https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

See that I don't think you can argue with. If you break into someone's home and they defend themselves, you've only got yourself to blame.

Now, whether or not there needs to be an investigation to check the story etc I dunno, but I'd hope so - I cast no aspersions, but imagine if the shooter was in on the burglary, and it was some massively convoluted plan to take out people he had beef with (it's not likely to be that here, as I understand the burglars weren't known to their intended victims).

 cuda1179 wrote:
https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

I'm 100% with the home owner on this, but it's always sad to see human life wasted like this...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

I'm 100% with the home owner on this, but it's always sad to see human life wasted like this...

Its terribly sad. Its terribly sad three kids valued property more than their own lives.

Also lets examine: this wasn't a robbery. This was a home invasion. From the driver that surrendered later:
*They had cased the joint.
*They knew it was on the outskirts of town.
*They knew the person was home (he had words with them but they did not withdraw).
*They were armed and had masks.
*They kicked and did not retreat.

I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

He did warn them. They still came. If only someone had gotten to them in time to teach them properly, to value themselves more than stuff.

Oh then while it's sad, it was their choice.

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

Joint enterprise.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

The driver is a 21 year old woman who dropped off 3 males ages 16-18 at a home to commit a felony home invasion so she's an accessory to the lesser crimes and charges with murder because Oklahoma law lets you charge people with murder as a result of deaths caused in the commencement of a felony. The woman drove the boys to the felony so she bears responsibility at least in part for their deaths during that felony.

This really isn't a case of Stand Your Ground because it happened inside a residence it invokes the Castle Doctrine instead.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

They were part of the overall crime. Under many state's law, a co-conspirator can be charged with the crime of the others. Additionally this may include the results of that crime, including deaths resulting.

Don't like it, hey don't be a ing criminal get away driver to a gang of home invaders.

EDIT: Ninja'd by PD.

Thanks chaps. Don't disagree, just wanted to know the technicalities.

Yeah there's no issue here. Three armed individuals invaded a person's home, got killed in self defense.

I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't break into people's homes and you don't get shot. Simple!

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

They obviously had not good intentions breaking in armed for a fight. Only the home owner was better armed for a fight and they lost. Hard.

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

Case law suggests thats its important in the timeline when the bullets were fired. BG's spinning will get hit in different areas even the back.

On the other hand this is Oklahoma. If the victim wacked them, walked outside and shot up the car/reloaded/ shot again, got some coffee and shot some more it would have been alright and self defense affirmed. Oklahomans are soft on crime in comparison to Texas, but they are more conservative than those liberal strongholds like Singapore.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

Case law suggests thats its important in the timeline when the bullets were fired. BG's spinning will get hit in different areas even the back.

Bingo, a person engaging in a close attack may present different aspects, to include his back, in a very short period of time, while attempting to move to a position of advantage.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

They are not always complex. In this case it appears the perp was shot in the house, made it out before bleeding out. Simple.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

I can understand the implications except the murder charge. I thought that in order to prove murder you had to show motive and planning. Neither of which is present in the deaths. Manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge I would have thought. She didn't set out to kill them.

Cheers

Andrew

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

I'm pretty sure part of the problem was that in that case Tony Martin had an illegally held shotgun which he claimed had been left in his car by an anonymous well wisher after he'd been burgled previously. IIRC He gave no warning and shot them in the back as they tried to flee.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

I'd love to be. Every time I go to a jury summons I wear my Death Halloween costume complete with foam scythe to show my enthusiasm. Strangely I never get picked.

simonr1978 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

I'm pretty sure part of the problem was that in that case Tony Martin had an illegally held shotgun which he claimed had been left in his car by an anonymous well wisher after he'd been burgled previously. IIRC He gave no warning and shot them in the back as they tried to flee.

Having Googled it, my example is ded wrong! That's wot comes of reading about it in you Gran's Daily Heil!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

Tony Martin. It was an important case for the public understanding of what they are and are not allowed to do in self defence. Of course certain parts of the media went out of their way to portray Martin as a hero and the conviction as a failure of justice, also complaining that the law was too vague and didn't support people being attacked. They were of course wrong. The one who died was shot in the back while trying to escape and neither burglar ever presented a threat to anyone's life or safety.
The shotgun was illegally held and Martin had history of being trigger happy. It was bad for all involved but was good for solidifying public understanding of their rights. It would be interesting to learn how a similar set of circumstances would play out with various states' laws.

(edit: that was a fast moving thread. Basically what simonr1978 said)

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

 AndrewC wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

I can understand the implications except the murder charge. I thought that in order to prove murder you had to show motive and planning. Neither of which is present in the deaths. Manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge I would have thought. She didn't set out to kill them.

Cheers

Andrew

I see your point, but she knew what was happening, drove them there, made no attempt to stop it or alert the authorities, so under the law, she has to take the burn for it.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

There might have been no deaths if she hadn't agreed to drive them there.

And on another note, to the best of my knowledge of British law, or Scots law in my case, the homeowner is not obliged to issue any warning if defending themselves against intruders.

Agreed, she was part and parcel in the commissioning of the crime of burglary and larceny, with a side dose of aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. Joint enterprise and all that, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Had her friends killed the homeowner then she should have been charged, but it is the reverse in this case.

Her conscience (if she has one) will trouble her with the deaths of her friends(?) had she not aided them. But she didn't actually set out to commit murder.

As Jake said earlier she will probably plea out on a lesser charge, but I didn't think it a valid charge under joint enterprise.

Cheers

Andrew

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And on another note, to the best of my knowledge of British law, or Scots law in my case, the homeowner is not obliged to issue any warning if defending themselves against intruders.

