What would you do to a burgular in your home?

[morph4me]

Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.

Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!

Good advice. We just had an incident locally where an off duty rookie was killed by police because he was armed and attempting to stop an assault and didn't respond to orders to drop his weapon. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803220350

 

[MA-Caver]

Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.

Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!

Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways.
Public service messages do need to go out however.

 

[jks9199]

Then it might be a good public service announcement to all those 20 million deaf people.....that when they see cops running around, it might be a good idea to put the gun down......because, though uniformed cops won't know you're deaf just by looking at you, you SHOULD know they're uniformed cops just by 'looking' at them.

Deaf doesn't mean stupid......and like I tell cops at the range about running around PLAIN CLOTHES with a gun....the BURDEN is on YOU to make sure, if you're packing a gun, to take steps to be aware of when the uniforms arrive on scene....because they know who they are and you know who they are......but they may have NO WAY of knowing who in the heck YOU ARE!

Good advice. We just had an incident locally where an off duty rookie was killed by police because he was armed and attempting to stop an assault and didn't respond to orders to drop his weapon. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803220350

The first rule of working in plainclothes -- and that includes detectives in coat & tie, and even sometimes detectives in tactical gear if there's any possibility of any question about their identity -- is YOU DO WHAT THE GUY IN UNIFORM SAYS. All to often, all too tragically, off-duty or undercover cops forget that rule because they forget that they're effectively civilians.

Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways.
Public service messages do need to go out however.

We have what I'll call a small enclave (for lack of a better word) of deaf families in my jurisdiction. I've worked domestics among them, taken complaints, and even given the traffic citations. I've arrested deaf people. But I'm never going to jeopardize my life questioning whether someone behaving aggressively toward me with a gun is able to hear me. I owe it to my family and friends to act to protect my life.

I'm not saying that deaf people shouldn't own guns. But -- if you're deaf, and you own a gun, and find yourself in a self defense situation where you end up holding a gun on someone -- YOU have to be extra aware around and behind you because the cops are not going to walk in front of the gun to get your attention.

 

[tellner]

Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin

You are civilians.
You aren't warriors.
You aren't soldiers.
If you want to be either, then head on down to the recruiting station and become An Army of One.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Good point Sarge. Yet still, deaf people rely on visual clues more than anything else. So it's gotta go both ways.
Public service messages do need to go out however.

Yes, but the problem is that you can't tell a deaf person by looking at them....but you can tell a uniformed officer by looking at him.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin

You are civilians.
You aren't warriors.
You aren't soldiers.
If you want to be either, then head on down to the recruiting station and become An Army of One.

Those distinctions are completely academic and moot when the flag flies.

 

[jks9199]

Those distinctions are completely academic and moot when the flag flies.

I'd pretty much decided to ignore it. But since someone else responded...

Perhaps we should move back to the earliest definition of "civilian", and limit the title to those who study the Roman civil law?

Within the context, and within accepted use, the distinction between "civilian" and "law enforcement" is an accepted use of the term. It was clear from context what I was referring to, and it's a lot easier than using a phrase like "non-law enforcement people." I suppose I could have used "lay person", but that could lead to other semantic arguments.

Functionally -- the use of "civilian" to distinguish between members of the general public and sworn law enforcement is accepted. What's the benefit in playing semantic games? I've never seen a cop say that they are a serving member of military service, unless they happened to be a reservist or an MP or otherwise an actual member of the military. Sadly, I have encountered military personel trying to claim to be cops...

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'd pretty much decided to ignore it. But since someone else responded...

Perhaps we should move back to the earliest definition of "civilian", and limit the title to those who study the Roman civil law?

Within the context, and within accepted use, the distinction between "civilian" and "law enforcement" is an accepted use of the term. It was clear from context what I was referring to, and it's a lot easier than using a phrase like "non-law enforcement people." I suppose I could have used "lay person", but that could lead to other semantic arguments.

Functionally -- the use of "civilian" to distinguish between members of the general public and sworn law enforcement is accepted. What's the benefit in playing semantic games? I've never seen a cop say that they are a serving member of military service, unless they happened to be a reservist or an MP or otherwise an actual member of the military. Sadly, I have encountered military personel trying to claim to be cops...

1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

http://www.answers.com/topic/civilian

ci·vil·ian (s

-v

l

y

n)
n. 1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

adj. Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian

civilian
One entry found.

civilian



Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
— civilian adjective http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

Clearly by no reasonable definition are law enforcement personnell 'civilians'.......though not 'military' it is clear that law enforcement agencies, with their governmental power and paramilitary structure are not 'civilians', but those charges with engaging criminal behavior and violence WITHIN a civilized society.


