Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You'd be wrong on all counts.

Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.

Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?

You're using the best case scenario argument to push your agenda and it doesn't work.

-If you're a criminal and you break into a house you are going in there with extreme bad intent. That puts me in danger of life and limb.
-If you're stealing my car at night (note thats the law) you are creating an extreme at risk situation. That puts me in danger of life and limb due to those circumstances.
-If you're carjacking my vehicle or I believe someone else is bing the victim of a felony and I need to use force to stop it, the criminal has again put me in danger of life and limb, this time to another.
-Nothing says what you're going on about, chasing someone down the street for stealing a tootsie roll. I have to fear for my person or others, and that fear muist rise
to the level of fear of death or grievous harm. Even then my use of force is limited to the events noted.

In all these instances the criminal has put me in fear of life and limb. I am FULLY in right, morally and legally to protect myself.
The law is quite specific, and unlike most law equisite in its subtlety. Every permitted instance has its base in unusual or dangerous circumstances. I will admit you're not looking at the entire law-its a bit longer and I may be noting items that aren't apparent. but in essence

*Either direct self defense (fear of imminent harm) or defense of another.
*If not above then "SD" permitted only in defined circumstances.
*Lethal SD is additionally limited to a standard of fear of death or serious harm.

(the reality of no billing is more broad than these limits I will admit though and people are routinely no billed with substantially greater leeway than these limits).

I think I should proffer for additional information, that, due to personal circumstance, any BG viewed in this is deemed a potential murderer with capacities nearly as good as I, and not a thief. My resulting views are less, er ambiguous.

I don't have an "agenda" Fraz. I want to live in a society that includes a government that trusts me to own and use a firearm, including for self defense if I am responsible enough to do so. I think laws like this are more of a threat to those rights than they are a threat to criminals. I've never looked at petty criminals as life undeserving of life, and I think that while a society that respects my personal rights is important, it is also important to have a compassionate society.

I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.

I don't think we need these laws as any rational person would be leaning toward the GG to start with, so they'd probably have to do something really heinous, like torturing some guy, to get in trouble for shooting someone in their home. I do not, however, believe you should lie in wait for someone to shoot them if you know they're trying to break in. Just leave your house and call the law. If you can't do so, then shoot the guy.

How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?

Actually, pragmatically speaking, you're exactly right. As I said earlier, you REALLY don't want to shoot somebody. It just isn't the best way to get out of trouble.

That said, I fully understand the mentality people have on the morality side of things. On a moral level, I have no problem at all with killing people for burglary, car theft, etc. etc. If you knowingly take something that isn't yours, knowingly violate somebody's personal property or space, you can go ahead and die for all I care. I just don't think we need to tolerate that sort of activity at all.

HOWEVER...

People don't exist in a vaccuum. If some guy decides to break into my house, and he's got two kids, what happens when he's killed? Now they've got no dad, they grow up wrong, now we've got two people breaking into houses. It's just not helping anybody.

So I understand the outrage people have to burglary. But practically speaking, it's just not a useful solution to kill people for burglary.

They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?

I somewhat agree with Frazzled here... We have no shortage whatsoever of people. If we downsized the population to only people who haven't commited B&E, we'd still have plenty of people.

That said, while I have minimal concern for the feelings of a criminal, I still don't think we need to be vindictive. We need to be practical. I don't want people breaking into my house, and I don't think killing people for B&E is really all that practical.

It really comes down to who you believe deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I actually think this is VERY important. I think our legal system is far too muddy on proven guilt. We treat everyone as being kinda guilty, but we don't really care. It's wrong. My mentality on crime and punishment is that if you KNOW the person broke the law, you drop the hammer on him, otherwise you don't. If you're driving around in a car that's not yours, and the ignition is popped, you stole that car. There's no other option.

The other side is the homeowner, who doesn't know if the person creeping around in the kitchen is making a sandwich, or getting ready to rape his wife or her husband and kill his or her family.

