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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

 d-usa wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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

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

Why not leave Facebook stupidity on facebook though

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

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

A law which has been explained already.

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

Sounds like someone is SOFT ON CRIME

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

 Easy E wrote:

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

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

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

Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My view on this is very clear:

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

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

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

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

My view on this is very clear:

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

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

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

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

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

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Grey Templar wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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