As far as I am aware you are never obligated to ever give a warning, whether it be in your home or not. It comes back to the normal rules of appropriate, proportionate and reasonable. Fail those tests and you are going to jail. Of course different countries (and seemingly different states) have differing understandings of what any of those words mean.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

You are as wrong as could be. Three guys were killed while committing a felony, hence the bodies. The alleged driver participated in that felony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oklahoma law allows a person to be charged with murder if they take part in a crime in which people are killed, even if the person does not take part in the slaying.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/29/deadly-oklahoma-home-invasion-getaway-driver-planned-break-in-prosecutors-say.html

Was a crime committed? Yep.

Did people die? Yep.

Not too hard.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

There are no hairs to split here. We all agree there was a death, and as the law sees it this whole story is one event, so the deaths occurred during it. The felony (or Felonies actually). This includes multiple charges of conspiracy, multiple charges of assault with a deadly weapon, felony assault on a child, breaking and entering, burglary, and illegal weapons possession. She knew full well that the home was occupied and that her friends were going in armed. Therefore she had a reasonable expectation that violence would take place, and also an expectation of possible death. Add into this that she involved a minor, and that the potential victim was also a minor, and that will weigh heavily on her sentencing.

 AndrewC wrote:
Agreed, she was part and parcel in the commissioning of the crime of burglary and larceny, with a side dose of aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. Joint enterprise and all that, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Had her friends killed the homeowner then she should have been charged, but it is the reverse in this case.

Her conscience (if she has one) will trouble her with the deaths of her friends(?) had she not aided them. But she didn't actually set out to commit murder.

As Jake said earlier she will probably plea out on a lesser charge, but I didn't think it a valid charge under joint enterprise.

Cheers

Andrew

I hear you. The law in that state is that the actions or impacts of that crime matter. This is actually very old stare decisis, that everything that results from the act are part of it, even if unforseen. (for example they scare someone which is not normally life threatening but if the person is old and has a heart condition and dies well they wear that murder).

For another example, lets say Kronk goes to Europe and a baby boom erupts...oh wait thats another thread...

I feel terribly for the 19 year old in this situation who I imagine is going to need a bit of therapy after having killed 3 people.

I think that it was a legitimate shooting is not really up for debate - armed home invaders seem inarguable - but I bet he still feels pretty awful afterwards.

Feel absolutely nothing for the getaway driver being charged, she signed up to commit a violent felony and this is what reward that particular game hands out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Claymore (the Scottish kind not the point this end at enemy kind) or maybe a nice ash longbow? When was the last time some defended themselves with a halberd? That would be kind of cool.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Contrary to popular belief, British citizens are allowed to own firearms. They must be registered with the police, be kept in a secure box or safe (which is inspected by the police)

and it also involves mandatory training on their use and safety if memory serves.

I'm not a gun owner myself, preferring to place the security of my home in alarm systems, a pair of faithful hounds, and a good solid piece of wood.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

Anything they want as long as they know someone with a pig farm.


"You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig.""
-Brick Top

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

Yeah, nearly every kind of firearm is legal in Britain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Claymore (the Scottish kind not the point this end at enemy kind) or maybe a nice ash longbow? When was the last time some defended themselves with a halberd? That would be kind of cool.

Halberds are too impractical for the close confines of your average British home.

A cricket bat is the preferred weapon of defence

So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

The driver is a 21 year old woman who dropped off 3 males ages 16-18 at a home to commit a felony home invasion so she's an accessory to the lesser crimes and charges with murder because Oklahoma law lets you charge people with murder as a result of deaths caused in the commencement of a felony. The woman drove the boys to the felony so she bears responsibility at least in part for their deaths during that felony.

This really isn't a case of Stand Your Ground because it happened inside a residence it invokes the Castle Doctrine instead.

I'm honestly still a little confused about charging the driver with murder. I get she's an accessory to the crime, no question. And if the burglars had killed someone before getting shot, again, no question about being an accessory. But charging her for the deaths of her accomplices does seem odd.

And while I think shooter was certainly justified, it is sad that it ended with 3 people not even old enough to drink (hell, 2 barely old enough to drive) being killed. Perhaps doubly so because the shooter probably wasn't much older (he was the son of the homeowner).

I mean, these weren't hardened cartel assassins or chainsaw wielding mass murderers. They were stupid kids who picked the wrong damn house. Armed kids (sort of, a knife and brass knuckles), breaking into a home with obvious criminal intent, but kids nonetheless.

Then again, who knows what they would have done had the people at home not been armed.

I don't disagree with frazzles that it is sad they chose to do this and lost their lives over trivial property, but it is also sad that 3 young people are dead.

A knife can easily kill or do serious damage to a victim. Knives are nothing to sniff at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

To the best of my knowledge, gun crime, when it happens in the UK, is similar to what happens in the USA i.e the majority of it's done by handguns.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Its quite common for surviving perpetrators who commit a crime during the course of which someone is killed to be charged with homicide. Especially if the crime was premeditated as this one clearly was. You set the chain of events in motion, you get slapped with responsibility.

So 2 criminals break into someone's house and they kill the homeowner. Both get charged with murder.

Same two criminals break into a house. The Homeowner kills one of them. The surviving criminal gets charged with murder for his friend, since he was responsible for the actions which led to his death.

Now its usually a lesser murder charge. You're not going to get 1st degree murder. But you might get 2nd or 3rd depending on how strong the case feels to the DA. Manslaughter isn't really as applicable, since thats for accidental death. A death that occurs in the course of another premeditated murder is much more serious than a purely accidental death.

Fething hell. What a stupid, senseless tragedy. Stay in school, kids! That way you won't find yourself eating lead in someone else's home in the middle of the night at sixteen years old. Jeebus.

Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

 redleger wrote:
Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

I'm thinking Vincent from collateral esq.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

Shotguns yes, .22 yes. Though we also have a large amount of .303 Lee Enfields around the place.

 redleger wrote:
Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

Only if you award points for accuracy.

Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

You are as wrong as could be. Three guys were killed while committing a felony, hence the bodies. The alleged driver participated in that felony.

I am trying to remember when that law was actually passed, because I want to say that it is somewhat recent (at least post-2000).

i would think that the reasoning behind the law would have been more along the line of "bad guys kill someone during a crime, everyone involved in the crime is guilty of killing someone even if they didn't pull the trigger" and less along the line of "bad guys get themselves killed during a crime, everyone involved in the crime is guilty of killing someone even if none of them did any killing". Even with our messed up legislature, I don't think that they were thinking "we are going to charge you guys for getting yourselves killed, that's what you get for surviving".

With that said, this isn't the first self-defense shooting where participants in the crime are charged, and many previously have been convicted under that law. The most high-profile one in Oklahoma I can think off was our Pharmacy Shooting quite a few years back (that was also a case of a really bad self defense shooting, the whole case was a clusterfeth). So regardless of it being the intend of the law or not, that's how it has been interpreted in the past and it has a few cases at least packing that decision up.

Other thoughts:

I don't have a problem with the shooting itself. The police should do their customary investigation to make sure that it was a good self-defense shooting, which it appears it was, and the guy needs to make sure he gets the appropriate follow up to help him through this experience.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

There are arguments about that, see this source:

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/03/30/okie-district-attorney-cites-wrong-law-triple-homicide/

Do some states have a duty-to-retreat even inside the home? I could see where "stand-your-ground" could possibly be applied in a "he was in his home, he had no duty-to-retreat under the castle doctorine, and he was allowed to lawfully defend himself from intruders" kind of way though.

I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

Legally speaking they are the victims in this case, and without victims you wouldn't have someone charged with murder.

I know we don't like dictionary definitions, but:

vic·tim [viktəm]
noun
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
synonyms sufferer, injured party, casualty; fatality, loss; loser

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

The media has a bad habit of taking the side of criminal offenders in cases like this. really they shouldn't be taking sides at all but the majority of people on EARTH believe you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force while in your own home. It gets a little more dicey when you step out of your home but in the United States (in most places) your home comes with you when you leave your house.

No matter how you look at it: a home invasion cannot be treated with any benefit of the doubt.
I could not allow a person to decide life or death over me or my family.
I would say that the final outcome by the letter of the law applied to me after the fact would not change the decision to neutralize a threat within my home at the time.
I do not like to see anyone die for any reason but you cannot exactly open a dialogue at that point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

The media has a bad habit of taking the side of criminal offenders in cases like this. really they shouldn't be taking sides at all but the majority of people on EARTH believe you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force while in your own home. It gets a little more dicey when you step out of your home but in the United States (in most places) your home comes with you when you leave your house.

Yeah, this has been a really disturbing trend that seems to have gotten traction. But I am unsure why anyone would think Dakka with have a lot of posters sympathetic to home invasion. Even if there are many international posters who so not understand the gun obsession of many Americans, protecting one's home is pretty universal.

 d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

Legally speaking they are the victims in this case, and without victims you wouldn't have someone charged with murder.

I know we don't like dictionary definitions, but:

vic·tim [viktəm]
noun
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
synonyms sufferer, injured party, casualty; fatality, loss; loser

I'm quite sure that the context of the definition and use of the word victim do not apply to this OP since the videos were speaking from the perspective the homeowner being the criminal.

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

Do you have a link? I haven't seen any media take that perspective, and I have Facebook friends in SF and NY.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

I seem to recall multiple home invasions happening in England where the home owner either killed or injured the attackers, but was later charged and even convicted of a crime for doing so. The argument being that you can only defend yourself with lethal force if you have no escape route, which effectively compels people to flee their own homes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

Do you have a link? I haven't seen any media take that perspective, and I have Facebook friends in SF and NY.

Why not leave Facebook stupidity on facebook though

The OT is stupid enough as is that maybe we don't need to import derp from elsewhere

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

I seem to recall multiple home invasions happening in England where the home owner either killed or injured the attackers, but was later charged and even convicted of a crime for doing so. The argument being that you can only defend yourself with lethal force if you have no escape route, which effectively compels people to flee their own homes.

The most famous of the cases you are thinking of is Tony Martin. He's been covered earlier in the thread but bears another look.

Your recollection of the case may be skewed depending on your sources of information.

While that guy was technically owning an illegal firearm, it does highlight the absurdity of those laws he broke. And just anti-firearm legislation in general.

Indeed, it is absurd that one cannot shoot another in the back as they attempt to flee.

What kind of PC gone mad world do we live in where we cannot shoot petty thieves on sight.

It is absurd to expect that just because someone is in retreat they are no longer a danger. I have seen cases where people shooting behind them hit others. Likewise, I have seen murder cases where the retreat is feigned and they circle around and shoot the victim in the side or back. I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who breaks into another's home; they are not "petty thieves". Every case is different.

Martin was tried by his fellow countrymen under his nation's laws, and they determined he was to be incarcerated. That is how justice works.

So I just say on Yahoo an updated version of this story. I'm going to assume that I got the underlying facts right while trying to avoid the bias that invariably crops up.

The driver of the car, who never entered the house, fled the scene without being identified, voluntarily handed herself in to the police to aid in their investigation is being charged with 1st degree murder (3 counts I assume since there are 3 bodies, the article didn't say). That has to be a seriously bad law.

Cheers

Andrew

A law which has been explained already.

