feel threatened, we're going to shoot, and thankfully we live in a State which legally agrees with us. And my conscience will be clear.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Some people seem to feel that if I'm arguing an intruder has to be a threat, I'm setting up some huge protection around him. I'm not. In almost all cases, the mere fact that a person has broken into your house and there are people in the house is sufficient justification to regard the intruder as a threat. So go ahead and shoot him.

What I'm talking about are the exceptions. Cases where the person was clearly a burglar but isn't a threat. For example, you walk in the front door and you see a burglar fleeing out the back door. You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?

These may seem like stupid questions. But there are people who apparently would argue the point. They say things like, "he breaks into my house and I can do whatever I want to him" or "I'm going to make sure I finish him off so he doesn't sue me". These people aren't limiting themselves to just self-defense.

The problem is, a lot of the time it's almost impossible to tell when someone stops being a threat. I've heard about and seen in real life instances where any sane person would retreat...but the burglar (or whatever) keeps being a threat. The one thing that I DO know about an intruder is that he does not respect boundaries. I strongly suspect that any intruder is not mentally right, and not in an amusing way, but in a dangerous way. When my choice is between my (or my loved ones) life, well-being, and safety, or an intruder's life, well-being, and safety, I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure that *I* am safe, and my loved ones are safe.

[kwimby]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The problem is, a lot of the time it's almost impossible to tell when someone stops being a threat.

In a domestic burglary situation as is described with the information available, seems pretty simple to me: When he's down. If he's not leaving quickly going in the opposite direction away from the homeowner, then, when he's down. By whatever means necessary. Blunt instrument, fists, knife, gun, whatever, doesn't matter. Any amount of force up to and including lethal, as long as it takes him down.

This is the basic principle of castle doctrine, giving home owners the right to self defense in their own homes. So sorry it seems alot of people in the world today don't seem to enjoy the right to basic self protection.

My gut feeling on this one is the perp talked to a lawyer and between the two of them decided to try and craft a payday. They are still working on some kind of deal and that's why it's taking so long.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The problem is, a lot of the time it's almost impossible to tell when someone stops being a threat. I've heard about and seen in real life instances where any sane person would retreat...but the burglar (or whatever) keeps being a threat. The one thing that I DO know about an intruder is that he does not respect boundaries. I strongly suspect that any intruder is not mentally right, and not in an amusing way, but in a dangerous way. When my choice is between my (or my loved ones) life, well-being, and safety, or an intruder's life, well-being, and safety, I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure that *I* am safe, and my loved ones are safe.

I agree. As I said, I would give the homeowner every benefit of a doubt.

[gamerunknown]

A bit more on Tony Martin (actually found out these details on the wiki, but they've since disappeared).

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

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.countyline.com/CountyLineHistory.html

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.

No, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Barbecue made at home is typically superior to the restaurant variety. Educate yourself before you start talking down to other people.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I have no problem with anything you wrote. I agree that you have every right to defend yourself in your own home. And an intruder in your home is certainly a reasonable threat to you.

My point, all along, has been that you can shoot (or stab) an intruder because they are a threat to you - not because they are a burglar.

I think this is rather making a distinction without a difference. A burglar IS, by definition, a threat to you. This is the exact point that Una was making, and which you ignore.

If you buglar someone's hosue while they are in it, and you manage to get out alive, as far as I'm concerned you've been lucky and got more than you deserve. Once you've got someone's panic response up, they're going to either run like hell or kill the shit out of you, and I don't much care which they pick as long as it works out for them.

This isn't about rights, or even wrongs - the burglar has put himself in an extraordinarily dangerous situation because he's stupid, arrogant, or just too greedy to consider the consequences. The homeowner did not choose the situation, and may quite justifiably lash out until he or she feels safe. To be blunt, if you don't feel safe in your home, where can you retreat to? Leaving the home is unlikely to be an emotionally-valid response; and in situations that fast, people must respond instantly and emotionally, because the mind can't think fast enough.

