PDA

View Full Version : Right to defend yourself?



Pewter_of_Deodar
03-27-2006, 04:30 PM
I was reading an article today about the fact that homeowner's insurance in our state are exempt from paying legal fees to defend a homeowner who is sued when they injure an intruder. A lady was home with her three children and was attacked by two men and knocked unconscious. She came to while they were still in the house and fled to a bedroom where she had a gun stashed. As they attacked her a second time, she shot one and the other fled. She left the room and and checked on her children, then returned to find the injured attacker getting to his feet. The attacker refused her orders not to get up and so she shot him dead. She got sued by the family of the dead man...

What the heck is wrong with the judicial system in this country? Anyone breaks into my home and attacks my wife and children should be shot. Why do we act as if criminals have a right to rape, kill, and otherwise brutalize law abiding citizens? To me, they surrender the right to live as soon as they hold the knife to the ladies neck, point the gun at the convenience store clerk, or pry open the door at an individuals home...

Your thoughts?

memento
03-27-2006, 04:59 PM
My thoughts - too many people have the lawyer mentality. But put yourself on the other side. Say that your son broke into someone's house. Isn't killing him a bit extreme? Wouldn't shooting both his legs be enough?

Personally, I don't know the rage I would feel if someone broke into my house and attacked my wife. It scares me. I do know that I would not be nice and my thought process would be that once dead, they would feel no more pain, and that would be too nice.

I agree with you to a point. Defend yourself with all your might. I agree with that. I just don't feel justfied in killing or allowing to be killed. Life is not my decision.

Dan McFeeley
03-27-2006, 05:13 PM
A tough one -- something to be judged on an individual case basis.

I think the general rule for a private citizen is meeting equal force with equal force.

Another consideration, not always addressed by the legal system, is whether or not you're going to live through the attack.

webmaster
03-27-2006, 05:52 PM
Well, I'm of the opinion that if they come all the way out here to the boonies to break into my home, their intentions are not peaceful.

A person should be able to feel secure in their own home. And frankly, since my first job is to protect my daughter, I *must* assume that anyone forcing their way into my home is by definition threatening my family. I'm not going to stop to ask them their intentions when they break in. I'll just stop them any way I can. If that means they die, I'll feel bad, but I won't mourn them. They started it. They want to live, don't invade others' homes.

I don't know this dweeb, don't know if he/she is violent, has mental problems, or is carrying a weapon. Any mistaken assumption on my part could cost me or my daughter our lives. And where we live, no one can hear you scream. So, I assume that if they enter my home in a forcible fashion, then they have then surrendered any right to safety.

Is death for a B&E extreme? Perhaps. But then, did they expect to be welcomed with bags of money? If I wake up to hear someone in my home, I go into 'protect the kid' mode. I am *automatically* in fear of my life. And if they don't leave immediately, theirs is in danger. All they have to do is leave.

IMO, we have become a nation that is *too* accomodating. We take 'policially correct' to ridiculous extremes, and we let our criminals know that no matter how heinous a crime they commit, they will always have an out. We tie the hands of our police and courts, empower the lawyers to skirt the rules, and expect the citizens to lie down like sheep and accept slaughter while they wait for the understaffed, underfunded 911 to get to their home and save them.

When I was in Atlanta, a man was jumping women when they came out of their apartments, dragging them back in, hitting them over the head and raping them. If they had kids, he would tie them up and put them in a closet. It took the police nearly a year to catch him, because his *wife* was protecting him. He raped over 20 women. And when he finally got to court, it turned out he'd done the same thing in Michigan and fled to Atlanta where he started again.

Had I met 'force with force' if he came to my house, he would had gone on to hurt someone else, and might have killed me.

I keep a gun *and* a lead-loaded baseball bat handy. I saw the women that creep attacked (in the apartment complex *across the street* from me), and had a good friend nearly killed by a B&E who thought he'd have a little rape on the side when he saw she was home. That was 20 years ago. She still can't sleep at night. It won't happen to me if I can help it. I won't be a sheep.

My police officer neighbor (at the time), who was on the task force seeking the man, told me that if I was attacked, shoot first. Forget the questions. And if he got out of the apartment, shoot him again and drag the body back into the place. Nearly every police officer I've discussed the concept with agreed.

Nope. Someone breaks in while I'm home, they automatically forfeit any claim to *any* sort of safety from grievous harm they might think they have. I don't take precious time to ask if they intend to hurt us or not. I assume the worst. You have to.

Just my opinion.

Vicky

kash
03-27-2006, 06:10 PM
I'll tell you what is coached in my states CPP classes (that's Concealed Pistol Permit). Flee to your bedroom or another part of the house, call 911 and stay on the line. Then announce to the home invader that you have a gun, you're willing to use it if they come into the room and that the police are on the way. Then if the invader enters the room keep shooting until they quit moving.

While I'm sure that's good advice to avoid losing a law suit, I'm not sure how practical it is. Simply stated, the woman in the above story is probably lucky to be alive to be sued. It's a shame that a tort can be brought in this mannor, but then torts are like that. Might as well counter sue the parents of the invader for raising a rapist/robber, then counter sue the estate of the dead robber for cleaning costs where his blood stained the floor.

One frivolous law suit deserves a dozen more.

webmaster
03-27-2006, 06:15 PM
Well, in my case, once they're in, that isn't an option. The bedrooms are at one end of the house, the rest of the house is open as one big room. So, in order to get from my bedroom to my daughters' (and there is *no way* I won't be going there to keep her from harm), I must be in the open area. So, they get threatened, then they get attacked.

Vicky

SteveT
03-27-2006, 06:52 PM
Kash -- sorry man... if someone invades my castle, the last thing I'm going to do is announce that "I HAVE A GUN" and dial 911. Right. They'll know I have a weapon when they see a muzzle flash and I dial 911 to remove the perp from my home. It may sound harsh, if someone breaks into my home, they will have an unpleasant surprise. And, there is no way I am going to give some criminal any advance warning.

Vicky, I completely agree with all of what you said, make sure the prep cannot answer any questions and you will not have anything to worry about.

WRATHWILDE
03-27-2006, 07:00 PM
Funny, I've never imagined killing anybody, in every "what if" scenario I've ever played through in my head my goal has always been to leave the assailant crippled for life, and has never involved me being armed in any way. A solid blow to the windpipe is a good place to start the attack, it makes it damn near impossible to breathe, while they're struggling for breath you can proceed to cripple other areas as you see fit.
When I was living in a particularly bad section of Southern California (Rialto) I sometimes found myself wishing some of the Gang members would attack me, but they never did, they always gave me a wide berth on the sidewalk. Part of it might have been because I wore my trench coat as a cape, so you couldn't see my hands, and with my camera strapped to my waist and my Art supplies tucked in inside pockets it looked like I was packed with weapons. The second reason might have been that I always looked them hard in the eye, as if to say, give me a reason and I'll take out all of you. It's the only time in my life I've ever felt violent, but with all the gangs walking the streets... being attacked was a very real possibility. There were gun fights outside our apartment complex on a weekly basis, often a couple of times a week.
For me I'll keep them alive and see them sent off to prison crippled.

Wrathwilde

Dmntd
03-27-2006, 07:18 PM
Isn't killing him a bit extreme? Wouldn't shooting both his legs be enough?


NO! if you cripple them, you could end up having to support them and their family for the rest of your life.

Anthony

DarkStar
03-27-2006, 07:55 PM
That story is why I believe every state needs the "Castle law" which removes the burden from the person getting attacked and makes it simple, if someone pulls a knife, gun ,bat or breaks into your house,car that they are not friendly and you can use any and all force required to protect yourself. It removes the must run first from the self defense law before you are allowed to defend your family and property.

theshadowhammer
03-27-2006, 10:18 PM
my wifes father had a restaruant in a bad part of town the place was held up 6 times in 15 years 3 of the six he lost small amounts of pre planned hold up money
on the 3 other times gun fire was exchanged
once he was involved in a gun fight with a perp he shot and killed him(no lawsuit followed)

on the 2 other occassions he shot and wounded other men
one of these times my wifes sister was held with a gun to her head (both of these situations ended with lengthy law suits the last one was just settled last year for something that happened in 98 nothing happened to him but he did have lawyer fees)

so if your going to shoot do as they say in hunter saftey courses DON'T SHOOT ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL !!!

buy the way did you guys know walmart and sports authority stores are no longer caring firearms

now may be a good time to make that gun purchase if your on the fence

WRATHWILDE
03-27-2006, 11:14 PM
now may be a good time to make that gun purchase if your on the fence


I keep toying with the idea of picking up a Browning Safari 300 Win. Mag with BOSS, don't know when I'd ever use it though so it's not a must have at the moment.

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/images/031001m.jpg
http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=002B&cat_id=031&type_id=001

Wrathwilde

kash
03-27-2006, 11:56 PM
Kash -- sorry man... if someone invades my castle, the last thing I'm going to do is announce that "I HAVE A GUN" and dial 911. Right. They'll know I have a weapon when they see a muzzle flash and I dial 911 to remove the perp from my home. It may sound harsh, if someone breaks into my home, they will have an unpleasant surprise. And, there is no way I am going to give some criminal any advance warning.


Hey, I agree that what they teach in this state is a tad bit ridiculous. Mind you, I said that those instructions were to win the lawsuit that would be sure to follow. Not that they were practical life saving measures.

I'm familiar with the right to defend in three states. In Wisconsin, you must flee. If cornered, then you may use a similar level of force. For example, if being assailed with a knife, you may use a knife or a bat. But if you bring the gun to the knife fight, they it's "you bad". In Indiana the rules are much more relaxed. If someone says they're going to break into your house and kill you, and they start to break in, you're good dropping them on the steps. There is no need to flee. In Michigan the rules require that you attempt to flee buy may use a firearm if you feel your life is in jepordy. That will keep you from being arrested. However, expect the civil suit and expect to lose. That's why the CPP class emphasizes those weird measures, to reduce the likelihood of losing the tort. If you noticed, the 911 was still on the line recording you announcing to the invader that you had a gun, planned on using it if the door was opened. In fact they teach you to say, "Don't make me use this on you". Again, placing the burden back on the invader.

Carrying a firearm in this state is hardly a treat. The hoops that one must jump through if stopped on a traffic stop are simply nuts. But the alternative is to either carry illegally and that's a felony or not carry and then best stay out of areas that might require self defense. At least this state require actual range time and instruction. I think Indiana still doesn't require either (although it's been some time since I've lived there and had to update the permit).

Killing someone isn't a topic to be taken lightly, if you do it, you'll have to live with it the rest of your life, civil torts be damned. Deciding to pull the trigger is a decision that says, "I'd rather be sued into poverty than killed".

Miriam
03-28-2006, 05:24 AM
We don't have a weapon in the house, but I considered it for years, especially before my present husband and married, and I was alone with three small children.