 AndrewC wrote:
So I just say on Yahoo an updated version of this story. I'm going to assume that I got the underlying facts right while trying to avoid the bias that invariably crops up.

The driver of the car, who never entered the house, fled the scene without being identified, voluntarily handed herself in to the police to aid in their investigation is being charged with 1st degree murder (3 counts I assume since there are 3 bodies, the article didn't say). That has to be a seriously bad law.

Cheers

Andrew

Sounds like someone is SOFT ON CRIME

They reduced the sugar content of my favourite drink. I've got withdrawal symptoms.....

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
So I just say on Yahoo an updated version of this story. I'm going to assume that I got the underlying facts right while trying to avoid the bias that invariably crops up.

The driver of the car, who never entered the house, fled the scene without being identified, voluntarily handed herself in to the police to aid in their investigation is being charged with 1st degree murder (3 counts I assume since there are 3 bodies, the article didn't say). That has to be a seriously bad law.

Cheers

Andrew

Lesson learned. Never voluntarily turn yourself in to the police!

 Easy E wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So I just say on Yahoo an updated version of this story. I'm going to assume that I got the underlying facts right while trying to avoid the bias that invariably crops up.

The driver of the car, who never entered the house, fled the scene without being identified, voluntarily handed herself in to the police to aid in their investigation is being charged with 1st degree murder (3 counts I assume since there are 3 bodies, the article didn't say). That has to be a seriously bad law.

Cheers

Andrew

Lesson learned. Never voluntarily turn yourself in to the police!

this should be drilled into everyone's skull from birth.

Nothing good will come of going to the police. Doesnt matter if you are innocent or guilty. Never talk to the police unless you have to, and even then only with a lawyer. The police can and will lie to you, are under no obligation to protect or serve, and have every incenctive to find as much as they can possibly nail you for and stick you with it. The police will not make anything better, they are not your friends, they are not going to "go easy" on you or help you, they are going to get every potentially incriminating bit they can out of you and use it against you, and talking with them is only helping that Basic legal interactions 101.

But then...if you're playing getaway driver for armed robbery, you're probably not the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with so...

Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

I seem to recall multiple home invasions happening in England where the home owner either killed or injured the attackers, but was later charged and even convicted of a crime for doing so. The argument being that you can only defend yourself with lethal force if you have no escape route, which effectively compels people to flee their own homes.

I'd like to hear the cases specifically, over here we've had a couple of cases of people being killed trying to rob someone's house and you hear the line "the house owner is not being charged".

Unless the home owner tried chasing them after they'd left or was lying in wait or had set some sort of deadly traps I think much of the world would side with the home owner.

Grey Templar wrote:While that guy was technically owning an illegal firearm, it does highlight the absurdity of those laws he broke. And just anti-firearm legislation in general.

Well, the house owner lost his shotgun certificate for shooting the back of someone's car, then the weapon he used was illegal for him to own (from my understanding it was illegal for him to own even prior to him losing his shotgun certificate) and then he shot one of the perpetrators while they were trying to escape from a window.

Whether he was in the right or wrong, it's not a simple black and white case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
I was on Facebook and I saw a few videos calling these criminals victims, making every attempt to spin this into a crime committed by the homeowner. Then I'm on Dakka, where I would expect to see this and everyone seems to agree that the homeowner, as the facts are now, is justified. If I believed in hell, I would say it might be frozen over.

Well, they are victims in the sense they're the ones that are dead. Depending on the circumstances you could also call them victims of circumstance and what have you.

Most of the world views someone dying as, ya know, a bad thing. Even if the person who died was in the wrong and the killer was in the right. One way or another you still have 3 dead kids, 3 dead kids who probably have families, 3 dead kids who probably aren't all that different from anyone else except for bad luck and circumstances.

It's true they made their own choices and people have to take responsibility for their choices, but at the same time we can lament the circumstances that drove them to that. After all, when you look at, say, Honduras and see they they have a murder rate 100 times higher than the UK we don't think "Geeze, those Hondurans sure are a murderous evil bunch", we think "Geeze, there must be some pretty crappy conditions that push 100 times more people in to circumstances that result in murders".

 Grey Templar wrote:
I seem to recall multiple home invasions happening in England where the home owner either killed or injured the attackers, but was later charged and even convicted of a crime for doing so. The argument being that you can only defend yourself with lethal force if you have no escape route, which effectively compels people to flee their own homes.

The argument you recall about having to flee your home is an argument against a law that doesn't exist in the UK. I've said this before on similar threads; our laws for self defence are that any force used must be proportionate and reasonable. In defence of a home the force used may be increased but may not be "grossly disproportionate".

The most famous case is Tony Martin. His conviction was held up as all that is wrong with our laws. This was bollocks. The man was rightfully convicted.
A similar but less famous case was Munir Hussain. His family get attacked in their home by a man with a knife. They escape and fight off the attacker then chase him down outside the property. Once they have the attacker subdued they start kicking the crap out of him with a metal pole and a cricket bat. They were convicted.

Our laws are simple, proportionate and reasonable. You don't get to seek vengeance.
Here's a fairly brief article from Auntie Beeb that roughly covers the rules. It also includes a couple of cases that I'd forgotten about where the home owner was not convicted for using force (including one with the correct way to use a firearm in self defence in a home).

 Grey Templar wrote:
While that guy was technically owning an illegal firearm, it does highlight the absurdity of those laws he broke. And just anti-firearm legislation in general.

Complete bollocks. Your country has its ways of dealing with firearms, our country has ours. The majority of our population rather like ours. They are not absurd. In the Martin case the legality or not of the weapon had no impact upon the conviction, that was a separate crime.

