What would you do to a burgular in your home?

[ares]

about my reply. Sorry if it sounds mean, but my first thought would be about protecting my family. I don't really care about the stuff in my house, it's just stuff, but if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night, they are not there to have tea. I would rather end it right there, then to have them hurt my wife and child. My wife raped my son beaten or kidnapped, I'll take my chances. I will take responsibility for my actions afterwards, but my family will come first.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with Mac in his post #120.

I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that Fish laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too.

For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm. However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder. Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with Mac in his post #120.

I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that Fish laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too.

For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm. However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder. Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?

I'm not certain how the legal system works on your side of the pond but I wonder if there's anything along the lines of our doctrine of "Disparity of Force"(i.e. the deck is stacked such that whether or *not* any weaponry is in play the opposition still presents a deadly force threat(i.e. four of them, one of you/one of them the SIZE of four of you/intelligence that they have any form of MA/combat training/possession or implied possesion of a weapon/young and strong versus elderly, or male versus female and so on)

If something comparable exists there, your physical limitations would, I dearly hope, be taken into consideration.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm almost ashamed to say that, in my middle-aged state of encroaching right-wingism, I'm inclined to agree with Mac in his post #120.

I understand at an intellectual level the legal background that Fish laid out so well but there are certain realities that intrude under certain circumstances too.

For example, in my own personal case, I could not in all likelyhood 'subdue' an intruder as I only have one fully functional arm. However, I have a certain amount of skill in swordcraft and so could possibly stand a better than even chance of either dismembering (or worse) an intruder. Where would that leave me in the scales of justice when it comes to the application of reasonable force?

If you live in England, you're probably going to jail......if you live in Missouri you'll just need to pay someone to professionally clean your carpet.

We do not suffer intruders here.

 

[The_Fish]

If you live in England, you're probably going to jail......if you live in Missouri you'll just need to pay someone to professionally clean your carpet.

We do not suffer intruders here.

Incorrect, it would simply depend on how far the defendant took it. Having one functional arm would be taken into account and if you were in a situation were you felt threatened enough to use a sword and you attacked the intruder enough so as to neutralise the threat, you are fine.

That is what is meant by 'reasonable' in our law. You can do what you like upto and including murder provided you can justify to a jury that the force you applied was neccessary. Simply put, provided you do not carry on with the attack once the threat has been removed you are fine. It's with the obvious cases where you get the shaft. Example?

Intruder enters house. He is a big fellow, carrying himself confidently. He spots you, and begins to come towards you. You shoot him with a shotgun in the legs to incapacitate him, or if you felt his presence was enough of a threat (which anyone can say ) then kill him. That can be legally justified here.

Same scenario as above, except this time he spots you and runs off. You try and shoot him, then give chase and shoot at him. In this case, you could be arrested. Why? Because once he started running away from you, the threat disappears - there is no reason to chase and shoot, other than your own revenge instincts kicking in.

I understand your views of course. The only reason I don't agree fully with the "Any intruder can be dealt with by deadly force" law is because it is much more open for abuse and allowing people to get away with murder in cases where perhaps it's not justified. Each to their own views I suppose.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Incorrect, it would simply depend on how far the defendant took it. Having one functional arm would be taken into account and if you were in a situation were you felt threatened enough to use a sword and you attacked the intruder enough so as to neutralise the threat, you are fine.

That is what is meant by 'reasonable' in our law. You can do what you like upto and including murder provided you can justify to a jury that the force you applied was neccessary. Simply put, provided you do not carry on with the attack once the threat has been removed you are fine. It's with the obvious cases where you get the shaft. Example?

Intruder enters house. He is a big fellow, carrying himself confidently. He spots you, and begins to come towards you. You shoot him with a shotgun in the legs to incapacitate him, or if you felt his presence was enough of a threat (which anyone can say ) then kill him. That can be legally justified here.

