(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.
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.
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.
How would change castle doctrine that would make it acceptable to you? What restrictions would you like to see in place?
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.
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.
I thought grown ups already decided it was justified to kill them when they break into your home.
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?
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.
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?
eyebrow raise
I think you understand the point.
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?
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?
It is that third line that matters to me the most, I think:
(bolding mine)
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?
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.
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.
Please ignore this. I wasn’t paying attention.
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?
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.