NYTimes wrote:Gun rights advocates often argue that armed residents can help thwart crime. But law enforcement officials say that at least twice in recent days, armed bystanders have gone a big step beyond that, shooting at fleeing shoplifters who posed no immediate danger.
On Tuesday, prosecutors charged a woman with a misdemeanor for firing at a getaway vehicle in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Auburn Hills, Mich. And the police in Elkhart, Ind., said they were looking into whether to bring charges against a man who did much the same thing there on Monday. No one was hurt in either shooting.
In each case, the person with the gun was a customer who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, saw store employees chasing shoplifters and fired as they drove off. In the Michigan case, the Oakland County prosecutor, Jessica R. Cooper, charged Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez with one count of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm.
“If this is proven, I find it very disturbing that someone would take out their gun in a busy parking lot and shoot at the tires of a passing car,” Ms. Cooper said. “Once fired, the bullet could have easily ricocheted or fragmented and injured or killed someone else.”
The incidents come amid a national debate over the proper response to gun violence, with some states tightening restrictions on weapons and others loosening them. While gun advocates argue that more legally carried weapons lead to less crime, gun control activists say the reverse is true. Many social scientists say the truth is murky.
There were no signs that the shoplifters in either case were armed or violent, and people on both sides say that a bystander shooting at a fleeing criminal is rare and wrong.
“You do not draw your firearm and fire at a fleeing suspect that is of no threat to yourself or others,” Concealed Nation, a group that advocates the legal carrying of concealed weapons, said in a statement it posted online. It added that “your job as a witness is to gather as much information as you can about the suspect, the vehicle and anything else that could help police.”
John Lott, an economist, author and prominent advocate of concealed carry, said millions of people have concealed carry permits, yet incidents like these “are incredibly rare.”
But John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group backed by Michael R. Bloomberg, said the shootings should be viewed in light of the campaigns to pass “stand your ground” laws — which he said had led directly to shootings — and statutes making it easier to carry a firearm.
“The subliminal message is that people should take the law into their own hands,” Mr. Feinblatt said. “You essentially are promoting a culture of vigilantism.”
Instances when armed bystanders stopped criminals have been reported; in Chicago recently, the police said an Uber driver shot and wounded a man who was shooting into a crowd. But there is much debate about how often that happens, and how often people use guns to defend themselves from real danger.
“You can find anecdotes, but we don’t have any good numbers,” said Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of social policy and of health and societies at the University of Pennsylvania.
The incident at Home Depot began Oct. 6 when a man in the Auburn Hills store, near Detroit, loaded a shopping cart with about $1,100 in merchandise, including power tools, a welder and a nail gun. He wheeled it past the cash registers and out the door, sprinted through the parking lot and loaded the goods into a sport utility vehicle.
An employee gave chase, yelling “stop” to no avail. The police said that Ms. Duva-Rodriguez, 46, then fired several shots from her 9-millimeter handgun at the vehicle, flattening a rear tire. The shoplifters escaped, but two men were arrested days later.
A video released by the police showed a man running through the parking lot, but does not show the gunfire.
Under most circumstances, officers are allowed to use deadly force only if there is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to themselves or someone else. A licensed concealed weapon holder is held to a similar standard, said Rick Ector, a firearms trainer at Rick’s Firearm Academy of Detroit.
“This is an aberration,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong. In metro Detroit, there is a lot of crime and there have been numerous cases in which people used firearms lawfully to defend themselves. But this is just a case in which someone who was trained didn’t follow the law.”
The incident in Elkhart also involved two shoplifters taking power tools, in that case from a Big R department store. An armed customer joined store employees in the chase, and fired when the shoplifters got into their car, the police said. The suspects escaped.
A police spokesman, Sgt. Christopher Snyder, said that the police were still investigating but that there was a possibility of charges against the shopper.
Who fires on a shoplifter in a parking lot? Madness.
d-usa wrote: She said that if she can't shoot shoplifters then she will never help anyone every again.
My impression is that she is upset, and dumbfounded as to why everyone isn't lining up to give her high fives. To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sounds like the right ruling. Shoplifter was not a threat and was retreating.
Someone running and retreating is no threat.
Yes you may be angey, hyped etc but first task surely is to secure premises, check no one is wounded if taff, customer etc can call apropuate services.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sounds like the right ruling. Shoplifter was not a threat and was retreating.
Someone running and retreating is no threat.
Ok, we agree on this
jhe90 wrote: Yes you may be angey, hyped etc but first task surely is to secure premises, check no one is wounded if taff, customer etc can call apropuate services.
Are you confusing the role of the police with the role of a private citizen who carries a firearm for self defense?
d-usa wrote: She said that if she can't shoot shoplifters then she will never help anyone every again.
This is why I'm a fan of actual training covering the laws governing the use of deadly force. Now that the ruling is in, I hope she gets the feth sued out of her.
this just reinforces that the only thing that matters is family. the rest all the rest is a threat and will try to harm your family. laugh while it burns and don't interfere.
Frazzled wrote: this just reinforces that the only thing that matters is family. the rest all the rest is a threat and will try to harm your family. laugh while it burns and don't interfere.
There's a huge difference between helping a stranger in need and shooting at a fleeing shoplifter.
feeder wrote: To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.
Shoplifting is not a capital offense. Really? shooting and killing someone for petty theft? I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment but that is just ridiculous.
Frazzled wrote: this just reinforces that the only thing that matters is family. the rest all the rest is a threat and will try to harm your family. laugh while it burns and don't interfere.
There's a huge difference between helping a stranger in need and shooting at a fleeing shoplifter.
Very true. I'm not a big advocate of using your gun to protect anyone else other than you and yours, although I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't use it to help others if you really think that you can make a difference. Lots of folks I know like to talk about how they are going to take out the guy robbing the gas station. My take is that the gas station has insurance to cover that loss and I'm just going to stay low and not draw any attention to myself.
But I think all of us here would pass the very first test here:
Is the life of anyone endangered by what is happening? If not, then shake your head and be on your merry way.
d-usa wrote: Lots of folks I know like to talk about how they are going to take out the guy robbing the gas station. My take is that the gas station has insurance to cover that loss and I'm just going to stay low and not draw any attention to myself.
