View Full Version : Defending your home, how far would you go?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 04:54 PM
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?
For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).
I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?
So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?
You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.
I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.
I just saw an article about a guy who had his store robbed. He shot the robber and went to jail becasue he used excessive force.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).
That logic will land you in jail.
Mech_Engineer
Jun16-09, 05:47 PM
I would grab my gun, point it straight at the intruder from a tactically effective distance and inform them they've made a grave error. If they run off, fine; if they freeze and are held at gunpoint until the police arrive I'm ok with that; if they come at me- big mistake. I suspect my wife would show less restraint... :surprised
Moonbear
Jun16-09, 05:53 PM
I don't know. I'd be half tempted to point out things to them..."Hey, I really want a new TV, please take that one so I can get the insurance for replacing it." :biggrin: They'd probably leave quickly once realizing there's nothing valuable in my house.
What would I really do? Probably not entirely sure unless it actually happens, but if I knew there was an intruder, but hadn't yet been spotted by them, I'd probably just grab the phone and head outside or to a neighbor's house to call the police...if I really had my wits about me (not sure that would be true in the situation) and had the tools nearby without having to go back in the house, I'd probably do something like puncture the tires or cut a hose on the getaway vehicle so they wouldn't be able to get far before being stopped by police if they tried to exit before the cops got here.
If I had already come face to face with the intruders, there would probably be a lot of expletive-laden shouting ordering them to get out and telling them what slime they are.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 05:57 PM
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?
For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).
I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?
So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?
While a long shot, how about a wandering Alzheimer's who thinks he entered his own home. At least take a moment to analyze the circumstances before jumping.
But I do have some agreement here. Where a criminal has entered your home, if the whole attitude that a community passes around is to submit, I expect an increase in crime and more daring assaults. I suppose the community must find some balance to this.
hypatia
Jun16-09, 06:04 PM
Michigan laws have changed over the past few years. There is no longer excessive force laws when it comes to home invasion. If a person breaks into your home and threatens you with even his bare hands, you now have the right to defend your family and your home, by any means.
I would do just that, defend myself by any way possible.
Pengwuino
Jun16-09, 06:07 PM
For me, I'd do the same as your typical police officer would do, point the gun and go from there. If he runs, eh... I probably wouldn't run after him because I don't run fast, but I would if I felt I could catch him. If he has a gun and doesn't drop it or reaches for it, I'm not taking any chances.
I think everyone should just have a shotgun and a less-then-lethal (or those intentionally semi-dud shells) first shell. Run to where the person is nearby and just "cock" it once in earshot of the person and they'll probably run immediately. It is an amazingly intimidating sound. If they're just trying to rob you, there's probably a very small chance they want a shootout and be hunted as a murderer. If they're just someone looking for trouble or someone who literally is out to kill you, then at least you're prepared.
I don't get why people assume your either the type of person who cowers while someone kills your family or you're the type of person to blow 30 holes into your house trying to kill a little kid that broke your window.
I'd slip out the window and call the police from my cell phone. I couldn't care less about defending my home.
If I still had kids or a wife at home, it might be a different story.
Either way, the best protection is to live in a low crime neighborhood. In fact, that's usually a higher priority than owning a car worth stealing or filling up my house with stuff worth stealing.
That tends to limit what you can do to protect your home. You don't need to live in a very expensive neighborhood to get to the point that a gun presents more risk than it does protection. With kids at home, making a lot of noise with a baseball bat would hopefully be enough to scare off intruders.
While a long shot, how about a wandering Alzheimer's who thinks he entered his own home. At least take a moment to analyze the circumstances before jumping.
Not that big of a long shot if you expand that to include drunk neighbors and landlords that decide to repair your bathroom plumbing in the middle of the night while you're sleeping. I've known two people that wandered into the wrong unit at least slightly inebriated (it was a six-plex and every other unit looked exactly the same). I've only had one landlord that decided to do middle of the night repairs (Since we didn't answer the door, he figured we must be gone?! In the middle of a weeknight?! And then he wondered why we changed the locks and didn't give him a key?!).
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:18 PM
You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.
I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.
I just saw an article about a guy who had his store robbed. He shot the robber and went to jail becasue he used excessive force.
That logic will land you in jail.
That quote about rights is my point of view on things, please also note I also said: "I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder."
I would only respond with violence if that person went for me. If they run then fine. If they freeze, then fine. (I don't own a gun by the way, although there is a nice piece of steel outside my room). I did not say I would mercilesly beat them to a pulp.
Also, if the thief is a knife weilding maniac, intent on robbing you one way or another or even killing your family, what then? I know most intruders would flee at getting caught but there are exceptions.
A wandering alzheimers patient? Doing a good job getting through a locked door. I would have to put it down to circumstances, if they are grasping my 40" LCD TV, I'm probably right in my assumption they are a thief.
I wouldn't chase them, just let them go. I agree pengwuino, why everyone assumes you're either a coward or a gun touting maniac is beyond me.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 06:27 PM
A wandering alzheimers patient? Doing a good job getting through a locked door. I would have to put it down to circumstances, if they are grasping my 40" LCD TV, I'm probably right in my assumption they are a thief.
Well, sure. Maybe not necessarily in the middle of the night, but I know a lot of people that don't lock their doors until just before they good to sleep. Besides, BobG's example is further reason not to dive right into anything too hastily.
Gokul43201
Jun16-09, 06:31 PM
You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.
I hear way too many people say "oh, I'd get my shot gun and take care of them". I have bad news for that argument, they will throw your a$$ in jail if they think you used excessive force. In other words, if the guy has his hands in the air and you blast him away anyways, YOU go to jail.Not true in all states.
In Florida, you'd probably be safe from any jail time for shooting most anyone in your house in the middle of the night. In Texas, you can shoot someone breaking into your neighbor's property - shoot him in the back, no less - and you probably won't even be indicted; more likely, you'll become a local hero (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story).
0xDEADBEEF
Jun16-09, 06:32 PM
[...] I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? [...] What does your countries law let you do?
Boy, you'll love German law:
StGB
Section 32
Self-defence
(1) A person who commits an act in self-defence does not act unlawfully.
(2) Self-defence means any defensive action that is necessary to avert an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another.
Section 33
Excessive self-defence
A person who exceeds the limits of self-defence out of confusion, fear or terror shall not be held criminally liable.
And the best part is that an unlawful attack may be directed against life, body, freedom, honor or property (Rechtsgüter). Schimpfliche Flucht (disreputable flight) does not ever need to be considered as the righteous needs not yield to injustice.
The catch with killing the intruder is, that you have to prove that you did not have another way to make him leave your house.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:34 PM
When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?
If my landlord, in the middle of the night, turns and comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd put him on the floor. If an alzheimers patient, in the middle of the day, comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd try to use a reasonable response to defend my self but if they did prove dangerous I would have no problem with dropping them. A landlord can't just enter your home (well in my house they have to give at least 24 hours notice as per the contract), so they would be intruding.
Obviously, killing an intruder, at least for me is an extreme last resort only to be used if they trully are a threat to myself/families life.
I DO NOT agree with shooting a person in the back, lying in wait for an intruder etc. They must initiate hostility to me, that would be when I judge the threat level. A person running away is no longer a threat.
Not true in all states.
In Florida, you'd probably be safe from any jail time for shooting most anyone in your house in the middle of the night. In Texas, you can shoot someone breaking into your neighbor's property - shoot him in the back, no less - and you probably won't even be indicted; more likely, you'll become a local hero (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story).
Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:46 PM
Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.
The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.
There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.
There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
The same happens in the US for pools. If someone goes onto your property and drowns in your pool it's somehow your fault.
The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.
There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement. Officer, stop beating me. I was only going 10 over the speed limit! <club to the face>
Pengwuino
Jun16-09, 06:53 PM
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
Speaking of backassward laws, in California (i think it's a state law), if you commit a crime with someone (as in accomplice) and that someone gets killed, you can be charged with murder. Now I'm the last guy to ever defend criminals but there's something really wrong with that law and legal way of thinking. Has anyone heard of this and know how the hell it came about?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:54 PM
Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement.
Why? They come into my house, under their own free will. No one forces them. Why should they be offered protection by the law?
Why? They come into my house, under their own free will. No one forces them. Why should they be offered protection by the law?
Because your not a judge.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 06:56 PM
When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?
At what point did I say that you would attack them? Maybe I missed something here?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:57 PM
Um, no. You might want to rethink that statement. Officer, stop beating me. I was only going 10 over the speed limit! <club to the face>
The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 06:59 PM
Because your not a judge.
I don't understand that statement?
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 07:00 PM
The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.
I think the whole purpose of "innocent until proven guilty" is preferred for suspects. Time and again police do make mistakes. Suspects must have protected rights.
JasonRox
Jun16-09, 07:01 PM
The driver chose to speed, if said person hits a child and kills them stone dead, why should the law protect them. They chose to speed. Yes, you have to take a bit of reason when looking at this 'forfiet', but by speeding they committed a crime.
I'm just sitting here thankful that jarednjames is not working in the justice system.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 07:01 PM
At what point did I say that you would attack them? Maybe I missed something here?
I meant it as a general 'implication' with regards to another comment made. People seem to assume you will either hide or you will attack an intruder. And as such, making a comment like "what about an alzheimers patient" isn't appropriate to my given response. I said I would confront an intruder, and that I think an intruder should forfiet their rights. I did not say I would attack them, but confront them. People seem to only be looking at the 'forfiet of rights' part of my argument.
0xDEADBEEF
Jun16-09, 07:01 PM
[...]
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
yeah kill them fare dodgers!
Moonbear
Jun16-09, 07:02 PM
Speaking of backassward laws, in California (i think it's a state law), if you commit a crime with someone (as in accomplice) and that someone gets killed, you can be charged with murder. Now I'm the last guy to ever defend criminals but there's something really wrong with that law and legal way of thinking. Has anyone heard of this and know how the hell it came about?
Is there more detail to it than that? It might make a little sense if the accomplice had been coerced to participate by the other criminal, or if the charge were more like accessory to murder than actual murder, or if the commission of the crime were directly the cause of death (I dunno, like climbing up telephone poles and getting electrocuted while trying to shimmy down the wires into the house or something stupid like that), or if you steal a car and crash and the passenger who is your accomplice dies. But if it's something like breaking into a house as equal partners in the crime and the homeowner fatally shoots one but not the other, I don't see how that translates into a murder charge for the other criminal.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 07:04 PM
I'm just sitting here thankful that jarednjames is not working in the justice system.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty by all means, but if a person is walking out of my house with my 40" tv I'd say thats a pretty good sign of guilt.
If a person is run over by me, ok, they have to prove I was speeding. But once proven, why should the law still protect me.
The person taking a stroll with my tv, is still under the laws protection.
Gokul43201
Jun16-09, 07:05 PM
Jeezus, what an idiot. He shot someone for stealing a TV. He thinks he's in the wild west.But he didn't even have to face trial for it. So maybe he knew exactly what he was getting into, and he got away with it. And there are now websites honoring him for this.
