So, $100 - $200 a year to have someone call the cops for you when the deed is already done.
I’ll keep my pistol, thank you very much, and shotguns and deal with the problem forthwright. That’s my job.
Enipla
No, what happens is that the offender commits some crime, and part of their juducial award is the life licence.
Once this has been awarded, then any breaches of it are contempt of court, and this is what leads to reincarceration.
The breach has to be provable, but this is generally a very simple matter to do as the specific breach will be quoted, so that the person will have been late for a probation appointment, or was arrested in some other criminal activity - whcih then prevent bail, or was associating with certain former criminal colleagues.
The point is that the juducial standard of proof is not sought nor is required, an arresting police officer might not actually know at the time that some suspect has a life licence and may only find out down at the station.
Its the breaches that cause the return to jail, and the origianl offence would be tried in court.
No. I once had the opportunity to shoot a thief in the back as he made off with some tools stolen from my garage. I was living in Dallas at the time and this was happening in the dead of night. I’d feel bad enough shooting someone who was trying to kill me let alone someone trying to take a DVD player. The police caught him within the hour with their K-9 unit and it turns out he was just some punk kid.
I still think the Texas laws are quite reasonable though.
Marc
I don’t go a bundle on what that guy wrote. To me, players don’t attack spectators. Full stop. It’s a line professional sportsmen don’t cross. Similar to other public figures, such as politicians, who get pelted with stuff from time to time. Cantona got more or less what was deserved, as has Artest (in terms of his ban).
As for the spectators, stop selling beer in the stadia, and ban 'em too. Jail terms as well, as merited.
Actually, it wasn’t an analogy. It was a question, one that you failed to answer. How much value must there be before you are allowed to defend it in your opinion?
Also, my house and the security that it provides is far more valuable to me than a multi-million dollar aircraft.
Blalron, you send me the check on the first of the month, every month, and I’ll unload and put my handgun away. If you think it’s cheap, you can foot the bill.
Which is worse, putting up a strawman and not addressing the actual statement that I made, or attempting to justify why I should not be allowed to defend my family? Just curious, because with that statement you tried to do both.
A probem with the shoot first strategy: a burglar will know this is what he should expect should he be discovered. For the burglar to adopt a similar strategy would then seem a rational choice, even if committing murder was not in the original burglary plan. The prevalent UK attitude to burglary would make injury or death less likely for both the crime victim and the burglar. It also makes burglary a more attractive option for criminals.
In empty-house burglary, the harm inflicted is the material and/or sentimental loss in the taking of property and of violation of home limits. In an occupied-home robbery, at best you get that PLUS at the minimum experiencing X amount of time being under immediate threat of harm.
It is impossible to beat, abduct, rape or kill people who are not there.
AND there is the added component that you really have no idea what is the frame of mind of the assailant – for all we know, he may misperceive “active passivity” ( :rolleyes: ) and react the same as if you were aggressively confrontational (e.g. he may conclude, as you flee your own home, that you’re running to get reinforcements, and shoot you in the back).
Clearly all this confusion is being caused by a simple case of mis-quotation.
The expert meant to advocate “passive activism.”
Everything clear now?
In the dark, inside my house, in the middle of the night, thirty minutes from police response, I’m not going to be sitting around calcuating whether I weigh more than the intruder or how old he is. I am going to make damn sure I come out of the situation alive.
Here in Pennsylvania that investigation is usually concluded by the police and the coroner long before the DA would even file charges. Of course, here the county sheriff advised me when I received my license to carry concealed firearms that if an intruder enters my home (and he must get inside) that I am justified in shooting said intruder if I ‘reasonably feared’ for my life or the life of someone else. He also advised not to reload and not to shoot anyone in the back. Further he said that if I were to shoot an intruder to ‘Make sure he’s dead. We don’t want conflicting stories.’
Cite?
In my house I’d announce my presence to alert whoever might think the house was being burgled that I belong there. Depending upon the hour, I do it even when I come through the door.
If I’m not home when the burglar is in there, I’m not going to get beaten, raped or killed. If I am home, harm can come to me.
It’s not about a DVD player. It’s about the fact that there is a criminal inside my house in close enough proximity to be a threat to my continued ability to breathe. Locks keep honest people honest, a security system will do shit when it takes the police 30 minutes to get to my house, pepper spray can be ignored and a ‘Taser Gun’ requires far better aim than a 12 gauge pump with birdshot in it.
