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.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Joey wrote:If I lived in Utah I wouldn't visit my neighbours' house unless I knew them VERY well.
"Hey neighbour, fancy watching the game?" HOME INTRUDER *BOOM*.

Yeah, really. But now you can keep those pesky Mormon recruiters away!

I thought this was basically law of the land anyway, but that's nice.

That is what said baseball bat is for Samus =o]

ShumaGorath wrote:

KingCracker wrote:So your saying we shouldnt be allowed to shoot to kill, an intruder in our homes, because we dont yet know the extent of why they are illegally in said homes? Am I reading that right?

I'm saying that when you rule in the favor of the land owner in scenarios when the defendant is dead then it creates a situation where killing is preferred to other means. This is supposed to be a nation of laws but the most important one no longer matters as long as they are standing on a piece of land you happen to own.

Not just on your property, but actually in your home.

I think in general it will be pretty clear who is at fault. Was the DB someone the homeowner knew? Investigae possibilities of the vic being lured there. Are there no connections between the DB and the homeowner? Odds of the DB being engaged in a criminal act go up. Did the DB have a criminal record while the homeowner is a model citizen? Slam dunk... barring some sort of connection between the DB and the homeowner.

Let me remind you of something. When someone breaks into a house with intent to do you harm, the odds of the police showing up in time to save your bacon are astronomical. They will NOT be there in your moment of need; that's not their job. Sure, it's a happy accident if it happens. But their job is to find out who harmed you and get them in jail, not stop them in the act.

So if you are planning on hoping the police show up when someone kicks in your door... you'd probably be better off depending on hitting the lottery for your retirement.

This has been a law in TN for a while now. At least since I got my carry permit.

It basically says that if someone is in your home and you feel threatened you are justified to use lethal force.

Vulcan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KingCracker wrote:So your saying we shouldnt be allowed to shoot to kill, an intruder in our homes, because we dont yet know the extent of why they are illegally in said homes? Am I reading that right?

I'm saying that when you rule in the favor of the land owner in scenarios when the defendant is dead then it creates a situation where killing is preferred to other means. This is supposed to be a nation of laws but the most important one no longer matters as long as they are standing on a piece of land you happen to own.

Not just on your property, but actually in your home.

I think in general it will be pretty clear who is at fault. Was the DB someone the homeowner knew? Investigae possibilities of the vic being lured there. Are there no connections between the DB and the homeowner? Odds of the DB being engaged in a criminal act go up. Did the DB have a criminal record while the homeowner is a model citizen? Slam dunk... barring some sort of connection between the DB and the homeowner.

Let me remind you of something. When someone breaks into a house with intent to do you harm, the odds of the police showing up in time to save your bacon are astronomical. They will NOT be there in your moment of need; that's not their job. Sure, it's a happy accident if it happens. But their job is to find out who harmed you and get them in jail, not stop them in the act.

So if you are planning on hoping the police show up when someone kicks in your door... you'd probably be better off depending on hitting the lottery for your retirement.

You just managed to circumstantially establish a possible intent. You didn't establish intent to do harm. Most break ins aren't confrontational, most home invasion offendors do not assault anyone. It's fun to run around with your six shooter and pretend that you're a cowboy, but you know why the police don't just shoot everyone because they've commited a crime? Because it's wrong. Except now its wrong and perfectly legal.

Woo. Welcome to Utah. Want to steal a TV? Well you get to die. That's how the our morals works right? A bullet in the head for minor theft? You'd love it in Iran.

Yes, that's how it works. Good thing the law is getting publicity so idiots who want to steal people's TV might think twice. The idea that "I was only gonna steal their TV" is a defense is how we got to the point where we need laws like this in the first place.

If they do it in my house they get a face full of 4 vicious Labradors before I can even pick up my 9mm. If you think Weiner Dogs are scary, try a dog that's 70 lbs and wants to take parts off you to play fetch with!

ShumaGorath wrote:You just managed to circumstantially establish a possible intent.