I do not expect civilians, armed or otherwise, the display the same presence of mind I expect of police - and I'm even a little generous to police. Attack them or their families, and it's reasonable to expect that they will retaliate until you are utterly incapable of doing anything to them.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I think this is rather making a distinction without a difference. A burglar IS, by definition, a threat to you. This is the exact point that Una was making, and which you ignore.

Not when the guy is upstairs and you are downstairs. Not when the guy hollers at you to stop and obviously isn't attacking, which is what is being alleged here.

And I've had an intruder in another room of my home. You have plenty of time to think.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Leaving the home is unlikely to be an emotionally-valid response; and in situations that fast, people must respond instantly and emotionally, because the mind can't think fast enough.

I do not expect civilians, armed or otherwise, the display the same presence of mind I expect of police - and I'm even a little generous to police. Attack them or their families, and it's reasonable to expect that they will retaliate until you are utterly incapable of doing anything to them.

Let me throw out a realistic scenario because I think maybe both sides are imagining that the other position is more absolute than it is.

There's some noise in your kitchen. You pick up the nearest potential weapon; a hammer, and quietly move towards the kitchen and switch on the light. There's an intruder in your kitchen! You swing the hammer a number of times in a panicked flurry, and get three good hits on him. He's now down on the ground saying "Stop! Please!" and so on.

Now, no-one is saying that it's now Situation Safe -- go ahead and turn your back on him. Nor are we saying you're at fault for doing what you've done so far.
But now, absolutely, you have a choice. I firmly believe you could collect your thoughts enough to decide whether to be in a position to hit him again while calling the cops, or deciding to smash his face in while he's down. The latter would be the wrong choice IMO.

But only a slight change to the scenario would make extreme force completely understandable e.g. you don't turn on your kitchen light and end up face to face with the perp in the darkness. It's more understandable here because it's an even more panicked situation and one in which there is no natural point to stop (you need to stop what you're doing to go turn on the light to see whether it's safe to stop what you were doing).

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I think if you ask a bunch of lawyers, the consensus will be that having the body of somebody you just stabbed to death on the scene when the police arrive is not usually a positive factor in your legal situation.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

This lawyer has no problem with it in this state. We have a strong castle doctrine and a "stand your ground" law. That door on the front of my house is there to protect the burglar from me. If he crosses it, I have no duty to retreat.

Right. It's worth pointing out that some states allow, legally, the presumption that a person who breaks into your home is a deadly threat.

[Uber_the_Goober]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Right. It's worth pointing out that some states allow, legally, the presumption that a person who breaks into your home is a deadly threat.

I think that it's worth pointing out that the majority of Americans, regardless of the legality, would presume that a person breaking into their home is a deadly threat.

So...in addition to fewer witnesses meaning fewer lawsuits - let's throw in that fewer bodies mean fewer questions to be asked in general.

Let's go all Dexter on it. If you're planning on defending your home with deadly force, why not have a body-removal plan in place too?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I think this is rather making a distinction without a difference. A burglar IS, by definition, a threat to you. This is the exact point that Una was making, and which you ignore.

Strange you'd say I ignored Una's post when you quoted my response to it. Now I'll respond to yours.

You claim that a burglar is, by definition, a threat. So how would you handle the two situations I described?

You walk in the front door and you see a burglar fleeing out the back door. You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?

If your theory that a burglar is always a threat is correct, then both of these intruders are threats to you and you're justified in shooting them. Do you agree?

My belief, as I repeatedly posted, is that being a burglar does not always make you a threat. Most of the time, yes, but not always. And the two examples I gave describe situations where an intruder is a burglar but is not a realistic threat. In these cases, I say you do not have justification for shooting the burglar. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Right. It's worth pointing out that some states allow, legally, the presumption that a person who breaks into your home is a deadly threat.

Same questions I just asked smiling bandit.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by BigT

Not when the guy is upstairs and you are downstairs. Not when the guy hollers at you to stop and obviously isn't attacking, which is what is being alleged here.

And I've had an intruder in another room of my home. You have plenty of time to think.

The intruder was upstairs, with an old woman. There wasn't time to stop and think. Nor is it reasonable to stop and think.