A wise choice, and not only for your own safety. Pulling a gun on an armed robber escalates the situation - he might run, ofc, but he could also decide to start shooting and/or taking hostages.
Not to mention the property damage caused in a shootout could well be far greater than the few scruffy dollars in the cash register. Every bit of merchandise with splatters of blood or worse on it will have to be discarded as a total loss for the merchant. And those large windows don't come cheap, or the cooler/freezer cabinets...
Who else would you have liked to have seen armed in that encounter?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
False. One pistol in each hand is less accurate as there is no support hand on each pistol making shots less accurate. Also the inability to properly aim both at the same time further complicates this.
The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.
Kilkrazy wrote: The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.
Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...
Who else would you have liked to have seen armed in that encounter?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
False. One pistol in each hand is less accurate as there is no support hand on each pistol making shots less accurate. Also the inability to properly aim both at the same time further complicates this.
Guns should be for self defence. Shooting people running away from your property isn't right. Shooting people fleeing from a shop that you don't even work in is crazy. What exactly is the need there to make a potentially lethal attack on someone doing something as minor shoplifting goods in the street?
How many concealed carry people have a legitimate reason for carrying a gun, like late night commuting in rough areas, and how many tend to fantasise about being a crime fighting hero. Trying to shoot the tyres out on a car is just Hollywood nonsense, like firing warning shots and the like. You take out a gun and use it properly and responsibly. It's only a matter of time until someone kills bystanders when trying to shoot someone for stealing chocolate.
feeder wrote: . To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.
Lot of disagreement on my statement here, with no real justification. If not to shoot Bad Guys, why else conceal carry?
I know several people who got a permit so they don't have to fill out a background check every time they buy a pistol. They have no intention of actually carrying.
Also I carry to protect myself and my family. I'm not hunting bad guys. A draw doesn't always end in a shoot.
Alex C wrote: Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.
I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.
Alex C wrote: Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.
I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.
I don't think it's as much a case of "you are not allowed to defend yourself" and more of a "it's illegal to be armed while committing a crime" thing.
I have my CC, but if I were to rob my local gas station it would still be armed robbery and I would face extra charges for being armed even though I'm "allowed" to be armed.
Well I thought the thread was relating to this incident
Man threatening Wal-Mart customers shot, killed by police
EAST STROUDSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Authorities say a man with a weapon threatening customers at a northeastern Pennsylvania Wal-Mart has been shot and killed by police.
Pennsylvania State Police say Sunday that 20-year-old Andrew Joseph Todd, of Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania, was shot when he refused officers' orders to drop his weapon inside the Wal-Mart late Saturday.
Police were dispatched to the store shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday on reports of an armed man threatening and pointing a weapon at customers. Officials say about 100 people were in the store at the time.
State police say officers ordered Todd to drop his weapon. He refused and continued to point it at officers. Police then fired at Todd, striking him in the upper chest. Todd was transported to Pocono Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead by the Monroe County coroner.
State police say no customers or officers were injured.
The Pocono Record reports Todd was carrying two guns and a machete.
Alex C wrote: Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.
I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.
Don't commit petty crimes and you won't have to worry about not being able to defend yourself with lethal force if someone attacks you because of it. It's really not very high of a bar. Regardless of what you might think, there are some very strict limitations in place in regards to using lethal force in self defense, and that includes stand your ground. One of them being if you are committing a crime, you don't get the benefit of it.
Frazzled wrote: this just reinforces that the only thing that matters is family. the rest all the rest is a threat and will try to harm your family. laugh while it burns and don't interfere.
There's a huge difference between helping a stranger in need and shooting at a fleeing shoplifter.
Very true. I'm not a big advocate of using your gun to protect anyone else other than you and yours, although I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't use it to help others if you really think that you can make a difference. Lots of folks I know like to talk about how they are going to take out the guy robbing the gas station. My take is that the gas station has insurance to cover that loss and I'm just going to stay low and not draw any attention to myself.
But I think all of us here would pass the very first test here:
Is the life of anyone endangered by what is happening? If not, then shake your head and be on your merry way.
You misperceive. To be clear if you want to help others cool. But if there is a criminal situation one should only protect themselves and family.
Kilkrazy wrote: The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.
The evidence suggests that is in fact the case
SilverMK2 wrote: Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...
Estimates are that defensive gun uses run somewhere between 1 million and 2.5 million incidents per year in the study by Kleck and Gertz. An opponent of gun control had this to say about the study;
Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who described himself "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" and whose opinion of guns was "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people" defended Kleck's methodology, saying "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator". He went on to say that the NCVS survey did not contradict the Kleck study and that "I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
I am aware he was being facetious., unfortunately I'm sure you can see that others are quite willing to hope on the bandwagon and start to derail the thread.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Guns should be for self defence. Shooting people running away from your property isn't right. Shooting people fleeing from a shop that you don't even work in is crazy. What exactly is the need there to make a potentially lethal attack on someone doing something as minor shoplifting goods in the street?
Agreed
Howard A Treesong wrote: How many concealed carry people have a legitimate reason for carrying a gun, like late night commuting in rough areas, and how many tend to fantasise about being a crime fighting hero. Trying to shoot the tyres out on a car is just Hollywood nonsense, like firing warning shots and the like. You take out a gun and use it properly and responsibly. It's only a matter of time until someone kills bystanders when trying to shoot someone for stealing chocolate.
A legitimate reason? You mean like self defense? The possibility of being a victim of crime is not just limited to "rough areas", no one has the luxury of scheduling when they may be the victim of crime.
I see the good old "blood in the streets" argument used also. Given the infinitesimally small number of these incidents occuring I think your fears are misplaced.
Henry wrote: If only the shoplifter were armed. Then they could have stood their ground and defended themselves against the person who was trying to kill them.
Stand your ground laws do not apply when engaged in the commission of a crime. That's like saying a criminal threatening someone with a firearm may claim self defense when the police respond. I understand that you were being facetious, like so many others in this thread so far, but comments like this are generally unhelpful
So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?
Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?
SilverMK2 wrote: So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?
Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?
I suggest you take a good concealed carry class and then if you still have questions, talk to a lawyer.
SilverMK2 wrote: So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?
Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?
Of course, I mean if you have a CHL its important to whip out your piece and fire a few rounds into the air if anyone even looks at you funny.
feeder wrote: . To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.
Lot of disagreement on my statement here, with no real justification. If not to shoot Bad Guys, why else conceal carry?
I know several people who got a permit so they don't have to fill out a background check every time they buy a pistol. They have no intention of actually carrying.
Ah, I did not know that. Thanks!
Also I carry to protect myself and my family. I'm not hunting bad guys. A draw doesn't always end in a shoot.
I did not mean CC permit holders are looking to hunt down criminals. But let's not pretend that people who do actively CC do so for any other reason than the ability to shoot a Bad Guy should the need arise.
Kilkrazy wrote: The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.
Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...
Kilkrazy wrote: The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.
Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...
SilverMK2 wrote: Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?
Depends on the facts and circumstances. Is there reasonable cause to believe that there is a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to yourself or a 3rd Party?
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
I think that depends on individual state laws regarding SYG or other "Castle Doctrine" type laws.
AFAIK, at least here in NYS, you can only respond with deadly force to deadly force. So if someone is threatening you with a gun, you are allowed to respond, but if someone grabs your purse and runs, you aren't.
That certainly makes the most sense to me. If people aren't actively attacking you (or others), there is no justification to respond with a gun.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
If you're opening fire when the perpetrator is moving away, the answer is almost always no. The only instance I can think of in which you could potentially be justified in which the perpetrator is moving away from you is an instance in which the perpetrator is aggressively approaching someone else who you are trying to protect, and you reasonably believe that the perpetrator is about to inflict grievous bodily injury or death upon them if you do not exercise lethal force.
In summary, you or someone else has to be in danger of death or grievous bodily injury. If that's not the case, then no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
Serious question though: Did you really imagine that that would be something that would be okay in the US? Do you really imagine that the US is such a ridiculous wild west stereotype that shooting someone in the back who is running away is something that would be permissible? I just ask because I know you've participated in gun threads before and you seem to have a genuine interest in the subject. But if I didn't already have that context, your question would read like a troll post. Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?
To be clear, CCW for citizens in the US is only to be used for defense of life or against grievous bodily injury. Not property.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
You can only use deadly force in response to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If someone has knocked you over, taken your bag, and run off, you could not legally shoot them.
If however, while they were in the process of laying hands on you, and you drew your weapon and fired, that would be legal, but once it's clear that the threat is no longer there (e.g., they've run off), you are no longer defending yourself.
You can only use deadly force in response to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If someone has knocked you over, taken your bag, and run off, you could not legally shoot them.
Unless you live in Florida, pursue the person you thought knocked you down, or might knock you down, or could possibly one day knock you down, get into a fist-fight with them, resulting in you getting your ass kicked, *then* you can draw your firearm, kill them, and claim self-defense.
No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.
Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.
Alpharius wrote: Is this really just a not so well disguised gun control(l) thread?
It might be the intent but I prefer to look at it as an anti-vigilante thread. There is a clear difference between defending yourself or another when faced with grievous injury or loss of life and trying to be a modern day Judge Dredd.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.
Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.
What was the result of the clarification in the UK?
When I was there, people were getting in trouble for defending their own homes. Is it different now?
People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
In Texas, yes actually, depending on certain on conditions. Texas is also very flexible on enforcing that.
In Texas, if you're a badguy and grandma caps you, literally no one is going to care, even the pathetic imported police chiefs from California running Austin and San Antonio.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?
In Texas, yes actually, depending on certain on conditions. Texas is also very flexible on enforcing that.
In Texas, if you're a badguy and grandma caps you, literally no one is going to care, even the pathetic imported police chiefs from California running Austin and San Antonio.
When I was living in San Antonio, I remember hearing about a repo guy that was sneaking on a guy's property late one night to get a pick up. The guy woke up and saw someone he didn't know messing with his truck, so he shot the repo man. The repo man drove the truck off the property and died about a mile down the road. No charges..
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.
Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.
What was the result of the clarification in the UK?
When I was there, people were getting in trouble for defending their own homes. Is it different now?
Eh, not quite. People were getting in trouble for defending their own homes using disproportionate levels of force, or for using their supposed-to-be-for-killing-foxes shotgun to blow away intruders. The law was always perfectly clear, the problem is that people are morons who think that finding a guy trying to jimmy open your window is grounds for trying to beat him to death with a lamp, or that someone robbing your shop gives you license to chase them down the street and cave their skull in.
There are almost no circumstances in UK law where you're allowed to use anything other than "necessary and proportionate force", ie no more than is absolutely necessary to subdue or deter someone, at which point your right to do them any harm whatsoever is gone. And bloody right too.
For American dakka members who ever find themselves in the UK, the above is pretty much the situation in the UK when it comes to home defence.
If burglars are in your home, you can fight them off with cricket bats or whatever, but if they escaped your property, you couldn't pursue them for ten miles down the road, the threat to your family/property would be deemed to be over.
Hordini wrote: Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?
Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).
Alex C wrote: Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.
I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.
Don't commit petty crimes and you won't have to worry about not being able to defend yourself with lethal force if someone attacks you because of it. It's really not very high of a bar
So let's say you throw a used McDonalds wrapper on the floor whilst in legal possession of a firearm (or some other minor infraction that technically counts as breaking the law). Some crazy person gets aggressive with you to the point you think you are in danger. You now can't defend yourself because, even though your possession of the firearm was perfectly legal, you committed a crime whilst armed?
Or how about if you hit somebody else's car with your car because you ran a stop light, whilst you are in possession of a firearm. They get out of their car and come at you with a crowbar. You can't defend yourself because you committed a crime whilst armed?
I can't imagine it really is as straightforward as you are making out. Or if it is then that is some truly fethed up law making.
Edit: To keep this on topic, what I mean is I am amazed this person has only had a licence revoked and hasn't yet been charged with attempted murder.
LethalShade wrote: Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).