The law is often what 12 of your neighbors think it ought to be.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 07:05 PM
I meant it as a general 'implication' with regards to another comment made. People seem to assume you will either hide or you will attack an intruder. And as such, making a comment like "what about an alzheimers patient" isn't appropriate to my given response. I said I would confront an intruder, and that I think an intruder should forfiet their rights. I did not say I would attack them, but confront them. People seem to only be looking at the 'forfiet of rights' part of my argument.
Which I agree with. But for the sake of others who read into your reply and see something else, I wanted to tone down possible violent responses.
With that in mind, I'm going out to Lowes to get some razor wire for the swimming pool. :cool:
I have already confronted the situation in the OP. My wife woke me very early morning and told me she heard someone downstairs. I grabbed my Python, padded silently down the stairs and swing around the divider to put the jerk's head in my sights. He claimed that he had car trouble and had to come in and use the phone. I told him if very rude terms to get out of my house and I noticed that when he hit the pavement at the end of the drive, his "broken" car was able to squeal the tires. The only reason that I didn't shoot him is that he is an estranged relative of my wife, so I knew him a bit. He has done at least one other night-time home invasion on a more distant relative and burglarized the place while they slept. Had he not run for the door when I gave him his "three steps" he might have been DOA. It was hard to tell in the very dim light if he was armed or not so any reaching for pockets or movement in my direction would have earned him a .357 slug.
When you live over 20 minutes from the nearest State Police barracks and you have no police in your town, calling 911 isn't much of an option, not that we actually had 911 at that time, anyway.
Pengwuino
Jun16-09, 07:07 PM
Is there more detail to it than that? It might make a little sense if the accomplice had been coerced to participate by the other criminal, or if the charge were more like accessory to murder than actual murder, or if the commission of the crime were directly the cause of death (I dunno, like climbing up telephone poles and getting electrocuted while trying to shimmy down the wires into the house or something stupid like that), or if you steal a car and crash and the passenger who is your accomplice dies. But if it's something like breaking into a house as equal partners in the crime and the homeowner fatally shoots one but not the other, I don't see how that translates into a murder charge for the other criminal.
Nope, nothing to do with coercion and it is murder murder from what I remember. Then again MAYBE it was accessory... wish I could remember this better. From what I remember, it was if they died for any reason during the actual committing of the crime, be it from actually doing the crime to the victim retaliating to even being killed by the police during it. It was something fairly retarded.
Then again, see disclaimer below.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 07:10 PM
When you live over 20 minutes from the nearest State Police barracks and you have no police in your town, calling 911 isn't much of an option, not that we actually had 911 at that time, anyway.
That's a fair point, although my nearest police station is only 1.5 miles away, when I call the police I have to wait for a response car from over 8 miles away. Now, my past experience with calling the police has shown that unless you actually say "someone is hurt/dead" they respond somewhere within the region of 5 hours as it is not deemed urgent.
Gokul43201
Jun16-09, 07:11 PM
Yes, innocent until proven guilty by all means, but if a person is walking out of my house with my 40" tv I'd say thats a pretty good sign of guilt.It may be a pretty good sign, a pretty darn good sign or even an awfully darn good sign, but the person walking out your house with the TV is not "proven guilty" - not until s/he has been found guilty by a court of law. And then, it is the court that decides what the appropriate punishment is, if it finds the person guilty. More likely than not, for stealing a TV, the sentence will not be execution by shotgun aimed at the back.
Moonbear
Jun16-09, 07:24 PM
More likely than not, for stealing a TV, the sentence will not be execution by shotgun aimed at the back.
What? You don't think a TV is more valuable than a human life? Pshaw!
Really, it's STUFF people. That's why you pay for insurance. Might as well get to use it and buy a new TV. Stuff is replaceable. If all they're doing is taking stuff, I think it's more important to get everyone else out of harm's way. Get the plate number off the car and if they take off before the cops arrive, they'll have something to start looking.
Maybe if I had kids, and the intruder was armed and between me and my kids (i.e., it wasn't possible to just usher the kids out of harm's way), I'd use more drastic measures to protect the kids, but if it's just me, or if no family members are in immediate danger, then the priority would be getting outside to safety rather than risking my own life to confront some idiot who wants my 20 year old TV...he'd probably injure himself trying to run with it.
The cat is on her own. She has teeth and claws and knows how to use them if she needs them.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 07:29 PM
And because of these people, certain areas have higher insurance rates. It just seems to me that all the 'get outside' arguments are accomodating the intruder. Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?
I don't know many houses where it would be easy to get outside (with your whole family) without alerting an intruder, and causing them to bolt/attack whatever. But if their entry point is past you and your family you have put them at risk by trying to evacuate them. If you go on your own (my scenario) and you startled them, the only person in the way of them would be you. Of course this assumes you win a fight if they start one.
And because of these people, certain areas have higher insurance rates. It just seems to me that all the 'get outside' arguments are accomodating the intruder. Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?
I don't know many houses where it would be easy to get outside (with your whole family) without alerting an intruder, and causing them to bolt/attack whatever. But if their entry point is past you and your family you have put them at risk by trying to evacuate them. If you go on your own (my scenario) and you startled them, the only person in the way of them would be you. Of course this assumes you win a fight if they start one.
Tell ya what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 07:39 PM
Tell ya what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".
Eh, telling him to try that argument in court- isn't that a hypothetical?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 07:39 PM
Tell ya what, try that argument in court and hope you don't get thrown in the slammer. This isn't a movie, life doesn't work that way. I'll give you the Rumsfeld answer here: "I don't do hypotheticals".
Well based on the examples given here, the florida case and the german laws on self defense, that argument would work everywhere except the UK. So yes, I think I would take my chances (if and when I emmigrate).
Eh, telling him to try that argument in court- isn't that a hypothetical?
No, that's not hypothetical. I didn't make up a scenario. I simply said "try using that argument in court and see what happens".
Well based on the examples given here, the florida case and the german laws on self defense, that argument would work everywhere except the UK. So yes, I think I would take my chances (if and when I emmigrate).
I wasn't aware Florida and German laws applied to *everywhere*.
Moonbear
Jun16-09, 08:11 PM
Plus, if that person is there not to rob you but for something far worse then what?
Then even more important to get out and away as fast as possible rather than attempting to confront the intruder. This is hardly accommodating the intruder, it's called self-preservation. If they are after more than my stuff and plan to harm me, why on Earth would I want to stay inside and continue to be a target? I'm in a much better position to defend myself when NOT cornered like a rat in my own house.
If they are there to kill you and not just rob you, what exactly do you think they're going to do while you're pointing your gun at them and telling them to leave? See, they aren't hesitating and waiting to assess the situation like you are, they're just going to shoot. And then after they're done shooting you, they are free to go after the rest of your family, since you didn't bother to get them out of the house and out of harm's way before pulling the John Wayne act.
And if you don't have a way out of your house that would avoid an intruder, what would you do if it was a fire rather than intruder? I suggest that before you worry about blowing the brains out of an intruder, you think about a more common hazard to your home and family and make sure you have fire escape routes other than the front door. Do you have bedroom windows close enough to the ground to jump out? If not, get a rope ladder or something similar to use as a fire escape. Make sure your kids know how to use it.
Nope, nothing to do with coercion and it is murder murder from what I remember. Then again MAYBE it was accessory... wish I could remember this better. From what I remember, it was if they died for any reason during the actual committing of the crime, be it from actually doing the crime to the victim retaliating to even being killed by the police during it. It was something fairly retarded.
Then again, see disclaimer below.
You have it right it is the same in Arizona. If anyone dies during the commission of a felony any and all participants in the crime are charged with murder one. And the law states, anyone. even one of the perpetrators. If the victim should drop dead from a heart attack it works the same way.
We have a lot of drive by shootings here. If the bad guys are caught everyone in the vehicle is charged with murder one.
Odd thing is the county attorneys are having a hard time getting convictions because murder one can mean the death penalty. They have started allowing plea bargains for everyone but the one who pulled the trigger. Most plead to one count of manslaughter. If they are lucky enough to have a good attorney the charged will be reduced to reckless homicide or negligent homicide.
My wife was a juror on one of these cases. Evidence showed that the person was not present when the shooting occurred (he had an alibi his wife claimed that he was with her) and he had only helped bury the body.
After sitting through several days of looking at gory bloody photos and a visit to the crime scene where the man had been shot and the body was buried my wife was a nervous wreck. The guy was only found guilty of stealing the murdered man's money. ??
The judge only gave the jury two options. Murder one or theft of the money. All of the jurors were angry because they wanted to find the guy guilty of accessory to murder.
drankin
Jun16-09, 08:32 PM
As someone posted, it depends on your state. If the laws are such that you cannot shoot to kill, then it's depends on your prosecuting attorney. Every cop I've spoken with are on the side of the homeowner.
It gets tricky in my state. You can shoot to kill if they are within your home. If they are in the doorway, you want to drag the body inside. Throw a kitchen knife in their hand if they don't have an obvious weapon.
But, as far as I'm concerned, entering a persons home uninvited and you're gambling with your life. Even if you have alzheimers or simply mistakingly entering the wrong apartment (which I've done, talk about embarrassing :redface:).
Ivan Seeking
Jun16-09, 08:46 PM
You only go as far as necessary to *scare* them away.
And what if he rapes and kills a neighbor next week because you let him go?
What if they come back but are ready for you this time?
As someone posted, it depends on your state. If the laws are such that you cannot shoot to kill, then it's depends on your prosecuting attorney. Every cop I've spoken with are on the side of the homeowner.
It gets tricky in my state. You can shoot to kill if they are within your home. If they are in the doorway, you want to drag the body inside. Throw a kitchen knife in their hand if they don't have an obvious weapon.
But, as far as I'm concerned, entering a persons home uninvited and you're gambling with your life. Even if you have alzheimers or simply mistakingly entering the wrong apartment (which I've done, talk about embarrassing :redface:).
Oh, thats really some fantastic advice there Drankin. Go to court and cry self defense and then explain why you dragged the body inside the house and put a kitchen knife in its hand (you really think the crime scene investigators wont notice this? You're day dreaming).
You're just asking to go to jail by doing this.
And what if he rapes and kills a neighbor next week because you let him go?
What if? What if. What if...... What if......
I don't what if.
Ivan Seeking
Jun16-09, 08:55 PM
What if? What if. What if...... What if......
I don't what if.
The entire discussion is based on a what if. You have someone who is almost certainly a danger to the public under your control, so your choice is to let him go? What kind of civic responsiblity is that? For all that you know, this guy is a wanted serial killer.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 08:57 PM
If the justice system actually favoured the victim I wouldn't be thinking in such harsh terms.
The fact is, there are repeat offenders in the UK who will steal a car today, be in court in a week, given 50 hours community service and released. They then immediately steal another car and repeat the process. There is a tv show where it follows the police in Wales, and it shows them arresting a guy and as they put him in the car he says "ah so what, I'll do it again as soon as I'm released tomorrow". And the police agreed. They were constantly arresting this guy and he was convicted every time with car theft.