What I really envy about american laws are pearls like this: "the driver was arrested on three counts of felony first degree murder (for deaths that occur during the commission of a felony), one count of first degree burglary and one count of second degree burglary"

In italy she would have been charged only with a minor offence, and she wouldn't spend a single day in prison. And definitely no one would make her responsbile for those deaths here.

But even here the guy that shot the intruders would be justified by laws, unless the robbers were going away and/or they were outside his property.

We in the UK may not have the 2nd amendment or the history of gun ownership like the USA, but that doesn't mean to say we roll over for house invaders and people launching unprovoked attacks on citizens.

My view on this is very clear:

If armed robbers break into somebody's house, and the home owner returns fire, and robbers are killed or injured, then I am on the side of the home owner any day of the week. 100%

If a citizen is subjected to an unprovoked attack, then they have the universal right of self defence that is the right of every living creature. I'm 100% with them on that.

There seems to be a myth that we in the UK are soft on these or pay lip service to them. That is not the case.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We in the UK may not have the 2nd amendment or the history of gun ownership like the USA, but that doesn't mean to say we roll over for house invaders and people launching unprovoked attacks on citizens.

My view on this is very clear:

If armed robbers break into somebody's house, and the home owner returns fire, and robbers are killed or injured, then I am on the side of the home owner any day of the week. 100%

If a citizen is subjected to an unprovoked attack, then they have the universal right of self defence that is the right of every living creature. I'm 100% with them on that.

There seems to be a myth that we in the UK are soft on these or pay lip service to them. That is not the case.

Your weapons laws seem to be contradictory in that respect. People are basically completely unallowed to have any items for self-defense when out in public. No knives of any kind, and some sort of insane aversion to non-lethals like pepper spray or tasers.

In general I don't get why there are so many countries which restrict non-lethal methods of self-defense. Seems like you should want Tasers and pepper spray to proliferate since they are non-lethal alternatives to knives and guns. And if someone isn't committing some other crime or is a convicted violent offender, I see zero reason to now allow for self-defense items.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

I seem to recall multiple home invasions happening in England where the home owner either killed or injured the attackers, but was later charged and even convicted of a crime for doing so. The argument being that you can only defend yourself with lethal force if you have no escape route, which effectively compels people to flee their own homes.

We are allowed to use lethal force in the UK but it has to be reasonable and proportionate. It was explained to me by an RAF lawyer back in the 90s (he was doing a presentation to my 6th form) that as a rough guide you would probably be fine to use up to and including the armament of your attacker in a one on one, so by that argument shooting unarmed burglars as they attempted to flee in the back fails the test of being reasonable and proportionate in the UK. I am not aware of that many cases over here where people are prosecuted for defending themselves or their homes.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Your weapons laws seem to be contradictory in that respect. People are basically completely unallowed to have any items for self-defense when out in public. No knives of any kind, and some sort of insane aversion to non-lethals like pepper spray or tasers.

The weapon laws in the US can be contradictory as well...Or at least not make sense. In my experience, knives are more likely to be made illegal/cause legal issues for you than guns. Granted, the NGMA doesn't get concerned about non-firearms.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your weapons laws seem to be contradictory in that respect. People are basically completely unallowed to have any items for self-defense when out in public. No knives of any kind, and some sort of insane aversion to non-lethals like pepper spray or tasers.

People are more concerned of being shot/stabbed/tased/pepper sprayed by some idiot who doesn't know what they're doing than they are of being shot/stabbed/tased/pepper sprayed by someone who is genuinely trying to do harm for the sake of doing harm. Maybe if the crime statistics were worse people would be more inclined to want weapons to protect themselves.

As for non-lethal stuff, I imagine it just comes down to not wanting criminals to be using them, so banning them completely makes them harder to get and if someone is identified with one they're immediately identified as doing the wrong thing.

Surely tasers would be a great way of robbing people just as they would be a way of defending oneself. See someone walking alone, tase them in the back, just pick their wallet up off them when they're defenceless on the ground. Saves you actually having to confront them in case they also have a taser on themselves, lol.

The thing is, if there is a possibility of everybody being armed. Even with non-lethals, it makes criminals second guess weather they want to rob someone.

But if they know that the law abiding public definitely won't be armed, it just emboldens them. Thats why I think its actually fundamental human right to bear arms for self-defense. You have the right to defend yourself, thus you have a right to tools to enable you to do so.

I can buy a taser here without so much as an ID, and I've never heard of one being used in a robbery here.

They also cost as much as an actual decent quality handgun and are much more awkward to use.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your weapons laws seem to be contradictory in that respect. People are basically completely unallowed to have any items for self-defense when out in public. No knives of any kind, and some sort of insane aversion to non-lethals like pepper spray or tasers.

Knives generally mean there will be bodies - or at least a lot of stitches - if someone goes ballistic. Easier to ban carrying "implements suitable for harming people" in public. Drunks might still start a fight but it usually ends with only bruises. A drunk with a taser, or pepper spray, or gods forbid a gun could do a lot more damage, and if he carries it in his pocket it's a lot easier to resort to it if he picks a fight and ends up losing.

Besides, our murder profiles are probably a bit different than US cases. Here it's usually people getting killed at home by someone they know, often while drinking heavily, or drug addicts killing another over debts or suspicions of snitching. The first group is usually solved when the murderer sobers up, realizes what he's done and turns himself in to the police (a major factor in our high percentage of solved murder cases).

The case in the OP is a sad one, but I can reluctantly agree that it was reasonable self defence - there was no way to know the burglars didn't also have guns. But the felony death law is still fething stupid IMO - why should an accomplice be charged with murder because the defender was a good shot and well armed?

 Vaktathi wrote:
I can buy a taser here without so much as an ID, and I've never heard of one being used in a robbery here.

