Limits Of Castle Laws

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by nostatic

So in other words, some of you reject the US Constitution and instead prefer "old west" justice. Because: 1) stuff is more important than people and/or 2) someone stealing my stuff today might rape or kill someone down the road.

This is incredibly weak, especially for you, Todd. While a couple of us have already addressed your fist "point" (such as it is ), you need to read and understand the following:

Originally Posted by Linderpat

Um, reread it ; the US Constitution was designed to protect me, the individual, from encroachments of the state. It was not designed to protect a scum bag from the consequences of his actions by another individual. You have no protected liberty rights on my property, particularly if you are uninvited and do me or mine harm, or steal my stuff. Horse theives were routinely shot with impunity under "old west" justice. Consequences? Fewer horse theives.
And yes, my stuff is more important thant the thief who wants to steal it. You of course miss the point entirely - it isn't about the "stuff" - it's what the stuff represents. Hard work/honest labor, receiving value for creating something positive of value. People who want to simply take it from you are the lowest form of vile scum, and represent the greatest threat to a civilized society.
I would have let the homeowner off had I been on the jury.

We have the right to protect ourselves and, yes, our hard earned property from those who would harm us or take it.

It strikes me that many of you are treating these as isolated incidences, as the juries were forced to do with the courts barring admission of these kids' juvenile pasts. These were ongoing problems in both cases; ongoing problems that our authorities either could not or would not bring to an end. No one should have to live under the continuing depredations of criminals, an ongoing fear of wondering when they will strike next, and the fear of wondering how far it will have to go before the authorities can or will do something about it.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by aigel

Frankly, I am disappointed in some of the posters here that find it justifiable to kill a fellow human over stuff.

How would you know that an home invader is only after your stuff? I'd kill a home invader because he broke into my home and thus threatened my wife and me, not because he wanted to steal my stuff.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

How would you know that an home invader is only after your stuff? I'd kill a home invader because he broke into my home and thus threatened my wife and me, not because he wanted to steal my stuff.

Agree.

Where I live someone would have to really want to break into my house.

If they do, they will get shot.

[speeder]

Wait...a burglar got shot by someone named "Kaarma"?

[Jeff Higgins]

I think those of us who are being accused of being so callous we would shoot people over our "stuff" are the kinds of guys who would gladly give these kids "stuff" if we thought it would help them out, if we thought they were good kids. So, no - it's not about the "stuff". Our accusers need to dig a little deeper than that.

[J P Stein]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

My stuff is more important that a thug's life. I may not be allowed to shoot bad guy stealing my car out of my driveway. But if he breaks into my occupied house, I can only assume he has no fear of deadly force, can't be deterred or reasoned with and will need to be stopped.



Not sure what killing bad guys has to do with the Const. The gov't. has some hurdles to do it legally, but private citizens have far less of a burden.



That's the absolute worst thing you can do. Letting a bad guy stay alive so the cops can hear his side of the story and his lawyers can sue you is a very bad option. No matter how justified, you will face financial ruin for letting a bad guy tell his side of the story to the cops.

And you think killing the guy is a better idea? That is what started this thread.
Either way (dead or not), I would rather take my chances in court on an A&B charge rather than on murder....the A&B wouldn't even make the news...you think you're gonna "walk" with a dead body laying around? We all see what the results of that plan has wrought.

You're going have to defend your actions either way. Welcome to real life in lawyer land.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think those of us who are being accused of being so callous we would shoot people over our "stuff" are the kinds of guys who would gladly give these kids "stuff" if we thought it would help them out, if we thought they were good kids. So, no - it's not about the "stuff". Our accusers need to dig a little deeper than that.

You, the individual, are deciding who is worthy to live or die. Because someone is (allegedly) coming to "take your stuff", they are scum and should be eliminated. If you "think they are a good kid" then they are passed over for execution.

You can spin it any way you want - you're playing God and elevating your physical possession over the life of a human.

If someone is a direct physical threat to you or your family, then I understand the use of deadly force. But that is not what some here are saying. My stuff - you try to take it, I kill you.

[Z-man]

For my 'stuff' I have insurance from State Farm - their home owner's policy. If my stuff is damaged, stolen...etc. they take care of it.

For my life, I have insurance from H&K - their 9mm policy. If my life threatened, that takes care of it.

In my home, the line between what insurance covers what can easily be blurred.

That doesn't mean I welcome perps to take my stuff - who are they to take for free what I worked hard for?

For me, the bottom line is this: If someone unwelcome enters my home, and I have clearly stated the situation to them (Get OUT - I have a gun!) and they continue towards me, and I fear for my life, then I can assume they are after more than just stuff. That's when the second insurance kicks in...

I think the two homeowners in the OP's story got their insurance policies confused...

-Z-man.