It also bugs we when you see "mr jones was convicted of driving without a license and no insurance. he was given a £60 fine and banned from driving for a year", now call me naive, but am I missing something here? banned from driving? If he didn't care about doing it without a license and insurance in the first place, why would this make a difference?
A life sentence in the UK is around the 15 year mark with early release for good behaviour. I kill someone, I'm out in 10 years. Rubbish system.
drankin
Jun16-09, 08:58 PM
Oh, thats really some fantastic advice there Drankin. Go to court and cry self defense and then explain why you dragged the body inside the house and put a kitchen knife in its hand (you really think the crime scene investigators wont notice this? You're day dreaming).
You're just asking to go to jail by doing this.
LOL, dragging them inside is actually a joke here in WA. I don't know that anybody has done this but it is the law that they have to be inside your home. So, if you do shoot them on your doorstep, you had better drag them inside and hope the cops just shrug their shoulders (which many would do).
I'm not as worried about going to jail as I am about defending my family.
This discussion reminds me of a case in Anchorage where a teenager had broken into a home and was found in the living room. The homeowner had a gun trained on him and told him to freeze. The kid turned around and ran towards a bedroom where the homeowners baby was sleeping. The kid was shot dead. The homeowner was not brought under charges. It was an unfortunate circumstance but he was completely justified.
The entire discussion is based on a what if. You have someone who is almost certainly a danger to the public under your control, so your choice is to let him go? What kind of civic responsiblity is that? For all that you know, this guy is a wanted serial killer.
I'm not a cop. I have no legal responsibility to try and detain anyone. For all I know...for all I know......for all I know.
I dont do for all I knows either, because no. I don't know. You don't know. Talking in hypotheticals serves no point.
I simply said you can scare the guy away. Or tell him don't move until the cops come. If he tries to run away after you say don't move I'm calling the cops. You cant go chasing after him.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:00 PM
I'm not a cop. I have no legal responsibility to try and detain anyone.
So if you see a mugger going for an old ladies money you would do nothing? Or at the very least you would stop him and let him go?
So if you see a mugger going for an old ladies money you would do nothing? Or at the very least you would stop him and let him go?
Did you not understand I don't do hypotheticals?
drankin
Jun16-09, 09:07 PM
Did you not understand I don't do hypotheticals?
This whole thread is based on a hypothetical situation and you've have posted several times and haven't even made a point. I call BS on Cyrus.
This whole thread is based on a hypothetical situation and you've have posted several times and haven't even made a point. I call BS on Cyrus.
I'm not sure what you couldn't understand from my posts? Hypotheticals are a waste of time.
The OP *should have asked* what can I legally do to defend myself. Not make up some example. On top of that, posts are then chiming in with all sorts of additional (made up) scenarios.
What if he was a serial killer....
Drag his body inside the house....
What if hes mugging an old lady....
How about you find out what you legally can and cant do, instead of making stuff up? Sound good?
Does a million and one "what ifs" get us to an answer? No. We dance in circles conjuring up new (nonsense) what ifs and how bouts and ....on and on.
This is exactly why I hate 'what if' scenarios. It's all speculation.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:22 PM
Thats my problem Cyrus, in the UK it simply says reasonable force. Now what is reasonable force, a seemingly obvious question I know, but at 3am when confronted with a person with a knife your decision as to what constitutes reasonable force may be far from what a jury looking at the evidence in a cosy little room with no threat decide it is.
Oh, thats really some fantastic advice there Drankin. Go to court and cry self defense and then explain why you dragged the body inside the house and put a kitchen knife in its hand (you really think the crime scene investigators wont notice this? You're day dreaming).
You're just asking to go to jail by doing this.
Drag the body inside was a long standing joke in Az until they changed the law. Now a person can use deadly force if they feel threatened on their property.
They even passed a law allowing a person who is sitting in a vehicle to shoot if they feel that their life is in danger.
To make sure that people can be armed in their vehicles they recently passed a law that allows people without a concealed carry permit to have a weapon in the vehicle as long as it is kept in plain sight.
Then the state legislature broke for the summer without funding education.:grumpy:
drankin
Jun16-09, 09:22 PM
How about you find out what you legally can and cant do, instead of making stuff up? Sound good?
Are you talking to me or the author of the OP?
It's a fair question he asks but the answer is dependant on where he lives.
They even passed a law allowing a person who is sitting in a vehicle to shoot if they feel that their life is in danger.
That's really ballsy law to pass. How does one say their life is in danger? That better be well defined, otherwise people will make up any sort of excuse to justify violence.
Are you talking to me or the author of the OP?
It's a fair question he asks but the answer is dependant on where he lives.
Then we narrowed down the answer, yes? And we didn't make up scenarios, and we didn't speculate.
I'm sure the laws in his area specifically say when one can use force (or not).
No need for little old ladies being robbed. Or the robber being a "potential" serial killer. Or being a teen kid that ran for a baby...or any other irrelevant example.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:28 PM
I refer you to my original post:
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do? What does your countries law let you do?
I posed a simple situation, and asked a) what would you do and b) what does your countries law let you do
The rest was simply me saying what I would do and then stating a fact about the UK laws and how you judge reasonable force at 3am. As per the questions.
OK, the initial situation is somewhat hypothetical, but the questions are valid. Especially the law one.
In fact Cyrus, your first post doesn't really answer the questions I posed, you simply attacked my response. Fair enough, but that was just my opinion on it and I wasn't looking for an argument on what I thought, just what YOU would do and what your countries law says you could do.
There was no need for 4 pages of arguing when all I wanted was a simple opinion on your (or whoever answers) part and a little bit of detail on your (or again whoever answers) countries laws.
How about you find out what you legally can and cant do, instead of making stuff up? Sound good?
Does a million and one "what ifs" get us to an answer? No. We dance in circles conjuring up new (nonsense) what ifs and how bouts and ....on and on.
This is exactly why I hate 'what if' scenarios. It's all speculation.
The law is built on "what if" scenarios. We can agree that killing is usually wrong, but then the law has to come up with a response to a thousand 'what if' situations:
What if the person was attacking you?
What if you're insane?
What if it was an accident?
What if the person wasn't actually threatening you, but given your knowledge at the time of the homicide his behavior could be reasonably construed as such?
etc.
Indeed, trying to come up with any rules without dealing with 'what if' situations is a doomed enterprise. That's the kind of thinking that gets us those infernal "zero tolerance" laws.
That's really ballsy law to pass. How does one say their life is in danger? That better be well defined, otherwise people will make up any sort of excuse to justify violence.
It is totally insane. I can't believe that the governor signed that one.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:35 PM
OK guys, I refer you to my previous post (#62) could we please just answer the questions then to stop this silly bickering. What would you do in that scenario (or what do you believe you would do) and what are you legally allowed to do?
I refer you to my original post:
I posed a simple situation, and asked a) what would you do and b) what does your countries law let you do
The rest was simply me saying what I would do and then stating a fact about the UK laws and how you judge reasonable force at 3am. As per the questions.
OK, the initial situation is somewhat hypothetical, but the questions are valid. Especially the law one.
In fact Cyrus, your first post doesn't really answer the questions I posed, you simply attacked my response. Fair enough, but that was just my opinion on it and I wasn't looking for an argument on what I thought, just what YOU would do and what your countries law says you could do.
There was no need for 4 pages of arguing when all I wanted was a simple opinion on your (or whoever answers) part and a little bit of detail on your (or again whoever answers) countries laws.
Sorry, you're not even grasping the concept of innocent until proven guilty and trying to justify that robbers forfeit all legal rights when they commit a crime.
You wanted a law answer, I have yet to see a single post referencing an actual law. This is why I gave you 4 pages of me attacking people. How about an *actual* law being cited?
Has anyone looked at an actual law here? And for that matter, have a working understanding of the law to give it context?
The quality of the posts (mine included) need to go way up for a serious discussion.
OK guys, I refer you to my previous post (#62) could we please just answer the questions then to stop this silly bickering. What would you do in that scenario (or what do you believe you would do) and what are you legally allowed to do?
I would get out my gun. My wife would lock herself in the bathroom. Inside the bathroom is a button that will ring the front doorbell. Hopefully when that front door bell rings the bad guys will run out the back door.
We planned this out a few years ago when we had dug dealers living in the neighborhood.
If it actually happens my wife will probably just start screaming and I will accidentally shoot myself in the foot.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 09:50 PM
I would get out my gun. My wife would lock herself in the bathroom. Inside the bathroom is a button that will ring the front doorbell. Hopefully when that front door bell rings the bad guys will run out the back door.
We planned this out a few years ago when we had dug dealers living in the neighborhood.
If it actually happens my wife will probably just start screaming and I will accidentally shoot myself in the foot.
:rofl: And then she'll see your injury and scream, which will cause you to shoot your other foot...
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:55 PM
Sorry, you're not even grasping the concept of innocent until proven guilty and trying to justify that robbers forfeit all legal rights when they commit a crime.
You wanted a law answer, I have yet to see a single post referencing an actual law. This is why I gave you 4 pages of me attacking people. How about an *actual* law being cited?
Has anyone looked at an actual law here? And for that matter, have a working understanding of the law to give it context?
The guy who posted the German law?
I don't want anyone to justify anything they say in their opinion Cyrus, I simply want what you would do and what the law says you can do. I 'feel' they forfiet their rights, it doesn't mean they do. I know exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, I simply find it difficult to understand how you can question someones guilt when they are walking out your front door with your tv.
Now, instead of attacking peoples opinions on what they believe and would do. Would it hurt for you to answer the question? I don't care what people say, it just seems that everyone has started attacking each other when that isn't the purpose of this discussion (at least not what I intended).
junglebeast
Jun16-09, 09:55 PM
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do? What does your countries law let you do?
If I saw he was armed, I would shoot to kill and then call the police. If he was unarmed, I would take aim and demand that he identify and explain himself immediately. If he made a move that I interpreted as offensive, I would shoot him in the legs, then approach him, give him a knockout blow, drag him into the garage and tie him up. Then I would tie a rag around his wound to staunch the bleeding and clean up any mess on my floor before calling the police. If he was unarmed and attempted to run away when I yelled at him, I would give chase, but I wouldn't shoot him. All of my actions are within the laws of my state (and yes I have checked).
The guy who posted the German law?
I don't want anyone to justify anything they say in their opinion Cyrus, I simply want what you would do and what the law says you can do. I 'feel' they forfiet their rights, it doesn't mean they do. I know exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, I simply find it difficult to understand how you can question someones guilt when they are walking out your front door with your tv.
Now, instead of attacking peoples opinions on what they believe and would do. Would it hurt for you to answer the question?
I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that? :rofl:
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 09:58 PM
I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that? :rofl:
Then why are you here?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:58 PM
I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that? :rofl:
Then you must be a pretty poor engineer. Last time I checked engineers had to plan for things going wrong with the things they design/build. All hypothetical situations. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail, I believe the quote is.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 09:59 PM
Then why are you here?