Almost all determinations of intent are circumstantial. Very few defendants (with competent legal counsel; defendants on their own are universally stupid. And by stupid, I mean trusting of cops) are going to say "Oh yeah, I broke in to commit a crime."

ShumaGorath wrote:You didn't establish intent to do harm. Most break ins aren't confrontational, most home invasion offendors do not assault anyone.

You're ignoring the problem of how a homeowner is supposed to determine whether it's a "confrontational" break-in or simple theft. Homeowners rightly feel insecure when people break into their home in the middle of the night.

ShumaGorath wrote:Most break ins aren't confrontational, most home invasion offendors do not assault anyone.

I could give two gaks what the intention of a home invader is. When you break into my house you run the risk (rather likelihood) of dying, that's how defending your home works. It's not a situation where I turn on the lights and say, "Righto chap, glad you made it. Are you here to rob,rape,or kill? Fancy a cup of tea whilst you decide?"
It goes down more like flashlight in the eyes so I can make sure I'm not shooting my mother in law, no one I know? Let God sort it then. Likewise with chainsaws through my door, I wouldn't wait for them to get through that's a pretty clear threat to my life and my family. FBI at the wrong house...too bad.

Woo. Welcome to Utah. Want to steal a TV? Well you get to die. That's how the our morals works right? A bullet in the head for minor theft?

Cuts down on repeat offenses. I'll bet that no knock warrants in Utah PLUMMET too.

I could give two gaks what the intention of a home invader is. When you break into my house you run the risk (rather likelihood) of dying, that's how defending your home works. It's not a situation where I turn on the lights and say, "Righto chap, glad you made it. Are you here to rob,rape,or kill? Fancy a cup of tea whilst you decide?"

Which is precisely why citizens aren't allowed to enforce our laws. The penalty for attempted theft isn't death. It shouldn't be. Just because it's your sweet Ipod dock that he's cuffing doesn't give you the right to commit murder.

It goes down more like flashlight in the eyes so I can make sure I'm not shooting my mother in law, no one I know? Let God sort it then. Likewise with chainsaws through my door, I wouldn't wait for them to get through that's a pretty clear threat to my life and my family. FBI at the wrong house...too bad.

You don't sound tough, you sound scared. What happened to you to make you think that possessions are inherently and automatically worth more than human lives I don't know. Maybe it's the south.

Cuts down on repeat offenses. I'll bet that no knock warrants in Utah PLUMMET too.

I bet it doesn't. Castle laws don't actually do much to crime rates.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KingCracker wrote:So your saying we shouldnt be allowed to shoot to kill, an intruder in our homes, because we dont yet know the extent of why they are illegally in said homes? Am I reading that right?

I'm saying that when you rule in the favor of the land owner in scenarios when the defendant is dead then it creates a situation where killing is preferred to other means. This is supposed to be a nation of laws but the most important one no longer matters as long as they are standing on a piece of land you happen to own.

Not just on your property, but actually in your home.

I think in general it will be pretty clear who is at fault. Was the DB someone the homeowner knew? Investigae possibilities of the vic being lured there. Are there no connections between the DB and the homeowner? Odds of the DB being engaged in a criminal act go up. Did the DB have a criminal record while the homeowner is a model citizen? Slam dunk... barring some sort of connection between the DB and the homeowner.

Let me remind you of something. When someone breaks into a house with intent to do you harm, the odds of the police showing up in time to save your bacon are astronomical. They will NOT be there in your moment of need; that's not their job. Sure, it's a happy accident if it happens. But their job is to find out who harmed you and get them in jail, not stop them in the act.

So if you are planning on hoping the police show up when someone kicks in your door... you'd probably be better off depending on hitting the lottery for your retirement.

You just managed to circumstantially establish a possible intent. You didn't establish intent to do harm. Most break ins aren't confrontational, most home invasion offendors do not assault anyone. It's fun to run around with your six shooter and pretend that you're a cowboy, but you know why the police don't just shoot everyone because they've commited a crime? Because it's wrong. Except now its wrong and perfectly legal.