I was born in Northern Ireland and lived there for almost 30 years before I moved to the US. Outside of The Troubles guns did not factor greatly in my life, and I was ambivalent towards them, but when I moved here I decided to learn about them. If you have any questions I'd be happy to help answer them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: So let's say you throw a used McDonalds wrapper on the floor whilst in legal possession of a firearm (or some other minor infraction that technically counts as breaking the law). Some crazy person gets aggressive with you to the point you think you are in danger. You now can't defend yourself because, even though your possession of the firearm was perfectly legal, you committed a crime whilst armed?
Or how about if you hit somebody else's car with your car because you ran a stop light, whilst you are in possession of a firearm. They get out of their car and come at you with a crowbar. You can't defend yourself because you committed a crime whilst armed?
I can't imagine it really is as straightforward as you are making out. Or if it is then that is some truly fethed up law making.
In the scenarios you have devised you would not lose your right to defend yourself. In many jurisdictions you lose the protection of the law if you instigate the aggression.
By way of example, the SYG law in Indiana does not apply if;
(c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person’s intent to stop hijacking,
attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
@Dreadclaw, thanks. If you'll forgive me can I ask some more?
From what you posted it seems that if somebody commits a crime and tries to escape, should somebody else try to use unjustifiable force against them then the person who committed the initial crime has no right to defend themselves, regardless of the illegality of the force used against them.
Do I have this correct?
Henry wrote: @Dreadclaw, thanks. If you'll forgive me can I ask some more?
From what you posted it seems that if somebody commits a crime and tries to escape, should somebody else try to use unjustifiable force against them then the person who committed the initial crime has no right to defend themselves, regardless of the illegality of the force used against them.
Do I have this correct?
In your example we have two wrongs not making a right. To tie it back to the example which opened the thread. Person A snatches a purse from Person B and runs away (crime committed, and perpetrator is fleeing). Person C witnesses this and opens fire on Person A.
Person A was in the process of fleeing a crime that they had committed and per Indiana law would not have protection in law if they were to stop and return fire if they had a gun.
Person C was shooting at someone who was not a threat and has no protection in law for doing so.
Dreadclaw, once again thanks, though I do find the way that works out to be bizarre.
(Edited whilst I go and look up UK law and get myself unconfused.)
(Edit again, thought so but had to go check)
In the UK a person can invoke the right to self defence where the aggressors actions are disproportionate, even if the first person instigated the altercation.
"The Court of Appeal pointed out in Rashford (Nicholas) [2006] Crim LR 547 that a person may still plead self-defence in a case where he killed another during an argument which he himself started, either by provoking it or willingly entering into it, and the other person then retaliated. "
In the UK, were we to have the right to bear arms, the person in the OP would be well within their rights to defend themselves against somebody unjustifiably firing on them.
So I hope I've clearly shown why those US laws appear so baffling to me.
Henry wrote: Dreadclaw, once again thanks, though I do find the way that works out to be bizarre.
(Edited whilst I go and look up UK law and get myself unconfused.)
(Edit again, thought so but had to go check)
In the UK a person can invoke the right to self defence where the aggressors actions are disproportionate, even if the first person instigated the altercation.
"The Court of Appeal pointed out in Rashford (Nicholas) [2006] Crim LR 547 that a person may still plead self-defence in a case where he killed another during an argument which he himself started, either by provoking it or willingly entering into it, and the other person then retaliated. "
In the UK, were we to have the right to bear arms, the person in the OP would be well within their rights to defend themselves against somebody unjustifiably firing on them.
So I hope I've clearly shown why those US laws appear so baffling to me.
An argument is not a criminal act, not in the majority of cases is it provoking unlawful action. You are comparing apples to oranges. The person in the OP had just committed a crime, and was fleeing.
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
Henry wrote: From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!
I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.
There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.
Henry wrote: From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
Our escalation of force laws are similar but don't explicitly convey self defense protection to the aggressor. It's illegal to defend yourself with lethal force against a known nonlethal threat for example. Of course even unarmed physical altercations can be lethal which is why our self defence laws are conditoned with some version of "reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death". The threat must be evident to a reasonable person and be posed at the time that actions of self defense are taken.
Henry wrote: There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.
Ohh, we can't tie them up and torture, nor can we chase them down the street... but until they hit the property line they are generally "fair game," with some recent case law (apparently) to back it up.
Henry wrote: There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.
Ohh, we can't tie them up and torture, nor can we chase them down the street... but until they hit the property line they are generally "fair game," with some recent case law (apparently) to back it up.
There are a few states, notably Texas, with pretty open requirements for justifiable shootings, but in most states you still need to have a reasonable fear of imminent harm to open fire. If somebody is breaking into your house you don't have to wait for them to successfully break in and attack you, you can make a reasonable assumption that they have bad intentions and if they won't stop/leave when asked then the attacker creates a reasonable fear and justification for a lawful self defense shooting. However, if you hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night and upon investigation find somebody has broken into your house and is standing in your living room holding your tv you don't have grounds for a lawful self defense shooting because being in your living room holding your tv doesn't create a reasonable fear of imminent harm. You can demand that the burglar put down the tv and if the burglar makes an aggressive move against you then you'd have grounds for lethal self defense but if the burglar freezes or drosp the tv and attempts to flee you can't open fire because even with them on your property the burglar doesn't present a reasonable fear of harm while standing still or fleeing.
Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.
It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.
Henry wrote: Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.
It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.
I think you'll see the differences in the legal system highlighted in the comparison of self defense laws. Our laws will be written with conditions like reasonableness in order to allow prosecutors and ultimately a jury to decide if the use of the chosen level of force was reasonable and proportionate. You're not going to find laws here that make bright shining lines with specific wide ranging examples of the difference between a reasonable armed citizen and a bloodthirsty psycho. If its not clear at first glance then the courts will sort it out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For American dakka members who ever find themselves in the UK, the above is pretty much the situation in the UK when it comes to home defence.
If burglars are in your home, you can fight them off with cricket bats or whatever, but if they escaped your property, you couldn't pursue them for ten miles down the road, the threat to your family/property would be deemed to be over.
For Brits who ever find themselves in Texas, its ok to use that replica of the 18lber you brought from HMS Victorious. To a Texan, it aint overkill unless it makes the ghost of Patton go "damnnnn..."