To rip the s*** out of others opinions (I'll give you this Cyrus, you give some exceptionally good arguments and I can't fault your logic) when it is not the intended purpose of this discussion. As I keep saying, I want an opinion and some law facts, thats all.
JasonRox
Jun16-09, 10:00 PM
The guy who posted the German law?
I don't want anyone to justify anything they say in their opinion Cyrus, I simply want what you would do and what the law says you can do. I 'feel' they forfiet their rights, it doesn't mean they do. I know exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, I simply find it difficult to understand how you can question someones guilt when they are walking out your front door with your tv.
Now, instead of attacking peoples opinions on what they believe and would do. Would it hurt for you to answer the question? I don't care what people say, it just seems that everyone has started attacking each other when that isn't the purpose of this discussion (at least not what I intended).
Maybe someone told him to get him a new TV or he will kill him and his family. So he chose your house to get the TV. Who knows?
Seriously, I would take Moonbear's way of doing it.
If he's being violent in nature, and I have no choice but to take some sort of action, then surely I will act to protect myself. If I don't need to do anything, then why bother. Just let it be.
Some start stealing under the stress of money and raising family and are led to believe that theft is an easy way out. And not actually intending to be a physical threat to the family he's stealing from (or she :wink:). Who knows. I still don't want to kill someone over something stupid like that. He's still guilty (the court will find him so) but it still gives me no right to kill him.
It's almost as though you will do anything the law allows you to do and try to use the law to justify it being morally right. It used to be legal to rape you own wife... does that make it right? NO!
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:06 PM
Firstly, as I stated before the punishment can be utter rubbish and not worth doing as it provides no deterrant.
Stealing is Stealing, no matter how you phrase it.
In my orignal post, I said, I would confront them, if they ran great if not, and they turned and came at me I would react. Only then.
To answer the OP's question, I would first see if I can gauge their intentions. Thieves go for easy targets and don't like dealing with people who can put up effective resistance. If that was the case, I'd confront them with a weapon. If I could detain them with minimal risk I would, but most likely I'd just tell them to get lost and call the cops later.
On the other hand, if I had good reason to suspect they wanted to kill me, I'd grab a weapon and try to leave undetected. Then I'd call the cops (gotta love cell phones). If that was impossible and there was only one intruder, I'd try to ambush him. If there was more than one intruder, I'd barricade myself in a room, call the cops, and try to sneak out the window.
I have no guns in my house and don't have sufficient confidence in my martial abilities (armed or unarmed) to engage an intruder unless I had an overwhelming advantage.
OK guys, I refer you to my previous post (#62) could we please just answer the questions then to stop this silly bickering. What would you do in that scenario (or what do you believe you would do) and what are you legally allowed to do?
Hmmm...OK, I wake up because of a noise. Actually, I'm a light sleeper so this happens quite frequently. So, I go downstairs...and I find an intruder.
I know just what I would do...fist of all, let's back up a bit. Because I'm awakened in the night so often by stupid little noises, I wouldn't be nervous or scared at all, because I'm coming downstairs expecting to see my cat throwing up.
If I see a person who is not a family member I would be all over them, teeth and fingernails and twisting sensitive parts...no thinking involved, haha. Seriously, how could you not? This person did not come into your house to make friends. I have a daughter, for crying out loud. Law be damned, this person is not going to hurt my daughter.
Yet, the whole idea of having a weapon in the house is terrifying to me. I'm a light sleeper, so I wake up often. I'm not going to grab a gun just because I heard a noise. I also sleepwalk and when I do, I do weird things (usually just take things apart)...but, wow, I'd never want a gun in the house.
JasonRox
Jun16-09, 10:18 PM
Just for those who dream of detaining the criminal, I will tell you how I would commit theft if I was into hardcore stuff.
I would bring a gun. If I heard anyone in the house, I would keep an eye out and shoot the victim instantly. So, I guess detaining me wouldn't be easy?
Who's to say other people wouldn't take my method? Just shoot them right away.
Then you must be a pretty poor engineer. Last time I checked engineers had to plan for things going wrong with the things they design/build. All hypothetical situations. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail, I believe the quote is.
Sorry, but now you're just making stuff up because what you describe (design for failure) has nothing to do with this topic.
Anyways, my point is that your question is one you should ask in a legal forum. Not a physics forum. Unless anyone here is a lawyer that deals with this type of law, you're going to get garbage answers, and I hate to see people play pretend lawyer (unless you are a lawyer, thats exactly what were all doing) .
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:21 PM
Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.
JasonRox
Jun16-09, 10:23 PM
Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.
How are you going to use reasonable force if I shot you already?
You only attempt to use self-defense if you can. Otherwise, stay out of it. Duh.
On that note, I will stand aside and let you all dance in circles. Dance my pretties DANCE!
Watch the arguments of what-ifs bleed on for the next 10 pages (and you'll see what I mean by hating what ifs).
Before you know it we will be talking about the war in Iraq (don't ask me how).
Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.
Again, go ask a lawyer this question.
skeptic2
Jun16-09, 10:30 PM
To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up. How would one unlock his gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and still be an effective deterrent?
My daughter now 11, recently told me that when she was about 7 and played with two boys her age across the street, they found their father's guns and pointed them at each other and that the ammunition was right there too. She never told me because she knew I wouldn't let her play with them anymore. The father had told me he had guns in his house but that they were locked up.
I propose that accidents with kids and guns are far more common than the type of situation described above.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:30 PM
If you came to my house with a gun Jason, in the scenario you posed, whether I tried to get out or confront you I would have to negotiate squeaky floorboards, an open plan setup so you wouldn't need to look hard to find out where I was. Now, given I live in the UK, guns aren't really a problem here so I wouldn't be too concerned about them.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:33 PM
Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparantly it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 10:35 PM
Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparantly it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.
It's not that bad.
junglebeast
Jun16-09, 10:35 PM
To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up.
Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it. It's also legal to shoot someone in your own home out of defense.
Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparantly it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.
My purpose is not to try to give you a 'slanging match', I'm challenging you to increase the quality of debate.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:37 PM
All I wanted was to know what you would do if confronted with an intruder and what the law lets you do. But people started debating other peoples opinions (not the purpose of this thread, I just wanted the opinion) and it's gone downhill from there. Cyrus if you aren't going to answer the question why are you here?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:38 PM
Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it. It's also legal to shoot someone in your own home out of defense.
It is the law in the UK. Guns must be kept unloaded and in a locked cabinet.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:39 PM
My purpose is not to try to give you a 'slanging match', I'm challenging you to increase the quality of debate.
There wasn't meant to be a debate cyrus, I simply wanted opinions on what you would do and perhaps a bit of law on what you can do.
There wasn't meant to be a debate cyrus, I simply wanted opinions on what you would do and perhaps a bit of law on what you can do.
Its that second part in bold that's the problem. You're simply *not* going to get a legit answer to that question in a physics forum.
It is the law in the UK. Guns must be kept unloaded and in a locked cabinet.
A reasonable thing to do, IMO. Just look at skeptic2's post...who, btw, still has an 11-year-old daughter.
To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up. How would one unlock his gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and still be an effective deterrent?
I propose that accidents with kids and guns is far more common than the type of situation described above.I have defended my home with a handgun and have not yet killed a person. The first would not have been possible without the possession of loaded firearms (excuse me, Mr home-invader, I have to get past you to get some bullets) and the second is a matter of perception and discipline. If you are an adult, and you keep guns in your home, and you have not acclimated your children to guns and properly trained them, any "accidents" are all your fault. When I was 10, my father told me that I was old enough to deer-hunt with him, and he gave me his M-1 carbine to use. AFTER I had shown proficiency in its use, demonstrated that I could handle it safely, and could field-strip that weapon, clean, lube, and reassemble it to his satisfaction, I was allowed to hunt with it, not just shoot it at the local gravel pit.. He was not a drill-sergeant, but being a sergeant in the Airborne mobilized to the European Theater during WWII probably lent a bit of urgency to his training.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:46 PM
I'll be honest, I think that the US gun laws are crazy, I can see no justification in people needing guns at all, their purpose is to kill and therefore by owning one you are opening the possiblity of you using it (same as knives).
Yes there are guns in the UK (strictly no guns), but incidents with them are few and far between (despite media hype) and we have armed response units (as police have no guns either) which deal with them. The system works here, I just don't see why people feel the need to have a gun. You can NOT tell me it increases safety.
skeptic2
Jun16-09, 10:48 PM
Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it.
Perhaps that's why there are so many accidents with kids and guns.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:48 PM
Perhaps that's why there are so many accidents with kids and guns.
Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?
I'll be honest, I think that the US gun laws are crazy, I can see no justification in people needing guns at all, their purpose is to kill and therefore by owning one you are opening the possiblity of you using it (same as knives).
Yes there are guns in the UK (strictly no guns), but incidents with them are few and far between (despite media hype) and we have armed response units (as police have no guns either) which deal with them. The system works here, I just don't see why people feel the need to have a gun. You can NOT tell me it increases safety.
Sure, but the reality is there already are **lots** of guns here. Outlawing them now would be like closing the barn door after the horses have run away...too late.
Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?
Round and round we dance.
Segway about iraq in 3......2.......1........ post
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:54 PM
I'll be blunt cyrus, I've given up trying to keep this on topic now, just going with the flow.
If you have nothing constructive to say, just leave. (And thats the nice version of whats going through my head).
skeptic2
Jun16-09, 10:56 PM
Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/08/questions_grow_after_uzi_death_of_child/
I'll be blunt cyrus, I've given up trying to keep this on topic now, just going with the flow.
If you have nothing constructive to say, just leave. (And thats the nice version of whats going through my head).
We started people busting into your home and now its going to go off into anti-gun rants and kids shooting themselves with UZIs..........hmmmmm.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 10:59 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/08/questions_grow_after_uzi_death_of_child/
Marvellously done on that find. That would be the one.
No, you can't 'close the door on guns' as you so nicely put it, but you can impose stricter control laws. No carrying them etc.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 11:04 PM
Well perhaps, Cyrus, we like going on these rants as it's all we have to do (its 4am where I am and I can't sleep, not much else to do really, painted the fence yesterday).
And seeing as you are sticking around, continually attacking this thread you deem worthless, I'd say you have nothing better to do. Other than join in these pointless rants. Possibly even enjoying it?
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 11:08 PM
Well perhaps, Cyrus, we like going on these rants as it's all we have to do (its 4am where I am and I can't sleep, not much else to do really, painted the fence yesterday).
And seeing as you are sticking around, continually attacking this thread you deem worthless, I'd say you have nothing better to do. Other than join in these pointless rants. Possibly even enjoying it?
Well, now you're taunting him. Just ignore him and get on with your thread.
Well, now you're taunting him. Just ignore him and get on with your thread.
I'm not taunting him. I'm dead serious. Why cant you people stay on topic? What's the point about bringing something up if everyone is going to run off into wild tangents?
It's also highly annoying to see everyone playing lawyer with speculation running a muck. This kind of stuff would never fly in the other forums, and I think it makes the forums look bad in general when this happens. It just lacks any and all credibility.
