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.

People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.

But now it's all good.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

In Texas, yes actually, depending on certain on conditions. Texas is also very flexible on enforcing that.

In Texas, if you're a badguy and grandma caps you, literally no one is going to care, even the pathetic imported police chiefs from California running Austin and San Antonio.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Now that the ruling is in, I hope she gets the feth sued out of her.

While I agree.... she just shouldn't be getting sued by the suspected shoplifter (especially if there are charges filed for it)

I do think that someone shouldn't be able to sue for some injury they received if they sustained it while perpetrating a criminal act.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

In Texas, yes actually, depending on certain on conditions. Texas is also very flexible on enforcing that.

In Texas, if you're a badguy and grandma caps you, literally no one is going to care, even the pathetic imported police chiefs from California running Austin and San Antonio.

When I was living in San Antonio, I remember hearing about a repo guy that was sneaking on a guy's property late one night to get a pick up. The guy woke up and saw someone he didn't know messing with his truck, so he shot the repo man. The repo man drove the truck off the property and died about a mile down the road. No charges..

 d-usa wrote:
See, that's why we keep the Zimmerman square on the bingo card

I knew it was coming. Just sitting here waiting for someone to pull the trigger

 Alex C wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.

Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.

What was the result of the clarification in the UK?

When I was there, people were getting in trouble for defending their own homes. Is it different now?

Eh, not quite. People were getting in trouble for defending their own homes using disproportionate levels of force, or for using their supposed-to-be-for-killing-foxes shotgun to blow away intruders. The law was always perfectly clear, the problem is that people are morons who think that finding a guy trying to jimmy open your window is grounds for trying to beat him to death with a lamp, or that someone robbing your shop gives you license to chase them down the street and cave their skull in.

There are almost no circumstances in UK law where you're allowed to use anything other than "necessary and proportionate force", ie no more than is absolutely necessary to subdue or deter someone, at which point your right to do them any harm whatsoever is gone. And bloody right too.

For American dakka members who ever find themselves in the UK, the above is pretty much the situation in the UK when it comes to home defence.

If burglars are in your home, you can fight them off with cricket bats or whatever, but if they escaped your property, you couldn't pursue them for ten miles down the road, the threat to your family/property would be deemed to be over.

For those who want the detailed advice, here is the official UK government web page on the topic.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

 Hordini wrote:
Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?

Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For those who want the detailed advice, here is the official UK government web page on the topic.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

Might be slightly different in Scotland due to the separate legal system.

In Scotland the use of a Haggis to guard your property is not considered excessive force.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Scotland the use of a Haggis to guard your property is not considered excessive force.

I was referring to a possible ruling from the Scottish Parliament or the Lord Advocate on the situation, but you probably already knew that!

 Hordini wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.

I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.

Don't commit petty crimes and you won't have to worry about not being able to defend yourself with lethal force if someone attacks you because of it. It's really not very high of a bar

So let's say you throw a used McDonalds wrapper on the floor whilst in legal possession of a firearm (or some other minor infraction that technically counts as breaking the law). Some crazy person gets aggressive with you to the point you think you are in danger. You now can't defend yourself because, even though your possession of the firearm was perfectly legal, you committed a crime whilst armed?
Or how about if you hit somebody else's car with your car because you ran a stop light, whilst you are in possession of a firearm. They get out of their car and come at you with a crowbar. You can't defend yourself because you committed a crime whilst armed?
I can't imagine it really is as straightforward as you are making out. Or if it is then that is some truly fethed up law making.

Edit: To keep this on topic, what I mean is I am amazed this person has only had a licence revoked and hasn't yet been charged with attempted murder.

 LethalShade wrote:
Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).

