Slashdot Mirror
Real-Life Gadgets For Real-Life Superheroes
cylonlover writes "Yes, there are real-life superheroes. And no, we're not just referring to firefighters, paramedics, and other heroic people whom we're used to seeing come to the rescue of others. We're talking about costume-wearing, identity-concealing, cool-name-having people who fight crime, pollution, or other evils in their own communities, on their own time, and at their own risk. Many of them actually patrol the city streets, ready to intervene if they see trouble brewing – and being ready includes having the right tools. Given that none of these people have Bruce Wayne's budget, Gizmag takes a look at some of the real-world gadgets they use as they go about their crime-fighting duties."
(mmm, this thread will make a mess :S)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I troll around the Starbucks with my laptop running the Firesheep add-on to jack people's facebook sessions and post lewd links to their status!
Muwhahahahahahaaaa!!!!
When I went to click on the link, in my mind was a curious tension of expectations. Would it be like Jay and Silent Bob in "Mallrats"? Like the various teenagers in "Kickass"? Like the moderately-capable guys in hockey pads in "The Dark Knight"? Or something entirely different altogether, some wonderful and amazing surprise of how people can leverage technology and creativity as force multipliers to do good?
However, after reading this and looking at the gear, all that comes to mind is..."What a bunch of douchebags. Ugh."
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
You can get into trouble in Canada for trying to Defend yourself or others?
That totally sucks.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I usually just bring guns and beer.
It really does!
I'm from Canada.. and I've never been in the situation, but as I understand it even if someone breaks into your living room, WHILE YOU ARE THERE, you can still get in trouble for using "excessive force" if you seriously injure the person. If you have a gun (for say, hunting).. even pointing it at the person will land _you_ in trouble. The laws are even murky is he has a gun (did you really think he was going to use it?). It's quite insane!
The criminal.. well he's just a missunderstood victim of society, we can rehabilitate him with your tax dollars!
Personally I think once someone decides to break into your home, you have every right to bludgeon him to death with a crow bar. Maybe if that was a potential outcome of breaking into someones house, people wouldn't do it so often.. ..I'm not bitter or anything..
I wish them luck on the power armor.
Only less believable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If I go out looking for trouble, does that make it premeditated when I assault some ne'er do well?
Good intentions aside, and all that.
Well, L's identity is now known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Juliani
What a great Hero and Role Model!!
"one man's tourist is another man's freebasing freaker"
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
If not exaggerated, that is mind-numbingly fucked up. I understand it to be about the same way in the UK, but I didn't realize Canada had drank the kool-aid on this one.
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
#liftedfromgizmodo
"If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
Mark Millar perspective in writting Kick-Ass tells it like it is... that enough is enough... when the authorities can't be everywhere every time, sometimes you need good Samaritans to help you deliver a good ass kicking to the ass wipes of society
Well, aren't you being a bit of a drama queen if you get that scared when someone breaks into your house. I mean, odds are they're just there to steal a few things and will leave you unharmed, right?
Just kidding. If someone breaks into my house and I have the chance, I'll shoot them multiple times center of mass. I'm risking allowing something like that to happen to my family if I don't, and I can't take that risk. By the act of breaking into my house, he's assuming the risk - I won't. Sure, I'll feel like shit if it was some drunk teenager out out trying to steel some money, but I can't take the risk.
Thank God you can generally shoot someone if they break into your house and not have to deal with criminal proceedings, though it's still undesirable because the "ma baby din't do nothin'" family will sue your ass.
Most US states follow the castle doctrine to some extent. If someone breaks into your home and you feel threatened, you can use deadly force in defense. Some states extend the area to private property and vehicles. I know Texas, Florida and Mississippi have this kind of law, not sure about anywhere else.
Am I the only one thinking of the latest South Park episodes?
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
A Heckler & Koch UMP, a Benelli M4 and knuckle dusters, on the side.
The stuff in TFA is a bunch of toys, FTFA:
Laser Wand: a toy Harry Potter wand, retrofitted with a 95mW green laser module – useful for pointing things out to the police, or letting troublemakers know they’re being watched
Knock the troublemaker down with a round from the Benelli, and follow it up with a spray from the H&K . . . the troublemaker will now know that he is being watched. Approach the troublemaker with caution, and apply the knuckle dusters liberally . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#In_other_countries
Currently, no Canadian Province has implemented either Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground.[35] Under the criminal code of Canada, a very limited version of Castle Doctrine exists that requires the victim to retreat if retreating is possible.
Also, it varies from state to state even in United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#State-by-state_positions
What was the state motto of New Hampshire again? Taking it a bit too literally?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
to go along with the mandatory refrains.
What? Every super hero is required to have a theme song now? Let me guess, this was hidden in the Health Care bill, right?
Captain Sticky! To the StickyMobile!
Off to the Super Hero Retirement Home in the sky...
http://jamesewelch.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/san-diego-super-heroes/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
To me, these all look like indications of sad, empty, delusional lives.
Did I wrote refrains? I'm gonna hide under that nice little rock I have here.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm? Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home so you should assume that someone breaking in to an occupied home will do harm to the inhabitants.
Of course, we can always just wait for the police to "protect and serve" us.
It sounds like the guys in the article are just barely a step past LARPers in crazy.
There really are masked vigilantes out there, one in Virginia I read about a few months ago and a group in southern Florida.
Why doesn't one of these Super Heroes use their REAL power, and trap their opponent under the "Cone of Dorkdom"?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...seem to consist largely of flashlights attached to stuff.
As I read this article, I was like... *really*?
.45? You'll need some serious shielding and defensive moves for that. A taser or even a light weapon won't work here. And then if you use your 95mw laser to blind the perpetrator he will come back and sue you for all you're worth.
What do these, uh, "heroes" hope to do or defend against? Do they *really* think that slingshot is useful for *anything* in an urban setting?
What's going to happen when one of them encounters someone who is really serious, and the "hero" finds himself on the wrong end of a
Or what happens when there's an undercover cop making an arrest and one of these yahoos mistakes what he's seeing and tries to "intervene"?
Seriously people... the best thing to do nowadays is to get a concealed carry permit, carry a weapon you've practice on, and avoid trouble at all costs. Stuff like this is just ridiculous.
Wouldn't these be Masked Heros instead of Super Heros?
Also, none of the Heros looked beefy or badass. More like neighborhood watch weirdos. I suggest a better workout, more calorie intake, and developing better less-than-lethal crowd control type weapons. Chances are non-lethal will just make them mad.. and changes are also good that you won't be dealing with just one.
all imo, of course.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
According to some very quick research, you're allowed to respond with as much force as is required to defend yourself (presumably enough to halt the assault), including lethal force if you have reasonable grounds to believe you're at risk of death or 'grevious bodily harm'. You might call that a murky area, but it seems quite reasonable to me.
I don't know about you, but my Georgia Firearms License and S&W Model 66 make me feel a lot safer than these guys do. "Right tools"? There are places in Atlanta where these fools would get laughed at, right before 5 gang members pull out guns and shoot them. My college has windows with bullet holes in them, and armed robberies inside school buildings at 1 in the afternoon. Some geek in a mask running around with a flashlight and a stun stick isn't going to make me feel any safer. No. Let those of us legally permitted to carry a form of protection to exercise our constitutional rights, and there would be a lot less crime.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If you're so afraid of civilisation and see every threat in terms of OH GOD SOMEONE'S ABOUT TO RAPE ME AND KILL MY FAMILY then perhaps you ought to move to Texas rather than dragging Canada down with you.
Actually more a fear of lack of civilization that fear of civilization. The odds of raped and killed in a state bordering Mexico is probably, what, a hundred, maybe a thousand times higher than in a more civilized area like Canada or some place in Europe.
Also our mass media "news" is primarily focused on keeping us scared to keep us under control. Works great w/ respect to starting wars and stuff, but there are side effects like this.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I think the phrase they were looking for was "walking around and actually getting laughed at." Real life superheroes don't exist because real life is nothing like comic books, where walking down random streets leads to daily encounters with purse snatchers and in-progress bank robberies. In the real world, finding this kind of crime is hard (that's why even the much larger police force spend very little time catching actual crimes *in progress*). Of course, you could always spend your days harassing drug dealers and prostitutes in the shitty hoods, but that's hardly the stuff of comic book legend.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Certainly the greatest value of any weapon is as a deterrent. How many graffiti punks will keep going when shown a business end of a mean looking cannon? It may or may not do much damage or be practical in a fight, but who would want to be the first to find out?
I like how StrongBad got into the mix
I would find it extremely disturbing for some bozo to take it upon himself to be a "real life superhero" in my town. I do not want the rule of law to be suspended arbitrarily by some nut, well-meaning or not. We do not live in a movie or a graphic novel. We live in a lawful society, or at least strive for it to be so.
Why doesn't one of these Super Heroes use their REAL power, and trap their opponent under the "Cone of Dorkdom"?
It's not a cone.
It's a dodecahedron.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Good thing you gave the issue serious thought instead of just replying with a pithy, holier-than-thou one-liner.
If they're breaking into an occupied private residence, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're a helluva lot more than a mere "trespasser." Trespassing is what I do when I go explore abandoned industrial buildings. It's not breaking into some family's home at 2 a.m. Best case scenario, that is a "thief." Much worst case scenarios include "kidnapper," "rapist," and "murderer." And I'm not particularly inclined to give the guy who's breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If you're so afraid of civilisation and see every threat in terms of OH GOD SOMEONE'S ABOUT TO RAPE ME AND KILL MY FAMILY then perhaps you ought to move to Texas rather than dragging Canada down with you.
If someone kicks in your front door or crashes through a window, they're not coming in for tea and crumpets. They probably are going to rape you and kill your family. Are there kinder gentler criminals in other countries?
In the U.S., you can justifiably kill someone if they've broken into your house and you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life. I fail to see why this is a bad thing. And no, you can't shoot trespassers. Nowhere in the U.S. is this legal, despite what you may have seen on TV.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Right, everyone knows that your manhood enhancement also acts as a bad-guy repellent.
Thank fucking god I live in Florida. Here, someone breaks into your house, "duty to retreat" laws go out the window. In other words, someone breaks into my home, I am not law bound to retreat from my home, and can defend it using lethal kill you dead force. God bless the fucking USA (at least some states, that is).
And this comment will never be modded up. People will continue to debate the merits of a completely imaginary version of Canadian law, based on right wing pro gun myths. Right wingers love Canada. They can just make up anything they like about evil socialist Canada and no one will contradict them. Apparently, many American right wingers are actually from Canada, and can describe life in Canada in authoritative terms. They will tell you all about their grandfather dying in line waiting medical for treatment and how they aren't allowed to defend themselves, because honest to god, they are really real Canadians and know all about life in Canada, which they hate because of all the socialists and peaceniks making crazy laws.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If someone kicks in your front door or crashes through a window, they're not coming in for tea and crumpets. They probably are going to rape you and kill your family. Are there kinder gentler criminals in other countries?
Yes. For example, I know America is a country full of financially responsible people but evil socialist Europe has quite a few people who buy what they cannot afford and sometimes the debt collector knocks a little too hard on the door.
In the U.S., you can justifiably kill someone if they've broken into your house and you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life.
Oh, self defence applies pretty much everywhere... it is just that the jury in a civilised country understands the difference between, say, pushing down a piece of wood and attempting to kill someone. So, there is quite a chasm between breaking into someone's house and a reasonable person in the house being in fear of his life.
I don't see why you would be any more in fear of your life than, say, if someone started running at you with wild eyes in the street... but, as we all know, the law is about Americans feeling insecure and having to have some notion of a sacrosanct parcel of land. This insecurity can be reinforced so that the pathetic and dwindling middle class relate in a pathological and masochistic way to the ruling elite when they try to justify their expeditions.
... not the same thing as breaking and entering. Breaking and entering is a more serious crime, and a reasonable person would probably rightly fear for their life if someone broke into their house while they were in it. And in that situation, is it realistic to be able to wait for the police to show up? I don't think so.
It's not a cone.
It's a dodecahedron.
Better to roll a twelve than be carried by six?
It is very common down here. I have been saved thrice from Super Jupiter Man and twice from Mystery Meat. There are super villains and stuff everywhere down here. You would be surprised, it is like a giant comic book down here
The world is how you make it
Actually more a fear of lack of civilization that fear of civilization. The odds of raped and killed in a state bordering Mexico is probably, what, a hundred, maybe a thousand times higher than in a more civilized area like Canada or some place in Europe.