No one's posting any facts. Not one.
drankin
Jun16-09, 11:12 PM
[QUOTE=skeptic2;2240330]To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up. How would one unlock his gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and still be an effective deterrent?[QUOTE]
Where did you get your information about "when a weapon is stored at home"? There might be a few states back (New York, California maybe) out of 50 that require a firearm to be unloaded and locked but those would be an exception.
OAQfirst
Jun16-09, 11:13 PM
I'm not taunting him. I'm dead serious. Why cant you people stay on topic? What's the point about bringing something up if everyone is going to run off into wild tangents?
I was addressing jarednjames.
drankin
Jun16-09, 11:17 PM
Marvellously done on that find. That would be the one.
No, you can't 'close the door on guns' as you so nicely put it, but you can impose stricter control laws. No carrying them etc.
Now you are entering a different discussion. A tired old topic. As it applies to the US, stricter gun control laws, ie. "No carrying", simply means that those who abide by the laws are rendered defenseless (unarmed) against those who have no regard for them. And so on and so forth...
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 11:19 PM
Good, now aside from about two people, will anyone else address the OP?
What would you do in the situation of hearing a noise, going to investigate and finding an intruder? To make Cyrus happy, let's leave law out of it. And nobody has a go at what someone says they would do.
Good, now aside from about two people, will anyone else address the OP?
What would you do in the situation of hearing a noise, going to investigate and finding an intruder? To make Cyrus happy, let's leave law out of it. And nobody has a go at what someone says they would do.
Good, now you can discuss your heart out! :tongue:
Did I mention that I have a niece who spent a year in Iraq. She had an M 16.
Did I mention that I have a niece who spent a year in Iraq. She had an M 16.
I love you. :!!)
drankin
Jun16-09, 11:27 PM
Good, now aside from about two people, will anyone else address the OP?
What would you do in the situation of hearing a noise, going to investigate and finding an intruder? To make Cyrus happy, let's leave law out of it. And nobody has a go at what someone says they would do.
Tell him to freeze, identify himself, and proceed to call the police.
What would you do in the situation of hearing a noise, going to investigate and finding an intruder? To make Cyrus happy, let's leave law out of it. And nobody has a go at what someone says they would do.
1. Have someone call the cops
2. If possible don't let the intruder know that you can see them to delay or avoid a confrontation if one isn't necessary (maybe they won't find anything valuable and leave).
3. Get a firearm for defense
4. If you must confront them, then get out the firearm and ask them why they are in my house (maybe they don't have malicious intent). If they are there to steal something then demand that they leave. If they pull out a gun, or come at me with a knife, then I would use the gun, and if I can think straight at that point I'd try to make the shot nonlethal and immediately inform the person who is on the phone with the emergency services (they always keep you on the phone) that someone has a gunshot wound.
What we think we would do in an emergency situation and what we would actually end up doing will be two differen't things. When the heart starts to pump , the adrenaline starts to flow, and the vison narrows our behavior become quite unpredictable.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 11:35 PM
Well I haven't had an intruder as such, but I was in the house on my own late at night when I heard a noise downstairs, I went down quietly, grabbed a metal bar and walked into the kitchen saying "who the **** are you?"
Turned out to be a housemate who wasn't supposed to be back that night, in a rather drunken state.
Gokul43201
Jun16-09, 11:36 PM
Anyways, my point is that your question is one you should ask in a legal forum. Not a physics forum. Unless anyone here is a lawyer that deals with this type of law, you're going to get garbage answers, and I hate to see people play pretend lawyer (unless you are a lawyer, thats exactly what were all doing) .Honestly cyrus, this is a ridiculous objection. The OP asked a very simple "what would you do if ..." question. If you don't wish to engage in hypotheticals, don't. No one's dragging you into the thread.
We have tons of discussions about social issues, legal issues, dating issues, political issues, entertainment issues and most anything else under the sun ... all here in GD. We don't send the OPs off to find a social science forum or a legal forum or a dating forum or a politics forum to explore these ideas.
And many gun owners have a pretty good idea what their state laws regarding intruders/trespass are. And even if you don't know them, you can look for it, for example, at http://www.handgunlaw.us/.
If you live in Colorado, you click on the state and you find that the relevant law is CRS 18-1-704.5, which is easily looked up.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a'dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Colorado Revised Statutes - PDF file (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluemesashooting.com%2FColora do%2520CCW%2520Statutes%2520Complete..pdf&ei=DGI4SsL9E4Oitwflu5jgDA&usg=AFQjCNG-EqOOPnKtUYLTTH8Xe749spX_gQ&sig2=fe2nGCdwvE_iNDXDlFXM7w)
4. If you must confront them, then get out the firearm and ask them why they are in my house (maybe they don't have malicious intent). If they are there to steal something then demand that they leave.
What if .....
they lie?
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 11:39 PM
What if .....
they lie?
Like I said, please do not have a dig at what other people say they would do. I am not looking for a debate over silly little issues people have with the various premises of each persons opinion.
Honestly cyrus, this is a ridiculous objection. The OP asked a very simple "what would you do if ..." question. If you don't wish to engage in hypotheticals, don't. No one's dragging you into the thread.
No, it's not because he then went on talking about the criminals rights. And I pointed out that there are legal implications involved with his statement and his answer of what he would do if he found a robber in his house.
We have tons of discussions about social issues, legal issues, dating issues, political issues, entertainment issues and most anything else under the sun ... all here in GD. We don't send the OPs off to find a social science forum or a legal forum or a dating forum or a politics forum to explore these ideas.
In the political forums, we require links to sources. For dating issues, well..........sigh.
And many gun owners have a pretty good idea what their state laws regarding intruders/trespass are. And even if you don't know them, you can look for it, for example, at http://www.handgunlaw.us/.
If you live in Colorado, you click on the state and you find that the relevant law is CRS 18-1-704.5, which is easily looked up.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a'dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Colorado Revised Statutes - PDF file (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluemesashooting.com%2FColora do%2520CCW%2520Statutes%2520Complete..pdf&ei=DGI4SsL9E4Oitwflu5jgDA&usg=AFQjCNG-EqOOPnKtUYLTTH8Xe749spX_gQ&sig2=fe2nGCdwvE_iNDXDlFXM7w)
Two points. First, this is the first real source I've seen (thank you). Now I've put the part in bold that can get you into trouble (legally) and requires a lawyer to understand. "reasonable belief" is a subjective statement that a lawyer could clearly define based on experience in dealing with similar cases. That's not a black and white statement.
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/may/30/man-who-shot-robber-now-facing-murder-charge/news/
So, as I was saying. You need a lawyer to answer this question. BTW, this guy was a gun owner. Clearly, he did not understand the law.
EnumaElish
Jun16-09, 11:53 PM
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?
Get the family out of the property first, then call police emergency ("911"). Then probably leave myself.
http://www.kidpowervancouver.org/id41.html
"The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth"
Pulitzer prize-winner Studs Terkel was dozing off in a chair in his bedroom when an unmasked intruder appeared and demanded money. Terkel calmly talked to him about his life, how his wife has been ill and he'd been attending to her. Then he handed him all his cash. As the robber was about to leave, Terkel remembered he would need to take a taxicab in the morning and had to have cash. So he requested some money back. The intruder handed him a $20 bill, then took off.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 11:59 PM
Okay cyrus look, in my original post I gave my OPINION, not some fact. I did not say this would stand legally. The fact is, it is what I would do. That is what would be going through my mind, legal or not, that is what my post asked for. What would you would do in that situation.
Like I just said, leave the legal bit out and just let me know what you would do. Do not have a dig or scrutinize other peoples posts, just accept that's what they said they would do. I didn't want a debate on the legal issues here.
So once again let us focus on the question:
"So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?"
Okay cyrus look, in my original post I gave my OPINION, not some fact. I did not say this would stand legally. The fact is, it is what I would do. That is what would be going through my mind, legal or not, that is what my post asked for. What would you would do in that situation.
Like I just said, leave the legal bit out and just let me know what you would do.
So once again let us focus on the question:
"So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?"
It should be fairly obvious from my posts that I'd just leave the house and call the cops because I don't want to wind up in jail myself over something trivial like a TV.
BTW: that guy in Gokuls link earlier should have gotten jail time. The police dispatch clearly told him not to go looking for the criminals, yet he went anyways.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 12:03 AM
It should be fairly obvious from my posts that I'd just leave the house and call the cops because I don't want to wind up in jail myself over something trivial like a TV.
BTW: that guy in Gokuls link earlier should have gotten jail time. The police dispatch clearly told him not to go looking for the criminals, yet he went anyways.
Was that the one who shot the guy in the back as he ran off?
Was that the one who shot the guy in the back as he ran off?
I believe they were stealing a tv out the window.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 12:06 AM
I believe they were stealing a tv out the window.
Ah yes, just pulled the post up now. I agree, there is no justification in shooting someone like that. Once they're leaving let them go. Definitely shouldn't be a hero.
Ah yes, just pulled the post up now. I agree, there is no justification in shooting someone like that. Once they're leaving let them go. Definitely shouldn't be a hero.
And thats exactly why I'm giving you a hard time about defining a criminals legal rights. It concerns your "hypothetical" because if your mentality is what you post, and you find yourself in that situation: you could be looking at jail time.
The only sensible answer to your hypothetical is what the law allows you to do. Saying what you would do otherwise is a waste of time and serves no purpose.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 12:14 AM
And thats exactly why I'm giving you a hard time about defining a criminals legal rights. It concerns your "hypothetical" because if your mentality is what you post, and you find yourself in that situation: you could be looking at jail time.
Yes but the original post was fairly clear. I didn't ask what you think of my opinion on it. I still think that, my family thinks that and pretty much everyone I know thinks that (even two police officers I asked this to think that). I'm not here to debate whether my opinion is correct or not. What I wanted is an example of how you would react. Just to see what sort of things people would reply with. Would they agree with a similar opinion to me? Or would they have a completely opposite one? Simple.
Yes, the only sensible answer is what the law allows you to do, which is why I wanted the law plus what you felt, thus giving me a comparison as to just how far away from legal someone would be prepared to go. Your opinion on what you would do, does not have to be sensible. As with mine.
Gokul, here is Oklahomas very similar law to that of Colorado (your link)
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782
Yet the man in the article I posted faces Jail time.
drankin
Jun17-09, 01:07 AM
Gokul, here is Oklahomas very similar law to that of Colorado (your link)
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782
Yet the man in the article I posted faces Jail time.
That's not a home invasion. Get back on topic.
So, if someone let's themselves into your house, you run away and call the police. Good for you. If someone let's themselves into *insert name here*'s house and he empties a shotgun into him, good for him. Both are legitimate actions and in most states would be legally justified. Yours leaves less of a mess.
That's not a home invasion. Get back on topic.