Same scenario as above, except this time he spots you and runs off. You try and shoot him, then give chase and shoot at him. In this case, you could be arrested. Why? Because once he started running away from you, the threat disappears - there is no reason to chase and shoot, other than your own revenge instincts kicking in.

I understand your views of course. The only reason I don't agree fully with the "Any intruder can be dealt with by deadly force" law is because it is much more open for abuse and allowing people to get away with murder in cases where perhaps it's not justified. Each to their own views I suppose.

Our laws on self-defense are more clear......it won't even end UP in front a jury if it's within the statute.....because ENDING UP IN FRONT OF A JURY MEANS YOU'RE BEING TRIED FOR A CRIME! You are aware of that, right?

And just exactly HOW could it be 'abused'? Oh, you mean some poor unarmed burglar who means no harm might get shot? [rofl]

Bottom....my statement that he'd likely end up charged with murder for his actions, and have a good chance of going to prison in England is accurate....despite your attempt to justify the system, it's designed under the premise that CRIMINAL and CITIZEN deserve equal protection under the law.....that might work for you, but we'll keep our way.

 

[Sukerkin]

Steady, Mac, I don't necessarily disagree that I a 'castle doctrine' should be re-introduced over here but Fish has an important point when he shows that a system that appears tantermount to 'no fault' can easily be abused.

I'm sure that it has probably happened under the laws in your State and it may even be that those involved in the legal system knew the laws had been 'used' to commit a legal murder. I have no proof, mind you, just experience of human nature.

The balance comes in where you consider the most 'good' to lie. For me, I would much prefer there to be more flexible laws when it comes to defending yourself or your home. As it is sadly the case that the police are not there to protect us then the law should allow for cirumstances wherein we can defend ourselves without fear of the legal consequences.

Would this result in more dead petty criminals? I'm confident that it would but I believe that my (famously sensitive) conscience could happily live with that.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Steady, Mac, I don't necessarily disagree that I a 'castle doctrine' should be re-introduced over here but Fish has an important point when he shows that a system that appears tantermount to 'no fault' can easily be abused.

I'm sure that it has probably happened under the laws in your State and it may even be that those involved in the legal system knew the laws had been 'used' to commit a legal murder. I have no proof, mind you, just experience of human nature.

The balance comes in where you consider the most 'good' to lie. For me, I would much prefer there to be more flexible laws when it comes to defending yourself or your home. As it is sadly the case that the police are not there to protect us then the law should allow for cirumstances wherein we can defend ourselves without fear of the legal consequences.

Would this result in more dead petty criminals? I'm confident that it would but I believe that my (famously sensitive) conscience could happily live with that.

It is my belief that it is better that 20 criminals die without legal repercussions to the homeowner than 1 home owner defending himself and his property go to prison for doing just exactly that.

As for 'abuse' perhaps you or fish could outline a scenario that you would consider 'abuse' so that we might examine the issue.

 

[The_Fish]

Just before I continue, I'm not saying your law is 'bad' - on the contrary, it is a VERY effective law, both from a psychological and physical point of view. Psychologically, people being aware that they can and will be killed for intruding will put some off. Physically, the ability to defend yourself to the fullest without fear of legal reprecussions is great, and for 95% (just a random figure I'm pulling out here) of cases where it is legitimate self-defence, then your law is really good.

If your law is (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not exactly sure) that you may use deadly force against an intruder, what is to stop a person from simply luring a person into their house/abducting a person to their house/killing a salesman who entered their house/more variations on the above, and then simply claim they were protecting themselves from an unwanted visitor/person who turned on them in their own house? An intelligent person with a penchant for lieing would very easily be able to craft a story about how somebody entered their house when in actual fact he dragged them off the street, and get off scot-free, without even being investigated. That's the only problem I have with your law (and again, if I'm wrong here please correct me, I'm not fully aware) - it's not that you are allowed to treat an intruder with deadly force, it's the fact that there appears to be a very laid-back view on it and instead of there being a full investigation of the incident and interviewing of the defending killer, it's just a matter of "oh, you were defending your home? No problem dude, we'll get rid of this body for you". That's what makes it open to abuse.

