Defending your home, how far would you go?

[Moonbear]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 you 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]

Tell you 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]

Tell you 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).

 

[Cyrus]

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".

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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.

 

[edward]

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]

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 ).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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 ).

Oh, that's 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 won't notice this? You're day dreaming).

You're just asking to go to jail by doing this.

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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]

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]

Oh, that's 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 won't 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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 don't 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 can't go chasing after him.

 

[JaredJames]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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.

 

[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 he's mugging an old lady...

How about you find out what you legally can and can't 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]

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.

 

[edward]

Oh, that's 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 won't 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.

 

[drankin]

How about you find out what you legally can and can't 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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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.

 

[Tibarn]

How about you find out what you legally can and can't 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.

 

[edward]

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]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[edward]

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]

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.

And then she'll see your injury and scream, which will cause you to shoot your other foot...

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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).