So, if someone let's themselves into your house, you run away and call the police. Good for you. If someone let's themselves into *insert name here*'s house and he empties a shotgun into him, good for him. Both are legitimate actions and in most states would be legally justified. Yours leaves less of a mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
Now if you read into that link, you will find that in some cases you have to try and retreat, some cases you don't. The point is, it's not clear exactly what you can do. Unless you are a lawyer, I strongly suggest you find out for your jurisdiction before you go dragging bodies inside the house. (Yes, I know that wasn't literal. But the mentality of the comment indicates to me you probably don't take this seriously).
Have you looked into the law in your area concerning *exactly* when you can use force?
That's not a home invasion. Get back on topic.
So, if someone let's themselves into your house, you run away and call the police. Good for you. If someone let's themselves into *insert name here*'s house and he empties a shotgun into him, good for him. Both are legitimate actions and in most states would be legally justified. Yours leaves less of a mess.
In addition:
House Bill 2615 closely resembles Florida’s recently passed "Stand Your Ground" law. Calvey’s bill would amend Oklahoma’s current "Make My Day" law to allow residents to use force, even deadly force, to protect themselves when they believe they are in danger in any place a person has a legal right to be, such as their office, supermarket or on the street.
http://www.okhouse.gov/OkhouseMedia/pressroom.aspx?NewsID=270
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
Now if you read into that link, you will find that in some cases you have to try and retreat, some cases you don't. The point is, it's not clear exactly what you can do. Unless you are a lawyer, I strongly suggest you find out for your jurisdiction before you go dragging bodies inside the house. (Yes, I know that wasn't literal. But the mentality of the comment indicates to me you probably don't take this seriously).
Have you looked into the law in your area concerning *exactly* when you can use force?
Duty to retreat varies. If you kill someone on the street, you need extremely good justification. "He had a weapon" isn't good justification. Even if you're being mugged, most jurisdictions will give you a hard time about killing your assailant unless you have a good reason to believe your life was in danger and had no other recourse but to kill.
However, the law gives you much more leeway in your house. The castle doctrine or so-called "make my day" laws in certain states require little more than a reasonable belief that the intruder had malicious intent. Even states without such laws give people much more freedom to act if their home is being invaded. The duty to retreat does not apply as stringently to a person's house as it does elsewhere.
For more info:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
drankin
Jun17-09, 01:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
Now if you read into that link, you will find that in some cases you have to try and retreat, some cases you don't. The point is, it's not clear exactly what you can do. Unless you are a lawyer, I strongly suggest you find out for your jurisdiction before you go dragging bodies inside the house. (Yes, I know that wasn't literal. But the mentality of the comment indicates to me you probably don't take this seriously).
Have you looked into the law in your area concerning *exactly* when you can use force?
Yes, and I don't live in Oklahoma. I can use deadly force in my home against an intruder. As it should be for any person who is threatened by an uninvited hoodlum in their home. Do you disagree? If you do, that's fine. But understand that most people feel they have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their family, particularly in their own house. You have that right, whether you exercise it or not is up to you. If you don't think that you have that right because of the state you live in, remember this: It's better to do six than to be buried six.
Yes, and I don't live in Oklahoma. I can use deadly force in my home against an intruder. As it should be for any person who is threatened by an uninvited hoodlum in their home. Do you disagree? If you do, that's fine. But understand that most people feel they have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their family, particularly in their own house. You have that right, whether you exercise it or not is up to you. If you don't think that you have that right because of the state you live in, remember this: It's better to do six than to be buried six.
There is one, and only one reason I would kill someone:
If a person is walking towards my back door with your TV in his hand and I shoot him in the back, I get charged with murder.
If a person is attempting to enter my house and I shoot him, again I should get murder. (I should have said: "Leave my house, and pointed the gun at him".
If the person enters the house waiving a knife/gun, and I tell him to go away while presenting a gun at him, and he *still* tries to do harm - then I would take him down.
Basically, you better make sure you do every, single, last, possible, thing before you decide to shoot someone in your house. It is not worth the legal risk. It really better be a last resort.
If you read the 911 call that Gokul linked, that guy couldn't wait to get his old shotgun out and shoot-em-up because stealing his tv is 'just not right'.
Note: Also factor in where you live. Some places are very anti-gun. If you live in an anti-gun part of town and you somehow end up in court, how do you think that Jury is going to vote against you?
I have a friend of a friend who is a deputy in the sheriffs department. He said a lot of people come to this area specifically to do crimes because the courts go easy on them.
drankin
Jun17-09, 02:35 AM
Cyrus, I do agree with you. I would not shoot someone just because they broke into my house. Personally, I would have to feel immenently threatened and it would be a last resort. But, if someone else does shoot an intruder I do not hold it against them. They are justified IMO. If I happened to be on the jury, I would side with the homeowner. You may not share the same opinion but understand that a persons home is their place of safety and may be the only place on earth they have control of their surroundings. I particularly think about those who are physically at a disadvantage when a thug may enter their home, the elderly, women, disabled, etc. A jury is likely to side with them. Myself, tall, athletic, healthy, I would have to show that I had no choice. But that isn't my motivation. I just don't want to kill someone if I don't have to.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 05:51 AM
I tried reading all of this but eventually started skimming.
This is what I know of California law.
You, as a citizen, have more or less the same rights to act as a police officer does when he arrives to protect you. Problem is that the police follow strict rules about what they are and are not allowed to do in certain situations and if you decide to play police officer you will be expected to follow the same procedures to within a rather strict degree of reason.
What are you allowed to do?
Well powers to arrest state generally that you have to have observed a person commit a misdemeanor in order to arrest them for it. So if you do not observe the person actually breaking into your home (breaking and entering is a misdemeanor) then you can not arrest them for it. If you find the person is actually in your home then you can say that they are trespassing but for a person to be considered a trespasser you must at least have a sign saying "no trespassing" and even then will likely still have to confront the person and request that they leave. If you request that they leave and they refuse then you can arrest them for trespassing.
As far as stealing goes the thief must actually remove your property from your home for it to be considered theft.
I believe that the law says five hundred dollars in value makes something grand theft which is then a felony.
For a felony you need only have reasonable suspicion to arrest a person. What constitutes reasonable suspicion is of course a problem. I'm not sure if you can arrest a person for attempted grand theft or if there is even such a crime according to the law. So you are probably unable to arrest a person for suspicion of grand theft unless you find them in your home and see that items of such a value are in fact missing from your home. In court you may also have to prove that you were aware at the time that what was missing was in fact worth enough to constitute grand theft.
Now arresting a person is another story all together. Technically as a citizen you are allowed to arrest a person under the circumstances I outlined above. The problem is what actions exactly are you allowed to take to arrest a person? Well if you are arresting a person for trespassing and they decide to leave what then? The point is that they are in your home uninvited and you wish them to leave so if they try to leave you then have no more reason to arrest them. So if you attempt to detain them because you are somehow certain in your own mind that they have commited some other crime yet you have no evidence then you are guilty of false imprisonment. Also if you believe a person has commited a felony but you are unable to demonstrate that you had reasonable suspicion you are yet again guilty of false imprisonment. Further if you so much as make a person believe that they are unable to leave when they should have legally been allowed to do so you can be found guilty of false imprisonment. So in most cases it is not a good idea to attempt to arrest someone on your own. Generally you should wait for the police to arrive and you can have the person arrested immediately remanding them to the custody of the police so you have no liability in the manner and circumstances of their arrest.
As for self defense it is quite difficult to prove in most places here. And the police generally do their job with a rather high level of prejudice. Remember that the police don't arrest you for commiting a crime, they arrest you because they believe you may have commited a crime. The court decides whether or not you actually commited one. So if the police have any reason what so ever to believe that you may have commited a felony they can arrest you and it is dependant upon the policy of the police department and the temperment of the officer just what level of prejudice they will use. If the criminal is conscious and relatively unhurt when the police arrive he may decide right then that he wishes to press charges against you and you will likely be arrested. If he says nothing then you will not likely be arrested. If the criminal is unconscious and/or requires medical attention you may or may not be arrested depending on the judgement of the officers. If the person is severely injured or dead you will most likely be arrested. Again, remember, this doesn't mean you have broken the law, you don't have to have broken the law, they only need reason to believe that you may have. The court decides whether or not you have broken the law and in a state as litigeous as CA the specifics of the law really matter rather little because it ultimately comes down to the jury and verdicts in such cases can swing wildly either way.
At any rate, I would personally probably try to beat the crap out of the guy. If there were more than one I would probably try to find a bat or something. People who break into houses often come back. They may even leave your place because they thought they heard you moving around and then just go right over to your neighbours and break into their place instead. At the very least you always want to call the police no matter what. These people are often on drugs aswell which makes them unpridictable they may look to hurt or rape someone. They may also be attempting a home invasion in which case they are not going to just leave. A good reason both for attempting to defend yourself and for not attempting to defend yourself because if they are on drugs they will likely be that much more dangerous and difficult to take down. You will also need to be sure to take them down as quickly and effectively as possible to make sure that they don't get back up. This means you have to be very careful because if you kill one you will very likely wind up in jail. I know the consequences of a decision to use force against an intruder and anyone who thinks that they may try the same ought to be aswell.
The problem I have with the law (UK anyhow) is that if I break into your house, and decide to munch on some of your fruit, and it's out of date, I can then sue you for poisoning me.
There have been loads of cases where people have broken in and injured themselves and then sued the homeowner successfully. The intruder doesn't even get charged in most cases.
(I'll look for a case or two now). So although I don't agree with shooting someone in the back and the law covering you, I also think it is dreadful the law defends the scum as it does.
Hence, I think people who intentionally break the law should automatically forfiet their rights.
It's equally bad in Norway, I remember a local case a year ago where a man had to hold down a burglar for 50 minutes before the police came (which is not atypical for norwegian police). He got fined for 10.000 kr ~ 2000$ (Currency rate at the date of the fine) for holding down the burglar.
Jimmy Snyder
Jun17-09, 09:38 AM
There was an intruder in my house about ten years ago. I went to bed early and my wife woke me up at about midnight. "There's someone in the house" she said to me. I told her to stay behind me while I went down. I wish I had a baseball bat or anything I could hold in my hand as I went down the stairs to face I knew not what. Just to stop it from shaking. When I got downstairs there was a woman, passed out cold, on the floor. I called the police and they took her away.
I don't think I would involve myself in any fight, I have no valuable experience in that regard. I don't know how to use a weapon anyway. My only hope is to struggle with the intruder to distract them so my family can perhaps escape.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 11:29 AM
See, I have to agree with cyrus on in the sense of I wouldn't hurt an inturder unless they presented a threat, a real and justifiable threat.
My problem is with the law on these matters. If I was to hear a noise downstairs and go investigate it, upon getting downstairs I find an intruder (no idea of their intention). I shout "I've called the police get out", and at this point, they turn around, look at me and have a 12" kitchen knife in their hand. I don't care whether they took it from my kitchen and are simply using it to aid in the crime or actually intend to use it on me. The fact is, they are waving a knife at me, a deadly weapon. If I then (as a relex action) grab the nearest heavy object, throw it/hit them with it, breaking their arm. I face getting done for assault. I could also be sued for using extreme force. (Obviously this is in the UK).