They also cost as much as an actual decent quality handgun and are much more awkward to use.

Definitely true. Their really only redeeming quality is that they are "non-lethal" for people who want that as an option. Their downsides are pretty severe, difficult to use, can be foiled by thick clothing, and the ranged versions often have only a single use.

So really, there is no reason to restrict people's use of non-lethals. If someone occasionally gets hurt by improper use, thats acceptable vs being able to have at least some option to defend yourself.

IIRC, its actually easier to get a gun in Canada than it is to get pepper spray or a taser. And its pretty difficult to get a gun there.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I can buy a taser here without so much as an ID, and I've never heard of one being used in a robbery here.

They also cost as much as an actual decent quality handgun and are much more awkward to use.

Definitely true. Their really only redeeming quality is that they are "non-lethal" for people who want that as an option. Their downsides are pretty severe, difficult to use, can be foiled by thick clothing, and the ranged versions often have only a single use.

So really, there is no reason to restrict people's use of non-lethals. If someone occasionally gets hurt by improper use, thats acceptable vs being able to have at least some option to defend yourself.

IIRC, its actually easier to get a gun in Canada than it is to get pepper spray or a taser. And its pretty difficult to get a gun there.

It's not difficult to get a gun in Canada.

Unless you mean it's more difficult to get a gun than get a loaf of bread then yes, by that metric, it is difficult to get a gun in Canada.

Needing to get a license qualifies as difficult from our perspective.

Yay! We're both right! Hi five, cousin!

Sure, *removes shock gauntlets first

Update to the story:

http://newsok.com/no-charges-against-oklahoma-man-who-killed-3-intruders/article/5544038

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma prosecutor says no charges will be filed against a 23-year-old man who fatally shot three intruders in his home, but that the woman who drove them there is being charged with first-degree murder.

Wagoner County Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp said Monday that Zach Peters "acted justifiably" March 27 when he shot Maxwell Cook, Jacob Redfern and Jakob Woodruff at his home just outside the Tulsa suburb of Broken Arrow.

Thorp also said 21-year-old Elizabeth Rodriquez was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Rodriquez has said she drove the three men to Peters' home to burglarize it, but doesn't feel responsible in their deaths.

State law allows murder charges against a person who takes part in a crime in which another person is killed.

So, how exactly would this be any different in any state without a stand your ground law? Sorry if this has already been answered.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So, how exactly would this be any different in any state without a stand your ground law? Sorry if this has already been answered.

Well, I'm going to copy and paste something I posted here a while back:

In the US, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. All of these concepts vary by state, some being looser and some being tighter, but this is the most common phrasing.

Then, there are 3 different scenarios governing use of force across the US.

Duty to retreat: In some states, you are required to attempt to escape. If a home invader breaks into your house, you must attempt to flee your home, and can only use deadly force if you cannot escape. If a guy breaks in and chases you with a knife, in your house, and you shoot him without trying to escape the house, you can be prosecuted.

Castle doctrine: In other states, you have a duty to retreat, but it doesn't apply to your home - you do not have to attempt to flee your home before employing deadly force, again using the same reasonable/imminent criteria. Castle doctrine states commonly extend to your vehicle as well when you're in it. If a guy breaks into your house you have a strong defense against prosecution, if you're being carjacked you can defend yourself, if you see someone stealing your car and you shoot them - you're gonna go to jail. Make sense?

Stand your ground: In SYG states, you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you legally have the right to be. It's not a license to kill, you can't go into your neighbors house and decide to shoot him because "you felt scared". It simply means that if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you don't have to attempt to flee. To be honest I think this is the most reasonable version of a self-defense law.

So to answer your question:

In a SYG state, he has a SYG defense.

In a castle doctrine state, he can claim a castle doctrine defense.

In a state that has a duty to retreat, he would need to show that he attempted to flee his house, and only shot when he absolutely could not escape. He could potentially be charged if prosecutors believe he could have escaped. To lean into opinion for a sec, I suspect prosecutorial discretion is going to lean pretty heavily towards failing to charge someone who shot armed home invaders, unless they had have some pretty extreme evidence they had other options than deadly force.

In any of the 3, it's still possible to be charged if self defense or imminent threat no longer applies: for example, if you shoot 2 people in your house, and a third runs away and you shoot them in the back as they flee, you will likely be charged; if you execute someone who is already down and no longer a imminent threat, etc etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, if there is a possibility of everybody being armed. Even with non-lethals, it makes criminals second guess weather they want to rob someone.

Has that ever been proven to be an effective deterrent? I mean, the most dangerous place I lived as far as muggings and break ins occurred not in weaponless Australia but in a town where I lived in the US where every 2nd person I spoke to either had a gun or was planning on buying one (ya know, because the area was so dangerous that they needed one).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, if there is a possibility of everybody being armed. Even with non-lethals, it makes criminals second guess weather they want to rob someone.

Has that ever been proven to be an effective deterrent? I mean, the most dangerous place I lived as far as muggings and break ins occurred not in weaponless Australia but in a town where I lived in the US where every 2nd person I spoke to either had a gun or was planning on buying one (ya know, because the area was so dangerous that they needed one).

Ultimately, public access to weapons and crime are actually completely independent variables. Crime is almost completely linked to economic factors, and not weapon access. In the US, gun ownership has been going up while crime of all kinds has been plummeting. Some of the areas with the highest gun ownership are areas with the lowest violent crime, and some of the highest crime areas are places where gun control is strict as it is in Europe.

But given that there are a lot of cases of criminals being stopped by armed members of the public, its impossible to argue that its not a good idea. Police are unreliable, and they certainly don't prevent crimes from occurring. Police just respond after the fact. As the saying goes, "When seconds count the police are minutes away!"

