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.

If the student is prosecuted, it will be the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of attack, and struck willfully with the intention to cause serious harm. That's not going to be too easy. The case would rest on forensic evidence.

The jury would probably take about 30 seconds to deliver a Not Guilty verdict.

Are swords protected under the right to bear arms? They are weapons, after all.

Oldgrue wrote:
What reason would a person have to empathize with their attacker? Good fortune for "Not so poor Joe" did not compel "Burglar(mugger) Steve" to do anything to him.

It has nothing to do with circumstances of the victim, but the circumstances of the attacker.

Oldgrue wrote:
People have a choice to resort to theft and violence or not.

If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.

Brutal.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the student is prosecuted, it will be the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of attack, and struck willfully with the intention to cause serious harm. That's not going to be too easy. The case would rest on forensic evidence.

The jury would probably take about 30 seconds to deliver a Not Guilty verdict.

Are swords protected under the right to bear arms? They are weapons, after all.

Most likely you are right, but I would assume it is a lot harder, and would take a jury a lot longer than 30 seconds.

I wont post the entire document but here is the bullet point authorizing use of deadly force in defending ones property.

Deadly Force:
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, [Bold]or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.[/Bold]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.onalert.org/The%20Law%20of%20Self-Defense.pdf

Link to the entire document. Dated 2k4, probably the newest set of laws in MN.

Frog's original quote on self-defense said:

Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein.

So I don't see how it wouldn't qualify under that at any rate.

Even if it technically falls under criminal law the odds are that the State will choose not to press charges. Just "breaking" the law isn't a guarantee of a trial or punishment. DA's have authority to determine what to pursue or not.

We keep getting this laymen argument about the law as if it were the same as morality when the law is not the same thing as morality.

Especially when we all know the law is the same thing as Judge Dredd.

Fateweaver wrote:I wont post the entire document but here is the bullet point authorizing use of deadly force in defending ones property.

Deadly Force:
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, [Bold]or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.[/Bold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

I think you misunderstand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

what felony was being committed?

According to Mn laws all the aggressor has to do is enter your house/castle/whatever you sleep in. They don't even have to threaten me or my brother. Just breaking into my house is enough justification for putting a round in their forehead.

Front yard/garage/shop is the exception to the law in Mn (and I imagine everywhere else) but in this kids case he stated the guy came after/lunged at him. Self-defense clearly and most juries I would hope would see that and let him go back to a normal (well, somewhat normal) life.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Frog's original quote on self-defense said:

Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein.

So I don't see how it wouldn't qualify under that at any rate.

the definition of violent.

was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?

this is why it wouldn't fall under that.

Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.

Regardless of your stance on the role of personal defense of property the fact that half of the posts in this thread state how "Awesome" it is a man was killed with a sword shows just how animalistic and debased humans are.

Views on the right to self defense in the home can be a gray area. Thinking its great that someone cut someone up badly enough to kill them is pretty cut and dry.

frgsinwntr wrote:
no... it really doesn't. It leaves it up to the judge... and you need to be able to justify WHY you felt deadly force was necessary.

You're missing all the parts where the laws talk about aggressive criminals.

Tell you what... why don't you call your local police dept and check what they say. Ask them. Obviously we could both make things up on the internet.... but talking to several of my police officer friends... they all say the same thing I am...

AAAAND here is a lawyer (obiously from NJ)

That is why I also added this section of the law which does not require that feeling. Here it is again in case you missed it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Again, the guy is in NJ.
A useless legal source in BALTIMORE MD. As they (rightfully so IMHO ) skewered a man in BALTIMORE MD, their residence in NJ is irrelevant. They are subject to MD law, despite the self importance of a state whose finest landmarks are the Turnpike and Trenton.

Looks like a job for MD law...but I could be confused about NJ and jurisdiction. I don't have cop friends.

Fateweaver wrote:According to Mn laws all the aggressor has to do is enter your house/castle/whatever you sleep in. They don't even have to threaten me or my brother. Just breaking into my house is enough justification for putting a round in their forehead.

Front yard/garage/shop is the exception to the law in Mn (and I imagine everywhere else) but in this kids case he stated the guy came after/lunged at him. Self-defense clearly and most juries I would hope would see that and let him go back to a normal (well, somewhat normal) life.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.

from page 1 in your document.