Sorry for being a little long-winded there, I find it hard to get my point across in few words.

 

[ulysses_in_arabia]

If I find someone I know to be a burglar is in my house when my family is present I will most likely shoot them center of mass until I am sure they are no longer a threat. If the burglar is very very lucky and it is absolutely apparent to my sleepy eyes that he is unarmed and absolutely no threat at all, I would not not immediately shoot him...unless he was between me and where my kids or wife are located at the time. I have very little sympathy towards a criminal that invades a persons home.

Daniel

 

[ulysses_in_arabia]

In my state it is not legal to shoot someone in your home unless a reasonabe person would believe that you believed they posed a lethal threat to yourself and your family. What you say to a first responder after an incident like what we talking about is very important in determining how the investigation will be conducted. BTW, that is North Carolina.

 

[elder999]

Again, everyone should have a look at this post, and maybe the entire thread....a burglary while you are in your home is a deadly threat, and a deadly response is legally warranted. It's a statistical likelihood that you will be assaulted, raped or murdered if someone breaks into your home and you're there. As far as legalities go, it's simple enough in almost every state in the land-when the police arrive, tell them that you woke up, found someone in your home,were "in fear for your life" (and these are the exact words I instruct people to use if they are forced to respond decisively in an encounter: "I was in fear for my life.") , and responded to what you thought was iminent bodily harm with deadly intent, and that you have nothing else to say.

I mean, geez, it's 2 A.M., and there's a stranger in your house-let's have an interview and ask them why they're there-seriously, you can tell them to leave, and if they leave, great-wait for the cops to show up, with the shotgun by your side. If they don't leave, well, my rule is pretty simple-use the shotgun. Sorry if it seems like "blood and guts machoism" or something to that effect, but it's simple practicality.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just before I continue, I'm not saying your law is 'bad' - on the contrary, it is a VERY effective law, both from a psychological and physical point of view. Psychologically, people being aware that they can and will be killed for intruding will put some off. Physically, the ability to defend yourself to the fullest without fear of legal reprecussions is great, and for 95% (just a random figure I'm pulling out here) of cases where it is legitimate self-defence, then your law is really good.

If your law is (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not exactly sure) that you may use deadly force against an intruder, what is to stop a person from simply luring a person into their house/abducting a person to their house/killing a salesman who entered their house/more variations on the above, and then simply claim they were protecting themselves from an unwanted visitor/person who turned on them in their own house? An intelligent person with a penchant for lieing would very easily be able to craft a story about how somebody entered their house when in actual fact he dragged them off the street, and get off scot-free, without even being investigated. That's the only problem I have with your law (and again, if I'm wrong here please correct me, I'm not fully aware) - it's not that you are allowed to treat an intruder with deadly force, it's the fact that there appears to be a very laid-back view on it and instead of there being a full investigation of the incident and interviewing of the defending killer, it's just a matter of "oh, you were defending your home? No problem dude, we'll get rid of this body for you". That's what makes it open to abuse.

Sorry for being a little long-winded there, I find it hard to get my point across in few words.

If you're going to go to the trouble of setting something like that up.....even if there WAS no law, you could simply put a knife or gun in their hand and claim they were armed.

We police do investigate these sort of things, however.....the likelihood that you're going to successfully murder some guy you know who has been cheating with your wife by luring him to your house at 2am is pretty darned remote.....and i'm not aware of it happening.

But here's what will give you away

1) You know the guy
2) You either called him (phone/cell phone records), sent him a letter (again paper trail) emailed him, or picked him up (witnesses....etc).....it's not very practical.
3. Cops operate off a very simple principle.....motive and opportunity......if some guy you have a grudge against mysteriously dies, unarmed, in your living room....we tend to dig a little deeper.