Next, you're going to tell people to "stop and think" when someone is bleeding to death, or drowning. In some cases, an immediate response is necessary.

[Oakminster]

You walk in the front door and you see a burglar fleeing out the back door. You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?

If he's already outside the home and running away, I won't shoot. I suspect this is the most likely scenario I'd face. Any sane/sober burglar is going to haul ass when he hears our dogs going nuts before he even enters the home.

In the other scenario, I'm unlikely to shoot a guy only once. I'd aim center-mass, and keep pulling the trigger until I get a click instead of a bang. This will take maybe 3-4 seconds, tops, and the guy should have multiple wounds before I'm out of ammo/he goes down. Considering that I load hollow points for home defense, and I damn sure ain't gonna be rendering first aid, he's probably dead or will be shortly.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

If he's already outside the home and running away, I won't shoot.

I'm fine with this. It's pretty much what I've been saying. I wouldn't shoot a burglar if he's not a threat.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

In the other scenario, I'm unlikely to shoot a guy only once. I'd aim center-mass, and keep pulling the trigger until I get a click instead of a bang. This will take maybe 3-4 seconds, tops, and the guy should have multiple wounds before I'm out of ammo/he goes down. Considering that I load hollow points for home defense, and I damn sure ain't gonna be rendering first aid, he's probably dead or will be shortly.

The second scenario was directed at Uber, who's posted the following:

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

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.

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

I'd say that's correct, but slightly to the left of my point.

Dead men tell no tales.

"This guy broke in my home, tried to steal my things, and violently attacked me when I happened upon him. I defended myself, and it ended tragically." In this case, the truth is molded by the perceptions of the only surviving witness. Nobody can argue it, as long as there aren't forensics suggesting the body was stabbed thirty five times post-mortem and all that ... but let's not stretch our hypothetical too far here.

Perfectly plausible. Plus, there's no lawsuit from the perp claiming his rights to rob and pillage were infringed upon.

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

So...in addition to fewer witnesses meaning fewer lawsuits - let's throw in that fewer bodies mean fewer questions to be asked in general.

Let's go all Dexter on it. If you're planning on defending your home with deadly force, why not have a body-removal plan in place too?

If we take him at his word, he's saying that if he had already shot and incapacitated a burglar, he would go ahead and shot the burglar again with the intent of killing him, in order to prevent the possibility that the burglar might file a lawsuit against him. And he would intentionally conceal what he had done.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I think this is rather making a distinction without a difference. A burglar IS, by definition, a threat to you. This is the exact point that Una was making, and which you ignore.

Err...sort of. My point was that they are a potential deadly threat, and that the homeowner needs to be given the most possible benefit of the doubt. I gave examples where I said I would not shoot at someone who was clearly fleeing, or had clearly surrendered.

I love human life, and have no burning desire to end or ruin someone else's life over a TV set. Nonetheless, I will never again be a victim of a violent crime, nor will I allow others to be victims - if I can help it. So the criminal in our house 9 strikes out of 10 possible against them.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

What are the Toronto police trying to do by charging him?

Obeying the letter of the law. See ss. 264.1 et seq. of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Are they obeying the spirit of the law? Tough to say. I perused the self-defence of persons and property provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 34-42), and I can't see where the defendant has a case. If I am reading the Toronto Star story correctly, he stabbed the unarmed victim, who was cowering behind a door, multiple times with a kitchen knife. Yes, he is defending his property, but it seems to me that he is doing so with much more force than a Canadian court would normally allow in a "self-defence against an unarmed intruder" case. Would they allow it in this case? I don't know.

It will be interesting to watch, though. Karl, thanks for the heads-up.

[grude]

Originally Posted by BigT

Not when the guy is upstairs and you are downstairs. Not when the guy hollers at you to stop and obviously isn't attacking, which is what is being alleged here.

And I've had an intruder in another room of my home. You have plenty of time to think.

Why the hell would you believe a burglar?! Remember the guy was right outside or right inside an occupied bedroom where someone was sleeping hello.