It is NOT justified there. you would need to reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the
actor's place of abode.

stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force

I think what some people need to realize is armed burglary break ins VERY often involves in death even if the
victims cooperate /defenseless / and even if they are 70 years old .

In Canada we dont have as much crime as USA no. But when we do have crimes ,
its brutal and unnecessary ( aka old people having their homes broken into and then murdered for some money )

Now if you guys want to walk up to the intruder and ask " hi , i would like to know if you are armed or not .
this way i know how to choose my next actions , would you please cooperate? "

Please by all means go for it. We need less people that mistaken pro-criminal right as human decency spreading the gene pool.

Now my question is , in a situation whether a split second decision can determine the difference between
you dying , or the intruder dying. Why would i have to risk and give up my right to stay alive just to *confirm if the intruder
count as a deadly threat . Especially when they ARE the ones breaking in ?

Oldgrue wrote:Again, the guy is in NJ.
A useless legal source in BALTIMORE MD. As they (rightfully so IMHO ) skewered a man in BALTIMORE MD, their residence in NJ is irrelevant. They are subject to MD law, despite the self importance of a state whose finest landmarks are the Turnpike and Trenton.

Looks like a job for MD law...but I could be confused about NJ and jurisdiction. I don't have cop friends.

see my post above.

if what he was stealing was less than $500, then it is 4th degree and NOT an excuse for use of deadly force since it is NOT a felony

frgsinwntr wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

I think you misunderstand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

what felony was being committed?

"Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug use/sales, grand theft, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and rape.

"Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English)."

the definition of violent.

was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?

this is why it wouldn't fall under that.

Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.

He lunged at the student, according to the report. That should be sufficient for reasonable belief of an attack on his person, considering it's already established that the person in question is a felon in the midst of committing a crime.

Obviously if the student was lying, and the burglar was trying to back off when the student gutted him things would be different, but that seems unlikely.

Only in America could this happen.

Anti-Mag wrote:Only in America could this happen.

What about japan?

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

I think you misunderstand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

what felony was being committed?

"Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug use/sales, grand theft, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and rape.

"Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English)."

the definition of violent.

was this person violent in his actions is the question, did he break into steal?
Did he break into steal and kill?
would he have left with out hurting anyone if given the chance?

this is why it wouldn't fall under that.

Obviously he was in MD, and yes, it was most likely violent, but no, we can ASSUME it was violent by location... this needs to be shown.

He lunged at the student, according to the report. That should be sufficient for reasonable belief of an attack on his person, considering it's already established that the person in question is a felon in the midst of committing a crime.

Obviously if the student was lying, and the burglar was trying to back off when the student gutted him things would be different, but that seems unlikely.

agreed... but the student's case is in question.

if i shot someone in my home, and then said... "he lunged at me"... then would this be justified self defense? how would you know I was not lieing?

What if the student invited him in and then attacked? remember, there is no other wittness, only the one person that called in and said he heard "cries of fear"...

I'm not about to jump on the band wagon and say the guy was right to kill.

there are a lot of things that could have happened.

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

QFT. The internet, and wacky situations can be dehumanizing, but the inherent toll to killing, regardless of the situation, is the death of a person. Whether you believe it was right or not, it's not simply some sort of sport.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English).

http://www.crimeandpunishment.net/MN/chart.html

So, in the state of MN just by Breaking into someones house, with intent to steal or cause bodily injury, is a FELONY and so eludes to the fact that in Mn you can use deadly force to prevent a felony (in this case someone breaking into your home) with no crime on the part of the actor actually being committed.

Lets face it, who breaks into someone house to just enjoy the A/C or watch some porn on cable? 99.9% of burglaries committed are committed with intent to steal or cause harm to someone.

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

:p I'm not jumping on!

I just know its worth getting all the facts...

forensic evidence will show if the guy even broke in or not... and I kinda hope in a few years we see this story again and the evidence shows the guy was invited in and murdered for sport by some crazy student... so I can gloat that calling for the death of someone is usually not a good thing.

But then... i don't want to gloat about ANYONE dieing....

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?

AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER

Fateweaver wrote:Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Commission of burglary is normally referred to as to burgle (in British English) or burglarize (in American English).

http://www.crimeandpunishment.net/MN/chart.html

So, in the state of MN just by Breaking into someones house, with intent to steal or cause bodily injury, is a FELONY and so eludes to the fact that in Mn you can use deadly force to prevent a felony (in this case someone breaking into your home) with no crime on the part of the actor actually being committed.

Lets face it, who breaks into someone house to just enjoy the A/C or watch some porn on cable? 99.9% of burglaries committed are committed with intent to steal or cause harm to someone.

from the link you sent, it is only a felony of there are $500 in damage to the property, and the burglarly was of a felony status.

From another site:

[quote =frgsinwntr]
Minnesota Burglary Laws & Penalties
Burglary First Degree

First degree burglary is a serious felony offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $35,000 in fines. You may be charged with this offense if you enter a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime, commit a crime, and

a) The building is a dwelling and another person is inside at the time, and

b) The burglar possesses a dangerous weapon or explosive, or

c) The burglar assaults a person within the building.

If the building is an occupied dwelling (home) you will serve at least 6 months in prison for the offense.
Burglary Second Degree

Second degree burglary is another serious felony with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and fines reaching $20,000. You may be charged with this offense and found guilty if you enter a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, commit a crime, and

a) The building is a dwelling, or

b) The building contains a bank or similar business, and entry is made with force, or

c) The building contains a pharmacy or similar business and entry is made with force.

Burglary Third Degree

Third degree burglary is still a felony and only slightly less serious than 1st and 2nd degree. If you face this charge you may serve up to 5 years in prison and pay fines up to $10,000. If you enter a building without consent and intend to commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, and then commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, you could be charged with this crime.
Burglary Fourth Degree

Fourth degree burglary is punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000 in fines. You may be charged with this offense if you enter a building without consent and with intentions of committing a misdemeanor, and then commit a misdemeanor other than stealing.

Under California (and Texas) Law, in my home, I have no "duty to retreat" - one of the few sensible laws that we have on the books.

LunaHound wrote:

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?

AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER

You're jumping in and saying that the man who is dead, was actually robbing the guy... I pose you the question, what if he wasn't?

You don't have to incopacitate them, you can just tell them the police are on the way. YOU NEVER HAVE TO CONFRONT ANYONE!

but please... don't yell i'm trying to be civil and use documents/quotes and attack arguments... with out emotion.

AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.

Because killing is inherently wrong by the modern understanding of the social contract, and the idea that property is more valuable than life is questionable at best. Also, don't use the size script to prove your point. We all read it the first time, it's not like we can't read the tiny letters. Instead of using big type, try understanding opposing arguments.

LunaHound wrote:

Skarwael wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.

I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.

Words of wisdom.

It seems like some people on here would just kill the intruder for the sake of killing. If you had a shot at their leg or something I don't understand why you couldn't do that and call the police.

Because we arnt psychics? we arnt omniscient ? we dont know how armed the intruder is?
-most of us arnt trained with fire arms , instinctively we fire at the largest mass ( the torso ) especially its split second and people are panicking?
-if shooting someone's leg guarantees they wont go down while return fire turning you into a sponge , sure ? but again , are you psychic? are you willing to take the chance?

AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.
Its not about wanting to kill the intruder , its we DONT HAVE A FAIL PROOF RELIABLE WAY TO INCAPACITATE THEM WITHOUT HARMING THEM BADLY.
WITHOUT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DANGER

This......

When you, in state of Mn, are trained in the use of firearms (and anyone wanting to legally buy a gun has to have been trained in order to obtain the legal permits) you are not trained to "shoot to injure or incapacitate", you are trained to shoot to kill. You are trained to aim at the torso, preferably the chest, not the head or appendages as those are way to small of a target. I am lucky in that the .45 I keep handy has a laser sight on it so I can shoot them in the eyeball or mouth or hand or kneecap or whatever from a safe distance away but hitting someone in the leg who is moving, even straight at you, using just the gun sight is very hard to do, if not impossible for most.

Again, when I was trained in the use of handguns for self-defense we were not trained to shoot someone in the foot or arm or leg, you are trained to aim at a point between the bellybutton and the neck; that is your best chance of incapacitating someone. Shooting someone in the torso doesn't mean an automatic death.