When an Arab delivery man from the supermarket put the packages down and started looking at me in a shifty way, my heart pounded but I knew what to do: I took the carving knife out of its block and stood there, holding it in a way that showed I was ready to stab him. The guy's eyes widened and he left, fast. No words exchanged. I never allowed a delivery man into my house again, although the supermarket soon after stopped hiring Arabs.

If events warrant my acquiring a weapon, I will get one, learn to use it, and use it if necessary, God forbid. Believe me, I would not consider the worth of an intruder's life. I know what the enemy is capable of doing.

Miriam

Oskaar
03-28-2006, 09:03 AM
A long time ago I went to a lecture featuring Timothy Leary and G. Gordon Liddy (yes the two of them actually became friends and travelled the lecture circuit together) I liked Liddy's response to having guns in the house.

"...since I am a convicted felon, it is illegal for me to own a gun. However, my wife has an extensive collection of guns which she keeps under my side of the bed."

Cheers,

Oskaar

Scott Horner
03-28-2006, 10:05 AM
I keep a loaded 12 gauge shotgun next to my bed. The way I think of it, if the intruder does't run when they hear that sucker being racked then they are too stupid to live. I don't know how the rest of America is but here in California a good friend of mine who is a police office told me the magic words they want to hear. "I was in fear of my life officer". Kinda a get out of shooting free card (as long as it is a stranger). Of course if you shoot him and he gets blown out a window make sure you drag him back into the house :). I say let them sue me, I'll countersue for intentional infliction of mental distress, and great pain to my trigger finger.

Go ahead make me mead!

memento
03-28-2006, 10:15 AM
In reality - I don't own a gun and don't ever intend to. I live where there is almost no crime, but I have a security system on my house. I can defend myself well, but hopefully I'll never have to.

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-28-2006, 10:34 AM
I have to roll my eyes in amazement that people believe "use of equal force" is a reasonable option in any of these situations. I picture my wife or 14 year old daughter being limited by law to using a knife against a potential rapist that has been involved in gangs for all of his life. What chance does that give my wife or daughter? If he is unarmed but has the strength of an NFL player, are they forbidden from using any weapons?

We really do act as if those people have a "right" to rob or rape or enter our homes without our permission. We coddle the heroin addict that has to steal to support his habit. Poor guy, must be awful to be hooked on drugs. We coddle the pedophile because his family was disfunctional and excuse his "mistreatment" of children without thought to how many lives he is ruining.

I don't hunt because I do not enjoy killing. I'd rather shoot a 9 point buck with a camera. I suppose if someone actually assaults my wife or kids, I will have to deal with the emotions when it occurs. But I think I would tend to be like the guy from Iowa, who when they rescued his 7 or 8 year old son who had been kidnapped and held by a pedophile in Texas for two years, went to Texas and shot the guy in the head in the airport as they brought him back to Iowa for trial. Rape my wife, rape my daughter, even rape Vicki or Mynx or Scout or anyone I know and somehow feel that you have a right to be all safe and secure? I think not... Not no but hell no!!

storm1969
03-28-2006, 10:48 AM
In Maryland the law reads that you are not allowed to defend property. You can use deadly force if you have family in your house and are in fear for them. If you are in your house alone, and you can get out, you do not have the right to use deadly force (but I would anyway). You only have the right to defend yourself, if your life is threatened. (and the definition of life in danger is very narrow).

Brian

memento
03-28-2006, 10:49 AM
Pewter - what happened to him after he shot the guy? Did he go to prison? Was it worth it for him to now be locked away from his son? I'm definitely not saying that the pedophile should have gotten any sympathy, I'm just trying to show the other side and that there are ramifications for extreme actions.

webmaster
03-28-2006, 11:02 AM
Pewter, they try to rape me, you won't have to shoot them. They'll bleed to death from the stump of their little pee-pee. I also have knives.

And if I can't get to it, I'll shoot him in the head, or bash it in, or tear out his neck with my teeth if I have to. Far as I'm concerned, rape=deserves death. Frankly, I'd like to see public hangings come back, with mandatory attendance by all incarcerated criminals to each one. Might drop the crime rate a few notches.....

Vicky - not violent, but willing to defend myself

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-28-2006, 11:12 AM
Pewter - what happened to him after he shot the guy? Did he go to prison? Was it worth it for him to now be locked away from his son? I'm definitely not saying that the pedophile should have gotten any sympathy, I'm just trying to show the other side and that there are ramifications for extreme actions.

Memento,

He is in prison for something like 15 or 20 years. The pedophile, had he lived, would have been out in 8 to 10, maybe 5 to 7 with good behavior. Maybe the point is that if the government/judicial were doing what they should be doing in terms of punishing criminals, and making the punishments stiff enough to act as a deterent, then those with loved ones that are harmed would be able to find closure without the need to be vigilante. What is "cruel and unusual punishment" for someone that kidnaps a young boy or girl from their home and sexually assaults them repeatedly for years? Even my Christian self can't come up with anything that I would think was out of line, including physical castration or life in prison.

Look at this discussion. Maryland law basically states that someone has the "right" to break in and steal your stuff and you are "forced" by law to flee and allow it to happen. What group of moron legislaters or what idiot judge dreamed up this law? Who does the Maryland law protect? Victim or criminal? The truth should be that the criminal surrenders ALL of his rights when he enters your home or attacks you and his rights don't return until after he FLEES. And the laws of our country should reflect that. I believe that they did 100 years ago. What happened since then?

Peace,
Pewter

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-28-2006, 11:20 AM
Pewter, they try to rape me, you won't have to shoot them. They'll bleed to death from the stump of their little pee-pee. I also have knives.

Vicki,

My point is that no woman should have to defend herself although I am glad that you feel like you can. I can still imagine someone assaulting you when you have had a bit too much mead but there again it should never happen. You should have the RIGHT to feel secure. You should have the RIGHT to know that should someone attack you, they will be PUNISHED, not coddled in an air conditioned, three meal a day, cable television equipped, home away from home.

I have to chuckle because even most of the most pacifistic women I know seem to be unanimously agreed upon the fact that should they be raped, the rapist deserves to have it cut off. I don't disagree...

You ready for War yet?

Have a great day,
Pewter

memento
03-28-2006, 11:31 AM
"Maybe the point is that if the government/judicial were doing what they should be doing in terms of punishing criminals, and making the punishments stiff enough to act as a deterent, then those with loved ones that are harmed would be able to find closure without the need to be vigilante."

Now I think we're in agreement! well said. What happened since then? Bleeding heart liberals crying about the rights of criminals.

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-28-2006, 11:34 AM
Memento,

Shhhhhh... you will get the thread locked for saying things like that...

With a grin,
Pewter

Oskaar
03-28-2006, 12:04 PM
Take a chance . . . Custer did! :o

Oskaar <----- Oiling up the key ;D

Dmntd
03-28-2006, 12:09 PM
Many of the laws which relate to defending your family, loved ones, home and self from invaders are insane.

Over the years, I've talked with a number of LAPD & Sheriff Offices, time and agin I've been given the same advice. Should someone ever break into my home and I shoot them for their trouble;

1. Don't shoot them in the back.

2. Don't Shoot them if they are fleeing or outside of your home.

3. Shoot to kill.

4. If you can call the police prior to shooting them in can only help.

5. The only thing you should tell the police is "I was in fear for my life".

The other thing I've been told repeatedly. If I shoot someone in my home, saying I was in fear for my life will more then likely not hold water.

It's also been said using any weapon other then a gun to defend yourself in your home will offen be seen as an unprovoked attack rather then self defence.

What I find most troubling about these laws, they have been Drafted, Voted on and Enacted by people lacking any face to face dealings with violent crime.

Many a trained and armed soldier has died on the end of a blade. Anyone who believes a person armed with a knife, razor or screwdriver is not a threat to life is suffering from dementia. Al Capone advised running from a man with a knife, unless you had a gun.

Myself, I have an 870 Remington with seven round of #2 buckshot around for uninvited guest. I will not announce that I have a gun, when they hear it lock into battery they'll figure it out for themselves.

Dmntd

Dmntd
03-28-2006, 12:33 PM
Of course if you shoot him and he gets blown out a window make sure you drag him back into the house.


Hey Scott,

Dragging the body anywhere is a very bad idea. It will obfuscate the crime scene and cause the District Attorney and Police to doubt your claim of fearing for your life. If they doubt your story, your going to jail and it will be left up to the courts to determine.

If you shot them while in your house (not climbing through a window) there should be blood evidence to support your claim.

Dmntd

memento
03-28-2006, 12:53 PM
Memento,

Shhhhhh... you will get the thread locked for saying things like that...

With a grin,
Pewter


That we agree? ;)

kash
03-28-2006, 01:34 PM
Somehow, I feel like the villain for reporting what I've been taught. So just to set the record straight, I'll express what I believe, rather than the advice I've been given.

If someone enters my home they're likely to be met with a bright tactial light in the eyes, if they can see past that, they just might recognize the Sig p229 in 40S&W. I bet that I'd give them the opportunity to lay down and await the police. Should they point a weapon at me, they probably get all 12, or the better share of a dozen Golden Sabers somewhere between their center of mass and the punkin on their shoulders. But I really hope they take the reasonable offer to lay down and wait. I don't want to kill anyone.

What fears me, is my wife. Not that she'll be raped or murdered, but rather that she'll empty the S&W Sigma in 40cal with a frikken 16 round mag into an invader and then say, "Stop or I'll shoot". She's been through a few self defence classes and the one point she seems to consistantly neglect is the correct order.

BANG! "Stop, I have a gun", BANG, "turn around and lay down", BANG! "police are on the way" BANG! BANG! "Stop bleeding into my oriental rug" BANG BANG BANG! "thought you were going to break in here?" BANG BANG "What's your address, I'll shoot your family too", BANG BANG BANG

At this point she still has 4 shots left, and I've seen her carry an extra mag too. My wife is frikken cold blooded and scares me.

Then of course, there is the Wyoming guidelines for self defense. It's called "The Three "S's".

Shoot,
Shovel
Shut up.

The Honey Farmer
03-28-2006, 01:49 PM
Here in Colorado we have the *make my day* law. If you feel you are in harms way, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF. "Go ahead punk, make my day" Thanks Dirty Harry.

Be cool, Dennis 8)

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-28-2006, 02:03 PM
I guess I am not sure who to blame. Are these really laws that have been enacted by legislatures or the results of judicial activism? Maybe both?

But the states that have laws that require the victim to flee rather than to protect their property are just open invitations for burglars to work in their state.

On the good side of things, I see that Florida and Michigan may enact laws that free up the shipment of wines (and meads?) into their states for out of state producers.

Scadsobees
03-28-2006, 02:23 PM
Good grief...back to the original story...
This may sound cold, but that lady did everybody a huge favor...
1. She saved some other poor soul the pain of being brutally robbed or worse 15 yrs (or less) down the road when he got out of jail
2. The thousands of dollars of taxpayers money paying for that loser's legal defense, incarceration, and free lawyer time that he'd use to sue her for shooting him.

