# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/161 "2013-10-11T17:24:51Z")
> [@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**. (my bold) Are you opposed to this part that I bolded as well as the felony murder law? I’m not sure if you are taking a position against castle doctrine as well. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/162 "2013-10-11T17:30:50Z")
He really aught to just have the intruders fill out a questionnaire detailing their specific intentions, and whether and what kind of weapons they have. They could have a check box for if they had a hard knock life, and a place to detail in paragraph form about their hopes and dreams… ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/163 "2013-10-11T17:36:46Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > He really aught to just have the intruders fill out a questionnaire detailing their specific intentions, and whether and what kind of weapons they have. > > They could have a check box for if they had a hard knock life, and a place to detail in paragraph form about their hopes and dreams… Ridiculous extremes are _just_ what we need right now. :rolleyes: I’m sorry if this conversation doesn’t fill your need to play “cowboys and Indians”, but the grown-ups are trying to have a give-and-take about when and where it is justified to kill human beings. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/164 "2013-10-11T17:40:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > Are you opposed to this part that I bolded as well as the felony murder law? I’m not sure if you are taking a position against castle doctrine as well. I am against the bolded part as written. I consider it to be too vague a law when it comes to killing someone-when it comes to justifiable homicide I would like there to be _some_ restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/165 "2013-10-11T17:41:18Z")
How would change castle doctrine that would make it acceptable to you? What restrictions would you like to see in place? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/166 "2013-10-11T17:41:43Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > It still this ignores aspects such as intent The intent to commit a felony that could lead to people’s deaths? I’m not ignoring it; I’m judging based on it. If you feel we should factor in some intent _ **other** _ than whether to commit a felony with entirely foreseeable results as per “but-for” causation, I’ll then let you know whether I favor whichever specific proposed change you bring to my attention. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/167 "2013-10-11T17:50:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How would change castle doctrine that would make it acceptable to you? What restrictions would you like to see in place? It would have to be shown that there was _reasonable_ expectation of harm to self and/or family. There should be differentiation between “I thought they had weapons” and “I thought they might have weapons”. No shooting in the back if suspects are trying to flee(that’s a good time to call the police), but keeping armed watch to make sure they don’t come back should be allowed. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/168 "2013-10-11T17:55:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Ridiculous extremes are _just_ what we need right now. :rolleyes: I’m sorry if this conversation doesn’t fill your need to play “cowboys and Indians”, but the grown-ups are trying to have a give-and-take about when and where it is justified to kill human beings. I thought grown ups already decided it was justified to kill them when they break into your home. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/169 "2013-10-11T18:03:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It would have to be shown that there was _reasonable_ expectation of harm to self and/or family. There should be differentiation between “I thought they had weapons” and “I thought they might have weapons”. No shooting in the back if suspects are trying to flee(that’s a good time to call the police), but keeping armed watch to make sure they don’t come back should be allowed. Could I also take that to mean that you would be opposed to state level statutes that presume there is a reasonable expectation of harm the moment someone breaks into an occupied residence? Are you aware that shooting in the back by police occurs quite often, and is determined to be kosher? > [@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. That’s an odd way to construct the scenario. I’d say the message is that you should of course call the police - but depending on where you live they could take between 5 minutes and 5 hours to get there. Until then, you are on your own. Harsh language is not much of a defense. If you choose to not be armed and prepared to defend yourself, you are at the mercy of anyone who wishes you harm. If you need to defend yourself, do so until you are no longer threatened. Use your best judgement and whatever force is necessary. As long as you are in your home and someone breaks in, you get the benefit of the doubt. That seems reasonable to me. ---
**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, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/170 "2013-10-11T18:04:46Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The intent to commit a felony that could lead to people’s deaths? I’m not ignoring it; I’m judging based on it. If you feel we should factor in some intent _ **other** _ than whether to commit a felony with entirely foreseeable results as per “but-for” causation, I’ll then let you know whether I favor whichever specific proposed change you bring to my attention. How about the intent to commit the felony of murder? That should certainly be required for convict for the crime of murder. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > It would have to be shown that there was _reasonable_ expectation of harm to self and/or family. There should be differentiation between “I thought they had weapons” and “I thought they might have weapons”. No shooting in the back if suspects are trying to flee(that’s a good time to call the police), but keeping armed watch to make sure they don’t come back should be allowed. So, something like Indiana’s self-defense statute: > [@](#): > > 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. That would render self-defense in the home just like self-defense anywhere else. Is that what you had in mind? ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/171 "2013-10-11T18:14:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Ridiculous extremes are _just_ what we need right now. :rolleyes: I’m sorry if this conversation doesn’t fill your need to play “cowboys and Indians”, but the grown-ups are trying to have a give-and-take about when and where it is justified to kill human beings. _eyebrow raise_ I think you understand the point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/172 "2013-10-11T18:15:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > How about the intent to commit the felony of murder? That should certainly be required for convict for the crime of murder. You’re an arsonist who sets fire to a building. You have no intent to murder anyone; indeed, you didn’t even check to see whether people were in there. Are you a murderer? ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/173 "2013-10-11T18:19:19Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > _eyebrow raise_ > > I think you understand the point. I understand ridiculous extremes used for mockery, yes. Has there been anything in what I’ve written so far that points towards my wanting what you posted? ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/174 "2013-10-11T18:22:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > How about the intent to commit the felony of murder? That should certainly be required for convict for the crime of murder. > > So, something like Indiana’s self-defense statute: > > That would render self-defense in the home just like self-defense anywhere else. Is that what you had in mind? It is that third line that matters to me the most, I think: > [@](#): > > 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. (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/175 "2013-10-11T18:24:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Are you aware that shooting in the back by police occurs quite often, and is determined to be kosher? Quite often? Okay, that’s subjective. But I don’t understand your claim that it’s determined to be kosher. Sure, if the perp is reaching for a gun or is pointing one at someone else it may determined to be kosher. But in context to what your responding to, it seems you’re making that claim based on something else than police shooting when in fear for their lives or someone else’s. What are you claiming here? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/176 "2013-10-11T18:24:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re an arsonist who sets fire to a building. You have no intent to murder anyone; indeed, you didn’t even check to see whether people were in there. Are you a murderer? Do you really think this is the same as four teens who eye an “empty” house and break-in to it? Do you think the foreseeable consequences of arson are the same? Be honest. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/177 "2013-10-11T18:31:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re an arsonist who sets fire to a building. You have no intent to murder anyone; indeed, you didn’t even check to see whether people were in there. Are you a murderer? Nope. Reckless homicide, yes (which is second-degree murder in some states). My “compromise” felony murder statute would call it murder though, since those killed weren’t participants. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/178 "2013-10-11T18:34:19Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > [del]Do you really think this is the same as four teens who eye an “empty” house and break-in to it? Do you think the foreseeable consequences of arson are the same? Be honest.[/del] Please ignore this. I wasn’t paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/179 "2013-10-11T19:31:05Z")
> [@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. Yes, the odds of finding a kitchen knife in a house are somewhere between five and six billion to one. How could they possibly have planned it? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/180 "2013-10-11T19:31:56Z")
I have to admit, it strikes me as odd that one could be charged with the murder of an accomplice when said accomplice gets killed by someone else during the crime. Maybe if there’d been some duty aspect, i.e. someone takes their kid along for a burglary and the kid gets shot… Has this been applied to bank robbers? Not something I expect to lose sleep over, in any case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877.md?page=10)