Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

[EmperorMing]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that if they commit theft, they must be assumed capable of murder and then executed?

If someone comes toward you in your own home and you shoot him, it is arguably self-defense. But not every home situation is automatically self-defense. If you make a noise and he turns to run, shooting him in the back (for example) is murder. It depends on the scenario.

That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post...

[Darth Wong]

Doesn't matter. Someone is trying to cause injury to your life, the life of someone else, or to your property, it should ideally be equal.

Wrong. Property is not equal to human life.

The point is that you must act while the attempt is occuring - If Tony Martin did in fact shoot that guy when he was running away, I can understand the sentence - But if you catch someone in the process of committing harm, even merely harm to property, such as theft, then it should be your right to take them out with whatever you've got available.

So if you catch a computer hacker trying to steal funds from your bank account, it's OK to shoot him? Face it; the only justification for shooting somebody is self-defense. The question of where one can assume a self-defense situation may be arguable, and certainly the threshold should be lower in your own home. But to argue that theft ITSELF necessarily warrants lethal response is ridiculous.

That should be the distinguishing point in the law: Was the act going on, or had it already ceased? If it had already ceased, then it's vigilantism. If it's still occuring, then to resist - even with deadly force - is perfectly appropriate in all cases.

If theft is not a death penalty offense, then shooting a burglar when there is no threat to yourself should not be allowed.

[weemadando]

Agreed. There already intent on furthering themselves at the expense of another, you can't know if there willing to go even further.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that if they commit theft, they must be assumed capable of murder and then executed?

If someone comes toward you in your own home and you shoot him, it is arguably self-defense. But not every home situation is automatically self-defense. If you make a noise and he turns to run, shooting him in the back (for example) is murder. It depends on the scenario.

Indeed, I can't stand people who believe that the mere presence of someone on their property is grounds for murder.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Americans as a whole are paranoid and violent. Yesterday I heard someone downstairs in my house, and went down, simply curious, not worried at all. Of course, it turned out to be a prospective buyer having a look around and didn't know I was there. Many Americans, I think would have gone down, gun in hand, and created a very tense situation. It's funny that a lot of these same people that buy guns for protection and re-inforced doors and worry about being attacked don't even wear seatbelts when the chance of being killed in a car accident is thousands or millions of times higher for a non-gang member than being killed by gun violence.

[MKSheppard]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that if they commit theft, they must be assumed capable of murder and then executed?

Putting it simply: if they're in my house at night, they've signed their own
death warrant as far as I'm concerned.

[Darth Wong]

Putting it simply: if they're in my house at night, they've signed their own death warrant as far as I'm concerned.

If you shoot a burglar in the back as he turns to run, you might find yourself going back to prison, Shep. Tough talk is cheap, and forensic analysis can determine the angle of entry.

[Vympel]

This has been a principle of law in Australia and I'm sure other common law jurisdictions for a crime. Your response to the threat must be equal to the threat posed. If you shoot someone for stepping onto your property, you're going to jail. Shoot someone coming at you with a knife, self-defense.

[Sea Skimmer]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that if they commit theft, they must be assumed capable of murder and then executed?

I see no reason why I should task any risk when they are inside of my home.

[Sea Skimmer]

If you shoot a burglar in the back as he turns to run, you might find yourself going back to prison, Shep. Tough talk is cheap, and forensic analysis can determine the angle of entry.

That would depend on the local laws. There’s more then one state in which killing a burglar anywhere on your property is quite legal.

[Keevan_Colton]

If you shoot a burglar in the back as he turns to run, you might find yourself going back to prison, Shep. Tough talk is cheap, and forensic analysis can determine the angle of entry.

That would depend on the local laws. There’s more then one state in which killing a burglar anywhere on your property is quite legal.

Yes, great laws there....anyone recall the case of a british tourist who when lost knocked on a door to ask directions, was promptly shot for trespassing and the person that shot him was not charged....

Life > Material Possessions.

You can replace a VCR or a TV but not a life, you say about taking risks, well...here's a good one....just get out the way and let law enforcement handle things....

[Col. Crackpot]

hindsight is 20/20. people put in the situation of being robbed at 2 in the morning do not have the benefit of hindsight. The law in the US is clear. you are allowed to use deadly force only when you FEEL your life is threatened. A person who breaks into a house has clearly demonstrated criminal intent. What is not known by the occupant is the extent of that criminal intent. Also, i feel that invading someones home is not merely a crime of theft, but also a crime of violence. Ahome no longer has the feeling of safety and security after such a traumatic event, especially if children are involved. The decison made by an individual to defend his/her home and family in a violent manner is a very difficult one, and they should not be made a criminal for protecting their home and family. I will, however, concede a point to Wong, if the intruder is fleeing with his/her back to you, deadly force is inapropriate....unless they are carrying off a child. In which case it is a crime not to act when able.

