# Is this 'justice'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877 "2013-10-10T15:35:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/141 "2013-10-11T16:02:07Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Preferably not. And yet, that is what is happening in this case. The government is saying that, while the police would have to give them a chance to surrender because they are unarmed and try them for burglary, they will let the homeowner shoot on sight whether the perpetrators are armed or not, no warning needed. Not only that, but in most cases not only is the homeowner free and clear, but any and all _other_ perpetrators in the group get to be charged with murder instead of the person who pulled the trigger, not matter what they actually did…like stand outside the house as a lookout for people that were already in the house unbeknownst to them. This is nothing more than government officials seeking public approval by allowing “frontier justice”, something I had hoped to never see again. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/142 "2013-10-11T16:11:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And yet, that is what is happening in this case. No it’s not. > [@](#): > > The government is saying that, while the police would have to give them a chance to surrender because they are unarmed and try them for burglary, Like that lady in DC? > [@](#): > > they will let the homeowner shoot on sight whether the perpetrators are armed or not, no warning needed. As it should be. Deterrence and all that. > [@](#): > > Not only that, but in most cases not only is the homeowner free and clear, but any and all _other_ perpetrators in the group get to be charged with murder instead of the person who pulled the trigger, not matter what they actually did…like stand outside the house as a lookout for people that were already in the house unbeknownst to them. This is nothing more than government officials seeking public approval by allowing “frontier justice”, something I had hoped to never see again. That’s the law, not a lynching. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/143 "2013-10-11T16:15:10Z")
That’s the law looking the other way and sanctioning the homeowner to do what _they_ couldn’t do legally-summary execution without benefit of trial. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/144 "2013-10-11T16:21:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That’s the law looking the other way and sanctioning the homeowner to do what _they_ couldn’t do legally-summary execution without benefit of trial. 😕 What do you propose, exactly? Murder charges for homeowners who fire on intruders without warning them first? ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/145 "2013-10-11T16:28:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That’s the law looking the other way and sanctioning the homeowner to do what _they_ couldn’t do legally-summary execution without benefit of trial. If someone is in my house, taking my stuff, potentially threatening myself and my family, with their cohorts, they should be on notice that if I have the ability to harm, kill or stop them I will be doing so. What’s the alternative? Some situations don’t allow you to sit tight and wait for the police. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/146 "2013-10-11T16:36:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 😕 What do you propose, exactly? Murder charges for homeowners who fire on intruders without warning them first? I would propose: 1. That your definition of felony murder be adopted 2. That the circumstances be considered before the homeowner is proclaimed to be a hero. Can it be shown that the perpetrators thought the house was empty? How did they react when confronted by the homeowner? Did they give any indication that they intended to harm anyone(and no-merely entering the house won’t do). Were they shot in the back while trying to get away? Did they even know he was there before he started shooting? I really don’t think the rules for a homicide investigation should be thrown out the window just because “A man’s home is his castle”. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/147 "2013-10-11T16:37:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And yet, that is what is happening in this case. The government is saying that, while the police would have to give them a chance to surrender because they are unarmed and try them for burglary, they will let the homeowner shoot on sight whether the perpetrators are armed or not, no warning needed. Not only that, but in most cases not only is the homeowner free and clear, but any and all _other_ perpetrators in the group get to be charged with murder instead of the person who pulled the trigger, not matter what they actually did…like stand outside the house as a lookout for people that were already in the house unbeknownst to them. This is nothing more than government officials seeking public approval by allowing “frontier justice”, something I had hoped to never see again. Where did the government say that? If the police perceive a threat, they can respond with deadly force, same as the home owner. In fact, the outcome in this case would have been identical whether the criminal was shot by the home owner, or got lit up by police as he exited the home and they detected a “furtive movement” or saw an object in his hand and shot him, fearing for their safety. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/148 "2013-10-11T16:39:16Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > If someone is in my house, taking my stuff, potentially threatening myself and my family, with their cohorts, they should be on notice that if I have the ability to harm, kill or stop them I will be doing so. > > What’s the alternative? Some situations don’t allow you to sit tight and wait for the police. If you try real hard, maybe you can come up with a solution that falls between those two extremes. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/149 "2013-10-11T16:41:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I would propose: > > 1. That your definition of felony murder be adopted > 2. That the circumstances be considered before the homeowner is proclaimed to be a hero. Can it be shown that the perpetrators thought the house was empty? How did they react when confronted by the homeowner? Did they give any indication that they intended to harm anyone(and no-merely entering the house won’t do). Were they shot in the back while trying to get away? Did they even know he was there before he started shooting? I really don’t think the rules for a homicide investigation should be thrown out the window just because “A man’s home is his castle”. There were some mentions earlier of a knife missing from the kitchen block. I’ll say that it seems unlikely that they were interested in stealing that one particular knife for its monetary value. It seems like they were obtaining a weapon, which demonstrates ill intent to me. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/150 "2013-10-11T16:43:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Where did the government say that? If the police perceive a threat, they can respond with deadly force, same as the home owner. The police can fire _without warning_ and without _reasonable_ suspicion of threat, even if the perpetrators are not posing any threat and are trying to run away and/or hide in fear of death? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/151 "2013-10-11T16:48:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There were some mentions earlier of a knife missing from the kitchen block. I’ll say that it seems unlikely that they were interested in stealing that one particular knife for its monetary value. It seems like they were obtaining a weapon, which demonstrates ill intent to me. And has been pointed out before, if they had intended to go into that house with the intent to harm someone, they certainly wouldn’t have gone in unarmed in hope of finding a weapon in the house. You can’t both try them as fully functioning adults and, at the same time, admit that were too mentally deficient to bring along their own weapon if they intended to harm anyone. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/152 "2013-10-11T16:54:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The police can fire _without warning_ and without _reasonable_ suspicion of threat, even if the perpetrators are not posing any threat and are trying to run away and/or hide in fear of death? The police can fire if they fear for their safety, same as any citizen can. There’s no legal requirement that you warn the threat beforehand, whether you are an LEO or a citizen. Whether your perception of a threat was “reasonable” or not is the stuff trials are made of (see George Zimmerman for a recent, high-profile example). I’ll say that typically the courts have given police far more latitude in the use of deadly force than citizens generally. There are lots of scenarios I can imagine where you’d be good to go (whether citizen or LEO) for shooting a fleeing or hiding criminal. There are probably an equal number of scenarios I could concoct where you’d find yourself in some real hot water for doing so. ETA: it seems like your understand of the laws revolving around deadly force has been informed by Hollywood rather than statutes and case law. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/153 "2013-10-11T16:58:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And has been pointed out before, if they had intended to go into that house with the intent to harm someone, they certainly wouldn’t have gone in unarmed in hope of finding a weapon in the house. You can’t both try them as fully functioning adults and, at the same time, admit that were too mentally deficient to bring along their own weapon if they intended to harm anyone. They could have entered the home without the intent to harm anyone, and developed it while inside (just like the Petit murderers) and then obtained whatever weapons were convenient for the cause. I don’t see this point as terribly important though because the legal presumption in most states is that they intend to do you harm if they break into your home. Whether that was actually their intent or not is not relevant in the eyes of the law. ETA: Also, a great deal of harm can be done by hands and fists. Especially when outnumbered 5 to 1. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/154 "2013-10-11T17:00:17Z")
The unfortunate message to homeowners is: Don’t call the police. If you do, and the burglers are captured, they’ll only get a couple of years. Go in shooting. Shoot to kill. Keep firing, even if they are running away or trying to save their friends. Try to kill one of them. Then the others will be charged with his murder. Which was not murder, because you were justified. It’s like Shroedinger’s murdered cat. The cat can be both murdered and a justified homicide at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/155 "2013-10-11T17:03:04Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The unfortunate message to homeowners is: > > Don’t call the police. If you do, and the burglers are captured, they’ll only get a couple of years. > > Go in shooting. Shoot to kill. Keep firing, even if they are running away or trying to save their friends. > > Try to kill one of them. Then the others will be charged with his murder. Which was not murder, because you were justified. > > It’s like Shroedinger’s murdered cat. The cat can be both murdered and a justified homicide at the same time. I don’t find that message unfortunate. My sympathy for people that would break into another’s dwelling is minimal. Of course, I’ve never thought the message was anything other than “Please don’t hesitate or second-guess the legality of defending yourself or your family in your own home.” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/156 "2013-10-11T17:03:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I would propose: > > 1. That your definition of felony murder be adopted > 2. That the circumstances be considered before the homeowner is proclaimed to be a hero. Can it be shown that the perpetrators thought the house was empty? How did they react when confronted by the homeowner? Did they give any indication that they intended to harm anyone(and no-merely entering the house won’t do). Were they shot in the back while trying to get away? Did they even know he was there before he started shooting? I really don’t think the rules for a homicide investigation should be thrown out the window just because “A man’s home is his castle”. Ok, I think you’re advocating against the Castle Doctine here, yes? Proceeding with the assumption, if Indiana didn’t have a Castle Doctrine law, the homeowner would be judged by [this statute:](http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html) > [@](#): > > A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: > (1) is justified in using deadly force; and > (2) does not have a duty to retreat; > if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. So, the standard would be whether the homeowner had a reasonable belief that shooting was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself or another. That would, of course, be a question for a jury, if charges were filed. Under the Castle Doctrine, the only issue would be whether the homeowner reasonably believed that shooting was necessary in order to terminate the unlawful entry. The latter sounds fine to me, because I wish to give the benefit of the doubt to the law-abiding citizen surprised in his home by criminals. Based on his description of the incident, it sounds like if he’d hesitated, all the burglars would have fled in the face of the man’s gun. We now know that at worst, one of them was armed with a knife. But, the homeowner didn’t know that, nor did he have the luxury of detached reflection. He didn’t create the situation, it came to him. I’d say that entitles him to some leeway in his reaction to it. By limiting the justification to unlaw entry into the home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle, the statute prevents questionable applications of self-defense like brawls that get out of hand, or something like the Trayvon Martin case. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/157 "2013-10-11T17:04:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If you try real hard, maybe you can come up with a solution that falls between those two extremes. I would use force reasonable to the situation. But if I perceived a bodily threat to myself or my family I would use the maximum amount of force at my disposal. As the fellow in the OP did, if you read his testimony. Case law in Canada supports my right to do so. So does common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/158 "2013-10-11T17:04:41Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Y’know, you did a pretty good job of quoting my use of the phrase “commit a felony” in this very post, so I’d suggest starting there. I’ll take that cryptic response to mean that you think as long as it’s a felony, then should a death occur then the other people are culpable. But this is an (implicit) bite of the bullet. It still this ignores aspects such as intent, whether the death was intrinsic or incidental to the crime etc. We could easily contrive situations where the party of a crime are no more murderers than the guy in this example. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/159 "2013-10-11T17:05:19Z")
“It’s my castle-it’s my law” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/160 "2013-10-11T17:13:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The police can fire if they fear for their safety, same as any citizen can. There’s no legal requirement that you warn the threat beforehand, whether you are an LEO or a citizen. Whether your perception of a threat was “reasonable” or not is the stuff trials are made of (see George Zimmerman for a recent, high-profile example). I’ll say that typically the courts have given police far more latitude in the use of deadly force than citizens generally. If **Czarcasm** ’s point is that the Castle Doctrine isn’t available to on-duty police, he’s correct (except for occupied vehicles, I guess). So, under that law, there are circumstances in which a civilian can legally kill someone who isn’t an immediate threat, whereas the police cannot. But, this is simply because on-duty police aren’t napping in their own homes like this homeowner was. > [@Euphonious Polemic](#): > > The unfortunate message to homeowners is: > > Don’t call the police. If you do, and the burglers are captured, they’ll only get a couple of years. > > Go in shooting. Shoot to kill. Keep firing, even if they are running away or trying to save their friends. Why is that the message? It’d only be so if homeowners’ desired outcome was the maximum sentence possible for burglars, irrespective of other factors, like, say, [this:](http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/20130822/NEWS05/708229981) > [@](#): > > Scott told the jury he didn’t know how he ended up hitting two people, let alone killing one. > > “I feel horrible. I don’t sleep very well at all. It’s something that still bothers me.” or this: > [@](#): > > When police arrived at the scene, officers arrested Scott and took him to the police department for questioning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877.md?page=9)