Obviously with the family response, if she'd have just shot his other leg or arm, he'd have sued her anyway. Whatever happened to shame and humiliation? "That's our boy...we were so proud of him..."

I'm not sure what the law says, but in the case of my wife, kids, and myself, I'm not taking into consideration whether we're going to live through the attack, I'm going to make sure we are. If there is any doubt, even the smallest (uh, he's in my house and moving), the hoodlum on the receiving end of the barrel is not going to have any doubt that he's not going to make it.

Dmntd
03-28-2006, 02:38 PM
Another disturbing thing here in Los Angeles.

A gent I work with had taken his wife out dancing, when some slug starts coming on to her he just smiled and ask this guy to leave them alone. At this the offender became belligerent & started calling he and his wife names.

Before the door men could get there this guy punch my acquaintance in the face breaking his nose and knocking his wife out of her chair. By the time the police arrived the aggressor had 3 ribs, his nose and jaw broken.

They where both arrested & charged with aggravated assault.

Even though the club owner, bar tender, doormen and a half dozen customers swore at his trial, he was defending himself and didn't start this or do anything until after he had been assaulted, he was convicted of aggravated assault.

They deemed excessive and unreasonable force had been used, though he only hit the guy three times.

The cost for defending himself?

His job, in excess $15,000 in court cost and fines, he's being sued by the ass who started it, anger management as a condition of formal probation and a criminal record.

Dmntd

Dan McFeeley
03-28-2006, 03:10 PM
Wow! This is an intense thread! Cool!

Looks like the conflict is between common sense (i.e., defending you and yours) v/s federal and state law. The two don't coincide well.

On "equal force v/s equal force" -- this is something that was taught in the security courses I took while working my way through college, outlining the legal rights of a security guard (i.e., a private citizen acting in a law enforcement position) on the job.

We were told a lot of things on this subject. You use deadly force to protect yourself, when legally justified, but you can't use deadly force or force of any kind when a criminal is fleeing the scene, etc. The rule of thumb is "meet equal force with equal force" in order to avoid law suits.

There's ways around this. I used to instruct the new security guards on our campus that, yes, you can't use force when it's not justified. You're a private citizen, not a sworn peace officer. What you *can* do is put your hand up, arm extended. If the person keeps coming, bumps against your hand, won't stop, you now have a legal right to defend yourself. Do what you will, in response to the offender. :-)

Use of deadly force to defend you and yours -- check your local state laws. Find out what's legally justified.

Defending you and yours -- this is a crisis situation. Although it's important to know the legal restrictions, the first priority is to defend you and yours. It may mean a jail term, in the worst case scenario, but at least you've kept you and yours safe.

As always, the standard disclaimer. None of this counts as qualified legal advice, only my personal opinion.

At heart, I'm a pacifist in practice and ideology, but aware that the word "pacifist" doesn't mean "passive." It means, more or less, "peace maker." Let's keep the peace, calmly, and most importantly, assertively. ;D

Dan McFeeley
03-28-2006, 03:43 PM
Here's a URL relevant to Illinois residents:

http://pages.prodigy.net/fhattys/page10.html

. . . covers the subject well. Has a nice common sense feeling that I'd guess other states would follow suit. I hope.

A lot of this makes common sense. An obnoxious person doesn't deserve deadly force. The law would recognize this. A person breaking into a home at the dead of night -- that's a different story. Breaking into a home commuincates intent. Act thereof.

In the hospital emergency room where I work (I do the psychiatric intake) this plays a huge role. Can I stop a person from leaving the ER? Sometimes, but not always. Can I use force? Sometimes, but not always. Can our ever reliable security people use force? Sometimes, but not always. The legal issues here are stringent, but workable. We can be legal, but also take care of the patient.

Working out the "sometimes" is difficult in a crisis situation. First priority is protection of you and yours (i.e., the patient, your team mates, your co-workers). Keep 'em safe!

The basic principles, legal and otherwise, that apply in hospital emergency rooms also apply in the home. Keep 'em safe! That's the common sense and legal approach. I'd like to think that the two, idealistically speaking, coincide, but in real life they don't always.

Another precaution -- keep dogs! It works. Most people who break into homes have checked it out long before. They don't want to risk an encounter with a dog. Guns are good, but dogs are better than fences in keeping people out of the home.

I was walking the Guinness loving hound today, going across the river bridge, and a person who saw us coming went off the bridge and onto the street to avoid us. He didn't know the hound (a big coward!) but stayed away from him. Guns are good, but dogs are also good. Sometimes, under the right circumstances, even better.

SteveT
03-28-2006, 05:22 PM
Somehow, I feel like the villain for reporting what I've been taught. So just to set the record straight, I'll express what I believe, rather than the advice I've been given.

snip...

Then of course, there is the Wyoming guidelines for self defense. It's called "The Three "S's".

Shoot,
Shovel
Shut up.


You are not the villan for reporting, perhaps very, stupid state laws. I think we hit on a topic that is very passionate for many folks here.

Regarding use of equal force, police are trained that if someone advances toward them with a knife, they shoot to kill.

Here's another great web site with laws broken down on a state by state basis www.packing.org (http://www.packing.org)

Oskaar
03-28-2006, 08:20 PM
This is one of the best threads we've had in a while. I've had some first hand experience directly in, and related to this area and was curious to see what people had to say on the subject.

Related experience requiring response:

I worked in a restaurant that was on a corner location conveniently located between a freeway on ramp and off ramp. Needless to say it was a tempting target for robberies. I experienced two, one at sawed-off double barrel shotgun point and the other at large caliber (snub-nosed S&W .44 mag). Both times the only response that was reasonable was cooperation. They were obviously more nervous than I was, and we didn't have a "time-locked" safe in our restaurant so we just showed them where the safe was and they locked us in the walk in freezer. Little did they know that all walk-in freezers have an emergency release on the inside door. We popped the release, ran to the front of the building and took down the license plate as they hit the road. In both cases they were caught and jailed.

Another instance in which I did have to respond was when I was approached by three guys while I was fishing in the morning. Seems they wanted my wallet, and it also seems they had done this before because they were well coordinated. They had knife boy and stick boy keeping my attention to the front and side while another tried to work his way around back. Well, they didn't count on me using my fishing pole on them. Hey, it's a reach weapon and the two in front had short weapons. Backstab boy got a broken hip for his trouble, stick boy got the short end of my fishing pole in the right chest. Knife boy got me with two shallow jabs in the stomach before I took the knife and flayed his arm to the bone from the wrist to the elbow. So I beat feet and hopped in my car and headed to the hospital to get stitched up and a tetanus shot. Police came to the hospital and took the report, they didn't arrest anyone that I know of.

Home break in:

While I was living in Texas, I came home with my best friend (pFredd) from a party and noticed that my garage door was open. Naturally I was wondering what the hell was going on so I pulled out my my favorite short blade, see link in this post:

http://www.gotmead.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=103&topic=3045.msg29043#msg29043

It's a really ugly blade, is pitted and scored and has obviously been used a lot. Anyhow, I get out of the truck, pFredd jumps out and is instantly pissed off. He does the musculary stalking thing that hunting dogs do when they're moving in on point. Then he takes off like a rocket into the house and a couple of seconds later there's a loud scream and I'm in there like gangbusters. pFredd has the guy down on the ground by the arm, and there's a small caliber hand gun on the floor a couple feet away from the guy.

He looks at me and then at the gun, meanwhile pFredd is chewing him up pretty good so I run over and stomp on his neck and called pFredd off. I told him to roll over on his stomach or I'll scalp him (he had a good head of hair and it would have looked good on my belt) his eyes bugged out and he rolled over. I kicked the gun away and knelt on his neck while I trussed him up and called the cops.

They carted him off to jail and took all my information and my statement. I was deposed a couple of weeks later and told my story in court, and that was the end of it. He was a repeat offender that was off on parole, with a history of assault and one attempted murder.

pFredd got a big steak every night for a week after that! He still gets one at least once a week still.

My take on this is simple. It's him or me, and it ain't gonna be me because I don't play fair. I've worked with enough police and sheriff departments that I have a good idea of what to say and what not to say. Bottom line is that there's only going to be one side of the story, and it'll be mine.

Cheers,

Oskaar

Brewbear
03-29-2006, 01:34 AM
First thing I'll say is that I hold life sacred...except!
That being said, the exception is: if i have to choose between the life of a dirtbag that broke into my house and the life of a loved one, well, he lost! Any of my family members know that in case of "trouble" I'll be there ready to respond and frankly, people at the range where I practice call me a dirty shooter. I generally practice on a lifesize target at 25 yards. Due to my choice of weapons I have to use the rifle range even though I use a handgun (Dan Wesson 44 Mag)that people call a handcannon due to it's 8 inch barrel. They call me a dirty shooter because i shoot first in the groin and secondly in the chest - they will suffer and know they are about to die!
As for Oskaar's story, bud, you had no choice, the graveyard is full of dead heroes!!! The other good point is that if gun control= ability to hit your target, then there is only one story to be heard- yours!
Dan makes a good point also, a dog is a huge deterrent and Cheyenne, my baby, is a light 180 pounds of very ornery english mastiff ;)

Cheers,
Brewbear

Dan McFeeley
03-29-2006, 04:37 AM
My take on this is simple. It's him or me, and it ain't gonna be me because I don't play fair. I've worked with enough police and sheriff departments that I have a good idea of what to say and what not to say. Bottom line is that there's only going to be one side of the story, and it'll be mine.

This is pretty good -- familiarity with the law and court system, knowing what to say and what not to say. Great pFredd story too.

Using whatever means are available to counter a threat and save lives (your own and others) isn't necessarily unfair -- it's what you have to do.

It's very hard to critique self defense stories on the basis of general principles (unless you're sitting on a jury and have to). They have to be taken as a crisis situation where often there is no time to think, just react. Each one is different and has to be weighed on the basis of individual merits.

I found a couple of sites that cover this area:

http://tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Laws.htm

http://www.spw-duf.info/force.html

with the standard disclaimer -- none of this constitutes legal advice of any kind.

sickpuppy
03-29-2006, 12:00 PM
Love Louisiana laws. It is an interesting read, but basically states that if you feel you are in imminent danger, KILL THE SUCKER. You are also justified to kill in the behalf of someone else if they are in imminent danger even if you are not. You can kill them if they are trying to break in. They do not have to be in your house or automobile just trying to get in.

Since I live in the New Orleans metro area in Jefferson Parish and the crime before Katrina was extremely bad and now post Katrina it is on the rise again. I find it prudent to keep a weapon close at hand. The big problem here and I guess most places now, is the criminals out gun the police.

Dan


§20. Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1.

