I was chatting to a longtime online [male] pal the other night, and he was going on about wanting to live in America (mostly because he fancies a gal over there), then he said he wanted to live in America because there, if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them dead (“blow their brains out” was the expression he used). I said that wasn’t the case at all, and he flew into a rage at me, called me a liberal socialist (wuh?) and said I was on the side of criminals, and ranted on at me at great length. Basically he’s in favour of the death penalty for any crime anyone commits …
-That’s the abbreviated version-
He got to the point where he was putting words in my mouth, I never said it was OK for someone to rob someone else, I never said it was acceptable to mug old ladies, I said he couldn’t shoot someone for entering his property to steal his TV.
He rounded things off, most eloquently, by saying “we’ll see how you feel after you’ve been raped. Although you’d probably shake the guy’s hand”
<falls off chair>
I immediately deleted him from my friend’s list and put him on my ignore list.
Later on a mutual online friend chimes to ask how I was, I told her I was no longer speaking to ***** and copied and pasted what he’d said (about me being raped) she didn’t seem to think anything much of it, and was upset that me and him aren’t talking anymore and tried to mediate between us. I could tell from the questions she was asking that he’d told her I was a liberal-socialist criminal loving wuss who’d stand by and do nothing while someone perpetrated a crime against me or my property.
(no I fecking wouldn’t - just in case you were wondering)
Just because I said he couldn’t shoot someone for stealing his TV!
What an arsehole!
You know, here in jolly old america, you kind of can get away with shooting someone whose breaking into your house and getting away with it. As far as my (slight) understanding of the process is, it’s even “better” to make sure he’s dead because there have been cases where the burglar sued for being shot wrongfully. I’m not saying I agree with any of this, I’m just saying that your barbaric friend was kinda sorta right in his aplication.
Ta
or something
Some states have what’s called “The Castle Doctrine”. Simply put, it states that a person does not need to retreat from a threat if he is in his own house.
If I was on the street and a person was about to impose serious bodily harm to me, I would be required to retreat if possible. Only if I was unable to flee, would I be justified in deadly force to protect myself.
The Castle Doctrine says that if you’re in your house, you are not required to run away from the threat. You can stand your ground and use deadly force to protect yourself.
With that said, you still need to justify the use of deadly force. If all the burglar was doing, was taking your tv and pretty much ignoring you, then you would not be justified in shooting him.
One argument is that any stranger who used force to enter your house is, by definition, a serious threat to your person. So in that case, you could “blow his brains out” for stealing your tv. But you MUST justify your actions. You MUST be defending yourself. You can’t just say there was a trespasser in your house, so you shot him… what if the guy was lost or drunk or retarded or something.
This guy has a twisted view of the law, but he’s not entirely wrong…
I appreciate the idea that you can use deadly force to protect yourself, but this prick seems to think you can shoot anyone who enters your home, at any time, for any reason. And there are no consequences. I did try pointing out it could be a guest staying over that he’d end up shooting, but he wouldn’t hear of it.
And [remembering a bit more] if you tried to steal his car, he’d do the same thing. If he didn’t have a gun he’d use a baseball bat, a knife, or his bare hands.
I’m not 100% sure but it may have been posturing on his part (he’s 5’6" and I’m 6’2") that he was big enough and bad enough to protect his home, possessions and loved ones.
That whole “when you get raped” thing was stepping over a line. He’s on ignore and on ignore he’s staying …
Well, you tell him that a bunch of us Americans are coming over to his house to break in and mock him whilst he can’t shoot us all in the head because of his silly Irish laws! We’re not even gonna steal anything, just dance about in mockery. Muah ha ha, the word’s out, Ireland is open season!
Amplifying a previous response: In most cases, you can’t use deadly force to defend property (your car or t.v., for example) but you may be able to do so to protect life. If the ill-defined “reasonable person” would have believed the intruder was going to do serious bodily harm, the defender would probably do zero jail time. OTOH, he might have to convince the police, a judge and/or a jury that this was the case. If the burglar, for example, were shot in the back, the shooter might have a tough time convincing anyone it was self-defense. Or if there are witnesses that will say they saw the perpetrator lift up his hands and yell “Don’t shoot!” I think you get the picture.
And yes, I think your ex-online pal sounds like a bit of a nut case that I’d not want to spend a whole lot of time with.
Utter horseshit. As has been pointed out by two others in this thread, Bear_Nenno & MLS, if you use deadly force against a person, any person, the burden of proving that deadly force was the reasonable course of action in the situation becomes yours. You will be held accountable. Granted the standards of proof will vary by jurisdiction (and probably also racial prejudice and personal bias of the investigating authority), but you will be held accountable.
Yeah, you should definitely shoot this guy. (Just kidding)
Fortunately, I live in a state where you can indeed kill someone for simple trespass, provided you’ve taken ample steps to post your property. Of course, if it’s in your house, no holds barred. You can’t tie them up and torture them, but if someone’s coming into my home, I ain’t taking the time to ask them their business, or even to holler a warning. They’re dead.
Why should I have to wait til someone demonstrates malicious intent – say, pulls a gun? You’re on my property, you have no business here, you reasonably should have known I don’t want you here… g’bye.
Sure, you get the occasional innocent person killed or maimed, but it beats the alternative – just as our Constitutional protections ensure that guilty persons will go free, but that’s better than allowing the government to convict without due process.
A quick search for actual laws written gave me this PDF from Michigan’s gov website.
Packing.org has a lot to say about “Castle Doctrine.”
Each case may be tried on its own merits, and many states seem to interpret the doctrine differently, but it mostly seems that if the intruder enters your home, note NOT just on your property, that use of deadly force may be considered legitimate.
IANAL, just a web searcher. Check your local laws.
The rape comment pts that so called friend of yours in a different light. He’s a jerk, possibly dangerous. I would suggest no further contact. Not even to defend your view or correct him. IMHO, he should be history to you.