When a crackhead type broke into my apartment, I pointed a pistol at him and told him to leave. He was given a chance to flee. Had he taken one step towards me, I would’ve shot him on the advice of the county sheriff who said ‘Any man who steps into a gun intends to do you serious harm.’
$4 more than my handgun, and at least thirty minutes later on the scene.
So if he’s just after a DVD player, he’ll probably break into a house he knows to be unarmed. Got an idea. Stick a sign in front of your house that says ‘Protected by Brinks, No firearms inside’ and I’ll stick one in front of my house that says ‘This house protected by Sturm Ruger & Co.’
For some reason, I feel like the actual point of contention is being talked around here. To try to clear up the matter, I wonder how the participants in this discussion would respond to a narrowing of the issue –
In a situation in which any reasonable (just assume you know what it means; I’m not interested in debating the term) person should conclude that there is no danger of physical harm to him or his family, for example (perhaps) –
– The armed homeowner has cornered and trapped the burglar, who is passively awaiting the arrival of the police; there is enough distance for the armed homeowner to react to any sudden moves on the part of the burglar; and there is nothing nearby that the burglar might use as a weapon; the only possibility is that the burglar might successfully flee the scene
– The burglar has given up any attempted crime, is fleeing, and is already outside the home
– The burglar was never able to gain entry to the home and is now fleeing in the face of the armed homeowner
– (As in the Hattori case) There is no reasonable indicator that the person is in fact a criminal – the person has approached the house, rung the doorbell, and upon finding that he has arrived at the wrong house, is going back to his car
In these situations (and in, perhaps, others) when is it appropriate to allow the homeowner to use deadly force without punishment?
But this is a marginal case, and not really what anyone’s talking about. If you want to propose that any deadly-force-against-burglars law have a “Hattori exception” written into it, I suspect you’d get little argument. And it’s artificial on it’s face: How is it ever going to be clear that “there’s nothing nearby that the burglar might use as a weapon?” Has the homeowner somehow frisked him to make sure he doesn’t have a gun?
Well, isn’t that what shooting fleeing burglars in the back is about?
I believe current law doesn’t require a “Hattori exception.” It seems to me that the Louisiana jury bollixed it up, but that under the common law, what the guy did was clearly manslaughter (at least).
Actually, I don’t think it is artificial on its face. As the law stands, I believe, you would not be justified in using deadly force in any situation that your only basis for perceiving a threat was that you had not frisked someone and there was a mere possibility that he or she might have a concealed weapon. Otherwise, you could just walk down the street and start blowing away anyone who looked funny to you.
And even if it is artificial on its face, it’s a necessary question to answer when trying to figure out where the line is for justifying the use of deadly force. Answer it both ways – you have frisked him and you haven’t.
The question is, specifically, what if the only source of perception of danger is the fact that it is an attempted burglar whom you’re confronting? There are still lines to draw here.
And what about the other two scenarios?
I think the marginal cases are exactly what we’re talking about. Just as no-one would think self-defence justified a Hattori-style incident, neither is anyone arguing that you don’t have the right to fight and even kill, say, a knife-wielding maniac who breaks into your home screaming his desire to eat your heart. However, the thrust of several posters remarks here has been to the effect that they intend to take no risks and to always assume the worst. At what point does that stop being reasonable? E.g., had Hattori found the door open and stuck his head around to see if anyone was home, would that have justified a self-defence claim? What if I wake to find a burglar in my home and with a mighty adrenalin-powered blow knock him to the ground? Am I entitled to give him some solid kicks in the balls? Drop my television on his head? Take the knife from his hand and a) cut his tendons to disable him while I call the police? b) stab him in the thigh with the same purpose or c) try and kill him with it? Or should I merely kick the knife across the room and sit on his head till the police come?
Can you, simply because a criminal has entered your home and you are not psychic nor have X-ray vision, do anything you like and call it reasonable self-defence? Or are there limits to your right to self-defence?
Just to give a little perspective, I don’t think we are defenceless in our own homes in the UK, and I don’t think there are many able-bodied people of suitable age who would not defend their home from an intruder with violence if necessary. We just won’t try to kill them.