No. Just...no.
Yes, there's a drug war between gangs in Mexico that is slaughtering a lot of bystanders. That in no way means people from Mexico are any more violent than anywhere else.
El Paso crime rate (across the border from Juarez): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Crime_statistics_by_province_and_territory
Canadian province crime rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Crime_statistics_by_province_and_territory
El Paso would fall right in the middle of Canada's provinces for most offences.
Sorry to spoil your generalization, publiclurker, but men in my family have penises. We don't need enhancements.
Think of it this way. While I never wish this on anyone, let's talk again after you've been mugged at gunpoint. Then you'll see clearly where a firearm is not a penis poofer but a device that allows you to choose your life over that of your mugger's.
Do you think this guy was thinking about the size of his penis when he defended himself against a mugger who shot at him?
http://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-citizen-shoots-a-violent-mugger-self-defense
How about this guy? Do you think he needed a bigger penis or a way to defend himself against a hoodlum?
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/04/28/news/local/479034.txt
Or this one?
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Megerle.htm
Please don't project your own phallic challenges when you're trying to make a snide remark and inaccurate generalization.
No Comrade! When our Great Leaders and Comrade Journalists refer to a certain class of people as Heroes, Patriots, Allies, Investors, or Job Creators, we must do the same. They are enlightening us with their profound knowledge and great wisdom. You must never question them!
Brilliant. "Let's not trouble ourselves about the guy breaking into our house at 2am. He's probably here to retrieve our overdue library books."
This reminds me of a scene in some movie... Oh yea, Toy Story where the spaceman guy zaps the c'boy with his leds, with less than explosive results.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
A taser will still knock someone out, even if they're carrying an assault rifle. The ridiculous arms war on our streets only really applies if you expect the other guy to be wearing some sort of modern ballistics armor. I've never seen a petty thug wearing several thousand dollars worth of body armor when they're out tagging a building; maybe things are just different around here.
Similarly, the laser isn't to "blind" someone; it's merely to let them know that you're there, that you're watching, and have already called the police. That can be enough to scare someone away. These guys know that they're not Batman. They're trying to stop the levels of crime that can be prevented by the conspicuous present of concerned citizens, not bank-robbery/hostage situations.
These guys are a little weird, but by making their presence known in the areas they "patrol", they're doing worlds more than the "keep my head down, shoot anyone who gives me trouble" crowd.
"Let's not kill a man for breaking down a door."
Or how about this one, PublicLurker? Do you really think a 70 year old grandma needs a penis enlargement?
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/23/Horse_shoot.ART_ART_10-23-09_A1_SGFF2MR.html
The more likely scenario is that the "graffitti punk" will also be armed. Most graffitti is gang related.
Gee, Mr. Freeman, I thought you'd be all for using Anrego's crow-bar defense strategy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's very sad for superheros in Canada. We just can't compete with the kind of crime they get down in the US.
I often see this postulated, but as someone who has served in the military, in a combat zone, and has a couple of black belts, I've never seen concealed firearms as being particularly effective defense against muggings. Typically speaking, if you're being mugged, the bad guy has his gun out, trained on you. He's also nervous as fuck (since muggers tend to be the lowest level of street criminal). In the time it takes to draw, aim, and fire a pistol you'll be dead. As someone who has taught self defense, and spent more than his fair share time in self defense classes, the most common advice given to people regarding muggings is "give them your money". Something on the order of 95% or 98% of muggers (it's been a while since I taught this stuff) just want the money and they leave. The chances that you've encountered one of the other 5% are much smaller than the chances that you'll survive an attempt to defend yourself against an armed opponent.
Now for home defense there's a completely different case. Typically in that situation you have time to get your gun out and put yourself on at least equal footing with the intruder. There's *some* argument for the use of firearms in home defense situations, but in personal defense situations typically by the time you realize you need the gun it's too late.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Obviously you don't watch TV or you'd know that nowadays the police have these people who will analyze all evidence down to the subatomic level and they will find out it was you.
I wouldn't try it....
Caveat Utilitor
If I knew you couldn't harm me for breaking in, why wait until you are not home to do it?
I'm a criminal, I don't have to obey the law, but you are not a criminal so you do.
Home invasions are a lot risker when you know the homeowner can legally kill you.
If Mexicans had guns then we'd not have to worry about the Mexicans with guns.
Are you honestly that naive? Really? What do you suppose they're doing? Do I have to let him come in and kill someone before I can do something about it? I don't agree with the right-wing in the US on much, but at least they think my life is valuable enough that I should be entitled to defend it. It's absolutely pathetic when people value the lives of criminals more important than the people just trying to live their lives and have the audacity to consider it "civilized". So much sympathy for criminals and yet mysteriously little for their intended victims.
yes, if you use "excessive force". If someone breaks in and starts stealing your shit and you punch them in the face, tackle them to the ground, tie them up and immediately call the cops to come pick him up, you're committing citizens arrest. That is completely legal.
If you shoot them in the kneecap, then you're using excessive force. If they walk onto your lawn and you try to do the above: excessive force. If you threaten to murder them (ie. pointing a gun at them) excessive force. The excessive force law doesn't say you can't defend yourself, it says you can't do so with, (surprise!) an excessive amount of force.
Why do people insist on referring to firefighters, paramedics or policemen as heroes? They signed up for a job and get paid to do it. Simple as that, no heroism there. They don't rescue or help people out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because that's their job.
No one forced them to take that job, either. A paycheck doesn't negate the risk to your life when you rush into a burning building to save someone else's life, or get shot at trying to apprehend a criminal.
The laws where I live were written to value human life above human property. There's no death penalty so you can't murder someone who you catch breaking the law unless the life of you or a third party is in IMMEDIATE danger because of it.
This actually isn't true for all jurisdictions, so depending on what state you are in, you might wind up with criminal charges. Certain states (for example, New York) impose a duty to retreat upon parties in danger. That is to say, if you are being attacked, you have a duty to retreat to a safe place. Only when you no longer can retreat (i.e., you are either cornered or you are in your home) can you resort to self defense.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I'd prefer to avoid a "two men enter, one man leaves" type scenario altogether thanks.
.
looks somethink like Jamie from Mythbusters build to shoot cans of coke!
Are there kinder gentler criminals in other countries?
Pretty much, yes. Random break and enters that result in rape and/or murder happen so rarely in Canada that they're basically a statistical anomaly. When such a thing does happen, it makes national news for a week. I can't speak for other countries, but I suspect the same can be said for most of northern Europe (or any other successful socialist country).
We do get random break-and-enters, but generally if someone's at home, it was due to bad planning on the criminal's part and they run away.
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
"Real Life Super Heroes"?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Oh, come on! How many of these people have actually prevented a crime, stopped a crime in action, or caught a perpetrator of a crime? Compare to how many have been beaten senseless trying? Compared to how many who have witnessed a crime, and were too chicken to do anything about it?
Reading through Wikipedia's "article" on "RLSH", I find a couple who do things that are honestly good. The lady who goes to bars to keep overly-drunk women from going home with losers is a good one. Most are just losers in stupid outfits.. Don't get me wrong, I would *LOVE* to be a real-life Batman, Spider-Man, or Iron Man. But I actually have both a sense of pride, and some brains; so I don't go prancing around in a stupid outfit trying to get myself mugged.
*Subject line courtesy "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog"
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
"A taser will still knock someone out, even if they're carrying an assault rifle."
Really? How do you propose to get close enough to tase someone without getting shot? If you're in a situation where you have to get away from a threat with a firearm, the ideal situation is to retreat or hide so they are no longer a threat. But if you're forced to defend yourself, a taser won't allow you to defend against a firearm unless the firearm is empty.
And also keep in mind that the modus operandi is *not* "shoot anyone who gives me trouble". The modus operandi is "escape from danger if possible, but if you are forced to defend yourself against a deadly outcome then at least you have means to do so."
As other posters have pointed out, it's legal to use whatever force you need to defend yourself, but you'd be crazy to do so if you can run away instead.
"we can rehabilitate him with your tax dollars"
Rehab is a heck of a lot cheaper than jail. Get over this biblical eye-for-an-eye thing, and start thinking about harm-minimisation. Do you know how many tax dollars are spent keeping people behind bars?
I'm a criminal, I don't have to obey the law, but you are not a criminal so you do.
If you think that the only reason people don't go around raping and killing is because they are law-abiding, you are a sorry human being. You are also a couple of steps away from totalitarianism, because a scoff law who drops litter is dangerous as a serial killer, right?
Home invasions are a lot risker when you know the homeowner can legally kill you.
For the homeowner and the unwelcome visitor, because the number of purpose-built lethal weapons will have gone up from 0 to 2.
Perhaps you would like to check how break-ins in the UK end up with the murder of anyone in the house, and compare that to the US.
I'm from Canada as well, and while the law states one thing, the reality is something else. Basically as long as you don't kill the guy there isn't a cop in the country that will testify or press charges against you, and that guy really needs the police officers testimony to get anywhere with any sort of charges.
And some states let you kill people who are about to break something that doesn't belong to you.
At least, that's what the statute says.
The case law probably has a line drawn somewhere between throwing a rock through a window and burning your grain silo.
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
Not sure if we're still talking about the U.S. here, but just in case:
YOU CAN'T KILL SOMEONE FOR STEALING.
Self defense is only justified to defend your own LIFE. Or your family.
You people believe way too much of what you see on TV.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Once someone's pointing a gun at you, you're pretty much too late to do anything but talk your way out of it. Trying to go for your gun is the surest way to get yourself shot. If you're going to defend yourself with a gun, you've got to do it before they have theirs pointed at you.
depends where you live.
Most of the Graffiti around where I live (the 'burbs) is done by some damn kids with too much time on their hands.
Least they finally got off my lawn though.
Reading this article, I was puzzled by two things.
First: Why is this just starting to happen now? Masked vigilante heroes are older than dirt (at least in story and song). They have been portrayed in mainstream popular media since at least the 30s. By the 50s/60s, you have adults that have grown up in a world where comic book superheros have always existed. Why does it take another 50 years for people to start imitating?
Second: Why have none of these fools gotten themselves killed yet?
Are the answers to these questions related? If they are, does that mean that people are just getting stupider?
Knowledge != Intelligence
You mislinked, the El paso numbers are here:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_tx.html
Homicide rate in El Paso in 2009 is 1.9 per 100,000 versus a range of 0 to 6.5 for the various canadian provinces (in 2006).
Furthermore, both violent crime and property crime rates have been steadily falling in all of the southern border states. And not just by a small amount, mostly double-digits with some states seeing more than a 50% reduction in certain types of violent crimes over the past decade. Sorry, I have no links handy to a formal analysis but anyone can take the UCR numbers from the FBI site above and do the math themselves to verify. (Something I did by hand a couple of months back in another web forum).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
how many cases of break and enter result in rape, kidnap and murder? I mean, unless you're a stalker trying to rape a SPECIFIC person it's not exactly the ideal way to go about it since you have no guarantee the person will be alone in the house, plus it's noise any probably in a relatively high population density area and if you ARE a stalker trying to rape a specific person then you probably know how well their home defenses are and are pretty well prepared for whatever they have to defend themselves.
Same with kidnap. Assuming they're breaking it, it's probably planned ahead of time so they'll kinda... I dunno... wait until you aren't home to kidnap your children. Unless you leave your babysitter the location of the guns. And even then, they're probably doing it from the school or something.
The only real worry if you're in the house and someone breaks in is murder and, again, I have to point out, they don't actually have to break in for that. If they're willing to break down your door, make a huge racket and then shoot you they're probably also willing to knock, wait for you to answer and THEN shoot you.
If a criminal feels the need to actually break into your house, chances are, it's because they think you aren't home and they want to steal your shit. Because there are just much, much easier ways to perform other crimes.
the law doesn't predate neighbors. The law is designed for a city/suburb setting where getting to a phone and calling the police is assumed to be relatively non problematic.
Also, the "retreat" law doesn't actually require you to leave your house. You can lock yourself in a room and call the police. The point is just that you should try to contact the authorities before taking the law into your own hands.
yes, this is why, whenever i break into a house while people are home, i yell out "don't worry, i'm only here to steal your computer" Of course, i don't want to leave any witnesses to my crime, so i kill them anyway. you can't know the extent of someone's motives, ever.