Now to me, I have used reasonable force to defend myself. At 3am, having just woken and being pumped on adrenaline, that was a sound judgement to me and constituted reasonable force to defend myself. Yet I am the one treated like a criminal.
OK, he may have just been turning to see who shouted, and OK he may have intended to run. But can you take that chance? If there are kids upstairs, do you wait to see if that person is going to use the knife? (In america I would substitue my 'heavy object' for a gun). I may not agree with lying in wait for the intruder and ambusing them (premeditation comes in and the law gets messy), or shooting someone in the back. But to me if someone shows a sign of being a threat to myself/my family they should be disarmed/taken down by any means necessary. After all, they are in the wrong, they should not be there.
If I am driving down the road and hit an uninsured driver, they get the blame. Because they don't have insurance and therefore shouldn't have been there/been driving. Now, if you decide to unload both barrels of your shotgun into the wall of your house / in my case take a couple of practice swings with a golf club in my kitchen, and an intruder happens to get in the way, surely the same logic would apply there? They shouldn't be there, therefore it is their fault. :approve:
JasonRox
Jun17-09, 11:37 AM
See, I have to agree with cyrus on in the sense of I wouldn't hurt an inturder unless they presented a threat, a real and justifiable threat.
Hmm... not too long ago you seemed thrilled about the idea of killing someone who would break into your house.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 11:39 AM
Hmm... not too long ago you seemed thrilled about the idea of killing someone who would break into your house.
No, look at every post I have made. I have always said I would not shoot someone in the back or give chase if they ran away. They would have to prove a threat (turning and coming at me, holding a weapon etc.).
JasonRox
Jun17-09, 11:43 AM
No, look at every post I have made. I have always said I would not shoot someone in the back or give chase if they ran away. They would have to prove a threat (turning and coming at me, holding a weapon etc.).
You were arguing that they forfeit their rights only because someone is going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.
If you were the police officer following rules like that, I bet you'd be dead before the speeder. No one will tolerate such a abuse of power.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 11:49 AM
Look I'm not going through this again. In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights. That is my opinion on it and like I also stated, if someones in my house illegally and I confront them, that is what will be going through my mind, right or wrong. I also stated that if the laws did not side so heavily with the criminal and had suitable punishments (longer jail terms) to act as a deterent I would not think like that.
JasonRox
Jun17-09, 11:52 AM
Look I'm not going through this again. In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights. That is my opinion on it and like I also stated, if someones in my house illegally and I confront them, that is what will be going through my mind, right or wrong. I also stated that if the laws did not side so heavily with the criminal and had suitable punishments (longer jail terms) to act as a deterent I would not think like that.
Ok, they forfeit their rights. But you don't gain the right to kill them.
So I should kill someone who pulls into my driveway to turn around and change directions.
I should kill someone who takes my wi-fi... sometimes it might even be for help. (Check directions on laptop. Or search for a tow truck driver or garage. Who knows.)
So many little laws are broken everyday. If you think the law is a measure to whether or not someone has rights... that is sad my friend. Sad sad sad.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 12:00 PM
Ok, they forfeit their rights. But you don't gain the right to kill them.
So I should kill someone who pulls into my driveway to turn around and change directions.
I should kill someone who takes my wi-fi... sometimes it might even be for help. (Check directions on laptop. Or search for a tow truck driver or garage. Who knows.)
So many little laws are broken everyday. If you think the law is a measure to whether or not someone has rights... that is sad my friend. Sad sad sad.
At what point did I say it gives you the right to kill them? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, any injury resulting from actions taken by them/me should be their fault.
Now if someone is in my house, and they pull a knife on me. If I stab them first then there should be no recourse for me. However if they simply attempt to run and I stab them on the way out a window, that is wrong. I pursued them with a weapon/with intent and that would make me no better.
As before I am not going to discuss this as this is my OPINION. No matter what you say it will not change. I judge all situations differently and in the case of an intruder I would rather defend my property than run outside. My choice. I am not going to discuss with you why I am wrong, because yes in the eyes of the law I know I am wrong, bearing in mind they are laws which protect the criminal more than the victim (UK).
I simply wanted to know what everyone would do in this situation. Not a debate on it.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 12:32 PM
At what point did I say it gives you the right to kill them? You are putting words in my mouth. I said, any injury resulting from actions taken by them/me should be their fault.
It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.
I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.
It may be a better and more logically consistent statement to say that your rights should trump those of the persons who infringe upon them. This way we are not taking away anyones rights, only creating a hierarchy of importance of individuals rights in particular circumstances.
I understand what you mean but others can obviously take your comment wrong.That's a more reasonable interpretation than some that I have read in this thread. A person who invades your home has set up a situation in which confrontation can have dire consequences for perpetrator or victim(s) or both. Any rational legal response to the injury or death of the perpetrator must take into account the fact that the perpetrator was the one who set up the confrontation, not the home-owner.
Like I said before, I didn't shoot the person who invaded my home, but he was lucky. He identified himself right away after I barked at him, and then tried to come up for some lame excuse for being in my house uninvited, AND he turned and ran out the front door when I ordered him to leave. The fact that he used the same MO to rob another relative makes me disappointed in myself. I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off. Some of my wife's relatives would have been ticked off that I got the creep arrested, but I still should have done it.
JasonRox
Jun17-09, 12:51 PM
If you came to my house with a gun Jason, in the scenario you posed, whether I tried to get out or confront you I would have to negotiate squeaky floorboards, an open plan setup so you wouldn't need to look hard to find out where I was. Now, given I live in the UK, guns aren't really a problem here so I wouldn't be too concerned about them.
How would you know I have a gun before seeing me?
Honestly, when someone walks in your house, you HAVE NO CLUE what's going on.
You live in some world of imagination here. If a criminal walks in your house and has a weapon, I'm pretty sure they will be capable of using it before you can.
skeptic2
Jun17-09, 12:52 PM
In my OPINION should a person be actively breaking the law (shall we say, where no doubt exsits that they are doing so), they should forfiet their rights.
This is the type of statement that gets people into trouble. When you say "where no doubt exists" that may be to you at the time of the incident but there may be doubt to a police officer, to a defense attorney, to a judge or to a jury. By the time you get to court there are no cases where no doubt exists. Because to the authorities there is doubt, the person you are certain broke the law, is only a suspect and suspects have rights. The right to an attorney, the right of not incriminating himself and the right to be presumed innocent. In fact the burden of proof will be upon you to prove his guilt.
The law generally favors a measured response. You can't kill a person for stepping on your lawn even though he may be guilty of trespass. When you say a person committing a crime forfeits his rights, it may lead you to a response beyond what the law would consider reasonable.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 01:00 PM
I should have held him at gunpoint and made him call the State Police to arrest him for home-invasion instead of letting him run off.
I'm sure that you probably know at least some of your sheriffs and they likely would take your side but do you know if that would actually be legal to do where you live technically speaking?
I've been thinking about it and I would have to imagine that even in places like Texas or what have you where you can supposedly shoot an intruder in the back as they run away that there have to be laws that specify stricter guidelines and that people are just not very willing to enforce them in all circumstances.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 01:04 PM
What are'nt you guys understanding here? I don't care if I get in trouble. As far as I am concerned, an intruder forfiets their rights the moment they enter my house. This isn't a debatable issue as I have continually stated. I DO NOT want you to point flaws in mine or anyone else opinions on what they would do. I really can't see how I could make this clearer.
Over the last 8 pages I have said over and over:
What would you do in that situation? What does the law let you do? and Do not have a dig at what anyone says as their opinion. I do not want a debate on whether one opinion is right or wrong.
We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 01:23 PM
We are pointing out how your opinion is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. For you, and the intruder in your house.
From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?
So you assumed I don't know it's wrong legally? I know full well it is wrong legally, all I said is that is how I feel about it. I refer you to my last post as I just can't be bothered to say it all again. Please just answer the questions or let it be.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 01:44 PM
From what I've read here, a lot of states in America have laws allowing you to defend your home (or neighbours) by shooting someone without much restriction. Now if that isn't giving up the intruders rights, what is?
Actually I don't think that this is correct. You may be interpreting what others have said correctly (I didn't read it all) I'm just not certain that the laws are quite as lenient as people think they are. The thing that works to your advantage the most in many places here in the US is that the police/sheriffs will likely be on your side aswell as the DA, judges, and potential jurors. So regardless of whether you have technically broken the law the likelihood that you would actually go to jail for it is slim. And in most places you must claim self defense and have at least some small ability to back that claim up. You can not shoot a person just for trespassing or walking off with your TV, though there are supposedly some few places where you can (or at least get away with it).
Edit: and in many places, such as here in California, you are highly unlike to get away with shooting an intruder at all.
When I said I would confront them first, at what point does that say I would just attack them?
If my landlord, in the middle of the night, turns and comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd put him on the floor. If an alzheimers patient, in the middle of the day, comes at me in a threatening manner, I'd try to use a reasonable response to defend my self but if they did prove dangerous I would have no problem with dropping them. A landlord can't just enter your home (well in my house they have to give at least 24 hours notice as per the contract), so they would be intruding.
Obviously, killing an intruder, at least for me is an extreme last resort only to be used if they trully are a threat to myself/families life.
I DO NOT agree with shooting a person in the back, lying in wait for an intruder etc. They must initiate hostility to me, that would be when I judge the threat level. A person running away is no longer a threat.
A landlord had to give advance notice before entering where I lived, too. The landlord just happened to be an idiot.
If I would have shot him, nothing would have happened to me. The only criteria when someone has "broken" into your home is that you have reason to fear for your life. If the landlord walks out of the bathroom and I shoot him on sight, I'm perfectly justified. I don't have to give him a chance to actually point a gun at me. The fact that we lived in a third floor apartment and had no safe escape would just add to the justification.
There's just a difference between morals and the law. In my case, listening for a minute or two allowed me to kind of figure out what was happening before I ever left the bedroom (kind of, because it's still hard to understand what the heck would ever possess him to fix my bathroom in the middle of the night). He and his dad were talking about the repair job and you could hear what they were doing to the plumbing.
If I had had a gun and chose to shoot them just because they pissed me off, no one would have been able to prove that I knew what was going on before I left the bedroom.
Besides, running out of the bedroom into an unknown situation just blasting away would be dumb for a whole host of other reasons besides the morality side of things.
0xDEADBEEF
Jun17-09, 05:46 PM
Blah balh blah I didn't check the whole thread but noone else seems to care much about laws here:
First castle doctrine:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
[...]use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.[...]
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere. [stronger form of castle law]
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Oklahoma §21-1289.25
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
* Utah
* Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
[...many states with strong or weak castle laws...]
States with no known Castle Law
* Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
* New Hampshire[26]
* New Mexico
* Virginia
* District of Columbia
All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.
At first it looked like the UK was similar, but someone there was locked up when he killed an intruder:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law
In R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349 the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.
We should all return to the good old stuff though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmgang
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 05:51 PM
The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 10:44 PM
All states but the last four seem to justify shooting intruders to your home one way or another.