I keep telling my fellow Henley Whalers that we ought to tool up our boat like the Historical Maritime Society (see below) because people tend not to argue with you when you have a 12-lb carronade at hand.
Henry wrote: From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
Here typically a firearm may only be used in the event of a threat of death or serious bodily harm, so the standards are not wholly dissimilar.
In the UK I cannot strike somebody just for bumping into me. In the US I cannot shoot someone for pushing me.
Henry wrote: but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.
Yeah, you can't do that here either
Henry wrote: Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.
It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.
Many US States have some form of Castle Doctine in your own home/property. In most cases involving Caste Doctrine there is no duty to retreat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.
But now it's all good.
Wasn't that the Martin case? If I recall not only did he shoot someone in the back as he fled but he had also booby trapped his house, and told anyone who would listen that he planned on killing any intruders.
Henry wrote: From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!
I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.
Why? I'll lay out a scenario, to help you understand exactly how bloodthirsty this kind of comment sounds:
I am in the UK, in my home. A criminal breaks in to my home and starts stealing things. I, holding an improvised but potentially deadly weapon(lets say, a fire iron), confront the criminal, with one of the following outcomes:
Outcome A: the criminal, upon seeing an angry me holding a big fething metal stick, immediately surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police.
Outcome B: the criminal attempts to flee my home as I chase them out, and I catch up to them as they are almost at my front gate.
Outcome C: the criminal fights me and loses, he surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police and the ambulance required to treat his serious injuries.
Outcome D: the criminal reacts with total fury and attempts to murder me with a weapon.
Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism. Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.
More than the legal argument though, I'm absolutely baffled by people who believe they should have the right to defend property(as in, the items someone is attempting to steal) with deadly force(assuming there is no extant threat to the life of you or any other inhabitants of the house). I don't care how low an opinion you(*plural, nonspecific) have of petty criminals, believing their life is worth less than your(*plural, nonspecific) iPad is sociopathic. But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.
EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.
That sort of attitude was the law in Britain for a time. However, that time was the 18th century, and those laws aren't exactly remembered fondly: The Bloody Code.
Yodhrin wrote: Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism.
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
Yodhrin wrote: Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.
So is the trespassing over too at this point in your scenario?
Also will the homeowner be imbued with mystical powers that let them know that (a) the criminal currently trespassing in their home is not a threat, and (b) that the original crime is in fact over - as contrary to your opinion I'm sure more homeowners may not consider it over, or at least there may be some confusion as to whether it is over, when the criminal is still in your home.
Yodhrin wrote: But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.
That seems oddly close to Rule 1 by making sweeping generalizations about people just because of the country in which they live. In case you were unaware there are places in the US without the death penalty like Michigan which repealed it in 1847. The death penalty was still on the books in the UK within living memory.
I'm hesitant to ask what your opinion is of those of us who were not born in the US but agree with their Castle Doctrine laws.
Yodhrin wrote: EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.
So criminals breaking into people's property is not the problem, really guns are the problem....
Kilkrazy wrote: I keep telling my fellow Henley Whalers that we ought to tool up our boat like the Historical Maritime Society (see below) because people tend not to argue with you when you have a 12-lb carronade at hand.
I wonder if you could mount that on a pickup truck. . .
Yodhrin wrote: and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),
I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.
Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.
I remember an incident involving a Japanese exchange student. He was going to a Halloween party, got lost and went to the wrong house. The householder shot him and was prosecuted, but acquitted, but lost a civil case and had to pay $650,000 damages.
This shows that although the situation of everyone having guns inevitably leads to people getting shot, the law doesn't allow you to get away with it automatically.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
Frazzled wrote: Strangely the plumber who owned that truck is suing ISIL. Love it.
I don't think so. I think he is suing the dealer he traded it into. He was about to scrape off his logo and they told him not to, that they would take care of it. They then did not do so.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
Amazingly great idea. You ought to invest all your money and that of your parents into getting this kicked off. You'll be doing them a favor as you all get to live in luxury once your idea becomes the new norm in common sense gun control measures.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
Amazingly great idea. You ought to invest all your money and that of your parents into getting this kicked off. You'll be doing them a favor as you all get to live in luxury once your idea becomes the new norm in common sense gun control measures.
Sounds more plausible than any of the bs they've proposed so far.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
Try to throw a handgun to someone's head with all your strength.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
I think best we can do is the Sensor Fuzed Weapons....
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.
If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!
Try to throw a handgun to someone's head with all your strength.
Yep, guns fired by guns kill people.
So let's design rubber guns firing rubber guns.
Oh feth children could choke on them... Damn...
I’m having flashback to an old live action superman bit. The mooks unload pistols at the man of steel, and he stands there, chin up while the bullets bounce off him. Then one of the mooks throws his (ineffective) pistol at our hero, and he ducks. Because it’s obviously more dangerous then the shots it was firing.
Yodhrin wrote: and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),
I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.
Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.
But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.
Hordini wrote: Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?
Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).
That was my impression when I was living in Germany in Austria as well. But I found that the vast majority of it was based on a gross misunderstanding of US gun laws. When we actually took the time to have a discussion about it, most of my European friends and colleagues realized that, even if they still didn't prefer it, the situation was really not as outrageous as they initially thought. But I usually just tried to avoid the subject while I was over there.
Yodhrin wrote: and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),
I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.
Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.
But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.
Yodhrin wrote: and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),
I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.
Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.
But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.
You said happened in the US. Anyone who has been around Louisiana knows that its a completely separate country...from the 50s.
Kilkrazy wrote: I remember an incident involving a Japanese exchange student. He was going to a Halloween party, got lost and went to the wrong house. The householder shot him and was prosecuted, but acquitted, but lost a civil case and had to pay $650,000 damages.
This shows that although the situation of everyone having guns inevitably leads to people getting shot, the law doesn't allow you to get away with it automatically.
I'm not saying that our society has changed that much in 23-odd years, but in my opinion I think it unlikely the homeowner would be acquitted again today. I'm not saying it's impossible but at least anecdotally there are more recentcases that I think show it's now harder to escape criminal charges in the circumstances in the first case, and rightfully so.