I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home
Citation, else anecdotal.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
For one, these heroes perform the exact same service as a neighborhood watch. A constantly vigilant community is by far the best deterrent to crime.
Second, most crimes against property are committed by unarmed felons against empty homes, cars, and the like. In a lot of communities in America, a criminal carrying a weapon during a crime is an extra charge filed against them (even if there is no one to use it against). So a slingshot, taser, or light weapon is very effective against such criminals (especially if being carried by a masked individual acting like a superhero - or a nutcase).
Yes, once guns enter the mix, things get decidedly more dangerous. However, to claim that a taser or light weapon is useless is a not correct. Those items may be useful, or may not (and I say this as a black belt martial artist, so I do have some training in this situation). It completely depends on the specific instance. At that point, it really becomes a personal choice: do you rescue someone from an armed assailant at risk to your own life? It is a question easily debated by us sitting behind computer keyboards, and one in which all the answers we could come up with are just options. Your choice will be different than mine, which may be different from the heroes.
However, you claim about undercover cops is invalid in America. Undercover cops (in plainclothes and without a badge) do not arrest people alone. They have uniformed police officers conduct the arrest (or participate in the arrest) specifically for that reason. In a lot of cases, the undercover officer isn't even present, to protect his identity.
For a person to maintain his or her safety, you are correct, it is best to carry a concealed weapon you are familiar with and avoid trouble. However, to be a good citizen, helping those in need requires people like those mentioned in the article, especially as police departments are no longer under any requirement to protect and server the citizenry (just for the record, I respect the police that do so without that requirement). I have a good bit of respect for these people doing what it seems like our government has given up attempting. I only wish more people had respect for those that do so, whether they wear a uniform, a mask, or a T-shirt and blue jeans.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
I want to know if gang-bangers and illegal carriers were included.
I don't read AC A human right
Meh, no. It's my real name. But not Gordon.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I imagine that I wouldn't attempt to get close enough to someone with an assault rifle to tase them, much like I wouldn't attempt to get close enough to shoot them with a concealed pistol. I'd call the cops. What situation are you envisioning where a firearm is necessary and provides a clear benefit over a taser? A mugging at 30 yards? A criminal with an equally high-powered firearm who doesn't happen to have it out and pointed at you?
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as incredulous, and perhaps I just live too sheltered a life, but I do not understand the circumstances where a civilian is significantly better off having a concealed pistol than a concealed taser. Is it just the concern that the first shot might miss?
If they're breaking into an occupied private residence, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're a helluva lot more than a mere "trespasser."
Maybe, but if someone's life is at stake (i.e. if you're about to shoot them dead), isn't certainty worth a try?
Trespassing is what I do when I go explore abandoned industrial buildings. It's not breaking into some family's home at 2 a.m.
It's also walking through someone's patio door on a summer afternoon, which if uninvited will get you full of lead I expect.
Best case scenario, that is a "thief." Much worst case scenarios include "kidnapper," "rapist," and "murderer." And I'm not particularly inclined to give the guy who's breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt.
So in the best case scenario, you'd still shoot a thief on the off-chance you might get killed yourself? The guy is just a thief, yet you'd shoot him dead because you're scared you may be kidnapped or raped or murdered?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
How much force is required to defend yourself? How do you know they're going to attack you when all they do is point a gun at your head?
If you read the article, they never mention these guys getting in a physical confrontation, and for several of them explicitly say they've never drawn their weapons or made use of their armor. One of them said he even tries to avoid arresting people, defusing situations instead.
Now, I won't quite support these guys until I hear the opinion of the local police, but it does sound like these guys are harmless and avoid walking into serious trouble.
My webcomic
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
We don't have time to interview the criminal to find out what his true intentions are. If there is one place where a man should have the right to feel absolutely secure, it should in their own home. No, "life is sacred" does not work both ways. The lives of law abiding people is sacred. The lives of people who agreed to abide by the rules of a civilized society is sacred. The life of those who have broken that trust by breaking into someone's home violating that person's right to remain secure in that home (not merely trespassing on their property) is not sacred.
The castle doctrine that is found in most states in the U.S. guarantees that right to its citizens. The law is there because we are more concerned about the right to life of the law abiding person in their own home, and will not second guess the exact circumstances of a person who defends themselves at home. It is utterly ridiculous for a person to have to prove that there was not a viable escape route, that, in a moment of duress within their own home, they had to have 20/20 hindsight about the circumstance that they were in. How is the person supposed to know that jumping out the window would be safe, that there wasn't some accomplice who went to the backdoor? A person who is awoken at 3AM from a person breaking a window and entering his home has no idea what kind of danger he is in. Regardless of how much he trusts the police, he can't change the fact that the average response time of an officer to a Code 3 situation is around 8 minutes. The fact is that there is never a sure way to know whether retreat is the better option. And given that a person isn't omniscient, we have decided in most of the U.S. that the law is going to remove this ridiculous need for proof from the person trying to defend his life in his own home.
Does this mean that it's a smart idea for a person to run through the house guns blazing if someone breaks into his home? No, of course not. Most experts will tell you that the best course of action is to gather your family, hole up in the bedroom, call the police, and be ready to shoot only if the person breaking into the house attempts to break into that sanctuary. But, because there are an infinite number of circumstances that may arise that takes that option off the table, it is not the government's place to second guess the judgment of the law abiding citizen over that of a criminal.
If it is permissible to kill someone in self defense if they have a gun pointed at you an are ready and willing to shoot, the practical line at which lethal force becomes permissible MUST be at a point before it is too late for the person defending themselves to succeed at doing so. If your line for when it's ok to shoot a person is after they've shot at you, then that line is worthless.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
In the UK, you can use 'reasonable force.' What that means is subject to how good your defence lawyer is. A general rule is that if your attacker tries to run, let him go - any attempt to stop or capture him is by definition not defensive, and thus not reasonable.
I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.
States with Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming
Keep in mind this includes very liberal states such as California and Illinois, so this does in fact show a general consensus among most of America. Even in states without such laws, convictions for people defending themselves in their own home are very rare, assuming who they shot was a stranger and not someone they knew.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Personally I think once someone decides to break into your home, you have every right to bludgeon him to death with a crow bar
Plus, if we make a honest mistake or if we really (and justifiably!) consider someone to be an antisocial element, how the now-body was breaking in will mean a lot less trouble for all the good folks.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Only two specific types of crime were mentioned: Graffiti and some casual vandalism in a park. Noteable because they are comparatively easy crimes to find. You don't need to find the gang member drawing the symbols - only note where they are (Which can be done when off-duty) and go back to erase them later. While vandals tend to return to the same hang-out. If you find a bus shelter with the windows smashed, it's a good chance watching the vicinity will soon find the perpetrators returned to break the light too.
The lesson here is simple: don't call the police, just get rid of the body.
How many thieves let others know where they'll be going?
Or else they might realise that the giant cannon, while potentially powerful, is a one-shot weapon.
Ruke,
You're not incredulous at all. Let me start by suggesting that you read the links I provided above - those were all cases where civilians who were armed were able to protect their lives with their firearms. The most recent research by the FBI indicates that there are many, many more incidents - as many as hundreds per day - where the mere display of a firearm by an "intended victim" makes a criminal change his mind very quickly. A taser does not have the same "scare factor" as a firearm.
I can't speak in generalizations about concealed carry permit holders, but I can talk about those whom I know. When you get a license to carry a lethal weapon, your attitude and manner changes. You look to avoid dangerous situations. You don't let stuff bother you so much any more. But most importantly, you become FAR more aware of your surroundings. The posters in this threadlet who indicated that a firearm won't help you much in a mugging are correct to a certain extent - someone who surprises you by jumping out and demanding money at gunpoint is a bad situation. But you tend to watch people a lot more, on the street, to ascertain if they are a threat or not... you look for people hiding, etc. So those surprises are probably less likely to happen to you.
You could make a conscious effort to have the same kinds of mannerisms without carrying a firearm - and that's a great way to conduct yourself even if you don't want the responsibility of having a deadly weapon on you.
Someone should have told these guys not to bring a flashlight to a gun fight.
Uhhh. Me breaking into your house is simply "trespassing" now? Hum. I suppose taking your computer would be simply "borrowing without asking first" ;)
If there is one place where a man should have the right to feel absolutely secure, it should in their own home.
The law should not concern itself with feeling, nor should you have any right to be more secure in your own home. Put another way, you have no less right to security outside your own home.
Are you familiar with the concept of selection bias? "Mugger shoots victim" doesn't make the local papers. "Victim shoots mugger" does. If the victim is old, disabled, with children or otherwise at a disadvantage then it'll make the national papers.
How much force is required to defend yourself?
As I mentioned, I would assume it requires as much force as is necessary to end the assault. You have a good point, that it's easy to judge how much force is sufficient to defend oneself, but hard to judge how much force is necessary to defend oneself (I assume that was your point), but I think that difficult question is unavoidable. Unless you propose that any amount of force is justifiable (which I think is untenable), you have to set a limit somewhere.
How do you know they're going to attack you when all they do is point a gun at your head?
Why else would someone point a gun at my head? I call that reasonable grounds to believe I'm at risk of death. Do you think many people would disagree?
Well if you care to search back far enough (2004-2005) you can find my posts right here on Slashdot talking about my deployment. I guess it's not proof, but it's as good as you'll get on an Internet forum. I suppose it's possible that I falsified a year and half of posts (subtly of course, it's not like I mention it every post or anything) just so I could appeal to authority several years later, but probably not likely. I'll admit that it goes more to "I've used deadly weapons in real life" than anything else, soldiers don't carry concealed and muggings weren't exactly a big worry....
I have black belts in Tae kwon do and Shaolin-do (which is a completely bogus martial arts "tradition", but a reasonably effective fighting style). My Tae kwon do instructor was a former cop, so the instruction tended to the more... practical. Especially in the self defense focused classes.
I'll never say that it's completely impossible that you'll ever find yourself in a position to use that gun. It would be stupid for me to claim that. I will say that the number of situation where you are likely to be able to use it to effectively defend yourself is not going to be high. You are probably more likely to get yourself hurt or killed trying to use it at an inappropriate time.
I'm not trying to insult you personally here. I don't know you any more than you know me. Maybe you've had police, military, or private security training. Maybe you're just smarter than the average bear and won't make "typical" mistakes. For you, personally, your stance may make perfect sense. But for the the average use case of the average person with no particular training or experience... A concealed firearm is probably not ever going to help them and is perhaps slightly more likely to be harmful to them.
Just my opinion. I've already made claim to knowing perhaps a bit more than the average person about the topic, but I'll never say I'm an expert. What I do know is pretty old. I haven't actively studied martial arts in nearly a decade and I'm several years out of the military. It's no skin off my nose if you disagree, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't actively accuse me of lying.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I'm from Canada.. and I've never been in the situation, but as I understand it...
In Canada, just as in the United States, we have uninformed people with no legal training or law enforcement experience willing to make inaccurate and misleading pronouncements about how screwed up our laws are.
Canadian law provides for the use of force - up to and including lethal force - to repel forcible entry into one's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code of Canada (my emphasis added):
~Idarubicin
So if people who would break into your home and threaten your family self-select and remove themselves from the gene pool, you consider that a bad thing?
Breaking into someone's home should be as risky and as dangerous as possible. The result: fewer people will try it.
Seriously, I have no sympathy for anyone who gets hurt, maimed, or killed while performing unprovoked violence or posing an unprovoked threat against others. And an unknown assailant who forcibly breaks into your home while you are inside is certainly posing an unprovoked threat against you. At that point it's far too late to reason with them. They have abandoned reason, for breaking into a stranger's home is not a reasonable act.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Just because I pick up a gun doesn't mean I intend to shoot you with it.
It might just be the heaviest club handy.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you want to protect people, drop the wish fulfillment fantasy toys, and carry a pistol. If you're doing this to help others instead of making yourself feel good, you should be practical.
Basically true, if you are taken by suprise with no warning, carrying a gun won't save YOU.
Concealed carry is for saving OTHER people.
How do you know they are [there to do bodily harm]?