[aigel]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

It strikes me that many of you are treating these as isolated incidences, as the juries were forced to do with the courts barring admission of these kids' juvenile pasts. These were ongoing problems in both cases; ongoing problems that our authorities either could not or would not bring to an end. No one should have to live under the continuing depredations of criminals, an ongoing fear of wondering when they will strike next, and the fear of wondering how far it will have to go before the authorities can or will do something about it.

The guy Kaarma killed was a 17 year old exchange student from Germany. Probably looking for beer.

G

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Stand your ground is different from castle doctrine. SYG means you have no duty to retreat when in a place you have a legal right to be. Most states also qualify this by requiring that you had nothing to do with creating the situations.

Example - You mouth off to a tough guy in a bar and you have a legal right to be there. But if he starts kicking your ass in the parking lot and doesn't stop, your killing him isn't gonna be justified, since you created the situation.

CD says you can use deadly force in your home when in reasonable fear of your life or limb. Given this law, it would be reasonable to assume an intruder intends to do you harm, armed or not, because his entering your occupied house is a suicide mission. I'd say a home invasion is a lot more serious than getting into a confrontation outside your house and there's probably less burden placed on homeowner to demonstrate he didn't contribute to the cause of the situation.

My bad.

[flipper35]

If someone is in my home and I state I have a weapon and they choose to not listen to my instructions at that point I would believe that I and my family would be in danger.

[techweenie]

The theme here -- as with many others inevitably headed to PARF -- is that there is no possibility of redemption or recognizance; that the person committing the (very) petty property crime is somehow inevitably on the path to serial killings. Nuts.

[70SATMan]

There is not a single possession that I own other than my own life/freedom that I would consider taking a life to protect.

While I would easily take a life to protect the lives of my family I don't consider them possessions.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by flipper35

If someone is in my home and I state I have a weapon and they choose to not listen to my instructions at that point I would believe that I and my family would be in danger.

Right. And if you were not really in danger, (and could prove it), you might spend the rest of your natural life paying protection money to your cell mates in prison. You, and others, are confusing how the law works in this country. Just because you say that you were in fear for your life, or make up your own standard for when that occurs, (such as anyone being in your house and not responding to your commands), does not mean that you will not be (rightly) convicted of murder.

What if it's some college student who is so dead drunk that they are confused about where they are or wandered into the wrong house? (True case). How about an old person with Alzheimers? Someone not so old with dementia but harmless?

I'm not denying that there are some very bad people out there that need killing or that I would not shoot someone if truly necessary. But some of you seem to think that you can make up your own murder laws...either that or you seriously don't understand the ones that actually exist.

FWIW, I know the defense lawyer in the MN. case. He is the nephew of my godfather and could not carry the jockstrap of his uncles or my dad but wow, he got in the papers.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by nostatic

You, the individual, are deciding who is worthy to live or die.

A little melodramatic, isn't it? People make that decision about one another everyday. I think we all agree that if we caught some thug in the act of beating and/or raping our wives, we would hasten to such a decision.

Originally Posted by nostatic

Because someone is (allegedly) coming to "take your stuff", they are scum and should be eliminated. If you "think they are a good kid" then they are passed over for execution.

The real crux of this matter is just where each of us draws this line. Again, this is not (at least for me) about my "stuff". It's about someone violating the sanctity and security of my home in their efforts to relieve me of my stuff. It's about their inferred willingness to put me and my family at risk by breaking into my home.

Originally Posted by nostatic

You can spin it any way you want - you're playing God and elevating your physical possession over the life of a human.

More melodrama. I don't get that impression in reading this thread. I've earnestly tried not to give it, and I don't think anyone else (save for Sammy) has given that impression. To kick the dead horse one more time, it's not about the possessions. It's about the kind of guy who would break into your home to relieve you of them.

Originally Posted by nostatic

If someone is a direct physical threat to you or your family, then I understand the use of deadly force. But that is not what some here are saying. My stuff - you try to take it, I kill you.

I think we can all understand the use of deadly force under these circumstances. Again, I think the rub lies in where we are willing to make that call. Some folks might have to wait until a loved one is lying in a pool of blood before they begin to perceive a threat. Others prefer not to let it get that far.

Re-reading the articles and re-reading this thread, coupled with a day of pondering the questions involved, has led me to shift my position. I now believe, in these two specific cases, that the home owners were properly charged. It's a very fine line, and one I very much hope none of us has to toe, but I do believe they crossed it. I very much believe in the premise of protecting what is yours, from loved ones to property. I do still very much believe that under most circumstances anyone caught in my home should be perceived as a threat and dealt with accordingly. Even under the worst conditions, however, I don't think I could ever just start blazing away without saying something first. Unless, of course, a loved one is already in peril.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think we can all understand the use of deadly force under these circumstances. Again, I think the rub lies in where we are willing to make that call. Some folks might have to wait until a loved one is lying in a pool of blood before they begin to perceive a threat. Others prefer not to let it get that far.

Ok, your turn for melodrama .

