Escalation of Force and property.

[Winston Blake]

One second, macho guy. I realize that the idea of someone having his wife's drivers license, and then coming to their house is scary. However, did he try to gain entry at any time? What if he was actually trying to return the license, and just isn't the smartest of people?

Returning a license by pounding on windows in the middle of the fucking night? If you want to return a license you can call first, or at least show up in daylight, ring the doorbell, and be respectful when the lady of the house says "Who's there?"

I'm on the 'guy went too far' side, but I agree with Broomstick that this is inaccurate. The relevant excerpt is:

I parked my car on another street(he always came by when my car was gone), and went home and waited, sure enough, about 1am I get lots of pounding on the front door, then stop, i wanted to know what all he was doing so I let him go through his routine, he want to our side window and tried to open a window, then hard pounding on that window, I waited, then back to the front door..hard pounding.

He was trying to gain entry, assuming the story's true.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Returning a license by pounding on windows in the middle of the fucking night? If you want to return a license you can call first, or at least show up in daylight, ring the doorbell, and be respectful when the lady of the house says "Who's there?"

Utah licenses don't have phone numbers. However, I understand what your point is, and I agree with it. However, it's evidence of suspicious activity, and not a crime.

[PainRack]

The issue here really isn't about whether there was criminal intent. It was the continued beating AFTER the guy was already lying on the ground. That's plain simple brutality, and something that might had been excused as nerves if it wasn't for the fact that this guy was supposedly a soldier who served in a real war.


Fuck that. If this guy was so easily hyped up by threat, I hate to imagine what kind of real fire discipline he had in battle.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with setting up laws to permit homeowners to basically take the law into their own hands is, as I stated before, that any guy can just make up whatever story he wants to justify his actions. As long as he's disciplined enough to stick with it and not waver under questioning, he wins.

[Winston Blake]

That's plain simple brutality, and something that might had been excused as nerves if it wasn't for the fact that this guy was supposedly a soldier who served in a real war.

Speculation: maybe he did simply flip out. Maybe he would have been psychologically evaluated by the Army (perhaps discharged) if he didn't make up a story about it being rational and justified.

[Knife]

Where I live there are circumstances where it is legal to shoot trespassers. It is legal to shoot someone breaking into your home. Hell, my husband shot someone trying to steal our truck and there were no legal penalties.

I don't know where this guy lives, but if it was my neighborhood he probably could have gotten away with shooting the man.

Ogden Utah. Shooting him in his yard while the perp was unarmed would have gotten him life. I have to think he didn't have a concealed permit for the gun in his pants either.

Using fists makes the line between non-lethal and lethal fuzzier than if he used a weapon. Not all blow from fists can be reasonably expected to cause death. Unless we know the exact nature of the injuries involved that might be a difficult determination.

It really doesn't matter what the 'weapon' is, you can beat someone to death with a rolled up newspaper and it's lethal force. The fact he beat the guy till he fell and then continued beating him shows he was using more force than necessary to subdue the sicko dude. Hell his preamble up to the beating part of the story said he was mad, mad. Lucky to live through this mad.

As I said, where I live he probably didn't need to fear a gun charge, provided he legally owned the weapon and had a firearm owner's card.

He would here and he knows it since he took his gun back into the house as the cops were coming.

Frankly, I'm surprised that when he answered the door he didn't just drag the guy into his home and say the stalker was an intruder which in most jurisdictions would give him even more of legal leg to stand on. It makes me inclined to believe this story is at least half bullshit - that, and the constant harping on what a military bad-ass he is.

I'm thinking most of his story is bullshit now after that last couple posts he's made. Appeals to authority, no true scotsman fallacies, so forth and so on.

[Broomstick]

Returning a license by pounding on windows in the middle of the fucking night? If you want to return a license you can call first, or at least show up in daylight, ring the doorbell, and be respectful when the lady of the house says "Who's there?"

Utah licenses don't have phone numbers. However, I understand what your point is, and I agree with it. However, it's evidence of suspicious activity, and not a crime.