Bullshit you have time to think, you have no time to think you're awakened in a dark house with no clue how many intruders there are or what they intend, some places kidnapping for ransom is a realistic scenario.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

No, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Barbecue made at home is typically superior to the restaurant variety. Educate yourself before you start talking down to other people.

Been there, done that. I've had BBQ in many homes, even those with smoking equipment. And I'm not talking about the typical restaurant. I'm talking about places that just do BBQ and they have decades of "doing it every day" experience.

Have you eaten at either the County Line or the Salt Lick in Texas and tried their BBQ? Or something you feel is comparable elsewhere?

[gamerunknown]

Random anecdote: guy I know from another forum posted a play by play of a person breaking into his house (unfamiliar male in a house without one). He got a baseball bat (he was English) and boffed the guy on the head with it as he was coming up the stairs. Turned out it was his sister's boyfriend, she neglected to mention he'd be over that night.

[Cinnamon Imp]

Ooops

What happened, was the boyfriend okay? Are they still together? And wasn't it a cricket bat if he was English?

Vaguely on-topic: a couple in England have been charged with causing grevious bodily harm after shooting four intruders in their home around midnight. I'm on the side of the shooters....

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Been there, done that. I've had BBQ in many homes, even those with smoking equipment. And I'm not talking about the typical restaurant. I'm talking about places that just do BBQ and they have decades of "doing it every day" experience.

Have you eaten at either the County Line or the Salt Lick in Texas and tried their BBQ? Or something you feel is comparable elsewhere?

Yes. I've eaten at The County Line multipe times, and it speaks volumes about your knowledge of barbecue that you think it's particularly outstanding. I've made barbecue in restaurants, and it's almost logistically impossible to create a product there that matches the best stuff made in small batches.

There's a reason you hear a lot of competition barbecue people utter the phrase "It was pretty good, for restaurant Q."

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The intruder was upstairs, with an old woman. There wasn't time to stop and think. Nor is it reasonable to stop and think.

I didn't see where the article mentioned Kimberly Walsh's age. Kimberly Walsh told the police that Mahilal "had hold" of Johnson and was pushing him down the stairs. And Sarah Walsh told the police that Mahilal was trying to hold onto Johnson so police could arrest him. Mahilal may have been defending himself against a threat- but you can't really conclude that from the quotes from his girlfriend and her mother in the article. They make it sound like he was trying to prevent Johnson from leaving and effect a citizen's arrest

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Castle doctrine. No duty to retreat in your own home.

Stand your ground. No duty to retreat anywhere within the jurisdiction that you are legally allowed to occupy.

I'll take "things that have nothing to do with the discussion because the incident occurred in Canada," for $200, Alex.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I'll take "things that have nothing to do with the discussion because the incident occurred in Canada," for $200, Alex.

The Castle Doctrine isn't exclusively American. That said, I don't know what the law is in Toronto.

Nor is it universal in the United States. Some states do have "duty to retreat" laws in effect, even in your home.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The Castle Doctrine isn't exclusively American. That said, I don't know what the law is in Toronto.

I wouldn't have been correcting the other guy if I didn't already know it didn't apply. I'm also not sure where you got the idea that I thought the Castle Doctrine was exclusively American.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

I think that if it were me (at 3 AM with a stranger in my mother's room) I'd get my baseball bat and crack him as hard as I possibly could over the head or back of the neck (catching the base of his skull if my aim is on).

I'm not asking what you would do if it were you. I'm asking you what you think the legal (or moral if you want to do that too) standard should be for what kind of force you can use on an uninvited person in your house. Do you think "intruders in a house can be killed regardless of whether or not he's a threat. Or do you think, "unless an intruder is directly threatening your life, you can't kill him." Or is it somewhere in between.

I ask because I think it's somewhere in between, and I'm more than willing to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean that you get to kill anyone in your house. This case, like a vast majority of cases, falls in that middle ground. And until the facts come out, and the evidence is heard, I think it's a bit premature to draw these grand conclusions about the legal system not letting your protect yourself in your own home.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I'll take "things that have nothing to do with the discussion because the incident occurred in Canada," for $200, Alex.