This is an important point. You get a lot of preposterous suggestions from people. Why not use an empty gun? Why not shoot to wound? You had better verify that they're armed, and aiming it at you!

Yeah, no. You don't "shoot to wound." You point your gun at the person and pull the trigger, and keep doing it until they fall down. They don't have a health bar floating over their head. Your crosshairs don't flash when you hit them. It's dark, you're confused, there's loud guns going off near your head, if you're not trained to deal with the situation you're going to be completely overwhelmed, if you are trained you're still only going to be marginally aware of what's going on.

The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one...

And it should. Guns are NO JOKE AT ALL. I've taken handgun defense courses. If at least some of the people in those classes don't realize that they probably shouldn't ever carry a gun, then the instructor isn't doing their job.

If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?

In my opinion, yes, you should. The reason I say that is not because I think it's the RIGHT thing to do, but because I think it's unacceptable to require the homeowner to have poise and composure in a scary situation. At that point you're essentially criminalizing somebody getting scared and reacting in fear to somebody committing a crime against them. None of this had to happen if the intruder obeyed the law.

So, I'm not saying that it should be encouraged that homeowners shoot everyone on sight, but I am saying that I don't see how they can be held criminally responsible, either.

I hear your concern here Grignard, but I don't think you can pull a happy ending out of this thing. In the end, I'd rather the law protected the homeowners rights first and foremost.

most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.

FWIW, there was a case recently in my home state (Colorado) where a homeowner shot a burglar in the back as he attempted to climb his fence and escape his yard. The homeowner was acquitted.

But, as I said in a previous post, I'm sure the homeowner lost their entire life savings getting that acquittal.

Grignard wrote:

I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.

1. These laws have been on the books for decades with only slight modifications. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2. You're confusing gun rights with the right to self defense. This is the right to self defense. I could use a spring loaded rocket propelled weiner dog or my left pinky.
3. These laws are similar in many jurisidictions. Again, I don't have clue what you're getting at.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.

1. These laws have been on the books for decades with only slight modifications. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2. You're confusing gun rights with the right to self defense. This is the right to self defense. I could use a spring loaded rocket propelled weiner dog or my left pinky.
3. These laws are similar in many jurisidictions. Again, I don't have clue what you're getting at.

I know the law refers to self defense, not gun rights, but you know as well as I do what people are looking at. You know it is effecively a gun rights issue and will reflect upon that, regardless of what the law says. Don't look at this from a legalistic standpoint, look at what people *think*.

I think phryxis has some good points. The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand. What I'm getting at though is that this needs to be left up to the courts. I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.

Most reported deaths are afforded at least cursory investigations.

I think that, by and large, you and Frazzled agree. The divergence seems to be entirely the result of his addenda to the law as described. In general, lethal self-defense is only justified in instances of imminent bodily harm. This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree. You're taking issue with his moral position with respect to the law, rather than the law itself. Or so it seems to me.

I am looking at it how people think. I am not sure you are. Phyrix's post says it better than I can.

dogma wrote:Most reported deaths are afforded at least cursory investigations.

I think that, by and large, you and Frazzled agree. The divergence seems to be entirely the result of his addenda to the law as described. In general, lethal self-defense is only justified in instances of imminent bodily harm. This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree. You're taking issue with his moral position with respect to the law, rather than the law itself. Or so it seems to me.

Maybe, i'm not sure. Like I said earlier, I need to read the law when I get a chance, but I don't really like the concept that forced entry is justification ( legally or morally) for potentially lethal force. I need to find out what limits someone from staging a scene with what seems to me like a very liberal interpretation of what constitutes imminent danger.

It seems like it says that someone standing next to your occupied car with a hammer could be construed as someone trying to break in your car, and it would be a dead man's word against the shooter.

I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.

Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.

I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.

This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.

It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.

Phryxis wrote:

I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.

Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.

I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.

This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.

It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.

I actually don't know of any states that would allow that. I've said that before but its ebing intentionally restated.