Neither do the licenses of any other state I know, but the name and address on it should allow you to look up the phone number.

[Broomstick]

The problem with setting up laws to permit homeowners to basically take the law into their own hands is, as I stated before, that any guy can just make up whatever story he wants to justify his actions. As long as he's disciplined enough to stick with it and not waver under questioning, he wins.

The police will investigate such situations, even those that seem legally justified - if the evidence doesn't fit the story the shooter can find himself in front of a judge very quickly.

As an example, when my husband shot the would-be truck thief the cops looked to scene over, checked both the truck and the alleged bad guy's dropped weapon for prints, and so on. They picked up the prints of a known felon and thief on both, a man who had rather seriously hurt people in the past who had surprised him while at work, which tended to corroborate the story of a surprising a thief in the act of stealing, who then threatened the rightful owner.

In the case of beating someone, the injuries received can be very telling. Shoeprints on the back of the skull, for example, can mean someone was standing on the loser's head while he was face down - that's felonious assault, perhaps even attempted murder, not self-defense. In a fight involving attack/defense the wounds both parties receive should be mainly or entirely on the front of the body.

These days, with the prevalence of security cameras, it's also becoming more common for police to look at that sort of evidence, too.

The right to self-defense does not include continuing to beat a man when he's down, nor does it include shooting someone in the back, or clubbing them on the back of the skull. The police will investigate. In some instances the situation is very clear, in others there may be legal proceedings.

[Stuart]

Without entering the justification/non-justification side of this at all......

I read the account; it smells as rotten and as phony as it gets. It's got every tell-tale of a net-kiddie making up a story so he can play the tough guy.

I'd dismiss the whole account as a wannabee dreamland. If anything in it is true, I'd guess the story goes like this.

Wife (or mother or sister, respendent may be too young for a wife) drops her driving license, man finds it and hands it in to the police. Police bring it back to her and give her a stern lecture on being careful with identity documents inlcuding the possibility that teh finder muight use it to come after her. Wife/mother/whatever tells story to writer to pass teh lesson along, he then makes up a story of what he likes to think he would do if that eventuality did occur.

[Glocksman]

The problem with setting up laws to permit homeowners to basically take the law into their own hands is, as I stated before, that any guy can just make up whatever story he wants to justify his actions. As long as he's disciplined enough to stick with it and not waver under questioning, he wins.

The police will investigate such situations, even those that seem legally justified - if the evidence doesn't fit the story the shooter can find himself in front of a judge very quickly.

As an example, when my husband shot the would-be truck thief the cops looked to scene over, checked both the truck and the alleged bad guy's dropped weapon for prints, and so on. They picked up the prints of a known felon and thief on both, a man who had rather seriously hurt people in the past who had surprised him while at work, which tended to corroborate the story of a surprising a thief in the act of stealing, who then threatened the rightful owner.

In the case of beating someone, the injuries received can be very telling. Shoeprints on the back of the skull, for example, can mean someone was standing on the loser's head while he was face down - that's felonious assault, perhaps even attempted murder, not self-defense. In a fight involving attack/defense the wounds both parties receive should be mainly or entirely on the front of the body.

These days, with the prevalence of security cameras, it's also becoming more common for police to look at that sort of evidence, too.

The right to self-defense does not include continuing to beat a man when he's down, nor does it include shooting someone in the back, or clubbing them on the back of the skull. The police will investigate. In some instances the situation is very clear, in others there may be legal proceedings.

A lot of 'internet tough guys' or 'internet lawyers' also forget that such laws are usually based on what a hypothetical reasonable person knowing the facts that the person in question knew at the time would see as justification under the statute.

Shooting someone crawling through your bedroom window at 3 AM?
Not a problem.
Shooting the neighbor's 5 year old kid at noon because he mistakenly walked through your open front door?
Big Problem.

If the guy in the OP had gone to trial for assault and I were on the jury, I'd vote to convict based on the facts presented if the defense claimed 'self defense' as the reason why.

