Except it’s murder not “recklessly do a dangerous activity with someone”. It’s pretty much the most serious crime the state can charge someone with, and that doesn’t come close to any sane definition of murder.
At risk of violating my own desire to keep the thread on track, that’s most definitely not the only difference. The specification of “reasonable force” and proportionality is a key difference between the laws in the UK and Canada, for example, and the insane “stand your ground” laws in many US states. Emphasis mine in the quote below, which is from here:
The common law defence [in the UK] of self-defence applies where the defendant uses necessary, reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves or another from imminent attack. It is a complete defence to all non-sexual offences involving the unlawful use of force (anything from battery to murder). Because the defence results in a complete acquittal, the courts have interpreted the defence in a restrictive way so as to avoid acquitting too easily. For example, the courts will not usually acquit the defendant just because he thought the force used was reasonable – whether or not the force used was reasonable will be objectively assessed by the jury and not simply according to what the defendant thought at the time.
Canadian citizens have a fundamental right to safeguard themselves and their property, and this right must be upheld as long as their defensive actions are reasonable and proportional to the circumstances. However, it is crucial to note that injuring an intruder or using lethal force is only justified when it is the only available option for self-defence against a perceived threat of severe bodily harm or loss of life.
Any actions taken beyond what is deemed reasonable and necessary will not be condoned by the law. In essence, Canadians have the right to use force to protect their homes and themselves, but only to the extent that is reasonable and necessary.
Boo! 
Fair enough, but I was appalled by the irony of a homeowner being allowed to kill a child with no consequences while at the same time the other kids involved were all charged with felony murder for what he did! The response that the sheriff gave in the video clip on that show, basically “if you don’t want to get shot and die, don’t break into someone’s house” is just not consistent with a civilized society.
I haven’t had that experience, but I can definitely empathize. I totally get it. But you know what’s worse than the feeling of being robbed? The feeling that you’re about to be dead. It appears that in US gun culture, the popular approach to someone pissing you off for any reason, anything from home invasion to cutting you off in traffic, is shooting them.
To put Wolfpup’s views in context, felony murder is unconstitutional in Canada.
Supreme Court has held that it violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is somewhat similar to the due process clauses of the US Bill of Rights.
Yes, being woken up in the middle of the night to an intruder in your home with unknown intentions is totally comparable to shooting someone because you got angry at the way they drive.
You’re ridiculous.
An unknown person with unknown intentions.
Does that make it legal, moral, or both, to end that person’s life?
Well, here comes another unwanted gun debate. Did I say what you paraphrased? No, I did not.
I did not imply that the two situations were “comparable” in the sense of “equivalent”. My implication was that in a gun culture gone mad, shootings are going to be a lot more common than elsewhere, and as John Oliver points out – to get back to the point of the thread – the “felony murder” laws still exist in the US despite being abolished virtually everywhere else because they’re incorrectly regarded as a form of deterrence. And as he also points out, the deterrence doesn’t work, but it does have the effect of sending people to prison for the rest of their lives for a murder that they never committed.
If you judge them to be a threat to your life, yes, both.
I understand that Americans are backwards in a lot of ways compared to the rest of the world, but this is not one of those instances. I’m not even talking about guns. You’d have the same right to self defense with any other weapon or your bare hands. Yes, someone may break into your home just to steal your shit, but you do not have the information available to judge most of the time in the moment. I’m not saying your goal should be to end the other person’s life, I’m saying that in the event that you quite reasonably feel threatened by someone being in your house who has no authority or reason to be there, they have completely created the situation through malice, and they should bear the consequences. If you think there’s a 95% chance they’re there to steal your shit but a 5% chance they’re there to murder your family, no one should be expected to take that 1/20 chance of their family being murdered for a situation that was completely created by the person who chose to invade your home.
Now I’m not saying you should be looking for an excuse to kill someone. You shouldn’t shoot someone who is fleeing in the back, for example. But I’ve noticed in these home defense cases a lot of the people on this board are HYPER critical, like they assume that the person being woken up in the middle of the night is a navy seal / kung fu grand master / ufc fighter who has the complete biographical file and a written statement of intention from the person breaking into their house and defending themselves with even the slightest amount of unnecessary force makes them evil, but that’s bullshit. It’s an ambiguous situation created by someone who is trying to commit evil. They should bear the consequences.
How confident are you that you can tell the difference, in the heat of the moment, scared out of your mind, perhaps groggy from having woken up, with limited information because the person is trying to be sneaky, the difference between someone who means you direct harm and someone who doesn’t? Should the person whose home is being invaded risk their lives and the lives of their family with a 10% chance the other person means to hurt them? 20%? 30%? What risk to themselves is owed to protect a person who has chosen to victimize them?