I think the confusion begins with a misunderstanding of the words "'civilian' law enforcement"....some read that to mean that 'law enforcement' officers are 'civilians'.....which is not the case....the term 'civilian law enforcement' denotes a government official who enforces laws against civilian....not, as was noted, a 'civilian' who enforces laws. A law enforcement officer is not simply a 'civilian'.....but rather is more accurately a civil servant with governmental powers greater than 'civilians' to enforce laws and maintain order.

 

[Carol]

Clearly by no reasonable definition are law enforcement personnell 'civilians'.......though not 'military' it is clear that law enforcement agencies, with their governmental power and paramilitary structure are not 'civilians', but those charges with engaging criminal behavior and violence WITHIN a civilized society.

Agreed. In addition, there are social responsibilities as well. When off-duty, one may have responsibilities that most "civilians" don't have, such as what to do if one is near a crime seen. As a LEO, one is also forbidden from sitting on a "Civilian Review Board" to discuss the actions of one's brothers or sisters, nor is one permitted to sit on a Selective Service local board. There may be other distinctions too...those are just the first that come to my mind.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Agreed. In addition, there are social responsibilities as well. When off-duty, one may have responsibilities that most "civilians" don't have, such as what to do if one is near a crime seen. As a LEO, one is also forbidden from sitting on a "Civilian Review Board" to discuss the actions of one's brothers or sisters, nor is one permitted to sit on a Selective Service local board. There may be other distinctions too...those are just the first that come to my mind.

Absolutely....being a police officer means you become removed from other citizens....with powers and responsibilities and duties not held by other 'civilians'.

 

[MJS]

One trait i've noticed about good dispatchers is that they always seem to be one step ahead of the officer working the road.....they have the ability to anticipate what he's going to need before you even have to ask. It's like a 'Radar O'Reilly' kind of 6th Sense where they always seem to know what you're going to ask for before you do....and when you get on the radio and make a request, most of the time they've already done it. That kind of dispatcher is a TREAT to work with!

They're also the dispatchers who know exactly which questions to ask the callers first, because they KNOW what the officer is going to ask them!

Yes, that certainly is a plus.

 

[chinto]

Just a correction for jks and anyone else who carries tin

You are civilians.
You aren't warriors.
You aren't soldiers.
If you want to be either, then head on down to the recruiting station and become An Army of One.

ok one more time for the people who do not listen or read in the United States of America.... the Supreme Court of th United States of America has RULED that the police and other LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S HAVE NO DUTY WHAT SO EVER TO DEFEND OR PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU ARE IN DANGER!!!!! this has been REAFFIRMED by the COURT more then 4 times in the last 100 years and is the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!!!!!!


so sure ... call the cops .. but you better take what ever action will protect you and your family while waiting, as if they decide to not show up or not hurry, its their right to do so, and you have zero right to complain!!! The law of the land is that defense of you and your family is your problem!! That is the LAW in the USA. So I would suggest you act accordingly!!!!!!!!!

 

[The_Fish]

As I’m assuming (please correct me if I’m wrong here) that people from England are amongst a minority here, I’ll quote a few snippets of our self-defence laws that apply to this scenario.

The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to:

1. defend himself from attack
2. prevent an attack on another person
3. defend his property

Statute:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

.... where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ....

Where the accused believes that he is under attack and acts with reasonable force in self defence to repel the attack, and it turns out that, in fact, he was mistaken and that he was not under attack after all, he will still be entitled to rely upon the defence of self defence, as the court considers the defence from the accused's own viewpoint.

The protectors also have a duty of care to inform any intruders of anything that may harm them, otherwise the intruder can sue the protector! See as follows:

The circumstances in which an occupier of property may be liable to a negligence claim by a person who has been injured while trespassing on their property are governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which defines in statute the duty of care owed by an occupier. The Act places a duty on occupiers to prevent injury to trespassers by ordinary hazards which may be found on the premises or by hazards that have been deliberately placed there by the occupier as a means of protecting the premises against trespassers.

The 1984 Act states that the occupier owes a duty only if:

(a) he is aware or has reasonable grounds to know of the danger;

(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser may come into the vicinity of the danger; and

(c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.


The duty can be discharged by taking reasonable steps to give warning of the danger or to discourage people from incurring the risk, and no duty is owed where the risk is willingly accepted by the trespasser.