22. Defense of others
It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

palecricket1
03-29-2006, 10:48 PM
:o whoa this thread's growing faster than a batch of
KV-1116! I actually have a break in scenerio all planned out. If I'm in my room, grab an empty carboy from the closet. Anyone who's ever dropped one on their foot before knows how much one of those suckers hurts. If I'm in the bathroom, grab the lysol. Living room, go for the fireplace poker. Kitchen, butcher's knife. Now in the basement I've got quite an arsenal with everything from hammers, screwdrivers, and other awls to solvents and reagents that'll send any theif crying to his mommy if so much as a drop gets on him. I'm a psychotic little dude and I'll rend the flesh off your bones if you piss me off enough. I'd have no problem stabbing a guy in the heat of the moment, though I'd probably freak out when I calmed down and got to thinking about what I just did.
But what really pisses me off is the fact that according to New York law, if you have a black belt you're techincally not supposed to use your training on an attacker, which is totatly bogus and it probably means I'd get into quite some trouble if I actually did get jumped. Yet I've heard of a few cases where attackers have actually sued their to-be victims after they went Bruce Lee on their sorry hides. Crazy world, ain't it?

WRATHWILDE
03-29-2006, 11:16 PM
Are Black belts a matter of public record? Nope, never had any martial arts training officer, the roundhouse kick I delivered to his head surprised me just as much as it did him. ;)

Wrathwilde

NeadMead
03-30-2006, 02:53 AM
The use of lethal force is not something that I take likely. Just before leaving work today, 29MAR06, a coworker asked me this same question. Every person has the God given right to protect themselves and their families. Just for breaking in lethal force is not justified, but I will announce my being armed with a loaded pistol and I will use it if necessary. I pray each day that I will never have to fire my pistol at another human being, but if I have to, I will. I was trained by a US Marine (my Dad) when I was a kid. In 1992, the US Army furthered that training. Both had instilled the motto of shoot to kill. Warning shots will never work. If the pressance of an armed home owner is not enough of a deterrent to the intruder, then odds are, he or she is hostile and one should shoot for centre mass. However, listening to the advice of a great lawman in this nation(Massad Ayyoub), never state in atrial that you were shooting to kill. It plays into the hands of the prosecutor (if you are tried for murder) or the plantiff in a lawsuit against you. Let the jury know that you were afraid for your life and the lives of your family. say that you were shooting to live. or at the least shooting to stop them. If the man was leaving g=her residence, I understand her fear but she should have taken more care to find out his intentions. Most criminals when shot by a home owner will flee. Do not get me wrong her fear for her children and herself was prevalent, she was not wrong, especially after being attacked twice. The judgement was. That is the shameful situation this country has gotten into. My Dad worked a county jail and a state prison in Texas. the inmates have far too many rights and the guards have little in the way they can protect themselves and each other. Amnesty International and Civil Liberties Union care more about the criminals than the victims. If they had their way we would all be imprisoned for being victims of crime. I know in MI, where I got a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), If you reasonably feel your life or the lives of your family are in immenent danger lethal force is justified. MI law also had (last I knew of) "home castle" laws yet they urge you to give the intruder a chance to leave. if the intruder does you must under law let them go. if not, what happens to them is their fault. the people on that jury for her were obviously picked by the plantiffs attorney for being gun grabbers who feel that only law enforcement should use such force. Wait until one of their relatves face the possibilty of being raped or killed. Lets see what they think then.

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

PS May God grant you and your families safe homes. Especially yours Miriam. I hope that the violence ends in the Middle East soon.

Crimson
03-31-2006, 08:16 AM
Reading all these stories, I am just glad I live in the Netherlands.
No gun problems here, and altough I care a great deal about my house as my castle, there is nothing in there worth dying for, I'd rather flee then fight. There is nothing to gain in fighting when there are other options. A scumbag low enough to break into my house is not worth enough to risk myself any bodily harm.

cu
Mark

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-31-2006, 04:24 PM
I guess I find a bit of humor in the fact that the law expects that someone that has absolutely no training, when confronted with an intruder in their home or trying to break into their home, will be calm and rational enough to make a totally rational, logical decision. I won't pretend to be a macho tough guy. If things like that happen, like being threatened at a bar by some drunk, the adrenaline kicks in and I shake like a leaf. I don't go beserk, but concern for the other guy's safety is NOT a priority in my thought process.

Does the law REALLY expect us to determine how badly we might be hurt based on the weapons the intruder is displaying or how big he is and then decide what would be reasonable? Obviously it does in some states. But I would tend to be like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribean, where he wins the sword fight by "cheating". You win, you survive, you are unharmed... What else matters... (not a question but a statement of fact)

What amazes me is how the laws can still reflect a sentiment that is so opposite what the general public feels. I haven't heard anyone argue, here or elsewhere, that ANYONE has ANY right to break into your home to steal things or harm you. And yet our laws tend to still reflect that they do have that right. It seems like "three strikes and you're out" and a few other laws recently have reversed the trend by making it tougher on the criminals. What else do we need to do?

Dan McFeeley
03-31-2006, 05:42 PM
I guess I find a bit of humor in the fact that the law expects that someone that has absolutely no training, when confronted with an intruder in their home or trying to break into their home, will be calm and rational enough to make a totally rational, logical decision. I won't pretend to be a macho tough guy. If things like that happen, like being threatened at a bar by some drunk, the adrenaline kicks in and I shake like a leaf. I don't go beserk, but concern for the other guy's safety is NOT a priority in my thought process.

This is a good response -- yup, the average Joe has no training, but when there's a threat to life, limb, and family, you're supposed to respond rationally.

Well, rationality doesn't take effect in a crisis situation. You respond by instinct.

Few of us are macho tough guys (or women) cerainly not! Yet, when thrust in a crisis situation, we have to make good decisions.

When it comes to stuff like this, the decisions of the legal system are a posteriori. That's how the legal system works.

The bottom line is -- first, protect you and yours. Don't be stupid. Don't be vindictive. Revenge is the mindset of the playground bully -- it's the same maturity level. Protect you and yours, and then get out of there!

The general intent of the law in the USA tries to recognize this, but of course, the law is the law. It has its shortcomings.

I've participated in self defense seminars for our hospital, and as well meaning at they are, they can't teach much. Self defense works best with long practice, and well honed instincts. A lot of the techniques taught in these one day seminars don't work. In one of them, two people were supposed to put me in a kneeling position in what was a submission hold. I did what I was told, and when the instructor said go ahead I deliberately straightened up, gently with consideration to my partners, and in doing so tumbled them to the mat (keep in mind I am *not* a macho guy in any way shape or form).

Instinct is the key, and you have to use what works. Learn, but then work from street instinct. That's what I liked about Oskaar's posts on this thread -- he did what worked, protected himself, and stayed legal.

Pewter_of_Deodar
03-31-2006, 06:15 PM
Dan,

Not disagreeing but it seems sad that American laws seem to expect the average American householder to train themselves on how to handle an intruder. I would generally hope that our society would do a good enough job of protecting the average citizen so that this type of training would be unnecessary. It is sad if we would rather put our energies into telling women how they should behave (like submitting to the attacker) when confronted with a rape situation. Yes, some women take self-defense courses and may actually be able to defend themselves. How sad it is that they have to do this because we coddle rapists...

Everyone have a great weekend,
Pewter

NeadMead
04-01-2006, 02:55 AM
I will never submit to an attacker. Several years ago, I was attacked by a man at least twice my size. I have had extensive unarmed combat training form the military and martial arts (not the spoorty game type). He did not know that. He did not even know me nor who I was. he was just a punk looking for a fight. He almost got one. My training helped me to keep calm. I used simple not agressive counters to his grab attempts., and both times he went into the building near us. He gave up after the second attempt. He was thinking he had an easy target. someone he could beat up easily. he found out wrong. One of the sayings our school had was "Never underestimate an assailant. Always assume he or she is dangerous." He obviously never heard of that one. If he made a third attempt; I would not have struck his gut or chest (too much fat there). His knees and groin were first and then his thoat if necessary. I would not have hit the front or back of his knees. I would have hit them where it would have done the most damage; the sides. Crime is a problem. There is no arguing that, but guns are not what is causing crime. It is an uninformed public that make unreasonable demands for better treatment of inmates. Give them exercise equipment, books, and cable tv. Not if I had anything to say about it. They would be constantly stuck in an nine by nine cell with nothing but their conscience (if they have one, but given their current situation, I would say they did not have one). I would also outlaw criminals and their families from suing when they get hurt or killed during a comission of a crime. "That is just too damn bad. You should not have broke into that man's home. So what if he had a raging pit bull. You were wher you were not supposed to be. Deal with the loss of your left eye and the use of your right hand." "Aw, I am sorry you raped that woman with HIV, but you did it to your self." "It is not against the law to have tigers in your home if you are licensed to have one. Your son broke into the wrong house, I guess, but he would still be alive if he obeyed the law and not broke into that millionaire's home." "Your husband was shot and killed because he pointed a gun at another man's seven year old daughter. His fault, not the girl's father's fault."

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-03-2006, 11:40 AM
I would also outlaw criminals and their families from suing when they get hurt or killed during a comission of a crime. "That is just too damn bad. You should not have broke into that man's home.
Amen! Absofrickinlutely! Part of the needed tort reform.

I always have to laugh about the shopowner in Miami who had repeated burglaries by people breaking in through the ceiling of his store. So he wired the ceiling to the electricity and fried one of them. Unfortunately, he lost the lawsuit. I suppose I believe that you actually do have the right to use deadly force to protect your own property in a case like this. Why shouldn't you? Does the criminal have a right to rob you without his life being at risk? I think not and maybe if there was more risk involved in committing a crime and more deterent in the punishment if you got caught, fewer people would risk it.

kash
04-03-2006, 03:35 PM
Dan,

Not disagreeing but it seems sad that American laws seem to expect the average American householder to train themselves on how to handle an intruder. I would generally hope that our society would do a good enough job of protecting the average citizen so that this type of training would be unnecessary. It is sad if we would rather put our energies into telling women how they should behave (like submitting to the attacker) when confronted with a rape situation. Yes, some women take self-defense courses and may actually be able to defend themselves. How sad it is that they have to do this because we coddle rapists...

Everyone have a great weekend,
Pewter


I'm going to lock horns with ya here, especially on the part I bolded. No where, never, has any state justly taken away the right of self defense. I don't doubt our (my) society looks down on those that take this opinion and they even go on to say that our police force is there to protect and serve. Unfortunately, our police not capable of protecting everyone. The rampant crime is enough example of this. The police in our society are crime investigators. Meaning they come in after the fact.

It's not sad at all. To blindly accept the fairytale that the police will protect you from all harm is a much more destructive idea than expecting each of us to be able to defend ourselves. I agree that our justice is too leaniant on rapists, but coddling women into thinking that they're to be protected is even more disgusting.

webmaster
04-03-2006, 03:48 PM
Exactly. What is sad is that we're not *allowed* to protect ourselves and our loved ones. State and federal government has made it so that the criminals are given more rights than those of us that choose to live lawfully.