Which of course agrees with the point that you made anyway. Even if a shooting is initially justified it's still possible for your actions subsequent to result in criminal or civil charges, some welldeserved.
I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.
Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.
I find this 100% ok as a father, gun owner, homeowner. given a choice I would handle an invader I the following fashion.
Have wife dial 911 on cell phone, get my gun, inform him/her to leave. Should he/she decide not to leave and proceed upstairs towards me and my family, open fire and shoot to kill. I don't care if he is armed or unarmed.
Kilkrazy wrote: People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.
But now it's all good.
Wasn't that the Martin case? If I recall not only did he shoot someone in the back as he fled but he had also booby trapped his house, and told anyone who would listen that he planned on killing any intruders.
He also had no license for a shotgun and in fact needed an even higher grade of license than your standard shotgun license as the pump action winchester he used had an ammo capacity greater than two shells.
So he was breaking basically every firearm law we have.
Hordini wrote: Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?
Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).
Yep, true. And the reason is not so much the gun laws as the general attitude from tons of US citizen toward guns. Switzerland used to let its citizen bring military assault rifle at home. But Swiss people never, ever had the “cowboy/vigilante” mentality so prevalent in the U.S.
I think it kinds of boil down to how much people in the U.S. distrust their own democratically elected government…
Thats part of the history. The other part of the history is that this whole nation was a frontier nation. At one point every square foot of it was "the dangerous frontier." While that frontier moved west, those memories linger and in the Western states thats relatively recently.
There was no or minimal government to help you. Inversely there were lots of things and people who wanted to harm you.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I think it kinds of boil down to how much people in the U.S. distrust their own democratically elected government…
How have they earned my unconditional trust? They haven't and could never earn it. It is the right of the people in this country to question our public officials. We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.
I have always enjoyed this particular bit of delusion.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.
I have always enjoyed this particular bit of delusion.
Which part; first part, second, or both? I'll admit most people in the US are sheeple and leave the government to do what it wants, but that's part of the larger problem. Concepts of: "we the people" and "for the people, by the people" are not ideals in all democracies.
Technically, we are a represented republic, which is a distinction most US citizens can't seem to grasp. We could debate that democracy and a represented republic have very little in common, other than a represented rebublic is based on some of foundations of democracy. In general most people find it a "potato, potaato" argument, so I'd rather not continue it.
We could debate that democracy and a represented republic have very little in common, other than a represented rebublic is based on some of foundations of democracy. In general most people find it a "potato, potaato" argument, so I'd rather not continue it.
Oh god please no. That road is so beaten it's a canyon.
Both parts. All democratically elected governments govern with a mandate from the people. All democratically elected governments have limits to their powers. All democratically elected governments grant certain rights to the people they govern. No rights are universal, absolute, or unviolatable. All democratically elected governments are capable of acting against the wishes of the people and even actively harming them. All governments are capable of ignoring, adding or revoking any rights and laws they wish.
"We the people" was not written by consensus of all the people of the United States of America. Nor is it much more than words, however noble they may be, in the face of government.
I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!
But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns
Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...
and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...
Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!
But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns
Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...
and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...
Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago
What would you do?
If it's a situation where we're legit friends, Id probably push him to the couch and have him sleep it off, wake up the wife to let her know that he's sleeping on the couch.
If it's a situation where "I bought a house off some dude a bunch of years ago, but didn't know him beyond buying the house"... he may or may not be leaving under his own power.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!
But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns
Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...
and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...
Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago
What would you do?
Why break out the bourbon of course, but in plastic glasses. Safety first!
There was a case a couple of years ago when a householder shot someone who was approaching his house in a suspicious manner and having killed him found out it was his son.
Most of our problems here are occurring fully do to the career politician. We used to be a nation who voted for congressional officials that had roots (jobs or businesses) in our communities. They knew what hardships that the local people faced, and represented their constituents. Those days are gone and now. They intern for years for another career politician, learning more of how to exploit the powers of government for an agenda not for the people.
SilverMK2 wrote: All democratically elected governments are capable of acting against the wishes of the people and even actively harming them.
While this has happened, it certainly does not take away the right of the US people to control their own government if they so wished. As state most people are sheeple and tend to not take interest because they feel powerless to change anything.
SilverMK2 wrote: "All governments are capable of ignoring, adding or revoking any rights and laws they wish."
Again that's part of the larger problem, people allow the government to dictate here, however its not supposed to be that way in the US.
SilverMK2 wrote: "We the people" was not written by consensus of all the people of the United States of America.
Most back then could not read or write so thus trusted their representatives to ensure freedom from tyranny. Sight your proof please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a case a couple of years ago when a householder shot someone who was approaching his house in a suspicious manner and having killed him found out it was his son.
Well I hope he/she went to prison to live with the guilt. Idiots such as that do not represent the majority of lawful gun owners
Again the US is not a democracy we are a represented republic.
Democracy is a method of determining political will. Republic is a means of organizing political power.
These two things are not mutually exclusive and in fact frequently occur together (given the impracticality of direct democracy as a method of governance).
Again the US is not a democracy we are a represented republic.
Democracy is a method of determining political will. Republic is a means of organizing political power.
These two things are not mutually exclusive and in fact frequently occur together (given the impracticality of direct democracy as a method of governance).
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Most back then could not read or write so thus trusted their representatives to ensure freedom from tyranny. Sight your proof please.
Thats not really true. People during the 1700s were far from uneducated country bumpkins. Literacy was actually fairly high and most people could read and write.
That was when schooling was almost entirely private. And it was viewed as a privilege, because it was. Every farm boy and girl who had access to a school went to one, even if they would have had no practical need for it.
Grey Templar wrote:That was when schooling was almost entirely private. And it was viewed as a privilege, because it was. Every farm boy and girl who had access to a school went to one, even if they would have had no practical need for it.
Our literacy rates were at their worst in the Antebellum period (when education was still private). Some states actually dipped close to an estimated 30% (there was a notable correlation between slaves per house hold and literacy, so you can guess where it was at it's worse).
Alex C wrote:
You sound ripe for Congress.