The US has what seems like "a lot of crime" due not to access to weapons, but rather because of economic factors. The US is as big as all of Europe combined, and is not really a single economy like an individual European nation, but is instead a group of different economic areas joined together. So you'll have affluent areas with a strong economy and little unemployment, like the more prosperous areas in Europe. And you'll also have more economically depressed areas, like some of the dumps in Europe which have very very high crime.

People like to compare the US to a country like Denmark or Sweden which have lower crime rates, but its really a dishonest comparison. You'd really have to compare the US to Europe all together, including places like the Balkans, Greece, etc... to really have a proper comparison. At which point you'd see they're actually very similar in terms of actual crime. Its like comparing crime in Chicago or D.C. to crime in an affluent suburb of Santa Barbara.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, if there is a possibility of everybody being armed. Even with non-lethals, it makes criminals second guess weather they want to rob someone.

Has that ever been proven to be an effective deterrent? I mean, the most dangerous place I lived as far as muggings and break ins occurred not in weaponless Australia but in a town where I lived in the US where every 2nd person I spoke to either had a gun or was planning on buying one (ya know, because the area was so dangerous that they needed one).

Ultimately, public access to weapons and crime are actually completely independent variables. Crime is almost completely linked to economic factors, and not weapon access. In the US, gun ownership has been going up while crime of all kinds has been plummeting. Some of the areas with the highest gun ownership are areas with the lowest violent crime, and some of the highest crime areas are places where gun control is strict as it is in Europe.

Crime is not. Armed crime (especially gun crime) is.

High gun ownership happens in areas with sparsely populated, equal income areas (rural, middle-class suburbs, etc.). You can see that trend in Europe, too, and it's got nothing to do with guns and a lot to do wth the socioeconomic makeup of that particular area.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, if there is a possibility of everybody being armed. Even with non-lethals, it makes criminals second guess weather they want to rob someone.

Has that ever been proven to be an effective deterrent? I mean, the most dangerous place I lived as far as muggings and break ins occurred not in weaponless Australia but in a town where I lived in the US where every 2nd person I spoke to either had a gun or was planning on buying one (ya know, because the area was so dangerous that they needed one).

Ultimately, public access to weapons and crime are actually completely independent variables. Crime is almost completely linked to economic factors, and not weapon access. In the US, gun ownership has been going up while crime of all kinds has been plummeting. Some of the areas with the highest gun ownership are areas with the lowest violent crime, and some of the highest crime areas are places where gun control is strict as it is in Europe.

But given that there are a lot of cases of criminals being stopped by armed members of the public, its impossible to argue that its not a good idea. Police are unreliable, and they certainly don't prevent crimes from occurring. Police just respond after the fact. As the saying goes, "When seconds count the police are minutes away!"

The US has what seems like "a lot of crime" due not to access to weapons, but rather because of economic factors. The US is as big as all of Europe combined, and is not really a single economy like an individual European nation, but is instead a group of different economic areas joined together. So you'll have affluent areas with a strong economy and little unemployment, like the more prosperous areas in Europe. And you'll also have more economically depressed areas, like some of the dumps in Europe which have very very high crime.

People like to compare the US to a country like Denmark or Sweden which have lower crime rates, but its really a dishonest comparison. You'd really have to compare the US to Europe all together, including places like the Balkans, Greece, etc... to really have a proper comparison. At which point you'd see they're actually very similar in terms of actual crime. Its like comparing crime in Chicago or D.C. to crime in an affluent suburb of Santa Barbara.

So the answer to my question is then, no, it hasn't been proven to be an effective deterrent?

I know socio economic factors are the main drivers in crime, which is why I asked whether actually been proven that members of the community owning weapons actually improves things, because you made the comment that it'd make criminals think twice.... in my very anecdotal experience it doesn't seem to make criminals think twice, or maybe it just makes them more careful

Some of the areas with the highest gun ownership are areas with the lowest violent crime, and some of the highest crime areas are places where gun control is strict as it is in Europe.

The problem with having "areas" of strict gun control is it doesn't work if everywhere surrounding that area doesn't have strict gun control

The thing about gun control in other countries is that it makes it very hard to get a gun. People argue that the criminals will still have guns because they're not going to follow the laws anyway, but if it's hard to get the guns then you tend to have less criminals with guns. Gun control attempts in the US seem to be largely ineffectual because it's still not all that hard to get a gun.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ultimately, public access to weapons and crime are actually completely independent variables. Crime is almost completely linked to economic factors, and not weapon access. In the US, gun ownership has been going up while crime of all kinds has been plummeting.

Just to pick you up on a couple of details that make a big difference. Public access to weapons and property crime are independent, there is a relationship between public access to gun and manslaughter/homicide. And also, while the total number of guns in the US is increasing, the number of households with guns in them has been on a 40 year decline, from about half of households to just over a third now - if a burglar picks a random house there is less chance of the owner being armed than 40 years ago.

But given that there are a lot of cases of criminals being stopped by armed members of the public, its impossible to argue that its not a good idea.

This is a completely ridiculous assertion. It ignores any notion of costs, or relative probabilities. I mean, we could require every single citizen to walk around with a safety helmet on, and there will be cases of serious and even deadly accidents being stopped by the helmets, but it doesn't make it impossible to argue the helmets are not a good idea.

Police are unreliable, and they certainly don't prevent crimes from occurring.

This might just be loose phrasing in your part, but as written it's kind of crazy. Of course police have a massive preventative effect on crime, between active policing, intervention, and threat of capture and punishment crime is much lower than it would be if there was no crime. Perhaps you meant 'police don't prevent all crime' or something like that?