Breaking into someone’s home is one of the worst and most threatening things you can do to a person. I have no idea why so many liberals are so eager to protect those who are committing an evil act against those who have done no wrong. Maybe they mix up their animosity towards guns with the basic concept of self defense. This isn’t the case of a justice system gone wrong or police being overzealous or anything like that – it’s a person defending themselves and their family against someone who took one of the most dangerous and hostile acts possible against them.
Because we’ve seen how your “philosophy” works in real life.
Ya know, folks murdering people for knocking on their doors because they were trying to find the Halloween party they were invited to and went to the wrong house by mistake, or using their driveways to make U-turns, or shooting fucking children because they knocked on your door, ya know dangerous and hostile acts like that.
Obviously those do not fit “my philosophy” and don’t meet any of the criteria I described in the thread. Those are not natural consequences towards the idea that it should be legal to defend yourself with lethal force against threats that a reasonable person would view as a danger to their own lives after they’ve broken into your house. Suggesting that those incidents fit my philosophy is akin to suggesting that infanticide of a 6 month old is a natural extension of the philosophy of being pro-choice on abortion and saying well if you’re going to legally allow people to abort fetuses it’s natural that some people are going to think it’s okay to murder infants.
Those people shared your philosophy before they took it one step too far and fucked up multiple people’s lives.
The people that believe that aliens live among us.
The people that believe that Jews secretly run the government.
The people that voted for Trump.
The people that voted for Trump again.
That little sentence of yours has got to be the least compelling reason to own a gun for the purpose of self-protection I have ever seen in my entire life.
And in what way is that significantly different that the US?. E.g. in Maryland where I live
Justifiable self-defense requires the defendant to prove:
- They had reasonable grounds to believe they were in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from an attacker
- They had a reasonable belief there was such imminent danger
- They were not the aggressor and did not provoke the confrontation
- They did not use excessive force
They are all based on English common law.
Again the right to “stand your ground” in your own own home is from British law! If it’s insane then British (and Canadian) law is also insane as both share this principle. Again the “castle doctrine” is taken from the saying the “an Englishman’s home is his castle”
I agree with you. And FWIW I think the approach to crime in general is the area where liberals are most wrong. That doesn’t make conservatives right by default. They are also wrong in their approach to crime, just in a different way than liberals.
To get back to the topic of the thread, however, I think the whole felony murder thing is mostly BS. There may be a few circumstances where it’s appropriate, like a getaway driver in a bank robbery where the trigger person murdered a bunch of people inside the bank, or two people that both assaulted someone who ends up dying but the forensic evidence isn’t clear enough to determine who administered the fatal blow. But mostly it’s BS.
Yes, the basic words are the same, but are they interpreted by the courts in the U.S. the same as they are across the pond?
There was a case in Arizona where two news helicopters collided and crashed because they were following a high speed police pursuit. The prosecutor tried to get felony murder charges against the driver but that eventually failed but that was the first time I really questioned how indirect does the causality have to be to be “murder”.
As I mention that is no different to any other country (or any country with a legal code based on English common law, AFAIk other legal codes are similar but I could be wrong). The fundamental right to use reasonable force to defend yourself from harm in your home is not an American thing.
That’s simply not true. At least we as a civilized just society (by some rough definition of civilized and just) don’t think that. We can say that for sure as we have a crime on the books for people who break into people’s houses, and it has very serious punishments associated with it, but not the worst punishments by any means. Crimes like murder have much much worse punishments because they are far far worse crimes.
It’s massive travesty of justice to convict someone of murder when all they did was commit burglary. It’s not like home invasion burglary is punishable by a stern talking to and a written warning in the US
Then no one should be responsible for the one teen’s death. Wolfpup argued the homeowner should be guilty of murder, and get a harsher penalty than the actual criminals, which is insane.
Roughly. The American legal system is of course not one legal system but a whole bunch of legal systems in a trench coat. For the most part their interpretation of self defense matches the one in the UK and Canada.
Hypothetical:
You are in the back seat. The driver is being, shall we say, enthusiastic, and you are reveling in the experience. One might say that you are encouraging, perhaps egging the driver on. The car runs over a patch of gravel on the road and slides into a tree. A lower limb shatters te passenger-side window, embedding fatally in the front passenger’s throat.
The driver was cushioned by airbags. You and the other backseat passenger are shaken up, bruised a little, but signifcantly less dead than the front seat passenger.
How responsible are you for the front passenger’s death? It is not clear whether the driver would have been less wild if you had been silent or urging restraint, but you were encouraging the abandon. Does the calculation change if you were providing the driver with booze beforehand? What if you were just encouraging the driver to get blitzed?
These things fall outside the bounds of admissible evidence, but it nonetheless serves as an analogy to “felony murder”.