I know several people who have defended their homes and the police have congratulated them on it because they used what force was necessary (punching, kicking while shouting “get out” or restraining the guy until the police arrived) and they didn’t blast the guy to bits with an illegal shotgun as they ran away. People aren’t expected to sit idly by and watch themselves being robbed.
It may seem a shame to let the intruder run away in some cases but the police here are pretty good, in my experience, and in all but one of the 5+ times I have known this to happen, the police have caught the guy later that same night so it doesn’t necessarily mean he is going to get away with it, and it saves the confrontation from escalating further, which could be very dangerous for all parties, not just the burglar.
Burglars in the UK are very rarely armed, and most would much rather run away empty-handed than risk a fight with a homeowner. Sure, that’s not always the case, but on balance, I think we have a pretty good system (for the UK at least) because if we were given the right to kill intruders when it wasn’t in self-defence (of people, not property), I believe the potential for miss-use is too high, and I don’t think that the punishment fits the crime in most cases.
Also remember that in the extreme cases where the homeowner does kill the burglar, there will be a trial, and if you acted properly and were just defending yourself during a fight, you would almost certainly be acquitted. Of course, you would probably suffer financially, so perhaps that is something that could be addressed, but the main idea is solid. I think we have things almost right here. Perhaps the automatic prosecution for manslaughter is wrong if a person has clearly acted with reasonable force for the situation, but there has to be some kind of very thorough investigation into that before any decision on charges is made.
Judging by the comments from certain high places in the police force, and how life in certain parts of the country is becoming more dangerous with desperate drug-addicted attackers etc, I wouldn’t be surprised if the law was soon changed to replace the automatic manslaughter charge with a thorough investigation before any charges, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a little more clarification on what constitutes “reasonable force”, but the underlying ideas are still good. As long as investigations are very thorough and situations aren’t pigeon holed, I don’t think this is a bad idea, but I would hate to see the laws loosened any more than this, and I’d hate to see the common man’s attitude change from “Gah, get out!” to thinking killing an unarmed intruder is his right.
It all comes down to how you want to live, I guess. Today, if I walked past a house with its front door wide open, I would ring the doorbell and look through the window to make sure the people inside were ok, and hadn’t fallen or been hurt. I’m not sure I would do that if the homeowner could potentially mistake me for a burglar or attacker and feel justified in killing me.
How the hell can there be an answer to that? How much is a human life worth?
Ok… in fairness I’ll try to give you an answer:
$503,464, by my calculations, assuming the robber is worth at least a minimum wage job over the course of a lifetime. If the property you’re defending is worth a penny above that, blow his brains out. :rolleyes:
So there’s nothing valuable enough to defend? Cool. First thing, let’s get rid of the cops, because since most crime is simple theft or property damage they’ll be unnecessary. After that we’ll just open the gates and let anyone who wants to take any weapon they want, without objection. After all, a human being is worth more than property of any type, at any cost.
:rolleyes: right back to ya, buddy.
Since you didn’t see fit to answer the question with some thought, I’ll just take the extreme position and mock you from now on. Fair enough?
When you finally put some thought in your response, I’ll respond in kind. I’m not holding my breath.
I think it means acting like the Eloi in The Time Machine.
Should I have the right to kill because some criminal wants to threaten me and mine?
Damn straight I should.
True. A correct analogy, given the relative value of the aircraft to the government and of my home to me, is that the aircraft is roughly equivalent to the DVD I got for 99 cents (with purchase of a gift card).
The government’s position (its agents may use lethal force to defend the aircraft) implies that I ought to be able to shoot somebody for trying to steal the 99-cent DVD.
Now that you’ve seen where your argument leads, I offer you the opportunity to retract it.
Thank you for your comments on our justice system. :rolleyes: Perhaps our ‘delusion’ that we are safer comes from the fact that you are several times more likely to be murdered (or raped) in the US.
It is sadly true that you are instead more likely to have your mobile phone snatched over here.
Ah, anecdotal evidence - the very best.
While changing planes in Detroit (on a visit to Canada), I attempted to leave the airport. A frindly policeman asked if I was a tourist. I said I was. 
He told me not to leave the airport, since it was too dangerous.
P.S. I have had some wonderful visits to the US and met a lot of pleasant people. I just object to unsupported criticism.
We like having unarmed policemen on the street.