There are multiple situations one can describe. Sure, there are cases like Yoshihiro Hattori which receive a lot of media attention, but the majority of cases (which you don't hear about) involve the resident hearing an intruder, arming themselves and calling the police, confronting the intruder, and then the intruder either leaves or the homeowner fires. One example that comes to mind is Donna Jackson killing Billy Dean Reilly. I don't want to end up like the Clutter family.
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
I would caution people not to take your self defense advise. How does one prove without a doubt that the situation is imminently life-threatening? I get where you are coming from; the burglar is still a person and they shouldn't be killed just for trying to steal a few things. But that doesn't mean that I have to sit idly by waiting for the police while they decide my things would look nicer in their house. I'll confront the trespasser and shoot to kill if I feel threatened. It's up to the jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that I acted criminally - I don't have the time to conduct a trial if my life may be in danger. If there is evidence of a break-in and I didn't shoot the intruder(s) in the back, I probably wouldn't even get charged.
Yes, it's quite hilarious. I was in the California desert last year on a rockclimbing trip and met some middle-aged motorhome types in the campground I was staying at. They insisted to me that it's illegal to own guns in Canada, along with many other things. I pulled out my Possession and Acquisition Certificate and showed them that indeed, guns are perfectly legal to own. They were flabbergasted and got insulted when I told them to please stop watching Fox News.
Judging from your uid, you're probably about as old as my cat.
You are completely wrong. Lethal force is legal in Canada if your life is in danger.
It is entirely exaggerated, not to mention wrong.
Someone's taking their Neighborhood Watch program a tad too seriously I think.
Mod me down if you like, but I feel compelled to say this:
This is a VERY BAD IDEA.
True, and I agree with you. But in the end your definition of reasonable might not be shared by the police and the prosecutor's office. And if they convince the jury to see it their way, well, you're in trouble.
For example, the guy in Long Island who, back in September, was confronted at his home by 20 or so violent gang members threatening to kill his family. He fired four rounds into a lawn from his legally owned AK-47, scaring the gang members away. He was initially charged with felony reckless endangerment, as the law only allows a proportionate response (ie. he could only pull a gun if they pulled a gun first). (Caveats: I don't know the current status of the charges. Also, none of the reports mention any witnesses besides the family, and at least one report has him firing into both the lawn and the air.)
. No, "life is sacred" does not work both ways. The lives of law abiding people is sacred. The lives of people who agreed to abide by the rules of a civilized society is sacred. The life of those who have broken that trust by breaking into someone's home violating that person's right to remain secure in that home (not merely trespassing on their property) is not sacred.
Yes. It is. That's why the death penalty is not given for breaking and entering. In fact, we don't even have the death penalty in my country. It is considered barbaric.
If someone breaks into your ROOM in the middle of the night you might have a case. But if you hear someone break into your HOUSE and start rummaging around downstairs you should not have the right to murder them.
I know what your country guarantees its citizens. I disagree with it. You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about. If you hear someone in your child's room, you should have the right to walk in with a gun out, if someone is heading towards YOUR room, you should have the right to, again, get out your gun and point it at the door (but not fire as soon as that door opens unless you have a damn good reason to think the person is literally ABOUT to kill yo).
If you take your gun and then go downstairs AFTER the source of the noise then you are actively seeking out the intruder with violent intent and you can no longer claim to be worried about your own safety.
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm saying in Canada we don't consider peace of mind and property more valuable than human life and as a result, do not have those laws.
so your response is "1" then?
In the UK, you can use 'reasonable force.' What that means is subject to how good your defence lawyer is. A general rule is that if your attacker tries to run, let him go - any attempt to stop or capture him is by definition not defensive, and thus not reasonable.
Well, I guess don't kill him as he's leaving. Here in FL, it's a non-issue. They break into your house with intent to commit a crime, anything is fair game.
As I mentioned, I would assume it requires as much force as is necessary to end the assault.
So let's take one extreme scenario - someone is giving you a "purple nurple." You have a gun in your hand, but threats to shoot the guy aren't working. He has you in a headlock with one arm, and as you are a weakling there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the assault short of actually shooting him. Are you justified if shooting to would? What if you know he's a bleeder?
a lot of taggers are the lowest rank in a gang, or are trying to be initiated into the gang. that doesn't mean they wont' be armed, but that they are likely to be newbs. but newbs with guns, running around scared as they try to impress the higher ups is a combination for wildly unpredictable results.
Well, not to death really. To unconsciousness, sure. And back to unconsciousness if he stirs. And if he happens to die while the police and ambulance arrive, oh well. He put his life in your hands when he showed violence toward you. Breaking into someone's locked dwelling is a violent act in itself, and if they come armed that's a threat against your life. The laws and courts where you're at may not agree, but it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Trespass is walking on my lawn. Breaking into my house while armed at night is burglary and armed robbery. I have the right to expect he's willing to kill if he breaks into a locked dwelling at night with a weapon. Therefore I have the right to defend myself.
Bullshit. You don't have to prove your defense beyond any doubt. The prosecution must prove their case against you beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a reasonable doubt I committed the initial act of violence when an armed man breaks into my locked home in the dark with me present.
Breaking in while armed shows they are willing to kill whether that was their ideal crime or not. If they just put a jacket over their hand and punch in a window, they will run or surrender when I pull out a baseball bat or shotgun. If they are under aim and make a sudden movement, I can assume they are reaching for a weapon, just like the police would in the same scenario if the police didn't take half an hour to get there after the report.
That's awfully funny that the Europeans and Asians who left some of the oldest civilizations on Earth to colonize both Canada and the United States are "neophytes to civilization".
Remember, it was Ferdinand and Isabella who murdered enough Moors and Jews to send Columbus west in the first place. It's a pity for all of those people they couldn't defend themselves.
If "pushing down a piece of wood" gets someone into your home, perhaps you should spend a little on home improvement.
If they are just stealing, they will leave when confronted with a weapon. If they respond with a weapon they brought with them, they are not thieves nor burglars but robbers and perhaps killers.
Yeah, but there's a difference between having the gun and actively seeking the person out with it. If you call the police, pull out your gun and try to stay quiet but they burst into your room with a weapon then even in Canada you'd be protected under self defense.
But if you choose to go downstairs, find the person, point the gun at them and provoke an altercation then you are no longer protected up here. That's the difference.
The problem is that you can't easily "prove" that excessive force was used or not. So most states just give the benefit of the doubt, even though some yahoos will use this as an excuse to be violent.
None of this actually discourages crime though. They still have home breakins in Texas. Most of the time it's just some stupid kids. People don't become criminals because they're smart, so you can't assume they'll do the smart thing.
So let's take one extreme scenario - someone is giving you a "purple nurple." You have a gun in your hand, but threats to shoot the guy aren't working. He has you in a headlock with one arm, and as you are a weakling there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the assault short of actually shooting him. Are you justified if shooting to wound? What if you know he's a bleeder?
Bludgeoning the asshole with your pistol won't work? :P It's a tough question. I'd like to say "If he's dumb enough to give a guy with a gun a purple nurple, and then ignore the gun-wielder's threats, he deserves whatever you decide to give him." But that's no longer talking about defense, that's talking about punishment. And the point of the rule of law is that it's not the place of a private citizen to arbitrarily decide who deserves what punishments for what transgressions.
In fact, upon close reading of my link above, I'm not sure you're legally allowed to threaten him with your gun, unless you have reason to believe your assailant is planning on proceeding from a purple nurple to something far more serious.
And bizarre as it sounds, I think that's actually right. Imagine the purple-nurpler is just your buddy being a dick. You know he's not going to do any worse than give you a purple nurple, and you know he'll grow bored eventually. Is it justifiable to whip out your pistol and threaten him with it? I think no.
I know that's not a very satisfying answer. It offends my sense of justice that I might have to suffer indignities heaped upon me by some asshole when I have the means to defend myself. But when the only means of defending myself involve inflicting grievous bodily harm far beyond what is being inflicted on me, I don't think it's justifiable. Take him to court afterwards, or call him an ass and stop hanging out with him. I think it's also worth pointing out that a bizarre, contrived scenario is very likely going to lead to a bizarre, counter-intuitive answer. Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, and all that :P
I can only hope this thread has grown stale enough that I don't get modded into oblivion for being a sheeple-nanny-state-collectivist-pawn of the corporate governmental over-oligarchy :P
I think these guys are a massive inspiration. for so long I have dreamed of becoming someones evil nemesis. now we have RLSH I can take the next step and be a bungling RLSV!
"This is my Sig. there are many like it but this one is mine."
I can't believe there was no mention of a real superhero, Angle Grinder Man. He's awesome.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
I'm sorry but you're living with the fairies here. The cold brutal practical truth is that by the time someone has proven without a doubt that there is imminent and certain life-threating intent, you are dead. Someone breaking into your house has demonstrated a willingness to break the law and risk prison time. What's a few more years for taking a life? They don't think they'll get caught anyway. And your life isn't as precious to thema s theirs seems to be to you.
If someone breaks into my home and threatens my family, I'll defend them with any means at my disposal. If I find an opportunity to incapacitate them non-lethally without increasing the rise, sure I'll use it. But I won't be waiting for my family to be raped or killed so I can feel justified using force.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It's really sad that you don't have the right to be in on the first floor of your house at night.
If you think that the only reason people don't go around raping and killing is because they are law-abiding, you are a sorry human being. You are also a couple of steps away from totalitarianism, because a scoff law who drops litter is dangerous as a serial killer, right?
No I'm just stating by the nature of being a criminal, they are afforded less moral guilt than those of us who choose not to break into a house where someone is home to steal their stuff.
Perhaps you would like to check how break-ins in the UK end up with the murder of anyone in the house, and compare that to the US.
It is a risk I should be allowed to decide if I'm willing to take. It is my life after all. Now what would be interesting to see is that if robberies where the owner was home is more common in places where gun ownership is not allowed vs places where anyone can buy a gun and use it to defend their property.
Unfortunately it's total nonsense. Read the Criminal Code of Canada sections 34-37 to see what the situation really is.
Here is a link for section 34 with following sections available from there.
Don't take your guns to town, son.
Leave your guns at home, bill.
Don't take your guns to town.
-- QED
Why i this marked +5 informative? It's not even remotely close to being true.
I refer you to Section 34-37 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Specifically Section 34 2 (b)
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
How do you know a person carrying a large object would hit you with it? How do a you know a person carrying a firearm would aim it at you? How do you know a person aiming a firearm at you would pull the trigger? At what point do you decide such a person has an intent to kill? If you wait until it is obvious, you've waited too long to do anything about it.
This is why a lot of places in America draw the line at entering a home. A standard house has dozen of very deadly weapons and chemicals in it. Even if a person sneaked into a house unarmed, once inside he could grab a knife to use as a weapon, he could grab a gun the owner uses to hunt, or he could mix bleach and ammonia and kill everyone in their sleep. It is also impractical to demand a person leave their home to the mercy of an felon. This is compounded if there are children in the home (no mother or father is going to leave their children). To place the responsibility for the well-being of a felon on the home-owner is absurd. You claim I shouldn't just shoot the individual as soon as I identify him. What about forcing the felon out of my home (my martial arts training includes standard police "come-along" holds)? What happens if the felon trips while I'm forcing him down the stairs? Should I be responsible for his well-being then? He could still end up dead from the fall. How can you determine after the fact if he tripped or I shoved him? What if the felon trips over a dog toy or a Hot Wheels car, before I even know he is there? Am I responsible for his death then? What about basic injury (broken arm or leg and so forth)? Am I responsible for that?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is. You posit a wonderful theory, where you have perfect knowledge of what is happening and have plenty of time to respond to it. In reality, none of that is true. The easiest way to handle the situation of trespassing, breaking, and entering is to simply use the property line. The home owner did not want to be in that position. It was forced upon the home owner. The home owner shouldn't have more responsibilities to go along with that.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof. What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Here in France, you can't use something bigger than the burglar's weapon. But you can only fire at them if they attempt to do it first.
Hence — French law thinks that French citizens are mind readers.
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
"You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about." Unless you are in the armed forces of course. They you have legal sanction to kill whomever you are directed to, within the limits of international law.
The funny thing is that these same flag waving right wingers often idolise the US military while completely missing the fact that it is one of the most socialist organisations going, providing free healthcare, education and housing, as well as subsidised shopping and entertainment for employees and their families.
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
It's easier to prove when the other person isn't alive to discredit your story.
I have worse karma than M$.