I was born in Northern Ireland and lived there for almost 30 years before I moved to the US. Outside of The Troubles guns did not factor greatly in my life, and I was ambivalent towards them, but when I moved here I decided to learn about them. If you have any questions I'd be happy to help answer them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
So let's say you throw a used McDonalds wrapper on the floor whilst in legal possession of a firearm (or some other minor infraction that technically counts as breaking the law). Some crazy person gets aggressive with you to the point you think you are in danger. You now can't defend yourself because, even though your possession of the firearm was perfectly legal, you committed a crime whilst armed?
Or how about if you hit somebody else's car with your car because you ran a stop light, whilst you are in possession of a firearm. They get out of their car and come at you with a crowbar. You can't defend yourself because you committed a crime whilst armed?
I can't imagine it really is as straightforward as you are making out. Or if it is then that is some truly fethed up law making.

In the scenarios you have devised you would not lose your right to defend yourself. In many jurisdictions you lose the protection of the law if you instigate the aggression.

By way of example, the SYG law in Indiana does not apply if;

(c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person’s intent to stop hijacking,
attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

http://www.usacarry.com/indiana_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_laws.html

@Dreadclaw, thanks. If you'll forgive me can I ask some more?
From what you posted it seems that if somebody commits a crime and tries to escape, should somebody else try to use unjustifiable force against them then the person who committed the initial crime has no right to defend themselves, regardless of the illegality of the force used against them.
Do I have this correct?

 Henry wrote:
@Dreadclaw, thanks. If you'll forgive me can I ask some more?
From what you posted it seems that if somebody commits a crime and tries to escape, should somebody else try to use unjustifiable force against them then the person who committed the initial crime has no right to defend themselves, regardless of the illegality of the force used against them.
Do I have this correct?

In your example we have two wrongs not making a right. To tie it back to the example which opened the thread. Person A snatches a purse from Person B and runs away (crime committed, and perpetrator is fleeing). Person C witnesses this and opens fire on Person A.

Person A was in the process of fleeing a crime that they had committed and per Indiana law would not have protection in law if they were to stop and return fire if they had a gun.

Person C was shooting at someone who was not a threat and has no protection in law for doing so.

Dreadclaw, once again thanks, though I do find the way that works out to be bizarre.
(Edited whilst I go and look up UK law and get myself unconfused.)
(Edit again, thought so but had to go check)
In the UK a person can invoke the right to self defence where the aggressors actions are disproportionate, even if the first person instigated the altercation.

"The Court of Appeal pointed out in Rashford (Nicholas) [2006] Crim LR 547 that a person may still plead self-defence in a case where he killed another during an argument which he himself started, either by provoking it or willingly entering into it, and the other person then retaliated. "

In the UK, were we to have the right to bear arms, the person in the OP would be well within their rights to defend themselves against somebody unjustifiably firing on them.
So I hope I've clearly shown why those US laws appear so baffling to me.

Glad to see the loss of permit here, gives people who CC a bad name.

 Henry wrote:
Dreadclaw, once again thanks, though I do find the way that works out to be bizarre.
(Edited whilst I go and look up UK law and get myself unconfused.)
(Edit again, thought so but had to go check)
In the UK a person can invoke the right to self defence where the aggressors actions are disproportionate, even if the first person instigated the altercation.

"The Court of Appeal pointed out in Rashford (Nicholas) [2006] Crim LR 547 that a person may still plead self-defence in a case where he killed another during an argument which he himself started, either by provoking it or willingly entering into it, and the other person then retaliated. "

In the UK, were we to have the right to bear arms, the person in the OP would be well within their rights to defend themselves against somebody unjustifiably firing on them.
So I hope I've clearly shown why those US laws appear so baffling to me.

An argument is not a criminal act, not in the majority of cases is it provoking unlawful action. You are comparing apples to oranges. The person in the OP had just committed a crime, and was fleeing.

From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

 Henry wrote:
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!

I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.

There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.