The job of the police is not to protect us from ever having to be hurt/afraid/victimized. It's their job to round 'em up when they're caught (if they're alive), deliver them to the justice system, and provide the needed info to prove/disprove their guilt. The justice system then proceeds to fall down on their part to see that they pay for their crimes.

You can't expect the police to keep the peace, there will always be more criminals than there are police to catch them. What we need is for citizens to have the right to protect *themselves*. Right now we're expected to be sheep. Thats why 3 of the 4 planes from 9/11 got through, because we're trained to be sheep. On the last plane, they fought back, and saved the lives of *many*, while sacrificing themselves. Not sheep, them.

If I'm going down to the scum, I'm bloody well going to take as many of them as I can with me as an honor guard. I would have fought had I been on one of those planes.

Thanks for the sentiment, Pewter, but I'll protect my own interests. I don't expect or *want* the State to do it. I do expect them to clean up the mess afterwards, and not give me crap about cleaning one more piece of lawless scum out of the gene pool.

NeadMead
04-04-2006, 12:19 AM
I agree with you, Gotmead Webwench. Women should not be made to feel that they need protecting. History is full of women who not just defended themselves and their families, but their countries as well. Japan's samurai had many females in its ranks. Their are many women in the world who protected themselves and their families. Women, as far as I am concerned, can more vicious than men, especially when it comes to prtecting their children. Many women in law enforcement has proved to be almost invaluable to their male counterparts (not as sex fantasy targets).

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-04-2006, 10:06 AM
kash,

One of my major points throughout the thread is that crime would not be so rampant and the police would not be so overwhelmed if we punished criminals instead of coddling them. If a criminal was going to spend 20 years working on a chain-gang for breaking into a home, you think they'd be as likely to do it?

As far as ANYONE, male or female, being able to defend themselves... it just takes a surprise blow to the back of the head to render anyone incapable. Every convienience store clerk has the right to never have a gun pointed at them while they work. Every woman has the right to never be raped. Our laws and law enforcement need to be structured to assure those rights are protected.

WRATHWILDE
04-04-2006, 02:44 PM
If a criminal was going to spend 20 years working on a chain-gang for breaking into a home, you think they'd be as likely to do it?

Semi off topic

Yes they would, Pewter you are forgetting that basic premise of all criminals, that "they" won't get caught. An increase in penalties has never deterred first time offenders... just as making more and more offenses eligible for the death penalty has not deterred people from committing those crimes. Personally I'd like to see these people returned to productive society ASAP, this means teaching them, training them, giving them the skills they need to be productive members of society. There are other things that need to be done outside the jail system. Legalize all drugs and handle them through state run/licensced pharmacies so there isn't a black market (this will take away the financial rewards that benefit so many Gang Members and other undesirables) keep a central database as to who is purchasing how much of what. Have accurate data available on consumption rates that will flag when people are at risk for addiction. Make them sign a statement that they understand all risks and known side effects of the drugs their taking (a 5 minute video would do, with actual addicts telling their story, and medical problems resulting) Also signing a form agreeing to hold the state harmless. They also must agree that once/if they reach a certain level of addiction that they will be refered to to a rehab facility. Tax the hell out of them to pay for treatment facilities, with all additional funds being split between social services and better schooling for K thru 12.

Legalize all consensual crimes, or make them subject to monetary fines instead of prison sentences. Theft should be repaid using work release, violent offenders should be subject to three strikes your out.

Right now I'd say the major problem is with keeping kids in school, thus feeding Gangs with new recruits, and supplying the world with undereducated petty thieves and hustlers trying to scrape by.

1st - Schools don't seems to offer any practical skills that seem relevant to real world job issues, and so the majority of kids view the entire process as irrelevant... luckily only a handful drop out.

2nd - You can make more money in a day selling drugs part time to your friends than you can in a week (or month) working a standard job. Take away the illegal drug trade by putting it through legal channels and you'd cut the major funding of most of the problematic/violent gang and drug cartels, as well as petty thieves, who, from personal experience (friends) tend to be users/occasional dealers trying to fund their next score/sale to put them back in a positive financial position. You'd force these kids to stay in school because they wouldn't have the drug funding/social support group to fall back on. Make supplying drugs to minors a one year mandatory sentence per occasion, mandatory life sentence if it contributes to the death of said minor. Sure there might still be a black market for drugs, but with individual purchases tracked it would be pretty easy to find patterns of who might be reselling, and availability to minors would be cut drastically. In Northern California, just 10 years ago, the people I knew (many of them under 21) had no trouble getting "anything"... just a few phone calls or a 2 hour trip to the streets of San Francisco and they were set.

Take away the underground suppliers and these "kids" would have had a tough time getting their hands on them. Unlike liquor which is bought easily in bulk by anyone over 21, drugs through legal channels couldn't be, limiting the ability of "friends" supplying their habit. Anyway that's my plan for a better America, and I'm sticking to it.

Wrathwilde

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-04-2006, 02:50 PM
WW,

Not sure that we can measure the impact of the "death penalty" on crime since America still doesn't have a viable death penalty. For instance, the guy just put to death for the murder of a family in 1980something...

I wonder if there has been a downturn in crime since "three strikes" was implemented?

Peace,
Pewter

Sigmund Von Meader
04-04-2006, 04:19 PM
Nu, I am looking at this much later than I should.

There is much more to look at. Penalties do not deter psychopathology. That is what psychopathology means! There are sociopaths, and there are antisocial people. Both groups are different, but they are alike in that they don't understand social norms. So! They don't understand penalties, because penalties mean personal responsibility. They don't understand this!

Some criminals are psychopaths, some are antisocial, and some are neither.

But these are only thoughts, when faced with a threat one must first act. Later comes time for thought! Hopefully forethought has helped the act.

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-04-2006, 04:47 PM
Sigmund,

Any idea what percentage of criminals fall into either of these categories?

Maybe a question that begs to be asked is "If a person is mentally disturbed enough to do a violent crime, should they ever be allowed to be back insociety where they can commit another crime?" (ie. the temporary insanity excuse, et.al.).

Peace,
Pewter

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-04-2006, 04:54 PM
WW,

I think I used to be more in line with your proposals. As I get older I am becoming more like the "commune mentality" people of the 1960's. Sort of "just get me away from all of it"...

The trouble with the rehabilitation emphasis is two-fold. First, we've had that for 30 plus years and the repeat offender rate has gone way up, so it doesn't seem to work. Second, is that it costs me money that I shouldn't have to pay and could use to do a better job of raising my own family, who participate in none of the actions we are describing. In essence, you are monetarily penalizing me for the criminals well-being at the detriment to my family's well-being...

Just put up a wall with one door where I can pick and choose who gets to enter and who cannot. You get in, of course, after a suitable donation of good mead... *grin*

BTW, what's the rest of your month look like? We should try to get together sometime after Easter for a tasting...

Peace,
Pewter

WRATHWILDE
04-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Pewter,

The problem is we're paying for it now, and a great number of these are non violent offenders who pose little risk. Right now the USA has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country, and in most cases a much higher percentage. The problem is the get tough on crime mentality that imposes sentences that are neither fair nor justified.

The states vary widely as to their punishment of drug offenses, where mere possession (personal use quantities) can get you, in the case of Marijuana, anywhere from one day to 5 years. Give me one good reason why I should be paying to house these people for even one day... not to mention the court costs, law enforcement costs, etc. Possession of anything (other than stolen property) shouldn't make anybody a criminal and these people shouldn't be locked up.

Even the Governments own fact sheets support that the prohibition on drugs is responsible for drug related crimes...

Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways. Most directly, it is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse (such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines). Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user's behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking.

Trafficking in illicit drugs tends to be associated with the commission of violent crimes. Reasons for the relationship between drug trafficking and violence include the following:

Competition for drug markets and customers.
Disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market.
The tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.
In addition, locations in which street drug markets proliferate tend to be disadvantaged economically and socially; legal and social controls against violence in such areas tend to be ineffective. The proliferation of lethal weapons in recent years has also made drug violence more deadly.

Basically most everything that the Government considers drug related crimes is self induced from their own policy decisions.

1. It is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse.
Legalize the use/possession of personal quantities... problems 1&2 solved!
License the Manufacture/Distribution of said drugs... Problems 3&4 solved!

2. Reasons for the relationship between drug trafficking and violence include the following:
Competition for drug markets and customers.
Disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market.
The tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.
With the market moved into the licenced/regulated channels these would be almost nonexistent.

3. Locations in which street drug markets proliferate tend to be disadvantaged economically and
socially; legal and social controls against violence in such areas tend to be ineffective. The proliferation
of lethal weapons in recent years has also made drug violence more deadly.
Again, by moving the market to legal/regulated channels you are removing the conditions that perpetuate
the social ills of these communities, if there is no profit to be had, the social criminal network collapses,
the allure/support of new recruits is minimized and the community will rebuild itself when the children
are no longer lured from school by the current reality of easy money for almost no work.

Legalized and regulated the drug problem would be close to solved, we'd probably have about 1/2 the people in prison we do now. That's more people contributing to the economy instead of being a drag on it. As far as ending non-drug related violence... I think banning rednecks would be a good start. Almost every fight I've ever seen in person was started by a beer drinking Redneck, usually attacking someone who has no desire to fight and is trying to get them to calm down before things get out of hand.

Wrathwilde

NeadMead
04-05-2006, 02:55 AM
WrathWilde, I am sorry to say but the "three strikes and your out" laws are not being implemented. I have an uncle who has done made three strikes several times over. They still give him no more than six months, If even that much. Those tougher penalties do not work because they keep rolling on each other to avoid those sentences or they make a plea bargain. My felon uncle was almost murdered back in 2002 or 2003 an dthose bastards tried to cut a plea. If it were not for the fact that our family insisted that no plea bargain be accepted they would have accepted one. I used to work with two people who were imprisoned for felonies, one was a repeater on his third involving a weapon, both were plead down and received no more than eight years maximum. that did not include early release for good behavior. The system is on a rehabilitate while incarcerated policy. They get educatuion and training, paid for by our taxes. I cannot afford the training that they get. They get exercise equipment that is paid for by our taxes. I cannot afford the equipment that they get to use. They get cable tv that our taxes pay for. There are people working legitemate jobs who cannot afford that. Why should they get all of this paid for by our tax dollars when there are more legitimate workers out here who cannot have that stuff. I say take it away from those criminals and give it to the law abiding citizens who cannot afford it as a reward for staying legitimate. We need to get tougher on criminals like we were before the fifties. If they want skill training then they prove that they are worthy. An extreme few actually come out of prison and become useful members of society under the rehabilitate method as opposed to the hard time policy. Look at the 1800's more inmates came out and became prominent members of society. Lawyers (John Wesley Hardin), and even law enforcement (Wyatt Earp).