There are a lot of complaints about English self-defence laws (and I would say in many other countries too) but I think they are VERY reasonable. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defuse a situation, but to not exact ‘revenge’, ‘punishment’ or go above what is deemed reasonable at the time. Once a reasonable level of force is used in bringing down an attacker (upto and including death, and usage of weapons is allowed if again reasonable and provided the weapons used stick to other laws – using a gun to kill an attacker where killing was necessary won’t net you a murder charge, but try explaining away why you have a gun in the first place...) and the threat no longer exists, any more force is then conducting an assault of your own – it’s unnecessary force. It’s simple and common sense. A victim does not also have to retreat even if that would be the ‘safest’ course of action – he is permitted to defend as per the rules above. That’s not to say I disagree with people going above reasonable force in a defence situation – I do not have a problem with that, simply I would not do it myself knowingly because I have a real fear of arrest & imprisonment.

I think an earlier post I read sums up my thoughts perfectly. If I heard a noise in my house, unlike the many people who said they would call police or arm themselves and prepare, I would go downstairs and investigate, but armed with whatever I could find at hand and my family would likely do the same. Why? I live at home with my parents and my younger sister. My sister and I both like to go out around town and have a couple drinks on different nights, coming in early hours of the morning. It’s a regular occurrence. I often hear (what I assume to be) my sister coming in from a night out, making little sound in a bid not to wake us. If I called the police every time I heard someone downstairs then I would be wasting valuable police time. Same goes for when I come in and my family are asleep.

My first instinct, then, would be to investigate if I detected something a little off. Most times I know it’s my sister because of the little tell-tale sounds that make it clear, but sometimes it might not be. If I went downstairs with my bat and found myself looking straight at a burglar, I would challenge him first. Because of the layout of my small house, the bottom of the stairs is right next to two doors – the front house door, and the one leading into the main lower floor. The only way he is going to be able to run away is come through me, and if he ran at me, regardless of whether his intention was to get away or to attack me, I must treat it as the latter. I’d call out loud to wake up my family, and try and take him down with a blow to the legs or the torso. I’d want to make sure I nailed that ******* right away and hold him for the police because I hate people getting away with these sorts of crimes, and I wouldn’t risk trying to attack him when I am no longer at risk (him running away).

Two recent cases in England that are prime examples are the following:

Case 1 – a man is expecting an intruder (because of threats) to come for him. An intruder enters his house. He locks himself in a room with his shotgun. Intruder hears the man upstairs, runs upstairs and bursts through the door – man shoots intruder. Man is acquitted of murder because of the circumstances.

Case 2 – a man breaks into the house of a farmer and his family. Farmer comes downstairs with his shotgun, looking to protect himself and his family. Intruder runs, farmer gives chase and shoots intruder in the back. Farmer is NOT acquitted of murder because the intruder was running away.

Anyway, sorry for going on a bit much.

Nick

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I don't have a wife or kids to consider. What I do if someone breaks into my house is hop out my window, go next door and call the police, grab a weapon and stakeout my house from the outside. If he leaves before the police arrive I tail the perp. If he has a car I get the license number. In this day and age with cell phones I'll just grab my phone before I hop out the window. I'm a light sleeper and rather paranoid so it's likely I'll hear someone coming in (especially sneaky noises like creaking of the floor or subtle brushing of clothing against a wall). I sleep next to my "blah bat" just in case. I'll try to let the authorities handle it, that's why they're there. I've only had my place broken into twice while I was at home and the second time the person fled as soon as they saw someone was there. The first time my strategy worked perfectly and the invader was arrested before he left. What's of paramount importance is to remove myself from danger.

 

[ares]

If someone is breaking into my home, I don't care if it was my own brother, Not your house, not your stuff, I don't care, you die.

 

[shesulsa]

If someone is breaking into my home, I don't care if it was my own brother, Not your house, not your stuff, I don't care, you die.

O rly?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Two recent cases in England that are prime examples are the following:

Case 1 – a man is expecting an intruder (because of threats) to come for him. An intruder enters his house. He locks himself in a room with his shotgun. Intruder hears the man upstairs, runs upstairs and bursts through the door – man shoots intruder. Man is acquitted of murder because of the circumstances.

Case 2 – a man breaks into the house of a farmer and his family. Farmer comes downstairs with his shotgun, looking to protect himself and his family. Intruder runs, farmer gives chase and shoots intruder in the back. Farmer is NOT acquitted of murder because the intruder was running away.