 Henry wrote:
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

Our escalation of force laws are similar but don't explicitly convey self defense protection to the aggressor. It's illegal to defend yourself with lethal force against a known nonlethal threat for example. Of course even unarmed physical altercations can be lethal which is why our self defence laws are conditoned with some version of "reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death". The threat must be evident to a reasonable person and be posed at the time that actions of self defense are taken.

 Henry wrote:
There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.

Ohh, we can't tie them up and torture, nor can we chase them down the street... but until they hit the property line they are generally "fair game," with some recent case law (apparently) to back it up.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Henry wrote:
There is a slightly different law for defence of home where disproportionate force may be used, but grossly disproportionate may not. You can give a "polite" burglar a good shoeing, but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.

Ohh, we can't tie them up and torture, nor can we chase them down the street... but until they hit the property line they are generally "fair game," with some recent case law (apparently) to back it up.

There are a few states, notably Texas, with pretty open requirements for justifiable shootings, but in most states you still need to have a reasonable fear of imminent harm to open fire. If somebody is breaking into your house you don't have to wait for them to successfully break in and attack you, you can make a reasonable assumption that they have bad intentions and if they won't stop/leave when asked then the attacker creates a reasonable fear and justification for a lawful self defense shooting. However, if you hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night and upon investigation find somebody has broken into your house and is standing in your living room holding your tv you don't have grounds for a lawful self defense shooting because being in your living room holding your tv doesn't create a reasonable fear of imminent harm. You can demand that the burglar put down the tv and if the burglar makes an aggressive move against you then you'd have grounds for lethal self defense but if the burglar freezes or drosp the tv and attempts to flee you can't open fire because even with them on your property the burglar doesn't present a reasonable fear of harm while standing still or fleeing.

Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.

It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.

 Henry wrote:
Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.

It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.

I think you'll see the differences in the legal system highlighted in the comparison of self defense laws. Our laws will be written with conditions like reasonableness in order to allow prosecutors and ultimately a jury to decide if the use of the chosen level of force was reasonable and proportionate. You're not going to find laws here that make bright shining lines with specific wide ranging examples of the difference between a reasonable armed citizen and a bloodthirsty psycho. If its not clear at first glance then the courts will sort it out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For American dakka members who ever find themselves in the UK, the above is pretty much the situation in the UK when it comes to home defence.

If burglars are in your home, you can fight them off with cricket bats or whatever, but if they escaped your property, you couldn't pursue them for ten miles down the road, the threat to your family/property would be deemed to be over.

For Brits who ever find themselves in Texas, its ok to use that replica of the 18lber you brought from HMS Victorious. To a Texan, it aint overkill unless it makes the ghost of Patton go "damnnnn..."

I keep telling my fellow Henley Whalers that we ought to tool up our boat like the Historical Maritime Society (see below) because people tend not to argue with you when you have a 12-lb carronade at hand.

 Henry wrote:
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

Here typically a firearm may only be used in the event of a threat of death or serious bodily harm, so the standards are not wholly dissimilar.

In the UK I cannot strike somebody just for bumping into me. In the US I cannot shoot someone for pushing me.

 Henry wrote:
but you can't tie them up and torture them, shoot them in the back or chase them down the street with a cricket bat.

Yeah, you can't do that here either

 Henry wrote:
Unfortunately I've closed down all the pages that I was using to research our law and I'm too tired to go looking again. Allowable disproportionate force is another strange concept and I would be interested at what point it becomes grossly disproportionate and how much that differs from US home defence laws.
By the looks of it we're allowed to do quite a lot as homeowners, but whilst the force used may be disproportionate, it must still remain reasonable.

It's an interesting topic but we might get a telling off for going too OT if we stay on home defence for long.

Many US States have some form of Castle Doctine in your own home/property. In most cases involving Caste Doctrine there is no duty to retreat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.

But now it's all good.

Wasn't that the Martin case? If I recall not only did he shoot someone in the back as he fled but he had also booby trapped his house, and told anyone who would listen that he planned on killing any intruders.