Making drugs legal and heavily taxing it will not come close to ending the black market on them. Look at alcohol, guns, cigarettes. Those are legal to purchase yet there is still a large black market supply and demand for them. Why do you ask? They exist to avoid the taxes. And do you honestly believe that people will stay for their rehab for addiction? I would and do not. Law enforcement cannot be organized to better protect anyone all the time. It is impossible. the only one who can protect you 24/7 is yourself. Noone else is capable. Police did not prevent my uncle from almost being killed. he almost died several times in the first 24 hours. The police were not able to prevent a good friend of mine from being mudered. The police did not prevent me from being assaulted, I did that myself. they only responded when they realized what was transpiring. If it had turned lethal it would have been too late. They were only two minutes drive from us.

The main point is that no matter how many laws you have, how many cops are on the streets, crime will exist. I do feel that we should try a more proactive approach to reaching out to the kids in the schools and try to keep them in it and out of the gangs. the job market in this country diminishing more and more rapidly, especially after NAFTA is only maiking things worse. The highest crime rates we had were during the depression. no jobs and no future. Also, many of those who worked in the alcohol trade during prohibition turned to illegal liquor manufacturing of booze. Irt was al they knew, and there was nothing else for them they had to feed their families. I honestly believe that prohibition helped , in a big way, to bring about The Great Depression. Many are trying, though they may not realize it, to bring about another one that will be worse than the last one by outlawing cigarettes, guns, and (to those it may offend sorry) porn.

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-05-2006, 10:20 AM
Just to muddy the waters a bit...

How serious an offense should possession of child pornography be?

Based on a number of recent kidnapping/rape/murders of children that have occurred and the fact that I have children that could be victimized, I am for really stiff penalties. What do the rest of you think?

Happy Wednesday,
Pewter

WRATHWILDE
04-05-2006, 02:44 PM
quote author=NeadMead

If they want skill training then they prove that they are worthy.
I agree! For violent offenders forget set sentences, They do not get released until they can demonstrate that they can be productive members of society. This means passing a series of tests and conditions to be eligible. Murderers would not be eligible and would be kept separate. Ideally first time offenders would be kept in separate facilities so that they would not be influenced and intimidated by repeat offenders. At each stage the conditions for release become harder.

Making drugs legal and heavily taxing it will not come close to ending the black market on them. Look at alcohol, guns, cigarettes. Those are legal to purchase yet there is still a large black market supply and demand for them. Why do you ask? They exist to avoid the taxes.

As I said the markets would still exist, but they would be greatly diminished. The cost to manufacture these drugs is very low, even with a 100 to 200% tax through the legal channels chances are they'd still beat street prices of today. To give an example... 10 years ago a hit of acid in Northern California would cost you anywhere from $4 to $8 dollars. However if you knew the right people, within one or two steps of the manufacture, a sheet of 100 hits could be had for $65. Which I'm sure was still a huge markup for the manufacture. (I'd be surprised if it cost more than $2 to make) You have to remember these are small operations, drug companies could turn them out for a lot less. So even with a sales tax of 200%, and the retailer making an excellent profit reselling at $65 per sheet, you'd be looking at $2 a hit, still well under the street price, making a black market much less financially attractive.

And do you honestly believe that people will stay for their rehab for addiction?
I would think many more than do today, because the taxes collected from the sales would be paying for it. It would be a no cost option. It's only when the addiction has triggered unlawful behavior that incarceration and mandatory rehab are required. If you are addicted, but choose not to go into rehab, that is your prerogative... as long as you stay on the right side of the law.

Law enforcement cannot be organized to better protect anyone all the time. It is impossible. the only one who can protect you 24/7 is yourself.
I agree completely! But the reality right now is that it is the Illegal drug trade that is supporting the majority of criminal activity. If we could take away even 3/4 of the illegal activity through legal channels... this country would be in much better shape.

Wrathwilde

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-05-2006, 04:55 PM
WW,

But which drugs do you make legal and which do you disallow? Acid can have very long lasting negative impacts. I think the same is true of almost any of the hard stuff. I have a hard time lumping weed in with crack or meth...

Your thoughts?

kash
04-05-2006, 05:22 PM
Every convienience store clerk has the right to never have a gun pointed at them while they work. Every woman has the right to never be raped. Our laws and law enforcement need to be structured to assure those rights are protected.


This isn't true at all. I don't think you understand exactly what a right as granted by the state is. While I appreciate your sentiment, living in a crime free state isn't a right at all. It's a nice utopian dream that we all can aspire to, but we all will face dangers in our lives and that includes crime.

For instance; If not being assialed at gun point were actually a right, then all those convience clerks would be able to sue the local municipalities for denying them their civil rights. Clearly, that's not the case. Nor is expecting the government to bail you out of any and all situations. The state isn't our big sugar daddy that is suppose to keep us safe from everything. You still have that responsibility. It's yours alone. OSHA, Law Enforcement and crossing cadets may help to make your life more safe, but it's your responsibility to look out for number one. If you get hurt at work, try suing OSHA, see how far that gets you. No one is responsible for you, but you.

WRATHWILDE
04-05-2006, 05:58 PM
But which drugs do you make legal?

All of them, if you don't then you just keep moving the illegal market and you end up with the same problems.

Wrathwilde

NeadMead
04-07-2006, 12:09 AM
And I have doubts that you know any drug addicts. It does not matter who is paying for it, they will not voluntarily stay. I know this for a fact. i know many drug addicts. that includes my uncle who was almost murdered. As far as drug crimes, legalizing drugs will not eliminate them. You will still have drug addicts commiting acts of violence. You will also see a significant increase in DUI accidents. More people will driving while high on cocaine, meth, heroine, or something else adding to traffic fatalities and injuries. I say no more pampering the criminal element. They prey on fear. We need to make them fear us not the other way around.

Holly
04-07-2006, 01:01 AM
Just chiming in after catching up...

I have martial arts training and I NEVER had any qualms about learning those techniques that will stop someone PERMANENTLY if executed properly. And learning them so that they are as instinctual as possible. If I am ever in a situation where it is between X or me and we are that close together - ie. physical contact that is of the nature preceding something like rape - it sure as HELL ain't going to be me that goes down.

I also own a Ruger SP101 .357 5 shot revolver. It usually hangs from my bedpost, hidden behind the headboard. In the bag it is in, there are FOUR speed loaders. It took me 2+ years from the time that I received my CCP to actually buy a gun. Reason being, I couldn't in my own mind and heart decide that YES - if I am in fear of my life but there is 1, 2, 3 feet between X and me that I will do what it takes to make X STOP as in PERMANENTLY One morning, I woke up and apparently my subconcious had made the decision that yes, I could. Hence the purchase.

Re the discussion of rights to not be raped, not have guns pointed at them while working - it is not about the right to not have those things happen it is about the right we all should have to live our lives without fear of our fellow man. Yes, thats a utopian view of the world, and may never come in my lifetime. Yes rapists should be killed, no not castrated, killed - sorry, I don't want to pay for that person to exist. Drugs should be legalized, but those amoral activities that occur due to that need to be punished severely - rehab on the taxpayers dime is NOT the answer.

Harsh - yep. My opinion - yep.

Holly

theshadowhammer
04-07-2006, 01:32 AM
i have many guns all but 2 are kept unloaded and in a safe
i have the 38.special by ruger in the wifes night stand
and a 12 gauge street sweeper loaded and at my bed side.

on april 24 i my brother and my wife will be taking a course for concealed carry. i dont know if ill use it but i will encourage her to

ill let you guys and gals know how it turns out

not only do they try to make you compentent with your weapon they tell you the laws in your state an the best gun to carry to work with in those laws

peace
and prays that those of you that are armed my never halve to do the unthinkable

WRATHWILDE
04-07-2006, 06:47 AM
And I have doubts that you know any drug addicts.


I grew up in Southern California, when I was in 5th grade I was one of two kids who didn't smoke pot. I have spent my entire life surrounded by drug users, and participated for many many years. I've had a friend die from a contaminated batch of heroin, seen a couple of my best friends go to jail. But your right, of the hundreds and hundreds of drug users I've known the addicts have been far and few between, and that's my point... they are a incredibly small percentage. I have tried just about everything but heroin, I lived in a party house (parties every night for several years) The People who were inclined to drug relate crime were those that got involved in dealing before they finished HS. Take away that financial incentive and they would be forced to become more responsible, The addiction was easier to start when dealing because the quantities on hand were much greater.

Wrathwilde

kash
04-07-2006, 07:49 AM
Prohibition has always worked so well in the past. [/sarcasm] Likewise, legislating morality will only lead to pointing out how vapid and hypocritical the laws and lawmakers are. Really, alcohol and tobacco are fine but we have to draw the line there because... why?

Frankly, people should have the right to poison themselves on whatever chemical they care to. Clearly the current solution isn't working. There are more drugs on the street and in the schools than there ever has been. Perhaps we should try a different approch, one that shuts down the black market and maybe we'll keep the drugs away from our kids.

But this seems to be a seperate topic from that of self defense. I do think that if all the drug money didn't go to the criminal element, there would be much less crime. I think people are wrong when they attribute drug fueled crime to "heroin addicts stealing your TV to fund their habit". Real drug crime is fueled by the massive amounts of cash that allow dealers and syndicates to buy automatic weapons, bribe, and terrorize the streets with turf warfare.

If it wasn't for prohibition, the name Al Capone wouldn't be in our history. All types of prohibitions do nothing but fund organized crime.

WRATHWILDE
04-07-2006, 08:24 PM
Likewise, legislating morality will only lead to pointing out how vapid and hypocritical the laws and lawmakers are.

My step dad was a Prosecuting Asst. Deputy District Attorney. According to my Mom... and this is while they were still married, Cocaine use was rampant in the district attorneys office... but they didn't mind prosecuting the hell out of the average joe who got caught with possession. Likewise, the biggest drug dealer in the county had most of the Cops on the take (a number of which were meth heads). He supplied a good portion of the bay area with meth from what I understand. The DEA traced the drugs to our county and put a lot of heat on the local force to come up with a name, they all knew who the DEA was looking for... Instead of ratting him out they asked him to cease production for a few months until the DEA went away. He told them to go to hell, he had incriminating evidence on most of the police force, the DA's office, the judges and that if he went down they all went down. This didn't go over too well and I found out from my mom, who had it directly from my step dad, that the local police force then set about hiring an officer to kill the said dealer. They found an Officer from L.A. that had several kills under his belt and had been kicked off the L.A. police force for repeated instances of using excessive force. They then set this officer out to continually harass the dealer until he could find an opportunity to kill him without witnesses. They then planted a knife on him... the officer claimed the shooting was justified. The officer was placed on leave, cleared of any wrong doing and then took his family and left the county.
In another instance... my best friends brother ran drugs for a dispatcher at the sheriffs office.