If you read through that wiki article you will see that there are all manner of guidelines regarding such laws depending on what state you live in. There may also be any number of other local laws which may influence what are and are not acceptable actions to take in a given situation. Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.
Really there are any number of laws like this on the books from the old days that are not necessarily going to be applied in the same manner as they were back when they were instituted. The effect often being that you will have little successful recourse to them. Shooting someone in your home is not something you can easily justify in most places.
JaredJames
Jun17-09, 10:47 PM
Here in California you could possibly even be nailed on something as small as whether or not your fire arm had been properly locked up before the break in.
Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).
TheStatutoryApe
Jun17-09, 11:53 PM
Stupid question, but how would the police/lawyers prove that? I mean if the gun cabinet is in your bedroom, but you keep the gun outside it loaded, unless you tell the police it was in said state how would they go about proving it? Even if it is downstairs then they would still have to prove it wasn't in it (obviously shooting the guy upstairs in such a case would be suspicious).
People are often not thinking in such situations and will say things that maybe they oughtn't have. Some may realize their mistake and start changing their story which will just add suspicion. Also if you killed someone in your home it would be a crime scene and they will go over it with a fine tooth comb. Depending on how thurough their investigation of your residence they may notice a lack of evidence that you retreived your gun from a locked location or maybe even that you don't actually own anything to keep your gun locked in.
Its a what if, and a relatively small one maybe, but a good example of just one of any number of things that could land you in jail regardless of any law that says you are allowed to defend your home with lethal force.
The UK is against defending your home. The law says reasonable force, but who judges reasonable? A person in a situation like that is going to have a very different idea to a jury under no stress.
If you shoot someone in the UK, you're going to jail. Look up Tony Martin, a man who took the law into his own hands after the police did nothing to help him. He shot a guy in the back as he ran off, he deserved jail time. But at the same time, I understand why he did it.
Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.
If you harm them after they're over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.
Very similar laws in Canada. If you really harm the intruder before they're over your threshold, you are at fault.
If you harm them after their over the threshold, you will be at fault if you use undue force.. or deadly force. For instance, if I break the intruder's spine and render them paralyzed for life.. I'm at fault. If I offer them tea and a bit of a spanking I think I'll be let off with 2 years of sex addiction counseling and anger management. That's why its good to have a basement and a cement mixer at home.
Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).
Not true, at all. I saw this show on court tv where some homeowners had a problem with the concrete falling apart in their basement. When the contractors went to remove the old concrete and replace it with the new concrete they found human bones. What happens is the dead body decomposes and leaves a big void in the concrete which collapses in on itself a few years later. So, make sure you live in that house for a longggggggggg time before you sell it. (Or just fill the void back up a few years later and then sell it).
:rofl: (snicker)
KingNothing
Jun19-09, 05:39 PM
I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.
montoyas7940
Sep26-09, 11:32 AM
I would politely inform them that I am a broke college student, and ask that they take whatever they want, so that the landlord's insurance might replace it all with newer things.
My tenants property is not covered by my property insurance. You may want to look into a renters policy; they are inexpensive.
I have actually accidentally walked into the wrong house. It scared me worse than it did the little old lady who lived there. She was sitting on the couch watching tv and just smiled. I think she was glad to have "company".
So you're in bed, here a noise downstairs and decide to investigate. You find it's an intruder. What do you do?
For me, it's simple. My view is if a person enters my home illegally and with intent to rob/kill/damage my family or property. I will take whatever action is necessary to defend them.
I know it's hard to judge what you would do, but given my reaction to past situations much like this, I would confront them and if they failed to leave/tried to attack me I would take appropriate action to deal with the situation, take down the intruder.
As far as I am concerned, the moment a person enters my property they forfiet all rights they have, and any injury sustained to themselves as a direct result of thier/my actions they deserve (yes that includes me killing them if they really tried to fight).
I know in the UK, the law is rubbish and basically says "hide in your room and hope they leave you alone", but would that really be on your mind if your family is in danger? It does say 'you may use reasonable force' to defend yourself, but how do you judge that at 3am, when you've just got up and have no idea of the intentions of the intruder?
So what would you do? What does your countries law let you do?
I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.
The first thing one SHOULD do is attempt confirmation of an intruder - then call the police and provide as much information as possible.
If you live in a populated area, inform the police of who is in the house with you, where you are, where the intruder(s) is/are, whether you have theability to protect yourself (I'm in the rear bedroom with wife and 4 kids, the intruder is in the family room at the front corner of the house near the garage, I have a hand gun with me but door doesn't have a lock, I can see a van parked on the street and there may be someone inside, there is a motion detector security light at the rear entrance). You might also ask how long and what you should do until (and when) the police arrive.
If you live in a remote area, you are faced with a different set of problems and should have a survival strategy.
Ivan Seeking
Sep26-09, 02:56 PM
I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation.
There have been a few times that I was concerned and had no problem grabbing the 12 gauge and checking the house. If I had found someone, they would have gotten one chance to lay on the floor before I shoot.
I am never more than twenty feet or so from a loaded weapon that is ready to fire. But then I grew up in L.A. There is nothing like the reality of someone you know getting raped or murdered in their own home to help clear the fog and put things into perspective. From my point of view, all of this "oh help the poor soul" nonsense is just that. There are times when it comes down to you or them. It is important to remember that.
What is the conversion rate from anti-gun to pro-gun for victims of violent crimes? Probably about 90% in my experience.
If a person or persons can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.
If a person can secure themselves in a safe place and call the cops, that makes the most sense. But in many cases that would not be possible or practical; even if it was, I would be sitting there with a gun pointed at the door.
I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.
Ivan Seeking
Sep26-09, 03:22 PM
I agree. However, I highly recommend that if you wait behind a closed door for the Police to arrive, it's best to inform them (when you call) of where you are and that you're armed.
ABSOLUTELY! You don't want to shoot or get shot by the cops.
I was once in a situation where I could hear a woman being raped [or worse] in an apartment complex near my location. I was quite surprised that the cops didn't tell me to say put. I ran out to try to find the location of the screams while they were on their way. I was worried sick that the cops might shoot at me when they arrived, but I had told the operator what I was wearing.
When the chopper arrived, the screams stopped and we never found them.
Ivan Seeking
Sep26-09, 05:58 PM
This all got me thinking about a period in my life that I hadn't thought much about for a long time. Since it obviously has a direct effect on my opinion of personal defense, I thought it worth sharing.
Over a period of about three years, between ages 10-13 years for me, we knew a number of people who were affected by violent crime. First, a woman from our church who lived down the street from my grandmother, was raped and murdered, in the middle of the day, in her own home. Then, probably a year later, a very close friend of our family was murdered by a known serial killer. He was a young man, about 18 years old, and he was found by his mother [my nursery school teacher] in his bedroom. It was an absolutely terrible scene. The police recognized the MO but I don't think an arrest was ever made. Then, a 13 year old schoolmate was murdered while working in a liquor store. And get this, his best friend died of a brain hemmorhage at the funeral!
Anyway, yeah, the world is a dangerous place. Don't be a fool.
I have a loaded (Duh! Unloaded would be idiotic!) Glock Model 20 in 10mm Auto and a P38 in 9mm Luger. They are always handy (though in discrete locations) and they are both double-action semi-automatic pistols. We live too far away from any reasonable police response. "I'm sorry Mr. Home Invader! Would you please cool it for at least 20-30 minutes until a trooper or a county deputy arrives?"
I don't know a single person on this rural road that isn't impressively armed - not just out of paranoia, but because we all like to hunt and/or shoot, and guns are ingrained in our culture. Like lots of rural locations, we have problems with opiate-addicts and meth-heads. They usually hit targets of opportunity in towns, though. Hitting rural homes will eventually earn them a one-way ticket to the morgue.
I guess different communities deal with intrusion etc... in different ways. Some times they lose a hand other times they have a shotgun to deal with. In other cases they are protected by law and sent to the spa to be reintegrated into society. You might have seen the Michael Moore clip where his camera crew walks into a woman's home in Toronto, Canada, and the door is unlocked and they walk in with lights and everything and she says "hi"... like it was open house or something. That was a different community. If it happened in Fort Worth the whole camera crew would be dead in the news.
TheStatutoryApe
Sep27-09, 03:42 AM
I'm personally somewhat afraid of guns. A friend of mine has expressed a desire to take me shooting and I think it would probably even be a good idea if not for his opinion that I ought to try for a job as an armed guard (figure I'm more likely to be shot that way).
I'm not sure why people in places like England don't realize that its far easier to be anti-gun when you are on a densely populated island where it is harder to get arms and you are much more likely to have have people around to help you if/when someone attempts to victimize you.
I'm personally somewhat afraid of guns. A friend of mine has expressed a desire to take me shooting and I think it would probably even be a good idea if not for his opinion that I ought to try for a job as an armed guard (figure I'm more likely to be shot that way).
I'm not sure why people in places like England don't realize that its far easier to be anti-gun when you are on a densely populated island where it is harder to get arms and you are much more likely to have have people around to help you if/when someone attempts to victimize you.
I posted this earlier, "I don't think anyone really knows what they will do until they are confronted with the reality of the situation."
To add to that statement, you should never (touch/grasp/bare/wield/display) any weapon that you are not 1.) trained and competent to use, and 2.) are prepared to use. Otherwise, that weapon might aggravate the situation or ultimately be used against you.
Personally, I have separate strategies for home, car and work. In the past when I owned retail businesses that handled cash, I kept a loaded hand gun hidden in the safe (on a shelf accessed from the rear and not visible to the front), and a shotgun hung near the office door, usually out of site under a shelf.
Both firearms were intended for desperate situations only. The probability of being shot BEFORE the safe is opened is less than after it is opened. The shotgun was for defense of hostage situations - it's quite common to herd all of the employees into a back storeroom.
As for home strategies, it depends upon location. When I lived on a farm, with a tree-lined 1/2 mile lane leading back to the house, there were guns in every strategic location in the house and in certain out-buildings. We always had a big dog in the house and several dogs outside as well.
In the large metro suburbs, guns were stored without ammunition in a safe place. In the city, guns were not allowed. Now I live in a small rural community between 2 large metro areas.
I currently keep an automatic (with the clip removed and separated) in my bedroom. The kids are not aware of it's presence. The locations are quite concealed but easily accessed by me. My wife and I agreed not to have a gun in this house a long time ago, but she changed her mind after an incident with a raccoon about a year ago.
Every situation is different. I have in the past and will continue to react to each situation individually. However, I will never carry a gun unless I'm prepared to use it.
I think given the situation of the OP I would confront the intruder. I would ask them nicely to leave my house and if that request wasn't listened to I would use any means necessary to take them down. If they fought back it would only hurt for them even more, unless of course they are also trained in MMA or another martial arts. I don't think I would hesitate to use a weapon including a gun either. If I felt like this person or these people were an immediate danger to my family I wouldn't hesitate for even a second to go into the 'excessive force' category. Regardless of the outcome I FELT my family was in danger and they are OK in the end its all gravy.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.