I'll take the oath over a Sombrero with a flamboyant feather
But the majority can take away rights. No right is unable to be taken away. All that is required is to pass a new amendment. Which is 2/3rds of both houses of congress, and 3/4ths of the states.
Henry wrote: From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’
The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.
See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!
I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.
Why? I'll lay out a scenario, to help you understand exactly how bloodthirsty this kind of comment sounds:
I am in the UK, in my home. A criminal breaks in to my home and starts stealing things. I, holding an improvised but potentially deadly weapon(lets say, a fire iron), confront the criminal, with one of the following outcomes:
Outcome A: the criminal, upon seeing an angry me holding a big fething metal stick, immediately surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police.
Outcome B: the criminal attempts to flee my home as I chase them out, and I catch up to them as they are almost at my front gate.
Outcome C: the criminal fights me and loses, he surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police and the ambulance required to treat his serious injuries.
Outcome D: the criminal reacts with total fury and attempts to murder me with a weapon.
Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism. Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.
More than the legal argument though, I'm absolutely baffled by people who believe they should have the right to defend property(as in, the items someone is attempting to steal) with deadly force(assuming there is no extant threat to the life of you or any other inhabitants of the house). I don't care how low an opinion you(*plural, nonspecific) have of petty criminals, believing their life is worth less than your(*plural, nonspecific) iPad is sociopathic. But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.
EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.
This also isn't really the whole picture because it doesn't consider outcomes where you don't confront them with a weapon. If we're considering outcomes in terms of family safety the option most likely to keep loved ones safe is simply to not engage at all. A burglar is just that, he's out for your stuff. He's not out for your life and not out to molest your spouse or your kids or anything. Leave him alone and you'll be out a TV, maybe some loose electronics and whatever else he cart off before gets nervous and splits. Sure it sucks being a victim and you certainly have the right to protect your property but that's not really what we're trying to address. If the premise here is one specifically about keeping one's family safe, the only relevant question is: Of all possible chains of events once burglar has entered the home, which is the one that has the lowest probability of someone in your family getting hurt or killed? It's the one that avoids conflict entirely. Leave him alone and the chances anyone gets hurt are basically zero.
Any conflict with or without weapon increases the chance a bystander will get, hurt either by deliberate action or accident. Especially if we're bringing firearms into the equation on either side. Sure there exists the possibility the home invader is not a burglar and is some kind of more nefarious predator. However the chances of that are small and if you confront any given intruder the probability of the conflict harming someone you're trying to protect is greater than the probability that they're one of those nefarious predators.
Given the URL, my hopes were low (and met). If one wants to throw down a rather pointless differentiation between broad political concepts that do not exist in conflict per se, I suppose it works but you'll have a hard time applying these criteria effectively to the various political systems around the world and through history. Really it would be more accurate to label the list as "Direct Democracy" vs "Constitutional Republic."
And because I like to knit pick; Greece and Rome were both Oligarchal Republics (in our modern sensibilities). Sure they had elections, but only specific people could vote or be elected in Greek cities states or the Roman Republic. The image of either as democracies in the modern term we usually think of a democracy is completely inaccurate and mostly born from the Enlightenment period, when the internal politics and structure of both was often subjected to whimsy rather than critical analysis.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.
They are not trying to get to your family. They are trying to get to your expensive stuff without coming into contact with anyone. This means they're going after electronics and other easy to sell valuables in common spaces. A burglar wants to get in and out quickly with as much loot as he can carry.
Even if you attempt to ambush him there is a non-trivial chance something will go wrong and it will turn into a conflict. The possible results of chains of events that include "Attempt to ambush the intruder" have more that end badly for the safety of the people in the house than the possible chains of events where the only response is "Avoid contact with the intruder entirely". If some dude is in your house the chances of him being that fat guy from the start of Sev7n is so small as to be discounted entirely. The chances of him being "Michael, unemployed alcoholic behind on his rent." is pretty high.
EDIT:
Which isn't to say I think it's wrong or bad to confront people intruding your home and stealing your stuff. You have the right to defend property and doing so is not a bad thing. However there really is no reason to indulge the fantasy that doing so is somehow keeping the inhabitants of the home from bodily harm. It's inviting it, relative to other responses.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.
There you go. While calling 911 and announcing loudly that you are armed, you have called the police, and you are in fear of your life (have 911 on speaker when you do so). *
*Then you push the button that says "Don't push this button!" which opens The Gate to Wienerheim. After a while (cause wieners are sprinters) the Wienerhorn will sound, and Wienerrock will begin ! Long Live the (ankle)Biters!
To chongora what if its during the day and suddenly a burglar is in the room with you, both of you being surprised?
What if its not you in the room. What if its your daughter?
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.
There you go. While calling 911 and announcing loudly that you are armed, you have called the police, and you are in fear of your life (have 911 on speaker when you do so)
Unfortunately (for any potential burglars) , it is impossible for me to determine his intent and verify he means no harm to my family or I.
Too many cases around where folks break in to steal stuff AND decide to feth up the poor resident for me to want to give any one who has broken in the benefit of the doubt.
My reality (fortunately) is that my property is hard to access, and the dogs will scare most idiots away.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.
There you go. While calling 911 and announcing loudly that you are armed, you have called the police, and you are in fear of your life (have 911 on speaker when you do so)
Bingo.
Remember, when saying you are in fear of your life Don't
*laugh like a possessed preteen Japanese girl.
*begin or end it with "Yip E Kay YEY Muther er!"
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.
There you go. While calling 911 and announcing loudly that you are armed, you have called the police, and you are in fear of your life (have 911 on speaker when you do so). *
*Then you push the button that says "Don't push this button!" which opens The Gate to Wienerheim. After a while (cause wieners are sprinters) the Wienerhorn will sound, and Wienerrock will begin ! Long Live the (ankle)Biters!
To chongora what if its during the day and suddenly a burglar is in the room with you, both of you being surprised?
What if its not you in the room. What if its your daughter?