None of this actually discourages crime though. They still have home breakins in Texas. Most of the time it's just some stupid kids. People don't become criminals because they're smart, so you can't assume they'll do the smart thing.
I honestly do not care if there is only a negligible reduction in crime. I do not care if criminals are dumb and will ignore the existence of stand your ground laws. Those provisions are not there for the benefit of deterrence. Those provisions are there to protect the livelihoods of law abiding citizens in their own home. If a person is in fear of his life in his own home, he should not have to second guess himself nor should he need be omniscient of the details of his situation in order to properly assess whether lethal force is necessary. Such provisions prevent people who fired a weapon in self-defense from having to face a costly trial (in both money and reputation).
Many people, especially people from other countries, seem shocked that we value the life of the innocent homeowner over that of the criminal. Frankly, I'm glad I don't live in those countries.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about. If you hear someone in your child's room, you should have the right to walk in with a gun out, if someone is heading towards YOUR room, you should have the right to, again, get out your gun and point it at the door (but not fire as soon as that door opens unless you have a damn good reason to think the person is literally ABOUT to kill yo).
As I said before, the point at which lethal force is acceptable must be at a point where the person defending himself can be reasonably sure he will succeed. Sorry, I'm not going to wait until someone draws his gun and points it at me. Why would I put myself in a situation where I am in a "fair fight" with a criminal? There's a saying that goes something like "If it's a fair fight, your tactics suck." If a criminal enters my house, my goal is to live. If I best accomplish my goal by holing up in my bedroom, that's what I'm going to do. If I best accomplish my goal by shooting him before he sees me and has a chance to draw his gun and shoot me, that's what I'm going to do. There's nothing noble about letting the criminal get the first shot off.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Technically it just "borrowing without asking first" (at least under English and Welsh law.) You'd have to show reasonable intent to permanently deprive someone for it to be theft.
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
Move to Texas. Trespassers can be shot there.
But as my father pointed out when I lived there, if you do shoot, shoot to kill, not to maim. There's nothing worse for you in a jury trial than a wounded trespasser.
There has to ALSO to be a point where the person defending himself can justifiably say they are actually defending themself and not just shooting a guy trying to rob them.
It has nothing to do with a "fair fight", it has to do with knowing that it's "actually a fight at all".
Until the guy actively shows signs of coming after you and not just your flatscreen TV, you're not defending yourself. You're not defending your family. You're just murdering a person.
Actually, since I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian. We're international peacekeepers. Our only directives include defending our country and contributing to international security. Which are the military equivalents of self defense and defense of a third party.
If they are under aim and make a sudden movement, I can assume they are reaching for a weapon, [...]
Or maybe they're just scared shitless because some crazy fucker has a gun pointed at them and are turning to run away.
In the U.S., you can justifiably kill someone if they've broken into your house and you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life.
This is true for every country I'm aware of. Despite what you may have seen on TV.
why? Because "some crazy fucker" is the only type of person who would defend himself and his family?
I'll tell you what, Doc. A person committing a home invasion robbery is not likely to have premeditated damaging your door or window to enter your private dwelling with a weapon in order to make you scrambled eggs for breakfast. If they break into an occupied home with a weapon, they are planning to be violent if necessary even if they claim otherwise.
True, and I agree with you. But in the end your definition of reasonable might not be shared by the police and the prosecutor's office. And if they convince the jury to see it their way, well, you're in trouble.
And if you have some examples of that happening, you might have an argument.
The counter-example is equally terrifying. Someone shoots a kid in their kitchen who had snuck in through the pet door to steal some food, and automatically gets off by claiming "self defense". Note that most of the cowboys in this discussions are insisting that they should be able to do this.
For example [...]
Your "example" is meaningless until it has wound it's way through the court system and an actual conclusion has been reached. For all you know the guy is lying through his teeth and fired a dozen shots over the heads of a "gang" of five 12 year olds who called him naughty names. It's almost certain the police *must* charge anyone who uses a gun without a direct threat from another gun be charged, and that those charges can later be dropped.
why? Because "some crazy fucker" is the only type of person who would defend himself and his family?
No, because fear for your life is a perfectly natural situation under which to consider getting the fuck out of there.
I'll tell you what, Doc. A person committing a home invasion robbery is not likely to have premeditated damaging your door or window to enter your private dwelling with a weapon in order to make you scrambled eggs for breakfast. If they break into an occupied home with a weapon, they are planning to be violent if necessary even if they claim otherwise.
Of course, they could also just have picked the lock on the back door and not expected to find anyone home at all until you came downstairs looking for a glass of water.
If not exaggerated, that is mind-numbingly fucked up. I understand it to be about the same way in the UK
It is. For some reason, British people think it is not ok to beat to death the old lady who lives next door when she walks into the wrong flat, or to shoot and kill the kids down the street when they try to steal your CDs, or to execute the drunk man who walks across your lawn at 3am, or to shoot the homeless girl looking for an empty squat for the night. It's an odd society - one where you are only allowed to kill someone in defence of your own life, rather than in defence of your stuff or because they trespassed against you.
British law has ALWAYS been this way, it's not just something sneaked in by communists in 1953. You do not forfeit the protection of one law by breaking another, just as you cannot escape the obligations of one law by adhering to another. We have a murder rate 2 orders of magnitude below the US one - if the vigilante scum like the American model so much they're welcome to go and live there. Just so long as they don't complain to me when their bullet riddled corpses are shipped home.
And that, right there, is the very reason for the "excessive force" provision of the law.
In Britain we had the Tony Martin case, where 2 men tried to rob a farm house. The owner was waiting with a shotgun. The sight of the shotgun was enough to frighten the two away - but nevertheless Martin shot them in the back, killing a 16 year and seriously injuring a 30 year old.
The sight of the shotgun had been enough to protect the mans property. The killing whilst they ran away goes well into the "taking justice into your own hands" arena.
"Just like the police" is indeed a good way of looking at the provision. If you use a similar amount of force to what a policeman would in the same situation, then there is not a problem. That wouldn't be excessive force.
The excessive force provision is for people going well beyond what they need to do to stop the criminal. Well beyond what a policeman would do in that situation.
You keep slipping "with a weapon" in there. Of course the amount of force the law permits rises immensely if they have a weapon. If it is reasonable to shoot the intruder dead because he has a gun in his hand, then that is not "excessive force". If however he doesn't have a weapon, and you shoot him in the back, that would be excessive force. There are shades of grey in between.
*If* he has a weapon, it may well be reasonable force to shoot him. If he doesn't it may well be excessive force. That's kind of the meaning of "reasonable" or "excessive" force as per the law.
What the law demands: "To the person who has entered my house without my permission: My possessions are insured, and I shall not interfere in your actions while removing them. My family are their own persons, and I may not legally act in their defense, so please feel free to attack my wife and children. If you threaten me with a knife, I must wait until you actually make an attacking motion towards me to act in self defense, so please feel free to pick up a kitchen knife and hack the place up as long as you don't actually attempt to do the same to me. I may not pick up any item which could be considered a weapon with which to defend myself, as that could be considered a threatening gesture on my part to which you could justly retaliate in self defense, using the weapon you have already demonstrated to be carrying. Finally, if all of these situations have been fulfilled, I reserve the right to use reasonable force to prevent you from harming me, and me alone."
What really happens, scenario 1: "To the perso*STABBED." Ain't no respawns in real life, queue credits.
What really happens, scenario 2: *Cave burglar's skull in with a bat* "Best call this guy an ambulance. I'm not an asshole, I don't want him to die." *Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200.*
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
A dodecahedron is more like a D12. What you want is a tetrahedron, like a D4.
The D&D Devastator! B-)
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This is true in the States too. I know a woman who used pepper spray on an attacker and was charged with violating Massachusetts gun laws. You must have a firearms ID card to carry pepper spray here.
I would say that is the very definition of confront. A person invades your house, you have no real idea why they are there because you can't ask them, and even if you did ask them a person who would invade your house might be unlikely to tell the truth. It is perfectly reasonable to believe your life could be in danger. So then you CONFRONT him with whatever weapon you can find, and if you kill him, well too bad.
Moral of the story, don't break into SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT and then be surprised when they fight back.
You've got to be a troll just trying to provoke a fight, because I find it hard to fathom you are as stupid as your posts lead me to believe?
I would agree with your statement "you have no less right to security outside your own home". 100% agree. But the reality is people do believe that their home is their castle and they should never feel threatened in their own home. You walk out on the street, everyone (except you maybe) seems to understand that you're in the jungle then, and even though you should still feel secure, it's public domain and anything can happen. In your home you know that the only person that should be there is yourself, your family, and someone you explicitly invite. Anyone who invades, breaks in, etc. can reasonably be a threat to your life because they have crossed a sacred social boundary that we all (again, maybe not you) know exists.
While I get the utopian argument you're trying to push in this post, you seem to be divorced from the reality of life on this planet. There are good people and bad people. Bad people hurt good people. Bad people break into someone else's house. Bad people are not to be trusted. Remove the threat from a bad person before they have the chance to make you a dead good person. If you can do that non-lethally then great, but if they've crossed the threshold of your door then you shouldn't have to show manners while you preserve the safety of yourself and your family.
How did you nonsensical, fantasy of a post get +3, Informative? Weird.
Please feel free to join in the discussion when you've successfully decoupled the idea that a slashdot UID is in any way a clue to someone's physical age.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Seems you have this backward - if having a gun does not mean intent to shoot, then you cannot prove intent to kill by the burglar.
In the dark, someone in your house may or may not be armed, but the law says you're allowed to kill them. That's a stupid law IMO.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof.
All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home. Nothing beyond that at all. Yet it's legal for you to shoot them dead. This is the law I am questioning - you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof and such jumps would cost a human being their life. You see nothing wrong with that?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
We do - what we don't have is the right to kill someone just because they are in our house.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Personally I think once someone decides to break into your home, you have every right to bludgeon him to death with a crow bar
Most non-sociopaths value another human being's life above their property or personal convenience.
The only time you should kill someone is if your own/someone else's life is in imminent danger.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What the law demands: "To the person who has entered my house without my permission: My possessions are insured, and I shall not interfere in your actions while removing them. My family are their own persons, and I may not legally act in their defense, so please feel free to attack my wife and children. If you threaten me with a knife, I must wait until you actually make an attacking motion towards me to act in self defense, so please feel free to pick up a kitchen knife and hack the place up as long as you don't actually attempt to do the same to me. I may not pick up any item which could be considered a weapon with which to defend myself, as that could be considered a threatening gesture on my part to which you could justly retaliate in self defense, using the weapon you have already demonstrated to be carrying. Finally, if all of these situations have been fulfilled, I reserve the right to use reasonable force to prevent you from harming me, and me alone."
Pure and utter bullshit, in the UK you are always allowed to defend yourself (and family). It's when you arm and prepare yourself in advance with intent to kill unarmed burglars that you get in trouble, a la Tony Whatsisname, Martin.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Oh, of course, he disagreed with the drooling fascist internet tough guy groupthink here.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Judging from your uid, you're probably about as old as my cat.
Yeah, because slashdot's been going a whole, what thirteen years? Christ, it's almost unbelievable that someone who was old enough to register on a website that long ago is still breathing, I mean they must be thirty or something by now.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
...I hope it's a clip-on.
And for that cable-actuated claw hand, what safety mechanisms are in place to prevent the user's fingers from being snapped by the cables when a super villain bends the claw back, or the super hero runs into an immovable object because his (or her) vision is impaired by the helmet?
If they break into an occupied home with a weapon, they are planning to be violent if necessary even if they claim otherwise.
Funny, I thought that carrying a weapon didn't necessarily mean you intended violence, or do the rules for gun fans not apply to criminals?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Just like the police" is indeed a good way of looking at the provision. If you use a similar amount of force to what a policeman would in the same situation, then there is not a problem. That wouldn't be excessive force.
The excessive force provision is for people going well beyond what they need to do to stop the criminal. Well beyond what a policeman would do in that situation.
Good point, in the UK the police need a very, very good reason to shoot someone - namely that lives are in imminent danger if they don't shoot the suspect.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you are a burglar in a country where most people have weapons at home, what is your incentive to go unarmed?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Picking up a knife from the kitchen on the way to investigate the breaking glass sound in your living room could be considered preparation. It isn't as cut-and-dry as many think.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
If Mexicans had guns then we'd not have to worry about the Mexicans with guns.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Many people, especially people from other countries, seem shocked that we value the life of the innocent homeowner over that of the criminal
No, we're shocked that you value your property over the life of another human being.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
There's a saying that goes something like "If it's a fair fight, your tactics suck."