[Glocksman]

As an aside, Indiana state law allows one to use deadly force to protect one's dwelling, but again the 'reasonable person' standard applies.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

No matter what your story is, the police will investigate and if your story doesn't match the physical evidence, expect some more pointed questions and a trial if you can't answer them.

Again, shooting a burglar or arsonist is usually acceptable.
Shooting a 10 year old who wanders in by mistake because you're paranoid (paranoia is not considered 'reasonable'), unacceptable and welcome to the Hotel Graybar.

[Justforfun000]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. Part of me is like "Fuck yeah, if they're trying to enter my home and steal things, then fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on. "
But at the same time, I can't quite approve killing another person unless it is truly necessary. Obviously anyone attacking you physically in those circumstances are threatening a person with an unknown intention of violence. People are not usually acquainted with a burglar, and in the midst of a robbery, who's to say what this person will deign to do? I would still aim to incapacitate the person over killing them, but I wouldn't judge someone who killed them, either.
Who wants to take a fucking chance? If they kill you, it's game over. No restart or drop back to earlier levels.

Anyone willing to commit a very serious crime against another is leaving themselves open to whatever defense measures the victim opts to take against them. There is a reason why things are illegal and punished very severely when sentenced to pay for said crime.

I do think it's ridiculous to have laws protecting such criminals from retribution against their actions. I forget if that's the case here in Canada or not..It wouldn't surprise me. Good as our country is, it has some really back asswards laws.

[Glocksman]

People are not usually acquainted with a burglar, and in the midst of a robbery, who's to say what this person will deign to do? I would still aim to incapacitate the person over killing them, but I wouldn't judge someone who killed them, either.

Under the laws in most all US states, there is no legal difference between 'shooting to kill' and 'shooting to incapacitate' as you are still using a lethal weapon.

That said, the standard US police and licensed civilians are held to is the 'shoot to stop' standard.
IOW, if I'm legally justified in using deadly force, I can use such force until the attack ceases.

For example, you lunge at me with a K-Bar and I draw and fire, I can legally keep firing until you cease being a threat.
If you die, then it's considered an unfortunate byproduct of your actions than a crime on my part.

But if you fall after the first 2 shots and I empty the magazine into you as you lay on the ground, then I'm guilty of manslaughter at the least because the threat is over at that point.

[Darth Wong]

For example, you lunge at me with a K-Bar and I draw and fire, I can legally keep firing until you cease being a threat.
If you die, then it's considered an unfortunate byproduct of your actions than a crime on my part.

But if you fall after the first 2 shots and I empty the magazine into you as you lay on the ground, then I'm guilty of manslaughter at the least because the threat is over at that point.

What do you think of the "implied threat" argument, where you catch a guy furtively swiping things from a drawer in your front foyer, and shoot him because you feel there is an "implied threat" to your life or that of your family? Even if he appears to be nothing more than an ordinary burglar?

[PainRack]

As an aside, Indiana state law allows one to use deadly force to protect one's dwelling, but again the 'reasonable person' standard applies.

That won't help him at all, since he did not give ANY warning whatsoever that he was going to use force or warn off said person.

That's not the definition of reasonable force.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. Part of me is like "Fuck yeah, if they're trying to enter my home and steal things, then fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on. "
But at the same time, I can't quite approve killing another person unless it is truly necessary. Obviously anyone attacking you physically in those circumstances are threatening a person with an unknown intention of violence. People are not usually acquainted with a burglar, and in the midst of a robbery, who's to say what this person will deign to do? I would still aim to incapacitate the person over killing them, but I wouldn't judge someone who killed them, either.
Who wants to take a fucking chance? If they kill you, it's game over. No restart or drop back to earlier levels.

Anyone willing to commit a very serious crime against another is leaving themselves open to whatever defense measures the victim opts to take against them. There is a reason why things are illegal and punished very severely when sentenced to pay for said crime.