Anyway, sorry for going on a bit much.

Nick

Well, that's great that guy 1 got acquitted......in Missouri he'd never have been CHARGED in the first place....neither of them would have been. Our law is FAR more 'reasonable' than England's....in the sense it's designed to protect law abiding citizens NOT CRIMINALS!

Our law is very simple.....anyone who attempts to enter, enters or remains in YOUR residence UNLAWFULLY......is PRESUMED to be a lethal threat, justifying the use of any force INCLUDING lethal force! Further, lawful use of force used in the above scenario renders the property owner......get this one.....IMMUNE TO CIVIL LIABILITY! That's right, if some miscreant or his survivors SUE one of us for shooting them while attempting to carry out our television....the court is REQUIRED to dismiss the case.....AND the PLAINTIFF (the miscreant or his survivor bring the suit) is REQUIRED to pay ALL fees involved in the case, INCLUDING the property owners attorney's fees AND any expenses the property owner incurs while responding to the case.

England's law sounds like it's designed to 'make sure all the subjects play nicey nice and nobody gets hurty hurt.'........our law is designed to 'DISCOURAGE' burglary.

 

[sgtmac_46]

ok one more time for the people who do not listen or read in the United States of America.... the Supreme Court of th United States of America has RULED that the police and other LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S HAVE NO DUTY WHAT SO EVER TO DEFEND OR PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU ARE IN DANGER!!!!! this has been REAFFIRMED by the COURT more then 4 times in the last 100 years and is the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely correct! The police have a GENERAL duty that DOES NOT extend as a specific duty to any one person.

so sure ... call the cops .. but you better take what ever action will protect you and your family while waiting, as if they decide to not show up or not hurry, its their right to do so, and you have zero right to complain!!! The law of the land is that defense of you and your family is your problem!! That is the LAW in the USA. So I would suggest you act accordingly!!!!!!!!!

I am a cop......but i'm a bit perplexed by the mentality that says it's STUPID to risk your OWN life for your property....but it's smart to call the cops to risk THEIR life for your property......why, because they getting paid $40k a year to do it? WTF?!

I call the police as backup......but I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere where the Sheriff's department response AT BEST was 30 minutes plus......and at 2am was about 2 HOURS! You saw someone creeping around, you grabbed the ranch rifle and the shotgun and some flashlights and you all went out to check it out!


Now that's not a SUGGESTION that everyone should be on their own.....if you need the police, call them......but I don't consider it 'stupid' to handle the situation yourself....it IS your property.......the choice is yours.

 

[The_Fish]

Well, that's great that guy 1 got acquitted......in Missouri he'd never have been CHARGED in the first place....neither of them would have been. Our law is FAR more 'reasonable' than England's....in the sense it's designed to protect law abiding citizens NOT CRIMINALS!

Our law is very simple.....anyone who attempts to enter, enters or remains in YOUR residence UNLAWFULLY......is PRESUMED to be a lethal threat, justifying the use of any force INCLUDING lethal force! Further, lawful use of force used in the above scenario renders the property owner......get this one.....IMMUNE TO CIVIL LIABILITY! That's right, if some miscreant or his survivors SUE one of us for shooting them while attempting to carry out our television....the court is REQUIRED to dismiss the case.....AND the PLAINTIFF (the miscreant or his survivor bring the suit) is REQUIRED to pay ALL fees involved in the case, INCLUDING the property owners attorney's fees AND any expenses the property owner incurs while responding to the case.

England's law sounds like it's designed to 'make sure all the subjects play nicey nice and nobody gets hurty hurt.'........our law is designed to 'DISCOURAGE' burglary.

Putting my own personal opinion aside for the time being, our law exists to try and give people enough room to apply self-defence to keep themselves safe. Any more than that is a person taking revenge, applying punishment or just plain assaulting an attacker - in a sense, two wrongs do not make a right. Our law discourages burglary because we are allowed to do what is necessary to ensure ourselves and our possessions remain safe - simply put though, revenge and punishment are a job for the police, not for us to apply 'vigilante style'.

If a person breaks into my house and I beat him down to the ground and I have two clear options before me, one being to incapacitate and neutralise the threat and the other to just outright kill him, why kill him when incapacitating does the same job? It makes murder not justifiable in this instance - why kill the intruder when we can keep ourself equally as safe restraining/incapacitating him?