That is a military saying, not a guide to normal civilian existence. If I'm in the army, I can quite legitimately assume that any of the enemy are intending to kill me, so there is no problem with killing them first.
You cannot assume that all burglars are would-be murderers, most are just stupid and disorganised failures trying to fund their drug habit.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You've got to be a troll just trying to provoke a fight, because I find it hard to fathom you are as stupid as your posts lead me to believe?
I am getting fed up with the current slashdot habit of labelling everything troll or flamebait that doesn't conform to the paranoid extreme right wing world view of much of the US..
Here's a clue. Some people genuinely don't think that it is morally justifiable to shoot an unarmed burglar in the back, just because he is in your house. Okay?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
How do you know the criminal was only interested in property? Do you have psychic powers?
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
How much force is required to defend yourself? How do you know they're going to attack you when all they do is point a gun at your head?
Pointing a gun at someone's head is an attack. At that point, you are justified in believing that your life is in danger,
In the same way if someone holds up a knife and runs towards me with it, I can safely assume they are attacking me before they actually stab me.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sounds like april fools joke.
and like someone said about canada, here too if you defend yourself and "win" the fight, you are likely goto jail. Defending yourself is kinda forbidden.
On the extreme one boxer got attacked, i think by multiple guys if i recall right, and he finally punched one of them which ended up in intensive care for quite a while from that single punch. That boxer was sentenced on attempted murder, and his knuckles were rated as lethal weapons.
But there is more regular, average joe things like that as well. Some of them get to the news. I've myself been prosecuted from attempted kill as a teenager. I was 16 at the time, and a 35yo over 2m, 130-150kg gorilla attacked me, a 180cm 80kg teenager. It did matter that he was almost 20years older than i am, and way larger. If he had not been as large i would have likely ended up in jail for defending myself. The court deemed that due to the difference in age, size, strength i were in my full right to use any means necessary and available. That guy however didn't get any fines or sentence, he got out completely unpunished, simply because i didn't get beaten up too badly, just bruising and punctured lower lip from my teeth (a scar remains to date)
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
I tell you what, I'll send a very nice bouquet to his funeral if he just turns out to be a career thief. And I'll send a nice bouquet to your funeral if your guy turns out to be a murderer. That way, everybody wins. Well, not everybody, but me and my family anyway.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The counter-example is equally terrifying. Someone shoots a kid in their kitchen who had snuck in through the pet door to steal some food, and automatically gets off by claiming "self defense". Note that most of the cowboys in this discussions are insisting that they should be able to do this.
If someone is breaking into your home, you can't possibly know their intent. Since they've demonstrated a willingness to ignore one law by breaking and entering, you should assume they're willing to break other laws. Until they do something else to prove they're not a threat, you have to assume they are one, and treat them appropriately.
That said, if it was a young kid sneaking in through a doggy door, I'd probably just grab them by their ear and hold them until the police and/or their parents came to collect them.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Yes, I can understand how they would be shocked to find a homeowner in his own house. I break into private residences all the time, never expecting to be confronted by an angry homeowner with a weapon. How crazy is a guy to think he has the right to confront a stranger who just kicked down his door? What's next, someone thinking they have the right to use physical force to stop someone from kidnapping one of their kids off the street???
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Really wish I hadn't run out of modpoints this morning, you deserve an Insightful nod.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Wow, "The Tick" was a documentary?
Proverbs 21:19
Pure and utter bullshit, in the UK you are always allowed to defend yourself (and family). It's when you arm and prepare yourself in advance with intent to kill unarmed burglars that you get in trouble, a la Tony Whatsisname, Martin.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this concept: you're allowed to defend yourself, but not to do anything in preparation of defending yourself? Can you shed some light on this apparent contradiction?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, and obviously laws vary from place to place, but AFAIK, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning that you have to demonstrate that you were defending yourself to be found not guilty.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
So the thief who breaks into people's homes and disrupts their tranquility, and possibly emotionally/mentally scars them for life, deserves your sympathy, but not the home owner who fears for their safety and eliminates a perceived threat? Where do you live? Sociopathville?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
In the US al least, the courts generally presume that a person carrying a weapon while committing a crime intends to commit unlawful violence with it, and it is regarded as an aggravating circumstance (or whatever the legal jargon is) to the crime.. A law-abiding person lawfully carrying the same weapon does not have the same presumption made. Caveats apply; IANAL, AFAIK, etc.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Where did I say they get my sympathy?
Disrupting someone's tranquility is not an excuse to kill someone. At least not where I live. Maybe somewhere inhabited by sociopaths maybe, the ones that think it's OK to kill someone.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Anyone who has responded to me talking about valuing property more than the life of the burglar is frankly arguing a straw man. In every scenario where there is an intruder in the house, the homeowner must assume the threat on his life in non-zero, because it is.
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not. You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Sure, not all burglars are would-be murderers. So, let me ask you this. What is the acceptable loss rate of innocents? Your argument seems to be that, in order to protect the lives of burglars who are not would-be murderers, people in their own home must have more evidence that their life is in danger. Now, maybe you've had experience in attempting to gather this evidence in the first couple of minutes after being startled awake in the middle of the night. Most people I would wager are not such experts.
So, let's assume for a moment that this person defending this home has taken your advice, and decides to shoot only when there is a "sufficient" threat to his life. He opens the bedroom to check on his daughter who is asleep in the bedroom down the hall. He opens the door and there stands an intruder in his hallway. Now, at that moment in time, what are the odds that the person presents a deadly threat to him, and, if given the opportunity, would attack him with a crowbar/knife/gun or other potentially lethal weapon in order to succeed in the robbery for drug money or other purpose, or at the very least to ensure his successful escape? 50%? 30%? 10%? At what % is it OK for the guy to shoot, and at what point do you doom him to play Russian roulette on the hope that the odds leave his daughter with a father?
Given he just woke up 2 minutes ago and was only up and about because the wife told him to check on the noise, and he is still half asleep when he sees the intruder, to what degree of accuracy do you propose he can judge the threat with? Even if he has his firearm at the ready, and the intruder's weapon is still tucked into his pants, what are the odds he gets an accurate shot off before the fully awake and alert intruder even if he makes the decision to fire first? Now, what if in his half-awake state the weapon the guy had in his hand that he thought was a gun turned out to be a crowbar? Do we use hindsight and say he was not justified, that the level of threat against him dropped to the point that he's no longer justified in shooting him, but must play Russian roulette instead? What if the crowbar he thought the guy had turned out to be a gun? Is this an acceptable loss that society endures to make sure that the guys with crowbars don't get shot?
Placing the life of the criminal on even footing with the homeowner necessarily puts the life of the homeowner at greater risk. Minimizing casualties is great, but minimizing innocent casualties must come as a greater priority. Otherwise, any restriction put upon him only puts him at greater risk in order reduce the risk to the criminal, in which case your priorities are seriously messed up.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not.
emphasis obviously mine. This is the strawman of your side because at every point you encounter any person the threat is nonzero. It doesn't matter if he's willing to harm you. If you don't go and actively confront him then it's a non-point. Only if he actively plans to harm you regardless of what you do does that make it a matter of self defense. I'm WILLING to harm a lot of people should they threaten my with a gun. You quite clearly are as well. That doesn't mean I either want to or plan to go out of my way for such an opportunity or that my willingness to do so means that someone with a gun is justified in murdering me "just in case".
You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
No. I'm not. I'm asking the homeowner to avoid direct confrontation when not required which, actually, puts both parties at lower risk.
It seems pretty clear to me that we're just arguing in circles now based on being raised in different climates of risk and crime and holding different assumptions and values. So I'm thinking we should probably wrap this up soon on an "Agree to disagree" note.
It is only socialism when the money goes to the wrong people. When it goes to people you like, it isn't socialism.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
How do I determine if they are there to steal food?
you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof
A person has illegally entered my home. They are there for one of two reasons: 1. Steal stuff 2. Rape/murder/assault I have to 'jump' to one of two conclusions. How do I make a determination if it is scenario #1 or #2??? You never really answered my question:
What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Until you can answer this, your argument isn't going to sway me one bit if I am faced with an intruder in my house.
You see nothing wrong with that?
No, I don't, because the person responsible is the guy that broke into my home.
just a quick update to what I posted below about different climates of crime and fear.
Per 100,000 citizens:
Canada has 1.5 homicides compared to 541 cases of Breaking and Entering. Or a ratio of about 0.25
USA has 5.0 homicides compared to 716 cases of Burglary. or a ratio of about 0.7. Which is to say, almost 3 times as high
These are rough numbers of course but it shows my point that in Canada you are much less likely to be murdered while only somewhat less likely to have your house broken into so the chances of a Canadian's first thought after someone breaks in being "he might want to murder me" instead of "someone's trying to steal my things" are much lower. This is why this debate between us can't go anywhere. We intrinsically think about forceful entry differently.
interestingly. Canada also seems to have a higher violent crime rate. But this is more likely due to our lower threshold of what constitutes "violent" crime rather than more instances of violent crime. (any assault in Canada is categorized as violent crime even if there is no physical violence involved).
Premeditated attacks in the home are hugely rare despite what you see on CSI, and anyway if someone is in your home in order to attack/kill/rape your family, you're unlikely to know since you'll be the first to be killed by them. Someone THAT intent on getting at your person or family will have done their homework and won't take chances.
Much, much more likely is burglary. Which as far as I am concerned should never carry the death penalty.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Anyone that buys a gun and then fails to get the proper training with it deserves to be shot with their own firearm.
You created a situation where your hypothetical average person is doomed to failure. You've already decided that they failed to get the proper training with the weapon they are carrying.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Premeditated attacks in the home are hugely rare despite what you see on CSI...
First, I don't watch that crappy show. Second, you have no idea what you are talking about:
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13466322
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/11/03/2144651/man-shot-killed-in-downey-home.html
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/10886/764/
http://www.10news.com/news/18911128/detail.html
...and those are just a few recent ones I found searching ONLY in California. I don't know your definition of 'rare', but those are enough to make it a distinct possibility.
Now that said, in Canada, you *ARE* allowed to defend yourself, or the lives or safety of others, using only as much force as the situation objectively warrants. There is some margin in this matter for personal judgement, but generally such evaluations are ideally performed by objective law enforcement.
You *CAN* place a burglar under arrest yourself, which involves restraining the person and keeping him in one location until the arrive. It does not mean attacking the burglar except to the extent that you restrain his movements or confine him to one location (wrestling maneuvers, handcuffs or rope, etc). You must inform the police immediately afterward if you do this. You may generally use no more force to restrain the burglar than the police would to similarly arrest the burglar. There is only a very slight allowance in the law for how much force one can be considered to have inadvertently used to handle a situation, and if you do not have the self-defense training that a police officer is likely to have, there is a good chance that you will get seriously hurt if you attempted this unless you use overly excessive force, which again, under Canadian law you would be fully accountable for (just as a police officer would be, if the situation did not actually warrant that level of force).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There's a pretty significant difference between standard gun safety and marksmanship training and the kind of combat training I'm talking about. Few civilians not involved in law enforcement or private security get that kind of training. Even private security people don't always get it. I personally spent three solid days preparing for and eventually making multiple runs through a live fire shoot house with a 4 man stack, and by the standards of the real combat MOS troops I'd be considered somewhere between "Likely to get someone else killed" and "Has the most basic level of competence".
Those guys spend weeks doing this kind of thing with regular practice and refresher training.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I really should have hit preview before submit on that... there were so many typos and half-finished sentences, you'd never know I actually am supposed to know english. Hopefully my intent is clear.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't disagree with your statistics, I disagree about some of the conclusions you draw from them however.
I do not believe it is because the homicide to burglary rate is the reason for this difference in thinking. Sure, I recognize that even in the U.S., a burglar breaking into my house is probably more interested in my things than me. I'm just not willing to bet my life that a case I may run into falls into the majority, and I don't think that anyone should be asked to bet their life on it.
The reason that these laws are necessary is because without these laws, self-defense shootings, or even cases where a gun is used in self defense but no one was killed (the offender was scared off by the sight of the gun, or perhaps the shot missed but the burglar got away), enter a very legal gray area. A situation can very easily arise where a person in 1 county who shoots someone in self defense won't even be arrested, but someone who lives 10 miles away in a different county who reacts the same way to the exact same situation will be arrested, charged, and subjected to a lengthy trial where the caliber of his lawyer and the whim of the jury may cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars and his job, which is not required to wait on him as he goes to trial.
The outcome that person faces depends largely on local forces, which officer happened to respond, which local DA happened to look at the case. The politics and attitudes of these individuals makes a big difference in what an individual has to go through.
By having these laws, these people have an immunity to such prosecutions. A person shouldn't have to think "Well, he's got a gun pointed at me and he looks like he's about to shoot, but I hope he doesn't flinch when I pull the trigger, because if he turns his back to me while I'm shooting him, it'll hit him in the back and I could be accused of murdering a fleeing intruder." Yes, this has happened prior to these laws. CSI is just a TV show, in the real world a lot of conclusions like these are drawn from limited evidence.
Even in cases where no one was shot, brandishing charges and attempted manslaughter charges could occur.
So I guess you can say that, because of flaws in our criminal justice system, these laws are there to protect the innocent homeowner, and yes, it's quite possible non-violent burglars are at greater risk of getting shot. But, I would argue that 1) no system is perfect, and 2) when a person is in real fear for their life, the presence or absence of a castle doctrine law is not going to be the deciding factor in whether they shoot back. Other experiences and personality traits in their life influence whether they are able to take a life in self defense far more than whether or not they are aware of a castle doctrine law.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Why would people with guns be more aware of their surroundings than people in the same surroundings without guns? They are on the lookout for people to shoot? Or the people without guns are just less rational and capable?
Gosh, when I saw all those photos and those "superhero" people, I was filled with a brief desire to get a baseball bat, hunt them down, and club them all into unconsciousness... especially "lightbulb guy with a cane". Let's face it, if you don't have superpowers, you're just a guy in some stupid costume who can be easily beaten into unconsciousness by anyone with a baseball bat.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Four in a population of 37 million counts as hugely rare.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I suppose my problem with your conclusion is that if I hear someone break into my house, I can easily lock the door to my room and call the police. And since I assume you have a gun, you can also point it directly at the door after that. Once this has been accomplished, I can be pretty sure that the only way I will be in any danger from the intruder is if he actively attempts to violently break down my door (in which case nobody is going to argue against self defense when there's a bedroom door off its hinges) or if I make the conscious choice to go and track down the intruder.
If I do the second, with a weapon, I am willfully and intentionally putting myself in potential danger for the sake of forcing a confrontation that I could otherwise have probably avoided. If your chief concern is safety then going out to locate the potentially violent party and antagonize him with a weapon is not the appropriate course of action. Tracking the person down only makes sense if you're trying to stop him from doing what he's doing regardless of his motive.
Since legal theory (mens rea specifically) doesn't allow illegal actions that can't be described as being done "willfully, knowingly or purposefully" or CAN be described as having been done "recklessly or negligently" the action tracking the person down despite having safer options that any mentally capable person should be able to think of falls under at least the fourth if not also the first three. You are clearly eschewing the potential safety of a locked door of your own free will, knowing full well what you plan to do and with the definitive purpose of using your weapon to stop the intruder. If you say you didn't think of locking your door and calling the police then it's not hard to argue that you're acting recklessly.
To be justifiably "Self defense" or "defense of a third party" you have to be in a position where there is no other obvious, non-violent course of actions that doesn't put yourself or the third party at even greater risk. The case of a home intruder is not such a case since there is a much safer (For all parties involved) course of action which our court considers obvious.
You mean just like defending my religion and spreading my religion through violence are the religious equivalents of self defense and defense of a third party? 'Tis a slippery slope you are on...
How do I determine if they are there to steal food?
Well, you could try waiting rather than just shooting first and asking questions later.
Though since you've already stated you don't consider intent relevant - "they've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof" - it's clear you're just itching to kill someone and want an excuse.
When you get a license to carry a lethal weapon, your attitude and manner changes.
And when you dare to venture outside into the perilous urban jungle without your gun, does your attitude and manner change back ?
But that doesn't mean that I have to sit idly by waiting for the police while they decide my things would look nicer in their house. I'll confront the trespasser and shoot to kill if I feel threatened. It's up to the jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that I acted criminally - I don't have the time to conduct a trial if my life may be in danger.
And in most countries that aren't America, a jury will almost certainly find you partially - if not wholly - culpable for escalating a situation to violence without justifiable cause.
Someone carrying your TV out the door is not a good enough reason to kill them, nor risk the lives of everyone else in the house.
If someone is breaking into your home, you can't possibly know their intent. Since they've demonstrated a willingness to ignore one law by breaking and entering, you should assume they're willing to break other laws.
Ah, so you agree the police should be able to shoot people torrenting MP3s on sight, just in case ?
Until they do something else to prove they're not a threat, you have to assume they are one, and treat them appropriately.
Shooting on sight is not an appropriate reaction. Precisely because it leads to things like drunken kids getting shot when they "broke into" the wrong house, or mundane break-and-enters turning into multiple homicides.
That said, if it was a young kid sneaking in through a doggy door, I'd probably just grab them by their ear and hold them until the police and/or their parents came to collect them.
Really ? Because just a few sentences ago you were saying that you had no way of divining their intention, so therefore the only safe conclusion to draw was that they were there to rape and pillage your house and act appropriately by killing them first.
A person shouldn't have to think "Well, he's got a gun pointed at me and he looks like he's about to shoot, but I hope he doesn't flinch when I pull the trigger, because if he turns his back to me while I'm shooting him, it'll hit him in the back and I could be accused of murdering a fleeing intruder." Yes, this has happened prior to these laws.
For example ?
My main issue is, you're making these judgments about what is the smartest move based on perfect knowledge. If you set up the scenario, you already know the answer to what the wisest play in terms of personal safety is.
Sure, in a situation where the entire family sleeps in 1 room where you know for sure there is an intruder in the house, locking the door and calling the police is by far the smartest move for your own safety. I even said as much in one of my original responses.
What happens when your wife wakes you up at 2 AM because she heard a noise downstairs? Up until this point, your experience is that this has always been the shutters fluttering against the wind, or some other benign source. Do you lock the doors and call the police? Most people are likely to go check what the noise was because they are not omniscient. The may run into danger through no fault of their own. Yes, if my significant other asks me to check on a noise in another part of our home, it's always been benign, and yes, I've always been armed when doing so for as long as I can remember, because I was a Boy Scout and am always prepared. If I also heard the noise and was reasonably sure it was a burglar, there's no way I would have put myself at risk (and her at risk) by leaving the room. But if I ever do have a burglar break in, there's no way to know for sure whether I will know in advance whether it's a burglar or not.
What if you have a daughter in another bedroom? Do you lock the door and call the police? Or do you go get her and bring her back to the bedroom first?
We can both present an infinite number of hypothetical situations. In some, going around the house is reckless and likely will get one hurt or killed. In others, it is the necessary thing to do. The problem is, with the infinite variations, there are clear cut situations, and there are gray area situations. There are many situations where a reasonable person believes they are in far more danger than they actually are. Many of these situations occur when the person at home is sleeping, and has been startled. Do you have any idea what the massive adrenaline boost associated with fearing for one's life does to your motor reflex skills and you ability to think about complex problems? Do you have any experience with what happens when that is mixed with being awoken halfway through your sleep cycle?
We can sit here and armchair quarterback all we like, but the reality is we are second guessing the decision of a person who is defending his life and his family's life in a moment of great stress. Doing so while we sip a latte at Starbucks is hardly fair. This is why I'm glad these laws are in place, so I don't get judged by a jury of people who have no clue what being in a situation like that is like, and believe that everyone should have done what a person who has perfect knowledge and was not under duress would have done.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door. If I shot a burglar in the back while he was fleeing the scene with my property, I'd be convicted of murder even in America.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
I should also point out that the nature of the crime in other countries seems to be different and has a much lower propensity to violence. My friend asked me why I was concerned about the issue and I gave a few examples; the biggest one that struck her was Fran Drescher's rape. Searching online, I have not been able to find similar situations happening in other 1st-world countries.
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door.
Why does this remind me of a child saying "well I'm just going to swing my arms and walk around, and if you happen to get hit, it's your fault" ?
By confronting the person, *you* are escalating the situation by changing it from a simple break-and-enter to an armed standoff, and then potentially to a homocide (or even multiple). Chances are extremely high that if you do nothing, they will take your TV or whatever and leave, especially if they realise the house is occupied. It's just like being mugged - your best chances of survival are giving the mugger your money and avoiding escalating the situation.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
As a joke, obviously, since actually doing this would have anyone in serious, serious trouble if/when it was discovered, and even more so for someone with actual knowledge of the law.
If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life and kill an attacker, then you won't be going to gaol, even if you're charged with all sorts of things at the beginning. Not in Australia, not in the UK, not in Canada, not anywhere else. In fact, if you can find any examples of this actually transpiring, I'd be quite interested, because I certainly can't recall it ever happening.
On the other hand, if you sneak up behind an intruder and stab them in the back, then try to put a knife in their hand and pretend they attacked you first, when you get found out you'll likely be up for premeditated murder, as you should be. Similarly, if you're a large man and you do something like beat a 14 year old burglar into (and beyond) unconsciousness, you're probably going to be up on assault charges.
I should also point out that the nature of the crime in other countries seems to be different and has a much lower propensity to violence.
Yes. Because in other countries people aren't so keen to escalate it into a gunfight like people such as yourself are in America. Other major factors in the US and less significant in other countries are the larger poverty gap, lack of decent social services and massive difficulty re-entering society if you have ever been convicted of a crime.
My friend asked me why I was concerned about the issue and I gave a few examples; the biggest one that struck her was Fran Drescher's rape. Searching online, I have not been able to find similar situations happening in other 1st-world countries.
It certainly happens, but as in the US is relatively very uncommon for a break and enter to escalate to anything more serious (sans someone acting to cause that). Here's an example from the UK.
The assumption that someone who breaks into your house is likely there to hurt you (either pro-actively or reactively) has little basis in fact, and escalating the situation by acting on that assumption will almost always make things worse.
Where by "real life" I don't mean "not fictional", just "only doing things a real person could actually do": Dexter Morgan, Dark Defender. (I'm almost surprised we don't see more vigilante serial killer copycats, in the wake of that truly awesome show. ;))
Also, a population of 37 million does not mean there were 37 million home invasions.
Try again.
http://www.professorshouse.com/your-home/decorating-design/home-invasions-facts-statistics.aspx
According to a Statistics Canada Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey, ...In 47% of home invasion incidents, the victim reported sustaining some kind of physical injuries.
And that's in freakin' CANADA!
http://mysecuritydog.com/wordpress/?p=388
According to the United States Department of Justice, 38 % of all assaults and 60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion.
Would you like to continue your made-up bullshit that people breaking into your home rarely ever hurt people in that home?
Go read a book on statistics. None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions. They are "of all the home invasions, here's a breakdown of them ..."
Let's make it easier, and I'll try to use small words so you'll understand. Ask your friends if they have ever been home invaded. Ask you family if they have ever been home invaded. Now go back to your friends and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded. Now back to your family and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded.
I was out on Tuesday night with a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded, nor did they know of anyone who has been. I asked my family too, and my work colleagues. None of them knew of someone who had either - but of course they've all heard about it in the news.
Now, based on that, should I be worried about being home invaded to the point where I arm myself and am prepared to kill someone? Bullshit I'm not.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions.
And why would they? We are talking about the percentage of home invader that actually harm people, not the odds of you coming face to face with a home invader. My post: "They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof." Your post: "All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home."
Go read a book on statistics.
I suggest you go read one. Ever hear of "anecdotal evidence"? Because you gave a great example:
...a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded,..
Well, hell, I don't know anybody that's died in a car accident, so it must be rare! Oh, wait, 35,000 people die every year in car wrecks. But... but.. I don't KNOW anybody that's died in one, so it must only happen a few times a year! At least, according to the statistical theories of gfreeman.
Oh, and while I'm at it, I guess I'll even disprove your "home invasions are rare, period" crap: http://www.nationsearch.com/criminal-news-global-criminal-statistics/?Tag=home%20invasion
According to Statistics U.S.A., there was an average of 3,600,000 home invasions annually between 1994 and 2000.
Well, you could try waiting rather than just shooting first and asking questions later.
Me: Well, I'll just wait to see if he...
Intruder: [stab]
Me: I guess... [gurgle] I waited too long... [thud]
Great idea.
I live in a city of ~100,000 people. From one of the links you provided (which, BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes) it appears that the crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000 population (Our City Hall counts 35,000 households). So in my city there are fewer than two "violent home invasions" per month. That's not enough for me to start worrying about my safety. 23 per 35,000 households is 23,000 per 35million, or about 69,000 per 105million.
Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base, or us Kool-aid drinking Canadians are doing something right to be fifty times safer in our homes than Americans.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally), I am safe (statistically). People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Why did you get close enough to be stabbed ? Why did you escalate the situation by confronting them ?
Why did you escalate the situation by confronting them ?
That's funny, that you think I escalated the situation when the other person actually broke into my house.
Another thing to consider: If I can get the jump on him before he sees me, it might be my only chance to take him out. If I go try to hide, and he later finds me, he now has an equal chance in a fight.
...BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes)
Wow, you can't stay on topic at all, can you. Why are you bringing up non-residential crimes in a discussion about home invasion crimes? Your post didn't even talk about our original topic (What are the odds that a person breaking into your home will assault you?) And why are you still trying to make some case that home invasions are rare? There are literally MILLIONS every year, no matter how much you don't want it to be true:
...crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000...or about 69,000 per 105million....Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base
(emphasis mine)
No, it's not way off base, you are. If you'll look closely, you are comparing violent home invasions to all home invasions (violent or non-violent). Of course those numbers are going to be different.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally),..
How safe are you going to feel when you see a strange person in your home in the middle of the night? We'll see if you just assume that he is an OK guy and means you no harm.
I am safe (statistically)
OK, that's great. When did I ever say otherwise? I never said "OMG, you are soooo going to get home invaded! It's inevitable!"
People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
That's such crap. I guess you don't wear your seatbelt. Otherwise, you must be scared of driving if you try to make yourself safer! Preparing for disaster does not equal being scared of that disaster.
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door.
Why does this remind me of a child saying "well I'm just going to swing my arms and walk around, and if you happen to get hit, it's your fault" ?
Because you are trying to make an ad-hominem attack.
By confronting the person, *you* are escalating the situation by changing it from a simple break-and-enter to an armed standoff, and then potentially to a homocide (or even multiple). Chances are extremely high that if you do nothing, they will take your TV or whatever and leave, especially if they realise the house is occupied. It's just like being mugged - your best chances of survival are giving the mugger your money and avoiding escalating the situation.
Even if you look at it that way, what I am arguing is that the homeowner is allowed to escalate in those circumstances. What you are describing is called the "Duty to Retreat." Thankfully, I live in a jurisdiction where I am not bound to retreat and am allowed to "stand my ground" in my own home. I can't speak for where you live, but these types of laws are not limited to the U.S.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
As a joke, obviously, since actually doing this would have anyone in serious, serious trouble if/when it was discovered, and even more so for someone with actual knowledge of the law.
I spoke with her again, and confirmed this wasn't a joke, although I did misunderstand the example. The professor was describing a situation in which a homeowner was threatened and beat the burglar unconscious with a cricket bat. Without evidence that the intruder was threatening, it would be simply the intruder's word against the homeowners that it was self-defense. By planting some evidence, the homeowner would be further in the clear, and that police forensics would not be able to prove that the knife was not wielded by the burglar.
If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life and kill an attacker, then you won't be going to gaol, even if you're charged with all sorts of things at the beginning. Not in Australia, not in the UK, not in Canada, not anywhere else. In fact, if you can find any examples of this actually transpiring, I'd be quite interested, because I certainly can't recall it ever happening.
One example that immediately came to mind was Bernie Goetz, although he did two things which nailed him: he kept attacking after there was no threat and he had an unlicensed firearm. After doing a bit of searching, I came upon the case of Tony Martin, Munir Hussain and others. In Farmer's case, he shot burglars who were fleeing, and Hussain kept beating the burglar after he was subdued. Anyway, in the cases I have found, one big reason that the homeowners were convicted was that there were witnesses or people were shot in the back. This reminds me of the three reasons for shooting intruders in the chest:
Because you are trying to make an ad-hominem attack.
No, it's because you're using the same logic a child does when trying to provoke a reaction.
Even if you look at it that way, what I am arguing is that the homeowner is allowed to escalate in those circumstances.
Whether they're allowed to is a separate issue to whether they should. They shouldn't. It just increases the likelihood someone (or multiple people) get hurt.
What you are describing is called the "Duty to Retreat [wikipedia.org]." Thankfully, I live in a jurisdiction where I am not bound to retreat and am allowed to "stand my ground" in my own home. I can't speak for where you live, but these types of laws are not limited to the U.S.
You are not advocating standing your ground, you are advocating going on the offensive.
I spoke with her again, and confirmed this wasn't a joke, although I did misunderstand the example. The professor was describing a situation in which a homeowner was threatened and beat the burglar unconscious with a cricket bat. Without evidence that the intruder was threatening, it would be simply the intruder's word against the homeowners that it was self-defense. By planting some evidence, the homeowner would be further in the clear, and that police forensics would not be able to prove that the knife was not wielded by the burglar.
Wow. And these are the people teaching lawyers how to do their job. No wonder they have a bad reputation.
It blows my mind that not only would such a thing be suggested, in apparent seriousness, but that not one of the students thought they should report their *law professor* for encouraging illegal and harmful behaviour. Fucking madness.
One example that immediately came to mind [...]
None of your examples describe anyone who justifiably defended themselves with lethal force and was charged with a crime for it. I think that's rather telling, as I'm sure you spent a reasonable amount of time looking.
Indeed, all the examples you have found are where people who went to far were rightfully punished for doing so.
Anyway, in the cases I have found, one big reason that the homeowners were convicted was that there were witnesses or people were shot in the back.
No, the reason they were convicted was because they broke the law and did the wrong thing . Breaking the law and not getting caught doesn't mean you're innocent, it means you're lucky. Trying to avoid witnesses is the mindset of a criminal.
That is misrepresenting what I said. Say I hear someone breaking in, then I arm myself, call the police and confront the intruder.
You shouldn't have confronted him. By doing so *you* are the one who has escalated the situation.
If he runs away, I won't shoot him in the back. But if he comes toward me - with or without harmful intent - I'd fire. My goal in the situation would be to make sure no more of my stuff is stolen, and if possible, detain the burglar until the police arrive.
And the most likely result is he stumbles when he turns, you perceive this as a threat and shoot, and someone ends up dead. All because you had to confront someone over a TV or a laptop that was probably covered by insurance.
Please back up the statement that an armed populace leads to an increase in violence during robberies. I haven't found anything to that effect.
I don't need to back it up because I didn't say it. Easy access to weapons is certainly a multiplicative factor, but the actual problem I described is one of attitude.
I'll tackle this in two parts. Firstly, I know that most burglars do not mean to harm the homeowner, and in fact, most burglars aren't seriously armed. But I subscribe to the philosophy that "it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it," and I'm also a fan of the castle doctrine. Secondly, I can't find statistics regarding how wel
It must be nice to live in a giant mansion with huge rooms that take time to cross. How big do you think a room in my house is? A few steps will cover the distance across most of my rooms. How do you know he didn't get close to me? What if he has a gun? He doesn't need to get too close to take me out.
Why did you get close to him ? Hear an intruder, call the police, avoid the intruder. Why are you getting into the same room with them in the first place ?
That's funny, that you think I escalated the situation when the other person actually broke into my house.
I think you need to look up what "escalate" means.
Another thing to consider: If I can get the jump on him before he sees me, it might be my only chance to take him out. If I go try to hide, and he later finds me, he now has an equal chance in a fight.
Chances are he has no interest in a fight unless provoked. The likelihood of someone invading a home with intent to harm the occupants is vanishingly small.
Hear an intruder,...
So, what does an intruder sound like? Do they have a little bell or alarm on them? Do they walk around my house yelling "Intruder in your house!"?
...call the police,...
What the hell should I do in the meantime while I wait for the police if the intruder stumbles upon me?
...avoid the intruder.
What if he doesn't avoid me?
Chances are he has no interest in a fight unless provoked. The likelihood of someone invading a home with intent to harm the occupants is vanishingly small.
Well, if you want to put your safety in your belief that you are statistically safe, that's your prerogative. Too bad the actual statistics tell a different story: http://bumpkeywarning.com/HomeInvasionStatistics.htm
According to a United States Department of Justice report: * 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
I used to have a plan to buy a black belt, and then store it in some obscure Japanese town. Then I can truthfully say "I have a black belt in Hiroshima" and people would think it was some kind of martial art of which they'd never heard before.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Breaking in unarmed and breaking in armed are two different things, with two different premeditations behind them. Even if the motive is just to take your things, there's a serious consideration about what someone's willing to do when they break in armed. Unfortunately, you can't really be sure whether they are armed or whether they are there for things or to do you physical harm until after the situation is over.
You might say that the robber having a weapon doesn't mean he'll use it with deadly force, but I can say the same about the homeowner or renter. Having the weapon gives you the option to inflict damage with it or just brandish it. If it's small, you may even be able to conceal it to help defuse the situation. (There are no laws about concealing a weapon within your own home.) Not having a weapon means you can't use one, though, and deadly force can be dealt without weapons at greater difficulty anyway. You'd just better hope that if you're counting on talking the situation down or fighting someone hand-to-hand that the intruder isn't armed.
No, I don't just keep slipping it in there. Many home intrusions do involve the intruder being armed, at least with a pry bar or hammer. I also keep saying "if". One might believe you'd read that and think I don't believe all burglars are armed robbers, and you'd be right. Some are, though. You have a right to defend against the worst of them and not just the least criminal criminals.
Thanks for dependably parroting my position to me as if you're explaining something. I have been saying all along that you can answer force with force. If you kill someone just for breaking the glass and grabbing some cash, that's murder.
Having a weapon in the house and using it to defend the house is not a criminal act and is not taking violence to someone else. Breaking into someone's occupied home with a weapon is a premeditated crime in which the perpetrator brought a weapon in order to commit the act. The two are very different circumstances. One is defensive and the other is offensive. If you can't understand the difference, then either you're stupid or you're intentionally allowing yourself to be mislead.
If you are a homeowner and the burglar is just as likely to be armed as not, what's your incentive not to be armed? What's more, if you're dealing with burglars who know the homeowner may be armed and they're still willing to commit the intrusion, they're probably expecting a violent confrontation once in a while but doing it anyway. That makes them even more dangerous to themselves and the occupants of the home.
The big difference here is that the rightful occupants of the home have the right to be there and to defend themselves vigorously if necessary. If the burglar goes from breaking in to steal to breaking in to rob, then he is perpetrating the initial violent act.
A homeowner shouldn't attack an intruder who is clearly non-violent. However, someone who has broken into your home in the dark while you're there is starting out in a pretty confrontational manner. Being sure what's really going on in a dark room when the adrenaline is running is really difficult. When the situation isn't clear, the benefit of the doubt falls with the victim's right to defend within his own shelter. Too much hesitation can be deadly if you are actually under violent attack. Believing oneself to be in danger is what really matters. Shots in the back or bludgeoning someone to death with a chair isn't defense, but there are lots of situations that aren't so clear.
So, what does an intruder sound like? Do they have a little bell or alarm on them? Do they walk around my house yelling "Intruder in your house!"?
How did you know they're there ? Do you normally carry a loaded shotgun with you to get a drink of water in the night on the off chance someone has broken in ?
What the hell should I do in the meantime while I wait for the police if the intruder stumbles upon me?
Stay out of the way. Stay in your room and lock the door.
What if he doesn't avoid me?
Then defend yourself.
Well, if you want to put your safety in your belief that you are statistically safe, that's your prerogative.
Those statistics say nothing to refute my argument or support yours. You need numbers that indicate how many home invasions result in something more than the perpetrator doing something worse than theft. Someone else posted such numbers much earlier in the discussion, and they showed that the vast, vast majority of such situations ended without any escalation (and most that did were because the homeowner confronted the criminal, IIRC).