I just asked my brother who is a police lieutenant here in Texas about this. He basically re-stated what the other Americans said here. However he said if you are going to shoot someone who has tresspassed into your home you had better kill them. That way it is much eaiser to prove that you were in danger and were warrented in killing the person. A dead man can’t testify otherwise. He also can’t sue you for injuries.
As for your friend he fails to realize that in the US the chances of the hoodlum being armed himself are also much greater. In a stand off the criminal will almost always shoot first – being less hesitant at shooting a person. This is actually why military and police use person-shaped targets in target practice. During WWII the military noticed that novice soldiers had a natural hesitation at shooting actual people in spite of all the training they had recieved. When they began training with person-shaped targets their hesitation decreased. It helped desensitize them. Unfortunatley most home-owners don’t do extensive target practice and many end up getting themselves shot when they hesitate to shoot an armed thief.
My brothers advice – pretend to be asleep until the thief leaves your house – then call the cops. Most people get themselves killed by confronting the theif in one way or another. Of course if he is there to rape you or if you have children to protect then fire away – just make sure he is dead. Then say you warned him and he rushed you.
His American girlfriend should think long and hard about sleeping in the same house as him, especially if she needs to get up in the night to use the bathroom.
Do you think he realizes that there’s no guarantee that someone will break into his house once he moves to the U.S.A.? I guess he could move into a bad neighborhood and leave the door unlocked, but it still might not happen, and it would be a real shame if he moved all that way and didn’t get to shoot someone.
And finally someone gets the point of my WTF! he most certainly is history, I’ve no intention of speaking to him ever again … I knew I could rely on a fellow Trekkie 
Remind me to stay the heck away from Thingol’s house :eek:
And yes, Shade, I was telling him he *wasn’t * allowed to shoot someone, not that he shouldn’t
So, Thingol, you think simple trespass should be a crime punishable by death? That sounds pretty extreme to me. It also sounds like you may be exaggerating the law in your state. What state do you live in? Either provide us with a cite or I will go look it up myself.
Well that certainly would be against the law. Recently in Maryland, a man was arrested and charged with murder after shooting and killing two young men who were attempting to steal his SUV out of the parking lot in front of his townhouse.
Believe me, if your ex-friend watched Law and Order and The Practice and American shows like that, you would know that killing someone for trespassing into your home is not OK.
Most of us got the point of your WTF. I don’t give a crap what the law is. What he said was weird and out of line.
Good for you, 
Lobelia, by any chance did your “friend” ever refer to himself as “Jesus Christ”?
Nope. I would object to giving the state the right to apply such a punishment in a criminal case involving simple trespass. However, I do believe that a property owner should be able to use deadly force against trespassers. I hope the distinction is clear.
Excerpted from Title 16 of the Offical Code of Georgia (ellipses indicate omissions):
"A person shall be justified in the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or certain crimes against property…
The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is justified if:
(1) The the person using such force reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) The person using such force reasonably believes that:
(A) The use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent theft of personal property which he or she reasonably believes to be located on or reasonably close to property owned or leased by such person; and
(B) The person against whom such force is used will use any physical force, no matter how slight, against the person using deadly force or against any other person located on real property owned or leased by the person using deadly force."
Note that this permits me to use deadly force to prevent criminal interference with my property, theft of items located on or near my property, any forcible felony, or the use of any physical force at all against myself or anyone on my property.
Granted, this does not paint as broad a picture as I did above, but in practical terms, especially given the condition of reasonable belief and the inclusion of the language “any physical force, no matter how slight”, it might as well.
So I’ll accept a spankdown. But essentially, if you’re an adult, stay off other people’s land around here. And if you try to enter my house, you’re dead, no questions, no warning.
So much for basing your understanding of law on TV shows.
Generally I would agree that you’re right about not being able to use deadly force to defend property, but there was a similar case in Sacramento in the mid to late '90s. A man fired a shotgun through his kitchen window and killed a man who was in his driveway stealing his car- no confrontation, no warning. The homeowner was not charged with any crime. The reasoning was something along the lines of: he lived in a bad neighborhood, his car had been stolen several times from the same spot, and it was reasonble to assume that the thief was armed and would have used deadly force if confronted. Although if I remember correctly the thief was not armed.
Also I suppose its possible that race played into it, but the news reports did not show photos of either person.
No, Jeff Olsen, he’s never called himself Jesus …
Thank you LolaBaby! Donwright wierd. Maybe I should have rebuffed him by saying I hope Man United get stuffed next Saturday or that his car breaks down (he’d proably have a stroke if either of those things happened )
I’m not even sure that he lives in a bad neighbourhood - I did ask if he’d been robbed or something, and he said no. I do know that there are a lot of Asylm Seekers and other Refugee types in the area and he goes mental about them.
He’s not made any effort to contact me since (I assume our mutual friend told him I’ve put him on ignore)
Then he’s probably not the Irish nut who was harrassing my sister a couple years ago.
Chief Wiggum:
(checks booby trap) Now sideshow Bob can’t get in without me knowing. And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal.
Homer:
Is that so? (calls out to Flanders next door) Oh, Flanders. Won’t you join me in my kitchen? (gets ready to punch Flanders) He he he!
Chief Wiggum:
It doesn’t work if you invite 'em.
Flanders:
Hidaly hey!
Homer:
Go home!
Flanders:
Toodaly doo!
I remember a news story some years back (sorry, no cite) where a guy who had had his tool shed broken into numerous times rigged a gun to go off if someone opened the locked door without deactivating the device.
I don’t remember exactly what went wrong (aside from the shed owner coming up with the idea) but I believe he was being investigated for his ingenuity. He may have been shot himself by the device, or the device went off but missed someone else. Or it may have went off accidentally when no one was around.
Anybody remember this story? Or anything similar?
I recall a couple of stories in the mainstream media. Didn’t record the sources or details.
In 1999, Steve Danos of Terrebonne Parrish, LA had rigged up his trailer like this, and wound up killing his friend Derrin LaPeyrouse. There’s an AP wire story on it, but I can only find it online at the Dallas Morning News archives, where I don’t have a subscription, so no link.
There was a lawyer who’d done this in his garage and was charged, but he didn’t kill anyone.
If he tries to contact you again, send him a link that says “Here’s where the law says you can’t shoot people entering your home”, but disguise it so the link actually goes to some place like goatse.cx.
The Man With The Golden Gun: goatse.cx has been dead for some time. But leave the “se” out and there’s a mirror site.
he’s not Irish …
What I meant was that the guy who had been harrasing my sister is in Ireland. I don’t know what his nationality is.
Thingol, can you give me the rest of the identifying section numbers and such from the Georiga Code that you’re quoting. I can’t find those exact lines. I see a few things similar, but nothing that matches exactly.
Wow! I was using a copy of legislation which amended the code from previous language to the language I cited. Didn’t check to see if that language had itself been superceded. :eek:
Just did a search through the current code and the language is extremely different!
Here’s the operative language from 16-3-21:
“except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
16-3-23 provides that deadly force in the case of housebreaking is justified only if “The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence”
You can find the complete Georgia Code here.
That’s what I love about this board – I actually learn things here. Important things!
Personally, I prefer the old language, for the most part. Maybe I should move.