Woo. Welcome to Utah. Want to steal a TV? Well you get to die. That's how the our morals works right? A bullet in the head for minor theft? You'd love it in Iran.

Once again Shuma is not up on the law.
Most states with Catle doctrines (and this is effectively a castle doctrine extended to civil liability) presume a valid use of self defense inside the home. This is the same thing, being applied specifically to civil situations. In castle doctrine states it is extremely difficult for BG's to successfully sue home owners or renters. This just shortcircuits bankrupting the innocent homeowner.

In fact it obviates Shuma's argument, as in most states, its substantially better to wack the BG completely to keep him from suing you in the first place.


Now if Shuma has a personal issue with this, he is under no obligation to resist a home invader.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You don't sound tough, you sound scared.

If you're defending your home, you should be scared not tough. Here we'll play a game. You PM me your address and at some point in the future I will break into your home and we'll see how you feel afterwards.

Cuts down on repeat offenses. I'll bet that no knock warrants in Utah PLUMMET too.

I bet it doesn't. Castle laws don't actually do much to crime rates.

Michigan has a similar law as well though, homeowners are able to shoot intruders, but under certain circumstances. Example, you cannot shoot a fleeing criminal, if evidence shows you shot the guy in the back, your probably going to prison for murder. You also are basically allowed a certain number of shots to put an intruder down. If the police show up, and the guy has 12 rounds in his guts, youd better hope he has a gak load of PCP in his system, otherwise you have some answering to do.

So its not a blatant, go ahead and kill anything that comes into your home illegally, but we still have the rights to shoot mofos that are dumb enough to come in unlawfully.

Once again Shuma is not up on the law.
Most states with Catle doctrines (and this is effectively a castle doctrine extended to civil liability) presume a valid use of self defense inside the home. This is the same thing, being applied specifically to civil situations. In castle doctrine states it is extremely difficult for BG's to successfully sue home owners or renters. This just shortcircuits bankrupting the innocent homeowner.
In fact it obviates Shuma's argument, as in most states, its substantially better to wack the BG completely to keep him from suing you in the first place.

Because, y'know, the driving motivation not to kill people is purely monetary and morally it's right to protect people committing murder in order to prevent theft. Apparently when you up the ante a few times over it's suddenly ok.

If you're defending your home, you should be scared not tough.

Then cracking wise about the ways in which you'll kill a dude is probably the wrong tone in the conversation. If you want to express that you're not being macho it's important not to act such.

If a bullet in the head doesn't prevent repeat offenses home invasion is the least of your problems. Mormon zombies /shudder.

Lotta old spirits in utah. Sometimes the dead don't wanna stay down.

I see you have not yet PM'ed me your address.

AustonT wrote:I see you have not yet PM'ed me your address.

That whole argument isn't half as clever as you think, and about twice as asinine.

Vulcan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

Someone breaking into your house with the intention of committing a crime is hardly a definition of innocent I've ever heard of before.

Let's face it. No one in America goes into someone else's house without either being really good friends or recieveing a specific invitation... or with the intent to rob/rape/kill.

So if I take a shortcut across your field to get into town, you're fine gunning me down?
Seems weird that you forfeit your right to be a human being by virtue of being on someone else's property. I know an Englishman's home is his castle but that's just too far...

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:I see you have not yet PM'ed me your address.

That whole argument isn't half as clever as you think, and about twice as asinine.

You know what is clever though? Reported.

Joey wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

Someone breaking into your house with the intention of committing a crime is hardly a definition of innocent I've ever heard of before.

Let's face it. No one in America goes into someone else's house without either being really good friends or recieveing a specific invitation... or with the intent to rob/rape/kill.

So if I take a shortcut across your field to get into town, you're fine gunning me down?
Seems weird that you forfeit your right to be a human being by virtue of being on someone else's property. I know an Englishman's home is his castle but that's just too far...