I do think it's ridiculous to have laws protecting such criminals from retribution against their actions. I forget if that's the case here in Canada or not..It wouldn't surprise me. Good as our country is, it has some really back asswards laws.

So, if said person was utterly helpless, is the continued use of force reasonable?

Look at it here. Said person had NEVER warned the person off his property before. His wife may had done so, but not him. Said person did not have the oppurtinity to actually HURT anyone. Said intruder did not have the means to actually HURT anyone. The account said nothing about him having any weapons or means of arson, nor was he carrying any stolen goods.

Yet, this guy continued to pound him and KEPT pounding him when he had no possible means of even resisting and was lying helpless on the ground bleeding. That's plain and simple brutality right there and then, even if you ignore all the issues about "reasonable" force.

If said person had been in his house as opposed to just being on his property, or the doors/windows were unlocked and he had the chance to get in and hurt someone or steal something before the guy could react, the use of force might had been reasonable. However, continuing to pound him AFTER he was helpless is NOT.

What he did was simply not justifiable OR legal.

[Kanastrous]

What do you think of the "implied threat" argument, where you catch a guy furtively swiping things from a drawer in your front foyer, and shoot him because you feel there is an "implied threat" to your life or that of your family? Even if he appears to be nothing more than an ordinary burglar?

I think that if the householder chooses to accept a degree of risk in ascertaining the intruder's intent and taking the time to verify that the intruder is unarmed, that's a decent choice on the householder's part.

I also think that by illicitly entering someone else's home, you have deliberately chosen to accept the risk of being treated in any of the ways that an illicit intruder might be treated, up to and including being shot to death. And if the householder decides not to accept any risk on your behalf - that is, placing himself at a disadvantage by taking time to try and verify your intent - then the consequences should be 100% on you.

The intruder sets up the situation, and bears responsibility for the consequences. It's unfair to expect his intended victims to risk themselves at all, in the least little way, for the intruder's benefit.

[Justforfun000]

So, if said person was utterly helpless, is the continued use of force reasonable?

No of course not. I've already covered that in my post above. I favour incapacitation and the least lethal use of force possible. If someone is rendered helpless, there is no longer a moral right to continue an attack. Other then tying them up.

Yet, this guy continued to pound him and KEPT pounding him when he had no possible means of even resisting and was lying helpless on the ground bleeding. That's plain and simple brutality right there and then, even if you ignore all the issues about "reasonable" force.

You're preaching to the choir here. I already stated that in this particular example given in the OP, the guy was in the wrong. He went overboard in the initial contact and made it worse by continuing to pummel him.

If said person had been in his house as opposed to just being on his property, or the doors/windows were unlocked and he had the chance to get in and hurt someone or steal something before the guy could react, the use of force might had been reasonable. However, continuing to pound him AFTER he was helpless is NOT.

What he did was simply not justifiable OR legal.

Agree completely.

[Darth Wong]

The intruder sets up the situation, and bears responsibility for the consequences. It's unfair to expect his intended victims to risk themselves at all, in the least little way, for the intruder's benefit.

Why, apart from your say-so?

[Dark Hellion]

The victim does not have the choice when being intruded upon. He does not have the allowance of full information and we then end up with the age old prisoners dilemma. You shoot because you are minimizing the consequences for yourself.

[Darth Wong]

The victim does not have the choice when being intruded upon. He does not have the allowance of full information and we then end up with the age old prisoners dilemma. You shoot because you are minimizing the consequences for yourself.

And this is ethical because ...?

Hint: ethical justifications generally constitute more than simply describing the situation again and again and again. I get the description. What I don't see is the justification.

[Dark Hellion]

This is the justification. It is the action that leads to the minimal consequences for yourself. There isn't an ability to make ethical determination by the victims in such situations, they do not have the necessary information and the consequence of gathering said information can be death. Thus, you really aren't in an ethical situation, but a survival situation in which fight or flight takes hold. You can run (if the option is available and the loss acceptable) or you can fight.

