Defending your home, how far would you go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaredJames
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Home
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how individuals would respond to finding an intruder in their home. Many participants express a strong belief in the right to defend themselves and their families, with some advocating for confrontational approaches, including the use of firearms. There is significant concern about the legal implications of using force, particularly in the UK, where laws often favor the intruder over the homeowner. Participants debate the concept of "reasonable force" and the potential for legal repercussions if excessive force is perceived. Some argue for a more cautious approach, suggesting that retreating and calling the police may be wiser, especially if family members are not in immediate danger. The conversation also touches on the complexities of distinguishing between a genuine threat and a misunderstanding, such as encountering someone who may not be a criminal. Overall, the thread reflects a deep anxiety about home invasion scenarios and the balance between self-defense and legal consequences.
  • #101
jarednjames said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
jarednjames said:
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
 
  • #103
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 that's the nice version of what's going through my head).
 
  • #104
  • #105
jarednjames said:
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 that's the nice version of what's 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.
 
  • #107
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?
 
  • #108
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #109
OAQfirst said:
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 can't 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #110
skeptic2 said:
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?
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.
 
  • #111
Cyrus said:
I'm not taunting him. I'm dead serious. Why can't 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.
 
  • #112
jarednjames said:
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...
 
  • #113
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.
 
  • #114
jarednjames said:
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! :-p
 
  • #115
Did I mention that I have a niece who spent a year in Iraq. She had an M 16.
 
  • #116
edward said:
Did I mention that I have a niece who spent a year in Iraq. She had an M 16.

I love you. :!)
 
  • #117
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #118
jarednjames said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #119
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.
 
  • #120
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.
 
  • #121
Cyrus said:
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) .
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
 
  • #122
qntty said:
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?
 
  • #123
rootX said:
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.
 
  • #124
Gokul43201 said:
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

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #125
jarednjames said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #126
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?"
 
  • #127
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #128
Cyrus said:
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?
 
  • #129
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #130
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #131
jarednjames said:
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 that's 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.
 
  • #132
Cyrus said:
And that's 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.
 
  • #134
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #135
drankin said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #136
drankin said:
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
 
  • #137
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"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #139
drankin said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #140
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.
 
  • #141
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 as well 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #142
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #143
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.
 
  • #144
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #145
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #146
JasonRox said:
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.).
 
  • #147
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #148
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.
 
  • #149
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #150
JasonRox said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Home Repair & Maintenance Advice for Newbie?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Would You Kill Lizards Hanging Around Your House & Pooping?
2
Replies
67
Views
7K
How Can We Deal w/ Volatile Organic Compounds in Homes?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Have you ever revisited your childhood home and found it unrecognizable?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rent an Apartment, Buy House, Buy Mobile Home or a Trailer?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
Replies
9
Views
2K
How did your teachers describe you as a student?
Replies
12
Views
2K
How Do Our Brains Process Tasks Differently?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Family Dinners: How Do You Eat Dinner? - 65 Characters
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top