I do think that if all the drug money didn't go to the criminal element, there would be much less crime. I think people are wrong when they attribute drug fueled crime to "heroin addicts stealing your TV to fund their habit". Real drug crime is fueled by the massive amounts of cash that allow dealers and syndicates to buy automatic weapons, bribe, and terrorize the streets with turf warfare.

This is very true.. and they don't care where their market comes from or how old they are... and if you're a cute girl it doesn't matter how young you are (I've heard bragging as low as twelve) they'll trade you drugs for sex until they get tired of you. For those of you who don't think we should move the drug business into legal channels... do you think trading drugs for sex with underage girls happens very often at your local (taxed and regulated) pharmacy? I assure you it happens all the time with the illegal drug dealers.

Wrathwilde

chiashurb
04-09-2006, 07:09 PM
Does the law REALLY expect us to determine how badly we might be hurt based on the weapons the intruder is displaying or how big he is and then decide what would be reasonable? Obviously it does in some states.

No. When the law says "reasonably believes," the question is not whether you were _right_ in thinking that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury (and how serious is "serious," anyway), but whether a reasonable person in your shoes would have thought the same thing. The reasonable person standard takes into account the fact that you have to make a split-second decision, that it's your house in the middle of the night, and any other circumstances. Also, "necessary and proportionate force" (the hoary old common-law standard) doesn't necessarily mean that you can't fight a knife with a gun. It might in your jurisdiction, or it might just mean that you can't

Also, keep in mind that tort standards can be different than criminal standards (i.e. you could imagine a jurisdiction where you would succesfully defend a homicide charge on the basis of self-defense, but still lose the subsequent tort suit. Or, where you get convicted of homicide but win the tort suit.) And when people are saying that this demands tort reform: a person getting sued doesn't mean anything about the tort system. Nothing. All it means is that they can fill out a piece of paper, file it with the clerk of court, pay a filing fee, and serve it on the defendant. Getting sued says nothing to the merits of the claim, and plenty of people file claims that they will lose. If the plaintiff wins and the decision is upheld on appeal, then you can start talking about reforming your jurisdiction's tort laws. If you think you shouldn't have to pay to defend, that's another question that we can talk about. However, if you want to say that "loser pays" should be the rule (as it is in many non-American jurisdictions), you should also ask if you should pay Wal*Mart's legal bill if you file a lawsuit against them and lose (say a discrimination claim, against a worker). Their lawyers charge $500 an hour, and aren't looking for any kind of efficiency as to how many hours they work.

Finally, a comment on the "rights of the criminal." Many posters have expressed the sentiment that a burgalar forfeits his right to live the moment he enters your home. You could, however, imagine a case where an unarmed youth breaks into a house at night and the homeowner shoots him in the back just as he's making off with the fine silver. Is that really the result we want to encourage? Is that homeowner's silver worth more than a teenager's life? This isn't about "coddling" the criminal; that person, if caught, will be prosecuted and punished. It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available. It's about recognizing that people aren't perfect (homeowners or burgalars), and we'd rather have people sort out their differences with lawyers than with guns. Instead of imagining yourself the homeowner, take a moment to imagine yourself as the parent of the burgalar. Yeah he did a stupid thing, but was it really so bad that he deserved to die for it?

beeboy
04-10-2006, 08:11 PM
Cool thread, here in Florida they just changed the law so if you think you life is in danger from an attacker you can fight back as a first resort instead of using flight as a way out of the confrontation. In other words if you were attacked the old law expected you to try to get away as a first response instead of using deadly force. Now deadly force has become the first option under the new law. If some thug breaks into my house while I'm here they will probably get shot at with either a 30-06 hunting rifle or a Colt Woodsman depending on what I pick up first. If somebody jumps me, well I wrestled for five years in college and high school. It was a long time ago but some of the moves became automatic. I also will play Hannible Lecter, tell the attacker that I'm going to eat his face off and then try to do just that. Hopefully I'll enjoy a quite and peaceful life, after hunting for years death of any sort is distasteful to me. If it comes to either my loved ones and myself or some creep, well I am more than ready to pour some bleach in the gene pool.

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-11-2006, 12:06 PM
Right on Beeboy!

storm1969
04-13-2006, 02:13 PM
Is that really the result we want to encourage? Is that homeowner's silver worth more than a teenager's life?

Maybe! If I worked hard for it or it was a family heirloom, what right does some kid with no morals have to take it?



This isn't about "coddling" the criminal; that person, if caught, will be prosecuted and punished. It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available. It's about recognizing that people aren't perfect (homeowners or burgalars), and we'd rather have people sort out their differences with lawyers than with guns. Instead of imagining yourself the homeowner, take a moment to imagine yourself as the parent of the burgalar. Yeah he did a stupid thing, but was it really so bad that he deserved to die for it?


Maybe he shouldn't die, but should he be breaking into your house? Where were his parents then? He is acting as they taught or didn't teach him.
And actually, it is about coddling him. Most likely he wouldn't be caught, and you would be the one losing out.
I couldn't amagine being his parents because my kids would not break into a house, having been taught right from wrong.
The bottom line is: If he hadn't broken into your house (also breaking the law), he would be fine, wouldn't he?

I know this sounds like I am a hard-*ss, but I don't break into houses and steal property, do you? Why should I not have the right to defend my property? The criminal made his choices, one of which was to break into a house where someone might be armed.

Just my 2 cents,
Brian

PS I am now climbing off of my soap box.

chiashurb
04-13-2006, 03:23 PM
You're missing the point. It's not about the "kid with no morals" (or maybe he's a kid with no food) has a right to your heirlooms; it's about the sanctity of life. It's about acknowleding that he did a bad thing, but making a moral or sociological call that he doesn't need to die for it.

Your statement about apprehending the burglar presents a false dilemma* of shooting the kid or him being caught. There are plenty of situations imaginable where you don't shoot the kid, and he gets caught. For instance your home burglar alarm, if you have one, alerts the police and they show up before he leaves. Or you call the cops and give the license plate number of his getaway car, and they catch him.

To coddle is "to treat in an indulgent or overprotective way."** Are you saying that it would be indulgent or overprotective to treat somebody who causes you a monetary loss in any way other than trying to kill them? Would it be acceptable to you to have a loaded spring gun that automatically shoots people who try to enter your home when you're not there? What about your garage? Your toolshed? A self-storage locker?

chiashurb
04-13-2006, 03:28 PM
* See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
** Oxford American Dictionary, Mac Dashboard edition

chiashurb
04-13-2006, 03:36 PM
On the other hand, some data that support your point can be found here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4192004.pdf

Nationally, 12.9% of burglaries reported to police are cleared by arrest. So your'e right, that the burgalar has a decent chance of escaping. I still maintain, however, that this calls for a re-examination of our law-enforcement system, if anything, rather than vigilante justice (shooting the offender.)

storm1969
04-13-2006, 04:24 PM
Nationally, 12.9% of burglaries reported to police are cleared by arrest. So your'e right, that the burgalar has a decent chance of escaping. I still maintain, however, that this calls for a re-examination of our law-enforcement system, if anything, rather than vigilante justice (shooting the offender.)


Perhaps you misunderstand law enforcement. It is not about protecting the population but about catching the criminals. We are left to protect ourselves. Police officers will tell you this, themselves. You would need almost as many police officers as citizens in order to prevent crime from happening.


Are you saying that it would be indulgent or overprotective to treat somebody who causes you a monetary loss in any way other than trying to kill them?

No I am not saying that. I am saying that anyone who illegally breaks into my house cannot expect to be able to just walk off with my belongings. I am perfectly happy with giving the criminal the chance to drop the items he has taken. If he does not, he once again has made his choice. How many chances do you want to give someone who insists on breaking the law? (That is coddling someone).

We are all thinking individuals; we all make our own decisions and have to live with the results. If you don't like the results, make a different decision!

As someone who has been robbed (and had my grandfathers watch, which was priceless to me, stolen.), I will not let that happen again (if I can prevent it)! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

And yes I think life is precious, but once again... Nobody forced him into me house, did they?

It all boils down to how responsible you think people are for their actions. If they aren't, then you are right. Open your doors and let them take everything!

Brian

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-13-2006, 04:25 PM
chiasburb,

I still go back to the point that the burglar has NO, ZERO, NADA right to be breaking into my home. I think we probably agree on that fact.

I also think we agree that death is probably a harsh penalty for burglary.

My point is that whatever laws are applied to the situation of a burglar in the house, NONE, ZERO, NADA of them should be structured to the detriment of the homeowner or cause even the SLIGHTEST increase in risk to the health and well-being of the homeowner. While it may be harsh, if the homeowner's safest method of dealing with an intruder is to shoot them, they should have EVERY right to do so without the fear of being sued or jailed later.

If a law is structured in such a way that it increases the risk to the homeowner or business owner that is in the right, then the law is just plain wrong. If a law protects the criminal in a way that makes it easier or less risky for him to commit a crime, then it is just plain wrong...

Peace,
Pewter

Oskaar
04-13-2006, 04:51 PM
Shrub,

I think the real point is that when someone breaks into my home I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect to the best of my ability my family, myself and to defend our lives against any and all perceived threats from an intruder whether real or imagined. Self defense, protection of life, limb and property is hardly vigilante justice.

Speaking from personal experience on this subject I had the amazing good fortune of not being shot because my dog attacked and helped me subdue a sneak-thief in my home who had a gun and was lying in wait to kill me for all I knew. I would have been dead if this guy had managed to get the drop on me if it weren’t for my dog. I'd have very likely been wearing a toe tag according to the sheriff. Also the method of entry indicated a familiarity with the house and the neighborhood. According to the sheriff's office this is not unusual in burglaries/home intrusions/takeovers.

I'm sorry but I don't buy for one second that I should think of anything other than staying alive, defending my family with whatever force and means necessary and winning in this kind of a situation. Trying to rationalize the sanctity of life in a split-second life and death situation will get you killed in my experience. I've been on the wrong end of guns, knives and several other unpleasant weapons on more than one occasion, and I have the marks to prove it.

The very second someone comes willingly and notoriously into my house with or without a weapon, to take my life, liberty or anything I use in the pursuit of happiness, all bets are off and it’s them or me. I cannot and will not risk my life (or anyone's life in my house) worrying about the sanctity of the intruder's life no matter how old, young, drunk or otherwise they happen to be. My family’s life and my life are more important to me than an intruder who is looking to score some silverware and may be carrying a gun or other weapon. I cannot and will not waste time wondering if he/she/it means to do harm to myself, my family or my stuff, period, end of story.

Cheers,

Oskaar

Johnnybladers
04-13-2006, 07:41 PM
Amen Oskarr

Jon.

beeboy
04-13-2006, 11:14 PM
Gotta agree with Oskarr on this one, if someone breaks into a house not only is he violating the law he is also setting himself into a behavior pattern as a chriminal, if he gets away with it he will do it again and again. There is a point where the thief steps over the line and begins to use violence as a means to the end. I don't care if the intruder is a first time violator or multiple offender he need to be stopped by the police or homeowner. Once the decision has been made by the thief to break into a house there is no difference between a first timer or long time criminal.