You can't expect people to behave based upon statistical models of how often robber is intent on harm, because that 1% is still to much when it means harm to your family. You can only assume he means to harm you, because the consequence of a dead robber is a better consequence than a hurt family. You aren't trying to protect society at this point (which is what ethics are about) but trying to protect yourself, and at that point, anything reasonable goes.

You are justified in protecting your property, as without this ability to protect ones property the notion of property can quickly cheapen into only that which you can hold onto by force, not that which you have some societal protected right to.

[Darth Wong]

This is the justification. It is the action that leads to the minimal consequences for yourself. There isn't an ability to make ethical determination by the victims in such situations, they do not have the necessary information and the consequence of gathering said information can be death. Thus, you really aren't in an ethical situation, but a survival situation in which fight or flight takes hold. You can run (if the option is available and the loss acceptable) or you can fight.

Again, you seem to think you can justify your position by simply stating it as fact. That's not how it works. Why is uncertainty an automatic justification for the use of lethal force? Because the danger level is not absolute zero? It is never absolute zero. If a guy is driving like an asshole and breaking traffic laws, he might intend to run me down at a crosswalk. Should I shoot him, just in case? I suppose you could say that's different because it's on public property, but it's not different insofar as the logic you are using.

You can't expect people to behave based upon statistical models of how often robber is intent on harm, because that 1% is still to much when it means harm to your family. You can only assume he means to harm you, because the consequence of a dead robber is a better consequence than a hurt family. You aren't trying to protect society at this point (which is what ethics are about) but trying to protect yourself, and at that point, anything reasonable goes.

I disagree. And since your only justification for this is to say so, that is all the rebuttal you deserve.

You are justified in protecting your property, as without this ability to protect ones property the notion of property can quickly cheapen into only that which you can hold onto by force, not that which you have some societal protected right to.

What part of "you can't justify your position by simply saying it again" do you not understand?

[Rye]

Interestingly, if you were to accept Hellion's train of thought, if you were the criminal, it would make more sense to murder the person you're robbing just in case.

[Kanastrous]

The intruder sets up the situation, and bears responsibility for the consequences. It's unfair to expect his intended victims to risk themselves at all, in the least little way, for the intruder's benefit.

Why, apart from your say-so?

We assign responsibility for drunk driving plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily chose to get drunk and then chose to drive. We assign responsibility for armed robbery plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily decided to pick up a weapon and rob a bank. We don't assign any responsibilities for a drunk driver's collision-related injuries, to the person that he hit as a consequence of his decision. We don't assign responsibility for a bank robber's police-related injuries to the bank where he gets shot as a consequence of his decision.

It appears consistent to me, that we assign full responsibility for bad consequences of a home burglary or robbery, to the person who voluntarily chose to commit those crimes, too.

[Darth Wong]

The intruder sets up the situation, and bears responsibility for the consequences. It's unfair to expect his intended victims to risk themselves at all, in the least little way, for the intruder's benefit.

Why, apart from your say-so?

We assign responsibility for drunk driving plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily chose to get drunk and then chose to drive.

That's a nice rhetorical dodge, giving license to use lethal force and then calling it "consequences", as if the burglar brings it upon himself with the same physical inevitability as a drunk driver's head slamming into a tree. Is that your excuse for anything? Just call it "consequences"?

We assign responsibility for armed robbery plus all consequences, to the person who voluntarily decided to pick up a weapon and rob a bank. We don't assign any responsibilities for a drunk driver's collision-related injuries, to the person that he hit as a consequence of his decision. We don't assign responsibility for a bank robber's police-related injuries to the bank where he gets shot as a consequence of his decision.

See above. You are arguing about what those consequences should be, and you are treating your preferred consequences as a given.

It appears consistent to me, that we assign full responsibility for bad consequences of a home burglary or robbery, to the person who voluntarily chose to commit those crimes, too.

Totally irrelevant to the argument of what those consequences should be.