Again the presumption on actually entering a home in Texas is the BG is coming with mal intent. Because he knows there are or could be people at home, but is taking the risk, then he's setting up a potentially lethal confrontation, or is there to potentially meet the other circumstances for self defense. Whether or not the BG just has a strange addiction to Flock of Seagulls LPs or is there to literally rape and pillage are irrelevant under the law and morality. The Law doesn't know that. The GG doesn't know that. As you noted-its night time and there's a shape in a dark room. Your kids are upstairs and you don't have time to think just react and react fast.

Frazzled wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.

Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.

I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.

This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.

It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.

I actually don't know of any states that would allow that. I've said that before but its ebing intentionally restated.

Again the presumption on actually entering a home in Texas is the BG is coming with mal intent. Because he knows there are or could be people at home, but is taking the risk, then he's setting up a potentially lethal confrontation, or is there to potentially meet the other circumstances for self defense. Whether or not the BG just has a strange addiction to Flock of Seagulls LPs or is there to literally rape and pillage are irrelevant under the law and morality. The Law doesn't know that. The GG doesn't know that. As you noted-its night time and there's a shape in a dark room. Your kids are upstairs and you don't have time to think just react and react fast.

Jeez fraz this is getting back to something I'm not talking about. My personal opinion is that if you are put in a situation with a stranger invading your house at night you have no idea what that person is up to and you would be justified in shooting them, though you should probably try to get them to leave the house without violence. That isn't the scenario I presented originally.

Dude its the scenario you JUST presented.

The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand.

Frazzled wrote:Dude its the scenario you JUST presented.

The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand.

No, I mean earlier

When. Its the same thing. Stranger in the house which utterly surprises the GG.

You're running this strange view that people are just going to shoot each other willy nilly and drag them into the house or something. They will shoot each other willy nilly, but not that way.

When. Its the same thing. Stranger in the house which utterly surprises the GG.

You're running this strange view that people are just going to shoot each other willy nilly and drag them into the house or something. They will shoot each other willy nilly, but not that way.

I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

Right, you SHOULDN'T. Absolutely, should not.

However, I don't support the idea that the legal system should start trying to figure out who was facing which when when this or that happened, etc. etc.

If somebody is in your house illegally, and you shoot them to death, you're not guilty, done. In fact, I think they should even have a provision that if this happens, and you're found not guilty, your legal costs should be covered.

Whether you SHOULD have shot them or not, that's between you and the higher power of your choosing.

Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.

Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.

Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.

Frazzled wrote:Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

thats a ball python

I like the finger grip. the forearm grip is set a little too close for my taste but thats just me. Oh wait you were talking about the snake. Mmm. looks like a new pair of boots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.

Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.

Don't assume the intent to confront. Assume heard a noise.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.

Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.

Then why not get out of the house and call the police?

And while im sitting on my front lawn waiting for Adam 12 to show up, I can watch everything I own walk out the back door.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.

What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.

Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.

Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.

Then why not get out of the house and call the police?

Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....

Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.

jp400 wrote:And while im sitting on my front lawn waiting for Adam 12 to show up, I can watch everything I own walk out the back door.

I can understand using force then, but I don't think it should be a *right*. That needs to be determined by the authorities.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

jp400 wrote:And while im sitting on my front lawn waiting for Adam 12 to show up, I can watch everything I own walk out the back door.

I can understand using force then, but I don't think it should be a *right*. That needs to be determined by the authorities.

ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....

Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.

You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.

My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....

Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.

You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.

ok leave the house with my entire family

Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops

.....

Much easier to shoot him.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....

Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.

You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.

My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.

Your understanding is misplaced. 'if you cannot afford an attorney' is the key phrase. Public defenders are crap and plea bargain your case not defend it. you're going to pay the bucks.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....

Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.

You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.

ok leave the house with my entire family

Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops

.....

Much easier to shoot him.

Likely as soon as he realized he was caught he'd bail. If he's violent enough to try something, then you shoot him.

I think you should be able to say that you *tried* to retreat though.