Defending your home, how far would you go?

[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).

 

[Cyrus]

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?

 

[OAQfirst]

I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that?

Then why are you here?

 

[JaredJames]

I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that?

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]

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, that's all.

 

[JasonRox]

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 ). 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]

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.

 

[Tibarn]

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.

 

[lisab]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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, that's exactly what were all doing) .

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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).

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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]

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]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.

 

[OAQfirst]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.

It's not that bad.

 

[junglebeast]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently 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]

All I wanted was to know what you would do if confronted with an intruder and what the law let's 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]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[turbo]

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]

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]

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]

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?