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).
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.”
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
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.
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.
I think it is good to hear what other countries are doing, and hear what people from other countries think. It helps provide perspective.
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.
If you’re planning on defending your home with deadly force, why not have a body-removal plan in place too?