I think it is good to hear what other countries are doing, and hear what people from other countries think. It helps provide perspective.

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Why is there a sub-thread about BBQ in here?

We haven’t had a death penalty for any crime in Canada for fourteen years, and have not had a death penalty for a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada for thirty-six years.

Instead, we BBQ the convicts alive. It cuts down on prison food costs.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

I'm not asking what you would do if it were you. I'm asking you what you think the legal (or moral if you want to do that too) standard should be for what kind of force you can use on an uninvited person in your house. Do you think "intruders in a house can be killed regardless of whether or not he's a threat. Or do you think, "unless an intruder is directly threatening your life, you can't kill him." Or is it somewhere in between.

I ask because I think it's somewhere in between, and I'm more than willing to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean that you get to kill anyone in your house. This case, like a vast majority of cases, falls in that middle ground. And until the facts come out, and the evidence is heard, I think it's a bit premature to draw these grand conclusions about the legal system not letting your protect yourself in your own home.

Not necessarily directed at Hamlet, but others as well.
How far do feel a homeowner is allowed to go to protect his family at 3AM? What if the homeowner insists the burglar remain until the police arrive and he refuses, choosing to abandon his felonious endeavors and evade capture?

I'm not suggesting shooting someone you see jumping out a window, but someone you actually catch in the act of pocketing some family heirlooms from your dresser drawer for instance.

I'm pretty sure I know what would happen if this case was in Texas.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

Yes. I've eaten at The County Line multipe times, and it speaks volumes about your knowledge of barbecue that you think it's particularly outstanding. I've made barbecue in restaurants, and it's almost logistically impossible to create a product there that matches the best stuff made in small batches.

For the VAST majority of people, even accomplished cooks, where does County Line rate for BBQ compared to what they can make with the likely level of experience and equipment they have access to?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Right. It's worth pointing out that some states allow, legally, the presumption that a person who breaks into your home is a deadly threat.

Correct, but it is just a presumption. We don't know all of the facts yet. If the burglar immediately drops to his face and screams, "I'm sorry, Please God don't hurt me!" and sobs like a little girl, you can't then run to the kitchen, grab a knife and skewer him.

The presumption is to protect the homeowner under iffy circumstances. No need to guess and end up dead because you need to establish that he is in your home to hurt you. You can presume it. But the facts may rebut that presumption.

e.g. Drunk guy stumbled through your front door that you forgot to lock and passes out face first on the couch. You can't put a bullet into the back of his head.

I'm all for strong castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, but all facts need to be known first.

[jz78817]

do we really need food snob bullshit in this thread?

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by jz78817

do we really need food snob bullshit in this thread?

Maybe if you ignore it, it will go away. But it does need more whiny, bitchy thread policing.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

SIX rounds? If he had a real gun he coulda done it in two.

"Yes, I understand he was charging towards you and your wife. But why did you shoot him six times?"

"'Cause the first gun I laid hands on was my Smith & Wesson. If I'da grabbed my Beretta, I'd have shot him fifteen times."

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

For the VAST majority of people, even accomplished cooks, where does County Line rate for BBQ compared to what they can make with the likely level of experience and equipment they have access to?

With a Weber Smokey Mountain, it would take a halfway decent cook 3 or 4 tries to get the brisket right (maybe a few more), but pulled pork would likely be far better almost immediately. If that home cook had access to a Big Green Egg or a larger smoker, he or she would be shooing strsngers off the front porch.

It's really not that difficult.

[kwimby]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

If that home cook had access to a Big Green Egg or a larger smoker, he or she would be shooing strsngers off the front porch.

Nope, bad idea. You'll be going to prison if they are not actually through the door and inside the house.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by kwimby

Nope, bad idea. You'll be going to prison if they are not actually through the door and inside the house.

Shooing, not shooting!

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?

I think that all these questions should be informed by the assumption that if you (a law abiding citizen) has a gun, then so could the burglar. So as long as he is capable of turning around and firing off a round of two at me, I can shoot him in the anus if I want unless he is running with his hands in the air. If he's lying wounded on the floor then I can shoot him unless his hands are in the air.