Thats not what we're discussing Joey. What is being discussed is something called the Castle Doctrine. A variety of states have it.
It was in response to lawsuits from criminals and overly vindictive prosecutors. In essence it says that criminals entering a dwelling are assumed under status of law to be there in pursuit of more heinous acts of criminal endeavors - aka murder, or rape. Persons defending themselves in their homes do not have to retreat, and that they can in fact, defned themselves or others in the home against criminal intruders.

It doesn't mean you can cross someone's field. Having said that, more than one group of tresspassing teenagers farting around in a cornfield have had their asses sandblasted by an angry farmer with rocksalt in the night.

Joey wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, it's now lawful to kill innocent people with post facto legitimacy (Not like the dead guys gonna get to defend himself) in Utah. Goodie.

Someone breaking into your house with the intention of committing a crime is hardly a definition of innocent I've ever heard of before.

Let's face it. No one in America goes into someone else's house without either being really good friends or recieveing a specific invitation... or with the intent to rob/rape/kill.

So if I take a shortcut across your field to get into town, you're fine gunning me down?
Seems weird that you forfeit your right to be a human being by virtue of being on someone else's property. I know an Englishman's home is his castle but that's just too far...

Ah, the 'moving goalposts' school of argument, I see.

The law in question - and the position people are definding - does not address intruders on your property, it addresses intruders in your home, which is a rather different thing. Unless self-defense applies, shooting someone who is merely trespassing on your land is going to result in criminal prosecution.

For that matter, the law in question does not make it perfectly legal to shoot someone in your house for whatever frivolous reason that strikes your fancy. It says that if you do shoot someone in your house, and you are not convicted of a crime in conjunction with that shooting, the "victim" of the shooting - or the "victim's" family, assuming the "victim" didn't survive - cannot then sue you for doing so (the infamous 'double-victimization'). If you ARE convicted in conjunction with the shooting, now the victim (note the lack of quotes in this case) CAN still sue, as you were proved to be in the wrong.

It's hardly the carte-blanche you seem to think it is.

Here's a nice wiki summary. Note it does stem from the Brits so no gruff from you haggis eaters!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

AustonT wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:I see you have not yet PM'ed me your address.

That whole argument isn't half as clever as you think, and about twice as asinine.

You know what is clever though? Reported.

It is pretty asinine but I sent the PM anyway. Also, I'm pretty sure asking someones physical address with the intent to threaten and commit a crime on this forum is against forum rules.

I or an independent contractor will contact you between the hours of 2300 and 0500 within 10 years to talk to you about an exiting opportunity to purchase magazines via your window. Please take the time to calmly access the situation and not jump to the conclusion that a crime is about to occur in such a reasonable situation.

AustonT wrote:I or an independent contractor will contact you between the hours of 2300 and 0500 within 10 years to talk to you about an exiting opportunity to purchase magazines via your window. Please take the time to calmly access the situation and not jump to the conclusion that a crime is about to occur in such a reasonable situation.

Better hurry up, magazines are dying. Catch me before iPads get cheaper and you may have luck. Also, most home invasions occur during the day when people are at work. Robberies are significantly harder to pull off at night.

Found a 16gb for 350 yesterday is that reasonable?

We aren't talking about Burglarys where the home owner isn't present though. So success isn't really the intent, well criminally.

AustonT wrote:Found a 16gb for 350 yesterday is that reasonable?

We aren't talking about Burglarys where the home owner isn't present though. So success isn't really the intent, well criminally.

Ipad2? They're debuting the 3 today, if it looks good I probably won't want an earlier version. Also, we're going to have to establish that intent after I kill them when it's almost impossible to establish.

Yeah for an iPad2. I'm pretty ok with not getting the latest thing for a lower cost. I spend so much time on my I phone, a pad seems logical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah. I kind of feel like if you kill my IC, that my point is proven.

AustonT wrote:Yeah for an iPad2. I'm pretty ok with not getting the latest thing for a lower cost. I spend so much time on my I phone, a pad seems logical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah. I kind of feel like if you kill my IC, that my point is proven.

I'm pretty sure if I get away with it it proves mine.