Remember why the law exists in the first place. It is there to ensure people are safe, and as such people are allowed to do what is reasonable to maintain there safety, UPTO AND INCLUDING killing the intruder if that is what is seen as reasonable at the time. If killing the intruder isn't necessary and is above what is seen as rational and a reasonable amount of force at the time, then to kill is to subject the intruder to your own malice.

Morally, you're exactly right. In my opinion, law aside, if a person breaks into my house they forfeit the right to protection. They are endangering me and I would feel no symapthy at going completely overkill and outright killing them.

Legally, this is a different case. Laws exist for the protection of ALL citizens, and just because they are breaking one law doesn't mean you can break another law when it is NOT NECESSARY to do so.

Our self-defence laws are reasonable in the sense that any victim of an intrusion or assault can do whatever they see reasonable in doing to protect themselves and fend off the assault - which in reality, is what matters - taking care of yourself. Going overboard out of anger, revenge, or for any other reason above simply what you see reasonable is then doing what is NOT needed - if your intruder is already unconscious before you, you're safe for the time being - stomping on his head multiple times is not required and as such an act of your own malice. See where I'm coming from?

I'm a hypocrite in that I believe the self-defence law here is perfect in a legal, moral sense - allowing us to treat any intruder with deadly force without consequence is a little more anarchic than I would like, and the chance to abuse that is definitely there - but (and here comes the hypocritical part) I am very morally unbound in myself and I feel I don't care what happens to an intruder whether I go overkill or not, I'm just scared of the legal consequences, not the moral ones.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Putting my own personal opinion aside for the time being, our law exists to try and give people enough room to apply self-defence to keep themselves safe. Any more than that is a person taking revenge, applying punishment or just plain assaulting an attacker - in a sense, two wrongs do not make a right. Our law discourages burglary because we are allowed to do what is necessary to ensure ourselves and our possessions remain safe - simply put though, revenge and punishment are a job for the police, not for us to apply 'vigilante style'.

If a person breaks into my house and I beat him down to the ground and I have two clear options before me, one being to incapacitate and neutralise the threat and the other to just outright kill him, why kill him when incapacitating does the same job? It makes murder not justifiable in this instance - why kill the intruder when we can keep ourself equally as safe restraining/incapacitating him?

Remember why the law exists in the first place. It is there to ensure people are safe, and as such people are allowed to do what is reasonable to maintain there safety, UPTO AND INCLUDING killing the intruder if that is what is seen as reasonable at the time. If killing the intruder isn't necessary and is above what is seen as rational and a reasonable amount of force at the time, then to kill is to subject the intruder to your own malice.

Morally, you're exactly right. In my opinion, law aside, if a person breaks into my house they forfeit the right to protection. They are endangering me and I would feel no symapthy at going completely overkill and outright killing them.

Legally, this is a different case. Laws exist for the protection of ALL citizens, and just because they are breaking one law doesn't mean you can break another law when it is NOT NECESSARY to do so.

Our self-defence laws are reasonable in the sense that any victim of an intrusion or assault can do whatever they see reasonable in doing to protect themselves and fend off the assault - which in reality, is what matters - taking care of yourself. Going overboard out of anger, revenge, or for any other reason above simply what you see reasonable is then doing what is NOT needed - if your intruder is already unconscious before you, you're safe for the time being - stomping on his head multiple times is not required and as such an act of your own malice. See where I'm coming from?

I'm a hypocrite in that I believe the self-defence law here is perfect in a legal, moral sense - allowing us to treat any intruder with deadly force without consequence is a little more anarchic than I would like, and the chance to abuse that is definitely there - but (and here comes the hypocritical part) I am very morally unbound in myself and I feel I don't care what happens to an intruder whether I go overkill or not, I'm just scared of the legal consequences, not the moral ones.

If you're scared of legal consequences, then it should make you happy that we have eliminated legal consequences to defending ourselves in our own homes......it shouldn't surprise that burglary rates, especially of occupied dwellings, have FALLEN dramatically where these laws have been passed.

Why kill the intruder? Because burglars are habitual recidivists.....a dead burglar means not meeting him again in the future when he serves his 3 months in jail! It's like a drop of chlorine in the gene pool!


Some folks read the above and think 'Oh, the poor burglar....how can you feel that way?'....I don't see it that way at all! If you stick your HAND in a RATTLESNAKE HOLE and get BITTEN.....who's fault is it? Some guy visits my house to victimize me and gets his HEAD blown off, who's fault is it? It's more of a natural consquence than anything else....the order of the universe.