You can keep moving the scenario up until he's got us hands around the kids neck, holding them over an altar he's built from the bones of the family dog in the shape of swastika screaming "Hitler demands virgin flesh". Yeah, violence is probably a good option in that case. However we do not live in a world flush with burglars that suddenly teleport into rooms in broad daylight, frazzled. The scenario I was speaking to is an intruder in the home rummaging around, getting a weapon and trying to deal with him.
We cannot read an intruders mind, true. The dude might be on the hunt to make himself a new child-skin suit, that is possible. It is also very improbable. Yeah there are some sickos out there and I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that the chance of you running afoul of one is much lower than the chance that a conflict with an intruder of any stripe ordinary burglar or skin-suit-hunter, will result in harm to someone in the home you'd rather not be harmed.
The risk presented by confronting an intruder of uncofirmed intention is greater than the risk represented by not confronting an intruder of unknown intention.The probability of them just being an ordinary thief out for ordinary payday is just too high. Obviously those things don't make the news, don't get brought up as talking points in political speeches and aren't used the basis for Papa Wolf-fantasy action movies.
"Dude came in. Scared the gak out of us and took the PS4, some silverware, and about $100 in coins we had in a jar on the kitchen table" just isn't the story that gets told about intruders, despite it being by far the most common one. People fixate on unlikely but very bad outcomes. Same reason folks can be somewhere between casual and stubborn about not wearing seat belts, but worried shitless about plane crashes.
Thats not moving up the scenario. Thats a simple robbery. Most robberies are during the day.
I'm not trying to "move the scenario" as its the actual and most common one. Waking up during a robbery is less common in many regions actually. And thats assuming these are robbers and not kick robbers-the infamous home invaders.
I think we're actually on the same page. Self defense classes teach what both you and Co'Tor are saying: get to a position of safety which often means bailing out the back door. This however, may not be possible given the layout of the house, other family members etc.
As you note, night time robberies are less common than daylight robberies or even evening robberies. BUT if they are coming in at night when they know you are there, they have a reason.
There is a BIG distance between robberies where the perps go violent for what ever reason and 'skin suit wearing psychos'. The fact that you pick too points (non-violent burglary and 'skin suit making psycho) as if those are about the only option kind of make the way you frame the argument silly.
The reality is there are many, many cases where burglary turns into robbery goes right along with assault. Sometimes you don't get the choice to confront or not confront, so it benefits the home owner to control the circumstances as much as he/she is able as opposed to giving the perp the initiative.
These incidents make the news all too often.
A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
So 25% of burglaries where the victim is home turn violent...
Thats why I live in Austin, so I can surround my house with a sand moat filled with baby Arrakeen sandworms. Plus a little dusting of spice really improves the morning coffee.
Staying in my room wouldn't work. My kids rooms are on the opposite side of my house. If someone breaks in I have to go check it out. I can't hide even if I wanted too (which I wouldn't). And there will be no looking around for my gun. When I take it off it goes beside my bed in easy reach. All my other guns are locked in my safe.
I don't think playing the scenario game is terribly productive.
Castle Doctrine laws were put in place for a specific reason. To replace the Duty to Retreat laws. People objected to being legally required to attempt to flee their own homes in response to a criminal intruder. The onus shouldn't be on the law abiding resident who's doing nothing wrong to avoid a potentially violent confrontation, the onus should be on the criminal intruder to not commit the crime in the first place. Therefore, laws were changed to give residents legal protection to defend themselves and their property in their home.
If a resident does end up confronting an intruder, which is rare because crime rates are low and criminals usually don't want to get caught and will avoid trying to rob homes that are obviously occupied, the same requirements for justified self defense shootings apply as they would if the encounter took place outside the home. The criminal needs to be posing a reasonable imminent threat of harm. The only reason you should be discharging your firearm is to negate an imminent threat, that's why warning shots are illegal, if you're shooting you should be shooting to kill to save your life or the life of another, shooting to miss just creates a lethal public hazard.
In a self defense situation you should still be adhering to Cooper's 4 laws:
RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
The vast majority of self defense shootings that cause tragic mistakes or over reactions involve violations of at least one of those rules, usually because the shooter is jumpy, scared, not fully awake, etc.
There are numerous practical reasons why responsible gun owners only want to shoot in self defense as a last result. Firstly, most law abiding people aren't bloodthirsty psychopaths, secondly guns are loud, really loud, hearing damage inducing loud and they're even louder in confined spaces like homes. I like being able to hear, I like my kids and wife not having hearing damage either, I'm not going to risk causing any without a real good reason, specifically an imminent threat of harm. Third, but of high importance, the vast majority of homes don't provide any cover, only concealment, There is very little, if anything at all, that is actually bulletproof in your house. If you're going to have a gun for self defense you owe it to yourself and you're loved ones to practice enough to be at least reasonably profecient with it. If you miss, and even if you don't sometimes, that bullet you fired is going to keep going, into other rooms/parts of the home. Fourth, it's pretty much a universal truth that nobody wants to get shot. Simply pointing a gun at somebody is usually enough to get them to stop doing what they're doing and listen to what you have to say. Very few criminals are going to want to risk death just to steal a tv or whatever, they're either going to give up or flee when confronted by an armed resident and either action accomplishes the mission of protecting yourself and your family and secondarily protecting your stuff.
You can shoot through the door if there's an imminent threat, at least you can here in NC. That way a battered woman can flee her abuser and if he tracks her down and tries to attack her again she can defend herself with lethal force without having to wait until he forces his way in first. Same thing with a home invasion. If somebody is trying to break in and won't stop that creates a reasonable imminent threat of harm. There have been instances where a drunk goes to the wrong house and is too intoxicated and belligerent to listen to reason and tried to break down the door to the point that frightened residents shot him and it turned out he was a neighbor and everyone feels bad but a threat is a threat. That said, just because somebody gets into your house doesn't automatically make that person a threat.
It really isn't rocket science, follow the law as written and intended, practice safe handling of your firearm and everything should work out in a lawful manner. And if there's confusion it's going to get settled in court.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Thats why I live in Austin, so I can surround my house with a sand moat filled with baby Arrakeen sandworms. Plus a little dusting of spice really improves the morning coffee.
Nah, in Austin it's more like the worms from Beetlejuice than Dune.
er!"