Again, we can't make laws to fit every episode of CSI that deals with a crime who's commission rate is so low as to be on par with the fear of catching Ebola.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In my state it is not legal to shoot someone in your home unless a reasonabe person would believe that you believed they posed a lethal threat to yourself and your family. What you say to a first responder after an incident like what we talking about is very important in determining how the investigation will be conducted. BTW, that is North Carolina.

That's the way the law used to be in Missouri......but we decided that gives WAAAYYYYY too much latitude to prosecutors to prosecute a homeowner for political reasons......say the home owner was of one race and the intruder another, and the prosecutor starts getting pressured to pursue charges. We made it PRESUMED that you are in fear for your life if someone has unlawfully entered, remains or ATTEMPTS to enter your residence or vehicle while you are occupying them.

 

[The_Fish]

If you're going to go to the trouble of setting something like that up.....even if there WAS no law, you could simply put a knife or gun in their hand and claim they were armed.

Good point. I'll concede that.

We police do investigate these sort of things, however.....

I'll concede that too. The impression I got from your posts (wrongly, I should try not to draw assumptions too much ) is that it just sounded as though there was little in the way of investigation provided it seemed a legit case.

the likelihood that you're going to successfully murder some guy you know who has been cheating with your wife by luring him to your house at 2am is pretty darned remote.....and i'm not aware of it happening.

But here's what will give you away

1) You know the guy
2) You either called him (phone/cell phone records), sent him a letter (again paper trail) emailed him, or picked him up (witnesses....etc).....it's not very practical.
3. Cops operate off a very simple principle.....motive and opportunity......if some guy you have a grudge against mysteriously dies, unarmed, in your living room....we tend to dig a little deeper.

Again, we can't make laws to fit every episode of CSI that deals with a crime who's commission rate is so low as to be on par with the fear of catching Ebola.

Don't forget about serial killings or accidental killings, when people don't know the victim. These cases are in the minority, but my problem was that it seemed as though these minority could get away with murder more easily than they would under our law (now and again, there are a number of prolific, high-profile cases in the UK of this sort of nature, and I'm sure there are over in the states too) however you’ve already stated that a more thorough investigation takes place that I thought (which was no to little investigation). There are some very cold, intelligent, calculating people out there that would be able to commit a crime unknown to all but the most thorough investigations. Again, these people/cases are a minority - it's just my personal view that all bases should be covered.

Again, I completely understand your law, and think it is effective - I just personally cannot justify having a 'blanket' law that covers any intruder and allows the use of deadly force in all such scenarios - I think each case should be judged on it's own merit and a decision made as to whether the defendant used more than a reasonable amount of force as I don't believe in allowing deadly force unless absolutely neccessary.

What would be perfect, in my opinion? Your law of allowing deadly force, provided that any in encounter where somebody was killed by the defending party, there was a thorough investigation to determine that killing the intruder was completely legitimate in the name of defence. Does that happen? If so, I will concede my argument.

Curious though, how would you feel about our law if the penalty for burglars was MUCH higher than it is? That's where I feel the problem is - intruders getting let off with poor penalties (assuming they aren't killed by the defender ). In my opinion, you commit a crime then you're really going to pay for it dearly to make you think twice about doing it in the first place, and to deter people from breaking the law again. I am a firm believer in capital punshiment for particularly heinous crimes, for example.

 

[MJS]

This happened just a few days ago.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/15754248/detail.html


Will every home invasion result in someone getting killed? No. But, seeing that this is the 2nd one in CT that resulted in people getting killed, IMO, the odds of serious injury are pretty high. There have been others in this state, in which the residents were just tied up, maybe smacked around a bit, etc., but not killed.

 

[Fiendlover]

i cant believe there is actually a percentage of people who picked the last option on the poll. :erg:

 

[MJS]

And yet another one today!!
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8100191

 

[FearlessFreep]

I gotta say this now but every time I look at the front page of the forums with this thread as the latest...my mind says "Klondike Bar"

 

[MA-Caver]

Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah: