Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-05-19 05:44pm

Yep. Immediatly discounted my initial theory, obviously.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-05-19 05:46pm

Do any of you goons know of the concept of loading a shotgun with rock salt? Discourages an intruder, gives them a literal pain in the ass, and does not nescessarily qualify as lethal intent.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-19 06:09pm

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.

The point was to create a scenario in which you - with a gun - would come to have an unobstructed view of my rear at some time during the burgling. Concoct whatever scenario you like so long as that's the end result. And then tell me what you'd do. I can honestly say I wouldn't stop to think about "appropriate force." I'd just fire and fire and fire.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-19 07:32pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Do any of you goons know of the concept of loading a shotgun with rock salt? Discourages an intruder, gives them a literal pain in the ass, and does not nescessarily qualify as lethal intent.

Yeah, rock salt can be a literal pain in the ass and is not as deadly as real ammo.

The potential to face deadly force from real bullets will make someone (hopefully) think twice about home invasions and such.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-19 08:00pm

Axis Kast wrote:The point was to create a scenario in which you - with a gun - would come to have an unobstructed view of my rear at some time during the burgling. Concoct whatever scenario you like so long as that's the end result. And then tell me what you'd do. I can honestly say I wouldn't stop to think about "appropriate force." I'd just fire and fire and fire.

Assuming that it's my hardened house you've managed to break into, this makes you a commited hardcore burglar and a no good scumbag. If I get a clear shot at you from behind, you'll be getting several shots through your body, and if I have time to aim properly I'm taking a headshot. My goal will be to have you disabled or dead ASAP. Will I get away with it? Probably not, unless I have a real good lawyer.

As I've stated before, the home is sacred, that is my viewpoint. I am not taking chances with anyone who breaks into my home. I'm not going to play commando and run around with guns blazing, but if a chance to shoot a burglar presents itself he will be shot, even from behind.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-19 08:08pm

Darth Wong wrote: Tough talk is cheap, and forensic analysis can determine the angle of entry.

Which is why you don't touch the body, and have a good lawyer on speed dial.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-19 08:08pm

And as long as you're trying to be so responsible and look out for your family, why the fuck are you gleefully risking prison time and the attendant abandonment of your family in order to commit an act of vigilante murder by shooting a man in the back?

Tough talk is cheap, and often foolish.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-19 08:09pm

Darth Wong wrote: Tough talk is cheap, and often foolish.

Exactly, which is why you just shoot, shovel and shut up.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-05-19 08:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:And as long as you're trying to be so responsible and look out for your family, why the fuck are you gleefully risking prison time and the attendant abandonment of your family in order to commit an act of vigilante murder by shooting a man in the back?

Tough talk is cheap, and often foolish.

The only thing I can think of would be the fear of him not going away, specially if I happened to live in a lone house. There would be no garantees of him not returning, he could be running towards his car to get help or a gun.

It depends of the circumnstances, but if I had a gun in my hand and a stranger in my house, I don't really know if I wouldn't shoot him in the back.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-19 08:32pm

It depends of the circumnstances, but if I had a gun in my hand and a stranger in my house, I don't really know if I wouldn't shoot him in the back.

Thank you. Wong’s philosophical posturing aside, I seriously doubt whether anyone can make a solid, in-the-moment argument for restraint.

From an objective point of view, letting the crook go might not be dangerous. It might also be “the right thing to do.” But how the hell do you stay detached when the man breaks into your home?

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-05-19 09:38pm

I believe that most people when placed in a situation defending their family from an intruder (even if that person is making noises down the hall) will most likely not be thinking of any legal ramifications that may result from your actions.

Personally, I wouldn't shoot a guy in the back if he took my T.V. (that's why you have insurance) but I would do anything to defend my family.

XPViking

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2003-05-19 11:44pm

I don't know about the laws in other states but the law in Massachusetts is basically that if someone has broken and entered your home, you cannot do a thing to them unless they assault you. That means that even if they have a gun and have their back to you, you can't fire at them until they threaten you.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-20 02:17am

Do any of you goons know of the concept of loading a shotgun with rock salt? Discourages an intruder, gives them a literal pain in the ass, and does not nescessarily qualify as lethal intent.

Pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is a felony, and if it's loaded, it moves up to a more serious felony. It doesn't matter if it's loaded with buck, birdshot, slugs, or rock salt. You've still committed a crime with the mere act of pointing a gun at someone unless you were legally justified in using lethal force to protect your life or your home to begin with. And if you're justified in using lethal force, it's better to actually have the lethal force available rather than something that can get you killed.

Stupid idea.

I don't know about the laws in other states but the law in Massachusetts is basically that if someone has broken and entered your home, you cannot do a thing to them unless they assault you. That means that even if they have a gun and have their back to you, you can't fire at them until they threaten you.

Indiana's laws are much more friendly to the homeowner than those in Massachusetts.

From the Indiana Code on Self-Defense:

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 is justified in using deadly force only 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 is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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 or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission

of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.

Notice the language in 2(b). It plainly says that you are justified in using deadly force to defend your dwelling, if you reasonably believe it's needed.

Reasonable is shooting an adult intruder at 3AM.
Unreasonable is shooting a 5 year old who wanders in your front door afterschool.

A few years ago, a local plumber got tired of the break-ins into his truck and started sleeping inside it with a 12 gauge. Sure enough, some 17 or 18 year old punk broke into it with him inside. The kid refused the one command to stop and kept coming forward with a screwdriver in his hand.

Wrong move.

One 12 gauge blast later, the burglar was dead.
The local prosecutor sent the case to a grand jury, which refused to indict the guy. End of story. Good guys=1 Bad guys=0.

The same local prosecutor has publically stated that he will not indict a homeowner who shoots a burglar no matter whether the burglar is armed or not. This is in keeping with the spirit of 2(b) and its language on reasonably believes the force is needed 'to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.'

I'm somewhat familiar with the Tony Martin case.

Under Indiana law, Tony Martin was guilty of nothing.
Under UK law, he's guilty of putting his wellbeing ahead of those who would try to rob him. God forbid that you shoot 2 career criminals with records longer than your arm when they break in your home.

I mean, it's not like you have anything to fear from them.

Here's some more information on Tony Martin.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-20 02:29am

I believe that most people when placed in a situation defending their family from an intruder (even if that person is making noises down the hall) will most likely not be thinking of any legal ramifications that may result from your actions.

A famous quote on self defense and the law is that 'the law does not demand detached reflection in the face of an upraised knife'.

The whole point behind such laws as Indiana's regarding defense of the home is to remove as much of the fear of unjust application of the legal system as possible when you are defending yourself or your family within your home.

The burglar may be unarmed. Do you know that? No
The burglar may be retreating. On the other hand, he may be reaching for a weapon behind him. You just don't know what he's going to do.
Better to not take the chance and just shoot him to be certain that you and your family are safe in your home.

At least that's the reasoning behind the 'make my day' or 'shoot the burglar' laws that many states have.

Note: an entirely different set of laws and standards applies (rightfully so) to self-defense or defense of others outside of the home.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-20 02:47am

Glocksman wrote:A famous quote on self defense and the law is that 'the law does not demand detached reflection in the face of an upraised knife'.

True, but the law also does not grant blanket immunity from criminal actions as a result of emotional distress. There are limits to what you can reasonably claim to be a perceived threat to your safety, even given the "I was afraid" defense.

The burglar may be unarmed. Do you know that? No
The burglar may be retreating. On the other hand, he may be reaching for a weapon behind him. You just don't know what he's going to do.

If you make a noise and the guy runs away, it's rather doubtful that he's a threat. If you threaten him and he doesn't run away (or put both hands up as ordered), I would think it's quite reasonable to regard him as a threat.

The extremists in this thread claim that self-defense is not even necessary; that the "violation" of one's home is, in and of itself, sufficient justification to take a life. That's what I'm most seriously arguing against, not against the notion that a man in his home might feel legitimately afraid for his life in the face of a home invasion.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-20 03:49am

True, but the law also does not grant blanket immunity from criminal actions as a result of emotional distress. There are limits to what you can reasonably claim to be a perceived threat to your safety, even given the "I was afraid" defense.

Indeed. Hence the repeated use of the words 'reasonable' and 'reasonably' throughout the law.

What this refers to is what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would do is the same situation knowing the facts as you knew them at the time.

An example in this context would be if I shot an an assailant on the street who pulled what appeared to be a gun and tried to rob me and the gun turned out to be a BB gun or airsoft pistol.

For purposes of determining self-defense, the fact that the gun was not a firearm is irrelevant as I had no way to know that beforehand. The fact as I knew it at the time was that he pulled a gun.

Of course, the belief that the gun was real has to be a reasonable one as well. If it was bright orange opaque plastic and full of water, it wouldn't be a reasonable belief that the gun was real. If it was solid black or chrome color and had a hole in the end, the belief that the gun is an actual weapon is much more reasonable.

The extremists in this thread claim that self-defense is not even necessary; that the "violation" of one's home is, in and of itself, sufficient justification to take a life

A close reading of the Indiana law (and that of many other states) would indicate that the violation of, or 'assault on', your home is grounds enough to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to terminate the intrusion of or assault on your home.

The local Police hold a 'Citizen's Academy' every year, and I've heard several police officers there advise the class that if someone does break into your home, to not try and be a hero and confront the burglar(s). Instead they told us to stay in your bedroom (or gather the family into the bedrooom if you aren't single), arm yourself if you have a gun and call 911.

They told us that the 911 operator will keep you on the phone and notify you when the police have arrived, and that they will noisily identify themselves when they do come in, so if anyone pokes their head into your 'safe room' before the cops arrive, shoot them if they enter, but don't try to be a hero and capture the burglar if they flee.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-05-20 10:00am

What this get's down to is a lawyer trying to make headlines claiming "burglar protection rights needed". My reply to that: Bite me.

Why?

My home is my home. It is wear I live, where I keep most of my property. The other place is a safety deposit box.

Now, I agree, if I catch someone robbing my place, and they are reasonably co-operative, and there is only one of them, blasting them is not a good thing. Provided they do what I say i,e"Don't move, drop what's in your hands, put your hands above your head, drop to your knees, lie down spread out. Move and I'll shoot you." and stay still and don't act aggressively while I phone 9-1-1, hey, I have no reason to shot them. They are doing a nice, harmless, throw-rug impression, and if they try to move any way I think is aggressive, I pull the trigger. If they are uncomfortable, deal with it.

On the other hand, if they totally co-operated and then I pulled the trigger, I should be investigated to see if I can be held accountantable for some kind of offense. There are some trigger happy people out there.

I should not be charged however, for warning shots or restraining efforts.

Now, people have also brough up cases of burglar's injuring themselves on someone's property and suing, and the judge finding in favour of the crook.

My reply to those verdict's:
Excuse me? I was a mail-man for several years, and I was told I couldn't hold someone accountable if I tripped over there sprinkler, but some jackass burglar tripped over mine and I have to cough up a few grand? Go to hell.

Yes, I am serious. I worked for the Canada Post for a few years, and I was told If I was hurt on the job because I tripped on something, the home owner wasn't responsible, except as it applied to local ice-clearing laws, or unusual circumstances.

(Basically, that says you have something like 12 hours to remove ice from the side-walk after a freeze or snow fall).

Unusual circumstances included stuff like pet attacks, or stuff that you could argue in court on public property, like getting back over by a car, etc. Tripping over a ladder or sprinkler or something on private property, I was shit out of luck in terms of suing them. Sure, I'd get work-man's comp while I was hurt, I was on the job after all, but that was it.

I can see being held responsible if someone is on your property with your permission, and they hurt themselves because of something besides there own stupidity or a random coincidence. Like if a contractor was over to fix my patio, and my eves trough fell on his head from lack of mainteance. That could be argued as my fault for not taking better care of my house if I didn't warn him about the eve's trough being risky.

However, burglar's and other tresspassers (let's get that straight, a burglar is one your property without permission 95% of the time, if not more) are not there with permission, and are probably there to do something harmful or disruptive to you or your interests.

They are not under your invitation or protection. They are there at there own risk.

Someone broke into my home, and slipped on my floor and hurt himself? Good, I'll keep using that floor cleaner, it also acts as a security system. Someone broke into my store and tripped over a ladder? Cool, my burglar system worked. You broke into my apartment and hurt yourself stepping on a nail in the dark? You didn't want to use a flashlight so no one would know you are there? Doesn't that include me not knowing?

If crooks want something safe to do as a legal or crime-based job, go into politics or law.

But If I find you breaking into my home, you damn well better bet if I need to, I'll shoot to maim or kill. I apologize in advance if you were not armed and just reacting out of fear of being caught, but I was reacting out of fear or being killed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-20 10:07am

I agreed with most of what you said, but I just thought I'd point something out:

Solauren wrote:I was a mail-man for several years, and I was told I couldn't hold someone accountable if I tripped over there sprinkler, but some jackass burglar tripped over mine and I have to cough up a few grand? Go to hell.

Whoever told you that was wrong, and probably just talking about company policy rather than an individual lawsuit, which is beyond their jurisdiction to prevent. If they have been negligent in the layout of their home, you can sue them if you suffer an injury on the job. The key element is that they must be shown to be negligent. Tort law is quite clear on this and makes no exception for mailmen.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-05-20 11:17am

Darth Wong wrote:I agreed with most of what you said, but I just thought I'd point something out:
Solauren wrote:I was a mail-man for several years, and I was told I couldn't hold someone accountable if I tripped over there sprinkler, but some jackass burglar tripped over mine and I have to cough up a few grand? Go to hell.
Whoever told you that was wrong, and probably just talking about company policy rather than an individual lawsuit, which is beyond their jurisdiction to prevent. If they have been negligent in the layout of their home, you can sue them if you suffer an injury on the job. The key element is that they must be shown to be negligent. Tort law is quite clear on this and makes no exception for mailmen.

This was in reference to stuff in the yard. Since I never actually entered anyone's home. Company policy did say were were required to stay on side walks and drive ways except on streets with out a side walk, and in that case, we had to stay near the curb.

Since I never hurt myself on the job in a serious way or because of anyone else's fault but mine, I never had a chance to look into it.

I do remember them begin clear about the "you can sue over ice" point however.

Perhaps they were referring to "you can't sue as a civil servant". I work for the Ontario Ministry of Finance, and they are quite clear over not getting benifits for being a public servant. (Which I can see).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-05-20 11:25am

Darth Wong wrote: Whoever told you that was wrong, and probably just talking about company policy rather than an individual lawsuit, which is beyond their jurisdiction to prevent. If they have been negligent in the layout of their home, you can sue them if you suffer an injury on the job. The key element is that they must be shown to be negligent. Tort law is quite clear on this and makes no exception for mailmen.

shown to be negligent before the eyes of a jury. the average juror knowing about as much of the law as an toolmaker knows of philospohy. Jurors react with emotion and are easily manipulated by an eloquent attorney. (if it does not fit you must aquit! bam!)

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-20 11:41am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
shown to be negligent before the eyes of a jury. the average juror knowing about as much of the law as an toolmaker knows of philospohy. Jurors react with emotion and are easily manipulated by an eloquent attorney. (if it does not fit you must aquit! bam!)

[law student]Most cases of such a minor nature do not go before a jury, they'll go before a single judge, who is fully appraised of the law. In addition, if it is a jury trial, the judge will be sure to direct the jury as to the necessary elements required for the plaintiff to make his case.[/law student]

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-05-20 12:49pm

Vympel wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
shown to be negligent before the eyes of a jury. the average juror knowing about as much of the law as an toolmaker knows of philospohy. Jurors react with emotion and are easily manipulated by an eloquent attorney. (if it does not fit you must aquit! bam!)
[law student]Most cases of such a minor nature do not go before a jury, they'll go before a single judge, who is fully appraised of the law. In addition, if it is a jury trial, the judge will be sure to direct the jury as to the necessary elements required for the plaintiff to make his case.[/law student]

i agree, but no amount of direction from a judge can sufficiently counter act an emotional response. no matter how many times a juror is told that something is striken from the record, there still is the memory of what they have heard or seen. you cannot un-ring a bell. as you surely know, knowlege of psycology is a valuable weapon in a court of law. he or she who masters it, owns the jury.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-05-20 01:21pm

While the law is nice to harp on about, it makes it much easier to fire on a burgular when you know that you're not using lethal force. The rock salt thing is an old tactic used against tresspassers and poachers of all sorts, and at the very least, if they really _are_ intent on hurting someone, it gives you enough stun time to draw a pistol on them. Odds that a wounded person is going to continue with a tresspass however, are, negligent. And honestly, would the burgular ever report the crime? He'd have to be admitting to his crime first, a felony in most states. After which sentencing would be light if existent for the property owner because of the primary concept of law. Even ahead of any civil rights or constitution. All laws have to be reasonable.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-20 03:15pm

What this refers to is what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would do is the same situation knowing the facts as you knew them at the time.

Key word: “reasonable.” When you break into my home, I border on the verge of insanity. In all honesty, I could not with a clear conscience tell you I’d stop at having killed you either. That also goes of having shot or incapacitated you. In such a state as I’d be in, who’s to say for certain that I wouldn’t dash out your brains with the butt of my gun or load your chest full of buckshot?

The law tries to establish a balance. What you see when you get these “burglar’s rights” laws is in effect a secondary means of enforcing basic codes of law for the homeowner. It’s like applying the gun law to that farmer in the United Kingdom. Obviously the gun saved him some trouble (or would have, had the situation been worse). Still, there’s the problem of his having had it in his personal custody without a proper license. The government is – understandably – somewhat wary about the potential for so-called “vigilante justice”.

That said, the law really doesn’t apply during the ten minutes it takes to confront and kill you in the hallway of my house at 3:00 AM. If I find you, I’m going to pump you so full of lead or bash your skull in with my bat so many times that they’ll need to mop you off the floor. It’s not that I don’t care what happens to me once it’s all over – just that, in the moment, I’ll have lost all self-control.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-05-20 03:23pm

Axis Kast wrote: That said, the law really doesn’t apply during the ten minutes it takes to confront and kill you in the hallway of my house at 3:00 AM. If I find you, I’m going to pump you so full of lead or bash your skull in with my bat so many times that they’ll need to mop you off the floor. It’s not that I don’t care what happens to me once it’s all over – just that, in the moment, I’ll have lost all self-control.

then you are violent and mentally unstable.