Brewbear
04-14-2006, 02:08 AM
The way I see it, we are entitled to our oppinions! To each his/her own. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of the intruder being a first time offender or repeat offender, he will most definitely be a last time offender. I will protect my family and myself to the best of my ability, and if someone is in my house uninvited, well, he is SOL! The wellbeing of my family is paramount!

I dedicated my life to the medical field, I have saved lives as an EMT and now i still save lives through the work i do in the lab. A life is sacred! By the same token, my life and my family is sacred to me and I will actively protect them. Why are we concerned with the rights of a lowlife, scum of the earth? What about the victim's rights? I would like to see the day when we can legally carry guns. So far, when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns!

To me, gun control means being able to hit my target.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Brewbear

kash
04-17-2006, 12:28 PM
It's about a moral judgment that the loss of a human life is an inherently bad thing and that the taking of that life should only happen if there's no other option reasonably available.

I think this is a lot of lip service to another utopian ideal, that being the "Sanctity of life". Clearly we have many states and the federal government that uses capital punishment when life without parole is another rather obvious "option".

If humanity really did believe in the sancity of life then there wouldn't be wars. That's not the case, society in general devalues young males to the point that we burn them up in wars over land, religion, oil and too many other stupid reasons even to mention.

Sanctity of life only is mentioned when someone else is looking down their nose and Monday morning quarterbacking someone else's life.

I think we'd be much better off and were honest with each other and say "a criminal's life isn't as valuable as a productive member of society". We have a long history of rationalizing away taboos against killing in the case of war, abortion, capital punishment, ect. It shouldn't be any great leap for us to admit to the behavior that we all engage in, that being, some lives are much more expendible, some lives are more important than others.

And just to bring this back on track; If someone wants to steal your posessions they're a much less worthy life. Would be killers and rapists obviously fall into this category as well.

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-18-2006, 11:45 AM
If humanity really did believe in the sancity of life then there wouldn't be wars. That's not the case, society in general devalues young males to the point that we burn them up in wars over land, religion, oil and too many other stupid reasons even to mention.


A lot of good thoughts but coming at it from a different angle than I would take. I suppose if ALL humans believed in sanctity of life, then what you say would be true. The trouble is that those that believe in the sanctity of life are left with a paradox on how to protect themselves (and their loved ones) from those that do NOT believe in it.

I am scared right now that a country (Iran) that would love to turn New York, Chicago, or any other large US city into a nuclear wasteland is developing weapons grade plutonium. What choice of response does someone that believes in sanctity of life have in this situation? Because I believe that most of the wars we (the US) are fighting right now are based on these sort of issues. Are the lives of several million of my countrymen worth not having a war with Iran? Or to bring it back to the thread, are the lives of my family worth sparing the life of an intruder?



I think we'd be much better off and were honest with each other and say "a criminal's life isn't as valuable as a productive member of society". We have a long history of rationalizing away taboos against killing in the case of war, abortion, capital punishment, ect. It shouldn't be any great leap for us to admit to the behavior that we all engage in, that being, some lives are much more expendible, some lives are more important than others.


I have to say that I think the thought process in this argument is backwards. It isn't that a criminal's life is less valuable, it is that the lives of my loved ones are priceless. I know it is a very subtle difference, but a homeowner is not going out of his home armed with guns to eliminate threats to his home, he is dealing with someone that has chosen to put his family (or himself) at risk by illegally entering his home.

Are you claiming that if I believed in the sanctity of life, I would allow the burglar/murderer/rapist to have his way with me and my possessions/life/body? I suppose if sanctity of life was my highest priority then the answer might be yes. But generally, self-preservation is higher on the list.

But again, I enjoyed your thoughts,
Pewter

Sigmund Von Meader
04-18-2006, 03:23 PM
[quote=kash ]Are you claiming that if I believed in the sanctity of life, I would allow the burglar/murderer/rapist to have his way with me and my possessions/life/body? I suppose if sanctity of life was my highest priority then the answer might be yes. But generally, self-preservation is higher on the list.

Pewter, I am confused! You talk about sanctity of life and self preservation as if they were different things!

So many apologies. This reply was both a little kibbitzing and a bissela noodge from a nudnik. :-)

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-18-2006, 06:28 PM
Sigmund,

I believe that the two are different, although possibly related issues.

Sanctity of life (IMHO) would have a person doing whatever is necessary, taking whatever risks are required (to themselves and others) in order to possibly spare the life of another. In terms of the discussion on intruders in a home, the individual with sanctity of life highest in their priorities would do everything possible to give the intruder an opportunity to flee, to take the possessions and leave, restraining from the possible use of deadly force until they had been shot at or at least seen a weapon brandished in their direction, or even fleeing themselves to avoid a possible loss of life (even if it was the intruders).

Whereas I would call self-preservation as a "sanctity of MY life" where the lives of others would not necessarily be a consideration. I suppose I consider that someone with self-preservation highest on the list would feel like they are endangered, their well-being, financial or physical is threatened, and respond accordingly, including the use of deadly force, so as to minimize the risk to themselves.

Certainly either standpoint is valid depending upon the beliefs of the individuals. What is wrong is if the laws FORCE the opposing belief onto a person and prevent them from minimizing the risk to themselves. I'll go back to my earlier premise:

If a law is structured in such a way that it increases the risk to the homeowner or business owner that is in the right, then the law is just plain wrong. If a law protects the criminal in a way that makes it easier or less risky for him to commit a crime, then it is just plain wrong...

Am I missing something?
Pewter

Sigmund Von Meader
04-19-2006, 01:00 PM
Nu, I was kibbitzing more than replying. :-)

You wrote here:

>I believe that the two are different, although
>possibly related issues.
>
>Sanctity of life (IMHO) would have a person doing
>whatever is necessary, taking whatever risks are
>required (to themselves and others) in order to
>possibly spare the life of another.
>
>Whereas I would call self-preservation as a
>"sanctity of MY life" where the lives of others
>would not necessarily be a consideration.

My kibbitzing was with the idea of the sanctity of life, all life. That would include yourself along with the others. Would it not? How could it be otherwise? That is where the two ideas are related.

The differences lie along the lines moral reasoning will take you. How will you act? What will you do?

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-20-2006, 10:21 AM
So the 64,000 dollar question...

It seems like the vast majority of Americans (at least based on discussions here and elsewhere) are against laws that give the criminals more rights than their victims so what happened that allowed these extremely unpopular laws to be enacted?

storm1969
04-21-2006, 02:54 PM
... so what happened that allowed these extremely unpopular laws to be enacted?


That's easy, Most of the people that make the laws (i.e. politicians) do not have any concept of what the average person thinks, feels or wants.

Brian

Oskaar
04-21-2006, 05:50 PM
I'll take it a step further and say that the considerable majority of the voting public doesn't bother to educate themselves past the tripe that's peddled on the television set in their homes. I feel that many people vote without a grasp or understanding of the fiscal, social or personal liberties rammifications.

Here in California I see a lot of people who aren't interested in taking responsibility for their own actions so the way the deflect is to incite a public outcry over the fact that there are no laws preventing something from happening. Then the News Media picks up on it, and then there are rallies and school walkouts, and interviews with lawmakers and all of a sudden . . . lawn darts are illegal (sorry couldn't resist) but you get the idea!

BTW, I still have my lawn darts and they'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers to take them away!

Cheers,

Oskaar

scout
04-24-2006, 11:14 AM
Rape my wife, rape my daughter, even rape Vicki or Mynx or Scout or anyone I know and somehow feel that you have a right to be all safe and secure? I think not... Not no but hell no!!


Awww, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers, and Pewter, honey, you're as strange as they come, love! *big huggs and grins* Popping in again, and this topic really sucked me in. My two cents? There have been a lot of really great posts on this topic. My basic instinct is that everyone has a right to do what they want, until it touches another person. i.e. Sure, go ahead get totally jacked up on heroin, the minute you get in a car or start interacting with someone else in any way, you're no longer okay in my book. On the punishment side, my utopian punishment would be very Hammrabian - eye for an eye with no extended court times. Murderers and rapists killed. And frankly, I think that "murder" should be extended to the executives of companies who currently get to say things like, "Ooops! We didn't know that the drug we manufacture was going to kill you . . . Sorry!"

Back on topic. *snirk* I have a two level security system. It starts with my very loud, very deep throated, very barky German Shepherd. My neighbor, a very slight woman whose husband's job takes him out of town often, told me how grateful she was that we moved in BECAUSE of the dog (we were afraid she would be annoyed by the barking). When the time comes (my dog is old), she will be replaced by a pair of weimeraners, dogs bred to hunt and take down bears while still be excellent family dogs. I plan on having them well trained. Layer two is me coming at any intruder with a very large, very sharp knife looking rather insane and perfectly willing to kill in a very painful and not very happy way anyone who tries to come inside my home who should not be here.

Sorry guys, but scary b**** with a knife generally beats out rational man with a gun on the intimidation scale. Hopefully enough to make most burglars run away.

Okay, this is another reason I hate being pregnant. I go from nearly being in tears from Pewter's lovely statement to feeling like Rambo in less than 20 minutes. Hello, hormone roller coaster! :P 7 weeks left

Pewter_of_Deodar
04-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Scout,

Hugs... good luck on the last 7 weeks. I can remember trying to make sense out of my wife's mood swings those last couple months. I couldn't do it... *chuckle*

The idea of a crazed woman, brandishing a knife, loses some of the ferociousness when coupled with the normal waddling associated with being 7 or 8 months pregnant. *grin*

Anyway, good luck with the remaining weeks!

Pewter

scout
04-24-2006, 12:17 PM
Okay, yeah . . .my knife brandishing is pretty curtailed for the moment . . .:P

Michael_Ng
05-02-2006, 05:17 AM
My thoughts - too many people have the lawyer mentality. But put yourself on the other side. Say that your son broke into someone's house. Isn't killing him a bit extreme? Wouldn't shooting both his legs be enough?


Perhaps... But try hitting the guy just in the legs using a shotgun loaded with buckshot at close range.

The reason I keep a loaded shotgun at home? About 6 years ago I decided to see how well I could hit the target with my .40 in a dark gun range with no flashlight at 15 yards without my prescription glasses on. (I think I only got something like 3 out of 10 rounds in the center mass.) That and everyone should realize the importance of the word "Ka-Chunk".

Oh yeah, I'm not sure if it's changed since I read up on it 5 years ago but... In California, the law states that if there is physical evidence of illegal forcible entry (into your house) by a non-family member, a jury must be instructed to make the presumption that you acted in self defense. While I'd much rather not have to go to trial in the first place, it's nice to know that the burden of proof goes to the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self defense.

And while I would really prefer not ever having to kill anyone, what was that saying again? Better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6...

Michael