In fact I don't even feel a need to tell the burglar to put his hands int he air. He's the professional, he should know this stuff better than me.

Ask any cop if they feel safe chasing a suspect just because the suspect is running away. Or if they feel safe once the suspect is wounded or on the ground.

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

No, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Barbecue made at home is typically superior to the restaurant variety. Educate yourself before you start talking down to other people.

Sure, if you consider Applebee's a BBQ restaurant. You want good pasta sauce, you can make it yourself or you can go to a good italian restaurant where they call it ragout. Same with most bbq joints. They don't actually smoke it, they just slow cook it. So to bring this all back to the burglary thread.

If you are smoking some brisket and the smell attracts trespassers who help themselves to a plate of your brisket, can you shoot them in the dick if they are holding a plateful of your brisket?

SPOILER:

No, you ask them to put down the plate before you shoot them in the dick so they don't drop the brisket, which would force you to shoot them in the head in self defense.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I'll take "things that have nothing to do with the discussion because the incident occurred in Canada," for $200, Alex.

WHAT!?!?! Canada doesn't have the castle doctrine? When did you get rid of it? Isn't Canada a common law country? Isn't castle doctrine really old english common law?

[kwimby]

I been telling my kid playing Grand Theft Auto it's not good sport to shoot people in the privates areas.

She seems to enjoy doing it anyways, for some reason.

We were eating some very delish BBQ short ribs I did up on the grill earlier while she was using the PS3 to shoot people in the arse and other weird places yesterday. Mmmmmm.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon Imp

What happened, was the boyfriend okay? Are they still together? And wasn't it a cricket bat if he was English?

He was fine, they were still going out at the conclusion of the thread, but I don't speak to the poster any more (I had him on facebook, but I forgot his name so can't help you out). I'm fairly sure it was a baseball bat, can get them from JJB sports. Seems no-one actually plays here and I've certainly never seen a diamond. Only time I've seen an English person with a baseball bat, he was keeping it in the car for "self-defence". Far easier to swing for that purpose than a cricket bat, IMO. Personally, I've avoided anything with a heavy ball since breaking a neighbour's shed window. Luckily they didn't shoot me.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

WHAT!?!?! Canada doesn't have the castle doctrine? When did you get rid of it? Isn't Canada a common law country? Isn't castle doctrine really old english common law?

It seems that the term "castle doctrine" means different things in the US and Canada. From this post made by Northern Piper back in 2009:

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Both countries [i.e. the US and Canada] use the term "Castle doctrine", but it seems to mean quite different things.

In the US, as far as I can tell from posters on this Board (a very reputable legal cite, I assure you - I've actually cited Dopers in a couple of legal articles), the castle doctrine is related to self-defence of one's own home: One is entitled to use force to defend one's home, without any duty to retreat.

In Canada, the castle doctrine means that the police (or other agents of the Crown) are required to produce a search warrant before they can enter one's home. It's not about self-defence at all. (And last time I looked, Canadian law requires a duty to retreat when that is a reasonable alternative to the use of force in self-defence.)

[Uber_the_Goober]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

<snip>
The second scenario was directed at Uber, who's posted the following:If we take him at his word, he's saying that if he had already shot and incapacitated a burglar, he would go ahead and shot the burglar again with the intent of killing him, in order to prevent the possibility that the burglar might file a lawsuit against him. And he would intentionally conceal what he had done.

HAH! That's a good one. What is this? "Leaping to extrapolated conclusions" hour? Man I can't figure if I should call you a dipshit or suggest you get some help.

We're in the pit, and I'm throwing in my two cents. With a hefty pile of snark and sarcasm.

If you think that I'm actually a stone-cold killer, based off of some off-handed comments on an internet message board forum dedicated to thinly veiled threats and vulgar obscenity laden tirades about the miseries of others, well then ok. Go ahead and think that. Whatever gives you the niftiest dreams I guess...My guess is that you're hoping to really get this train off the tracks in a large way so you'll have something to do for a while.