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Re-reading the articles and re-reading this thread, coupled with a day of pondering the questions involved, has led me to shift my position. I now believe, in these two specific cases, that the home owners were properly charged. It's a very fine line, and one I very much hope none of us has to toe, but I do believe they crossed it. I very much believe in the premise of protecting what is yours, from loved ones to property. I do still very much believe that under most circumstances anyone caught in my home should be perceived as a threat and dealt with accordingly. Even under the worst conditions, however, I don't think I could ever just start blazing away without saying something first. Unless, of course, a loved one is already in peril.

We actually are in pretty close agreement. I think that internet puffery accounts for some of the bravado on this thread. My home is probably better armed than most here, and any real threat to my loved ones would be met with a serious response. I think where I differ is calculation of the odds of that happening, and similarly, how much I weigh the reality of living with taking another person's life. I suppose that one would prefer to err on the side of safety in a situation where you think it is them or us. I hope I don't have to make that decision, and so far, haven't needed to in 53 years on this planet.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Playing devil's advocate here, how culpable is our legal system in the deaths of these teenagers?

Not culpable at all. The legal system did not force these people to kill those kids, it was their choice.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

It sounds like both sets were in the "catch and release" program, wherein everyone (including the authorities) knew what they were up to.
I sense a good deal of frustration on the homeowners' parts, putting up with multiple break ins and thefts from the same kids. Kids that were allowed to walk each and every time. That would get pretty damn old.

Having been a victim of the "catch and release" program I am pretty fed up with it myself. It does get pretty damn old. They lock up losers for selling drugs to each other so there is no room in prisons for the criminals who prey on honest citizens. But the solution isn't laying in wait with plans to kill the thieves, and I'm glad these two killers were convicted.

[Tobra]

If someone breaks into my home while I am in it, are they there to rob me, kill me or my family, kidnap someone? I have no way of knowing what their intentions are. I do know that they were not deterred by the lock on the door or window they breached to get in, failed to be dissuaded by the alarm claxon going off, are not terribly concerned about going to prison and view criminal laws as guidelines, rather than rules. I view it as imprudent to allow them the latitude to do as they wish after breaking into my residence. This being the case, it is not likely that both of us will walk out of the house.

They don't deserve to die for stealing, or threating to steal stuff, which is what you guys are saying the people who wish to exercise their Right to defend themselves intend. I deserve to be secure in my home, and worked hard to be in a position where I would be.


The right of a criminal to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ends at the threshold of my front door. They forfeit those rights the second they break into my house. This is not because I fancy myself to be a judge. It is because I am a US citizen.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by J P Stein

And you think killing the guy is a better idea? That is what started this thread.
Either way (dead or not), I would rather take my chances in court on an A&B charge rather than on murder....the A&B wouldn't even make the news...you think you're gonna "walk" with a dead body laying around? We all see what the results of that plan has wrought.

You're going have to defend your actions either way. Welcome to real life in lawyer land.

In any state that would charge you, you'd be looking at attempted murder, not A&B. And if you got off there and weren't already broke and relying on a public defender by then, you'd still be bankrupted by the civil suit you'd face from the bad guy you let live. We even have a law in AZ barring such lawsuits where use of force was justified. And they still happen and bankrupt the good guys. Happens all the time.

[DanielDudley]

I like that part in the Bible where it says an eye for an eye, and a life for a purse.

That's the real meaning of Christmas, Charlie Brown. And I don't know if dogs go to Heaven, but if they don't I'd rather go where the dogs go.

Screw it. Abortion is just WRONG. It is so much more sportsmanlike to throw them back and shoot them later when they are grown. And those countries that MIGHT consider doing us harm ? Freaking go to war with them, it is clear they are already guilty of thinking about it. And anyway, it's our stuff. That copper over there, that's ours. That oil, OURS. Anybody gets in the way of me and my stuff, they have HAD IT.

God gave me the right to shoot scumbags. Put that empty purse by the door, screw that kid, he's dead. Needermyer, Dead. Maybe you guys are going to take it lying down, but not me.

Kill em all, and let God sort them out. That's the Christian thing to do, not like those towel headed bastiges. We kill them fair and square.

Can we go to PARF now ? Or should we continue to spin the moral compass around ? How many kids can you shoot before you get caught anyway ? That Dahmer guy, he did it wrong, he was poaching. The way I do it, it's all legal. But you want to get a clean head shot right off, none of those suspicious multiple shot kills. No multiple kill kills either. And no trophy mounts.

In the end, I think it is kill to live, and not live to kill. But hey, I'm dyslexic. Like I said in the beginning, I want to see dog, cause hanging with teenage shooter wannabes in heaven would be hell. Do you think we could stay at different Hotels ? You guys can stay with the Duck Dynasty Jesus, and I will hang with Mary Magdalene and the fun apostles while you are counting your pieces of silver...

You want to be a good Christian ? PRAY you NEVER have to pull the trigger. Some of you like Jeff I don't worry about. it's you guys who are goading yourself into STUPID that worry me.