[Montcalm]

If you shoot a burglar in the back as he turns to run, you might find yourself going back to prison, Shep. Tough talk is cheap, and forensic analysis can determine the angle of entry.

That would depend on the local laws. There’s more then one state in which killing a burglar anywhere on your property is quite legal.

Yes, great laws there....anyone recall the case of a british tourist who when lost knocked on a door to ask directions, was promptly shot for trespassing and the person that shot him was not charged....

Life > Material Possessions.

You can replace a VCR or a TV but not a life, you say about taking risks, well...here's a good one....just get out the way and let law enforcement handle things....

But the possibility of feeling safe in your own home has been taken away,and law enforcement job is screwed by fucking lawyers and judges.

[Col. Crackpot]

[quote="Keevan_Colton"]
Life > Material Possessions.
[\quote]

agreed. but you forget:

liberty > life

what good is life if you are forced to live in fear within you own home?

[Axis Kast]

So here’s the scenario …

At 2:00 AM, I break into your home with a loud crack. My bat shatters your window. I tramp through your home to the squeals of an alarm. Your children wake up crying and run into your room. One claims he saw a man pass through a doorframe at the end of the hall. You pull the shotgun you keep from under your bed.

Loud noises emanate from the hallway in the middle of the house. The intruder is obviously wrecking your home. You’ve stood at the door for a good five minutes while your family tries to break open a window at second floor level and somehow engineer an escape. The sounds are getting louder; he is coming closer.

After another five minutes, the sounds cease. Your family isn’t getting out. You shot: “Who’s out there?” Nothing. Then you burst down the door, fire a shot into the darkness, and dive across the hall. Nothing. You dare stick your head out. You see him running away down the hall. What do you do?

[Keevan_Colton]

So here’s the scenario …

At 2:00 AM, I break into your home with a loud crack. My bat shatters your window. I tramp through your home to the squeals of an alarm. Your children wake up crying and run into your room. One claims he saw a man pass through a doorframe at the end of the hall. You pull the shotgun you keep from under your bed.

Loud noises emanate from the hallway in the middle of the house. The intruder is obviously wrecking your home. You’ve stood at the door for a good five minutes while your family tries to break open a window at second floor level and somehow engineer an escape. The sounds are getting louder; he is coming closer.

After another five minutes, the sounds cease. Your family isn’t getting out. You shot: “Who’s out there?” Nothing. Then you burst down the door, fire a shot into the darkness, and dive across the hall. Nothing. You dare stick your head out. You see him running away down the hall. What do you do?

So, you advocate shooting someone in the back?
Or is that not where this question is leading...if he is running away where is the immediate threat to your life?

[Keevan_Colton]

agreed. but you forget:

liberty > life

what good is life if you are forced to live in fear within you own home?

I thought the order of the mantra went
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....

You've got to be alive to have liberty, being dead you have nothing.....that's why life comes before all else.

[Vympel]

So here’s the scenario …

At 2:00 AM, I break into your home with a loud crack. My bat shatters your window. I tramp through your home to the squeals of an alarm. Your children wake up crying and run into your room. One claims he saw a man pass through a doorframe at the end of the hall. You pull the shotgun you keep from under your bed.

Loud noises emanate from the hallway in the middle of the house. The intruder is obviously wrecking your home. You’ve stood at the door for a good five minutes while your family tries to break open a window at second floor level and somehow engineer an escape. The sounds are getting louder; he is coming closer.

After another five minutes, the sounds cease. Your family isn’t getting out. You shot: “Who’s out there?” Nothing. Then you burst down the door, fire a shot into the darkness, and dive across the hall. Nothing. You dare stick your head out. You see him running away down the hall. What do you do?

Let him run off, back to the rock which he crawled out from under. If he turns around and comes at me with a bat, I shoot him.

[Col. Crackpot]

agreed. but you forget:

liberty > life

what good is life if you are forced to live in fear within you own home?

I thought the order of the mantra went
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....

You've got to be alive to have liberty, being dead you have nothing.....that's why life comes before all else.

perhaps, but the the sanctity of ones home and the safety of family is paramount. see my previous post.

[J]

So here’s the scenario …<snip>

And where in that scenario do you call the police, I'd think that's a rather important thing to do despite the fact that they likely won't show up until it's all over one way or another. Also, you have a family to protect, what exactly are you doing risking your life going after the robber? If your life is the only one at risk you can be a gung-ho as you feel, but in this case you're also responsible for the lives of your wife and children. Your responsiblity is to stay alive and keep your family alive, and any action you take must have the above as the absolute top priority.

[Axis Kast]

And where in that scenario do you call the police, I'd think that's a rather important thing to do despite the fact that they likely won't show up until it's all over one way or another. Also, you have a family to protect, what exactly are you doing risking your life going after the robber? If your life is the only one at risk you can be a gung-ho as you feel, but in this case you're also responsible for the lives of your wife and children. Your responsiblity is to stay alive and keep your family alive, and any action you take must have the above as the absolute top priority.