However, my initial statement, that this guy would have had an easier time if the burglar was actually dead instead of alive to testify, that one I actually do agree with. It doesn't mean that I myself would have killed the guy. Just making the point that a dead burglar isn't gonna sue you for treating him poorly during his burglary.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

WHAT!?!?! Canada doesn't have the castle doctrine? When did you get rid of it? Isn't Canada a common law country? Isn't castle doctrine really old english common law?

Canadian law governing defense of property is codified at §38 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Common law only applies in Canada (as here and in England) in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

[kwimby]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Canadian law governing defense of property...

This isn't about defense of property.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

My point, all along, has been that you can shoot (or stab) an intruder because they are a threat to you - not because they are a burglar.

But the presence of a burglar in your home can of itself quite reasonably be considered a threat.

Even if he's done nothing specifically and overtly threatening, his very presence is just that. It isn't reasonable or practical to tell the homeowner that he must take steps to measure the level of threat before taking action.

[Muffin]

With respect to removing someone from one's home, the law in Canada is set out at section 41 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.


With respect to defending one's self from assault, the law in Canada is set out at section 34 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.


With respect to defending someone under one's protection from assault, the law in Canada is set out at section 37 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.


Criminal Code of Canada: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html


To translate this into Bubba (we have them here too): get 'er done, but don't over do 'er.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Xema

But the presence of a burglar in your home can of itself quite reasonably be considered a threat.

Even if he's done nothing specifically and overtly threatening, his very presence is just that. It isn't reasonable or practical to tell the homeowner that he must take steps to measure the level of threat before taking action.

Let me repeat once again - what is it now, the fifth or sixth time I've said this? - I am completely aware and I am completely in agreement that the presence of an intruder in your house would normally be a legitimate threat to you or your family.

So can we just drop the idea that I am saying otherwise?

Now here's what I've actually been saying: that it is possible for an intruder to be in your house and not be a threat. Some examples:

1. You walk in your front door and the intruder is running out the back door.

2. You've shot the intruder and he's lying wounded and incapacitated on the floor.

3. The intruder got into your liquor cabinet and drank himself into unconsciousness.

4. You've pulled your gun on the intruder and he's surrendered. He's lying face-down on the floor and you have him covered with your gun.

In all of these scenarios, the intruder is still a burglar. But he is not a threat. This is an important distinction. Because, as I've been posting, you can't shoot an intruder because he is a burglar. You can only shoot him if he is a threat. You cannot shoot a burglar if he is not threatening you.

I'd like to think this clears up any possible confusion. But I actually think it's likely I'll have somebody posting to explain to me how a burglar in the house is obviously a threat.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

HAH! That's a good one. What is this? "Leaping to extrapolated conclusions" hour? Man I can't figure if I should call you a dipshit or suggest you get some help.

We're in the pit, and I'm throwing in my two cents. With a hefty pile of snark and sarcasm.

Let me point out the obvious, Uber. Those things that made you look bad in this thread? Those were quotes of your posts. If you don't want to look bad in future threads, I'd suggest putting more thought into what you post.

Originally Posted by Uber_the_Goober

If you think that I'm actually a stone-cold killer, based off of some off-handed comments on an internet message board forum dedicated to thinly veiled threats and vulgar obscenity laden tirades about the miseries of others, well then ok. Go ahead and think that. Whatever gives you the niftiest dreams I guess...My guess is that you're hoping to really get this train off the tracks in a large way so you'll have something to do for a while.

However, my initial statement, that this guy would have had an easier time if the burglar was actually dead instead of alive to testify, that one I actually do agree with. It doesn't mean that I myself would have killed the guy. Just making the point that a dead burglar isn't gonna sue you for treating him poorly during his burglary.

I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about you in the past and I don't plan on spending much time thinking about you in the future. But you've got my attention at the moment.

Rest assured I don't think you're a stone-cold killer. I have you pegged more as somebody who likes to talk like a bad-ass on the internet because it's a safe place to pretend to be a tough guy. It's not like anyone on a message board can challenge you to back up your talk.