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.
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.
Tony Martin shot someone who was running away from him in the back.
I’m fully in favour of self defence (as people who’ve read some of my other posts will probably know), and I support the use of reasonable force to defend property. Tony Martin was doing neither, though.
Bleeding from the head = OK
Bleeding from the anus = bad
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.
I’m not saying a dead body is an insurmountable problem. But I think you’ll agree that when the police arrive, you’re going to have a lot less work to do if there isn’t a dead body present.
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.
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.
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.
SIX rounds? If he had a real gun he coulda done it in two.
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.
Yeah, you can’t shoot a burglar in a lineup at a police station but you can shoot a burglar in your house.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. As I said, I would give the homeowner every benefit of a doubt.
A bit more on Tony Martin (actually found out these details on the wiki, but they’ve since disappeared).
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.
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.
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.