The police are generally a half hour away in my area.

We've a station house literally down the main road, which I've called twice. The first time, it took them a half hour to put somebody without a uniform or a squad car in my driveway - while the call was for an a pair of air conditioning repairmen who stood outside the home and shined flashlights through a window at 11:00 PM at night without heeding requests to leave. The second was for a car parked illegally on the road outside our house with the dome light on. I was asked to, "go outside and talk to him," by the emergency operator.

If somebody broke into my home and this happened to me? I'd probably unload on them full in the back. I don't know about you, but I have no illusions about how terrified/near insane I'd be during a time like that.

[aerius]

"Call the cops, call the ambulance, and call for pizza delivery, and see which one gets to your house first". I hear that one a lot when discussing home break-in and defence scenarios, the point of it being that emergency response times are so bad that the pizza will get to your house before they do. In many cases it's sadly true, but where I am the response time is 5 minutes at most, which is still 4 minutes and 59 seconds too long.

Assuming that the house being broken into is my own, things will happen somewhat like this. I will be awakened by the sound of breaking glass or a crash at the door, but the door or window will hold. Why? The mylar laminate on the reinforced windows will keep the window together, and the door's deadbolt locks goes into a steel support column which we had installed after the last break-in. It'll take a least a minute of work with a pickaxe before they can get in, and if they're gonna go to that much effort to break into my house they're really up to no good. As such, they will be shot as soon as they get in through either the door or window. I have a luxury few people do, time. Time to assess the situation, time to prepare, time to call the cops, and time to escape if possible.

As for the situation you outlined, what jmac said is correct. You should not be leaving the comparative safety of your room to chase after the robber. To do so puts the rest of your family at risk and removes your defensive advantage. While you are in the room there is only one way for you to die, and that is for the robber to get through the room door and shoot you or beat you with the ballbat. You will be able to hear him coming, and as soon as that door moves, you shoot him. While this is going on call the cops, they'll take a while to get there but they will, and don't open that door till the cops have the place cleared.

To leave the room is tactical suicide. Why? You are now leaving the rest of your family defenceless and you're putting yourself in much greater danger. If you are moving, he can hear you, and it makes it harder for you to hear him. You don't know where he is in your house, he might be behind the couch waiting to ambush and kill you for all you know. Are you willing to bet that you'll win a gunfight in your house? And what happens if you're disabled or killed? Can your family members protect themselves? Will they know what to do? Remember, this is real life and not the movies, you are not a Navy SEAL with mystical ninja powers, you will not get the drop on the bad guys and kill them with a spoon.

[aerius]

The point is that you must act while the attempt is occuring - If Tony Martin did in fact shoot that guy when he was running away, I can understand the sentence - But if you catch someone in the process of committing harm, even merely harm to property, such as theft, then it should be your right to take them out with whatever you've got available.

So if you catch a computer hacker trying to steal funds from your bank account, it's OK to shoot him? Face it; the only justification for shooting somebody is self-defense. The question of where one can assume a self-defense situation may be arguable, and certainly the threshold should be lower in your own home. But to argue that theft ITSELF necessarily warrants lethal response is ridiculous.

The computer hacker poses no threat to my life and there's no way he ever could so I can't justify killing him. A robber breaking into my home on the other hand may pose an immediate danger to my life, but since I'm not psychic I won't know for sure until a)he shoots me or attacks me with a weapon, or b)he runs away. To think that he's just going to steal my property and leave me alone would be foolish, it's the same as the Star Trek "rule" where they always let the alien ship fire first and keep thinking that it'll all end in peace if they don't shoot back.

[Sothis]

right, and if you could either, shoot the guy without knowing if armed, or run out the back door, knowing that they arent anywhere near the back door. If you choose to shoot, you are a murderer. You had an option that was easily available with a decent chance of success leaving no one needing a hurse, and choose to kill instead.

If you choose to shoot, you're repelling an invader from your home that could be there for any purpose. What if you have kids? What if your wife or husband is still sound asleep upstairs? You take action to protect your family, and indeed, your belongings. My parents had all their wedding presents stolen whilst they were on honeymoon, you can bet my dad would have used any measure of force he could to stop the thieves if he'd been there, and I'd have agreed with him wholeheartedly.

[irishmick79]

Ok, when I read the title ot this thread for some reason I immediately thought of Watergate. I couldn't figure out another reason why government lawyers under a republican administration would care all that much about the fate of burglers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ok, when I read the title ot this thread for some reason I immediately thought of Watergate. I couldn't figure out another reason why government lawyers under a republican administration would care all that much about the fate of burglers.

Hopefully you've now read the article and noted that the country in question is a few thousand miles away from the United States.