The US has what seems like "a lot of crime" due not to access to weapons, but rather because of economic factors. The US is as big as all of Europe combined, and is not really a single economy like an individual European nation, but is instead a group of different economic areas joined together. So you'll have affluent areas with a strong economy and little unemployment, like the more prosperous areas in Europe. And you'll also have more economically depressed areas, like some of the dumps in Europe which have very very high crime.

simonr1978 wrote:


We are allowed to use lethal force in the UK but it has to be reasonable and proportionate. It was explained to me by an RAF lawyer back in the 90s (he was doing a presentation to my 6th form) that as a rough guide you would probably be fine to use up to and including the armament of your attacker in a one on one,

Wait, wait... So if he has a knife, I have to limit myself to a knife? Hell no! I want to stop him before he gets in range to use that knife he has, and using "up to and including the armament of your attacker" is not going to do that.

 Frazzled wrote:
He did warn them. They still came. If only someone had gotten to them in time to teach them properly, to value themselves more than stuff.

But valuing stuff more than other people is cool.

Three fools went looking for trouble, and got it. You break into people's houses, there will be consequences.

Were I live, burglars often target the elderly (who won't have guns), and it's not enough for them to rob them blind. They have to tie them up and beat them to a pulp too. They helped my cousins friends grandmother to an early grave. So burglars...nah, feth them.

Sorry, they're just a trigger of mine.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He did warn them. They still came. If only someone had gotten to them in time to teach them properly, to value themselves more than stuff.

But valuing stuff more than other people is cool.

I am positive that is not what he meant. Property was secondary to the imminemt threat of bodily harm.

 don_mondo wrote:
Wait, wait... So if he has a knife, I have to limit myself to a knife? Hell no! I want to stop him before he gets in range to use that knife he has, and using "up to and including the armament of your attacker" is not going to do that.

No, that's not what it means. People often assume that and I don't know why. What it actually means is that you are only justified in the use of deadly force when the attacker is threatening deadly force. So yeah, if they had a knife that'd be a deadly weapon and you could use deadly force in response.

The issue with that sort of law is it still puts excessive burden on the victim to analyze the threat the attacker is posing. If its dark you won't necessarily be able to tell if your attacker is armed or not. If a guy wearing a sweatshirt is coming at you in almost total darkness for all you know he could have anything. A knife, bare fists, or even a gun. And even an unarmed assailant can still pose deadly harm. Fists and knees and feet can kill.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The issue with that sort of law is it still puts excessive burden on the victim to analyze the threat the attacker is posing.

If it's dark and you can't tell for sure, but the burglar makes a threatening move sure, you can shoot.

One extreme case that happened a couple years ago, two people broke into an older couple home. Started to beat the old lady demanding money, husband said he was going to bring it but instead he brought an illegal handgun. Shot one burglar in the head and the other fled.

The man only had the gun confiscated and a fine for posession of illegal firearm.

The hard thing is making a law that can apply broadly but is still specific enough to not be open to abuse.

The defender has to have some burden on them to judge the situation, but there also needs to be enough wiggle room to not people away for naturally wanting to defend themselves.

The reason Tony Martin got put away in the UK is because he shot the intruders in the back while they were trying to escape through a window. You could argue the intruders were planning on returning, but the jury found him guilty of murder so obviously felt it was unreasonable force (even though they had the option of returning a manslaughter verdict instead if they thought he wasn't trying to kill them).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

Anything they want as long as they know someone with a pig farm.


"You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig.""
-Brick Top

Just to confirm this. I was born and raised in the south and some unsavory things where done my distant family. My grandfather told me a story of helping his father dispose of a horse/cattle thief by pig. This was turn of the century early 1900's

 sebster wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
Wait, wait... So if he has a knife, I have to limit myself to a knife? Hell no! I want to stop him before he gets in range to use that knife he has, and using "up to and including the armament of your attacker" is not going to do that.

No, that's not what it means. People often assume that and I don't know why. What it actually means is that you are only justified in the use of deadly force when the attacker is threatening deadly force. So yeah, if they had a knife that'd be a deadly weapon and you could use deadly force in response.

Cause that's what the post said "as a rough guide you would probably be fine to use up to and including the armament of your attacker in a one on one". Up to and including the armament of your attacker, I read that as same or lesser weapon that what he has.

 don_mondo wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
Wait, wait... So if he has a knife, I have to limit myself to a knife? Hell no! I want to stop him before he gets in range to use that knife he has, and using "up to and including the armament of your attacker" is not going to do that.

No, that's not what it means. People often assume that and I don't know why. What it actually means is that you are only justified in the use of deadly force when the attacker is threatening deadly force. So yeah, if they had a knife that'd be a deadly weapon and you could use deadly force in response.

Cause that's what the post said "as a rough guide you would probably be fine to use up to and including the armament of your attacker in a one on one". Up to and including the armament of your attacker, I read that as same or lesser weapon that what he has.

You read that the way its written because that what it said. That may not be what he meant, but I had the same take away.

Correction to the OP- I do not think this is 'Stand Your Ground'.

SYG law removes a 'duty to retreat' from any place where you have a right to be- walking down the street, at the market, waiting in line at the ATM, so on and so forth.

The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend your home and its extensions with the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, up to and including lethal force.

Duty to Retreat laws are stupid. Very, very stupid- and people who support them should be ridiculed.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Correction to the OP- I do not think this is 'Stand Your Ground'.

SYG law removes a 'duty to retreat' from any place where you have a right to be- walking down the street, at the market, waiting in line at the ATM, so on and so forth.

The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend your home and its extensions with the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, up to and including lethal force.

Duty to Retreat laws are stupid. Very, very stupid- and people who support them should be ridiculed.

that was mentioned on the first page, but the principle is very similar.