"If you break the law, you are assumed to have ill intent. This is first-semester law course stuff. Why else would you be breaking the law?"
Perhaps that's why law school has more than one semester?:)
Hmm, why would you break a law. Ill intent is one. Ignorance is another (if lawyers disagree about law interpretations do non-lawyers have a chance...). Civil disobedience. Because you want to/It's inconvenient-I mean you never break any traffic laws do you? You just can't assume someone who breaks a law has ill intent-if that really is taught in law school, well, the law school isn't very good.
Second, you have not really broken a law until you have been convicted of it. Innocence is assumed in the US. So, I could be an alledged or suspected trespasser (under the law) but would not have legally trespassed unless convicted.
And why is walking up to their door and knocking an inappropriate method for asking permission? No trespassing doesn't imply I can't go to the front door (fences, guard dogs, other signs may of course...) It is quicker than a telephone or letter.
Yeah, unfortunately she sounds like a career criminal. Obviously must be punished. Problem is, will jail time change anything? Or just stop the crimes while she is in jail...
Putting an essentially non-violent person in jail isn't cheap. I've seen estimates of 20 to 50K a year. Not to mention it may result indirectly in the release of more violent offenders earlier....
Look, state laws vary and I was being general. If you feel threatened by the intruder you are justified in using deadly force. But it doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted or even sued successfully by intruder's estate (or the intruder is he lives)-it has happened even in states with "enlightened" laws. So, if your life really isn't threatened, you realistically shouldn't use deadly force.
"Get the police to drive by when you've got a non-threatening trespass going on? Give me a break."
That was my point - shooting someone for a non-threatening trespass is overreacting.
If the police don't consider it important, there MIGHT be a reason. I am well aware that the police response for property crimes is often, well, poor, to say the least. I have experienced it first hand.
Look, I place no faith in the police to protect people, have a clue, or even investigate well. But there is other legal recourse (civil court) and private methods available (private investigators and insurance) that are proportional to the situation.
"but when push comes to shove if you were acting in good faith, have a clean record, and were protecting yourself, your family, or your personal property you will get away with it."
Well, you MAY get away with it. There are a number of reasonable qualifiers in that Penal Code.
I certainly wouldn't want my life to suck badly over a mere property crime covered by insurance. Being charged with murder, paying an attorney, lots of publicity, possible civil suit by the dead persons family.... No thanks.
Ummm, perhaps you should read that a little closer...
because there are a few caveats:
"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"
and
"reasonably believes that: the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
there are a number of "reasonable" qualifiers in that Penal Code. Yes, you could shoot someone in the back for stealing your garden gnomes but I strongly suspect this would not be considered "reasonable" by the prosecutor at least.... Especially if you happened to kill a unarmed teenager with no record.....
While you may not be convicted, your life isn't going to be pleasant...
"...the only way your gun will be useless is if you don't have the will to use it or you let the bad guy get too close..."
And how would you identify a "really good criminal"? They may be that good because they are dressed in a suit and next to you before you realize they have a knife sticking in your ribs demanding your wallet. That would be a really good criminal. Or maybe they stab first-no gun will help you there.
If you cannot ID the threat, and you may not, the gun isn't going to help.
"simply presenting the weapon is usually enough to defuse the issue before it becomes necessary to use it."
When you say "presenting" I sure hope you mean "pointing at". Because if you don't you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. If you have a CC license, "flashing" your gun is generally forbidden and is grounds for losing the permit. Flashing the weapon also allows the bad guy to justify using deadly force ON YOU because you just threatened his life....
"And if he is indeed unarmed he try to disappear as quickly as possible after the first shot in the air IF he gave you enough time/distance to make that first warning shot."
AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!?!?! Where the hell do people get the idea that a warning shot is EVER a good idea. Too much TV or movies perhaps?
Repeat after me. NEVER, EVER, fire a warning shot. Either you are justified in using deadly force or you are not. Period. The only time you discharge a weapon in a self-defense situation is with the intent of hitting the person/thing causing the deadly threat.
If you fire a warning shot, you become the aggressor. The attacker is now justified in killing you because they are (rightfully) in fear for their life.
"Someone in my home illegally has forfeited his right to liberty and, if he is armed, he has forfeited his right to life."
One of the more reasonable comments. If they are armed and in your house, deadly force is warranted (intent is pretty obvious). If they are unarmed, it may or not be.
Of course, you rarely serve jail time for trespassing...
No, but the generally accepted rule is, two in the chest, one in the head. If you have the right to shoot, it is because you believe your life is in danger. If the first two bullets in the chest don't drop the person, you assume they are wearing body armor and aim for the head. A shot to the head will tend to kill someone (as will a couple bullets to the heart).
The alternative (if they have a stabbing/slashing/blunt weapon) is to aim for the groin with the third shot. If they can't walk, they can't harm you.
Only a fool aims for a body part (hand, etc), fires a warning shot, or flashes a weapon. In the first case, you are likely to miss. In the other cases, YOU become the aggressor, and make it legal for other guy to KILL YOU!! If you are not willing to kill someone (or shoot them in locations likely to kill them), you should not have a firearm for self defense. PERIOD.
"Maybe they shouldn't have ignored the "No Trespassing" signs posted on the property?"
It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing.
I have trespassed numerous times-it is virtually impossible to do geology field work and not trespass and some time. Most of the time, you won't know it (think rural areas, not reliably posted). In other cases, it is perfectly legal to enter an area that has been posted "no trespassing" - many times people who post those signs have no right to post them.... Maybe they are entering your property to ask permission, ever consider that?
"Where's personal responsibility?"
If they call the police and cite me for trespassing, I will accept the consequences of my actions. I have been confronted before but never cited - so, was I actually trespassing?
You don't go shooting someone because they trespass. You shoot someone because you fear your life is in imminent danger (or someone you are protecting). If they are in your house you MAY have a case. On your property, not likely. Sure, you may not be prosecuted but only a fool would take that chance....
"Hand guns are notoriously inaccurate at much beyond a dozen feet or so."
You are incorrect. If you are not proficient with handguns, yes, they are inaccurate - the same could be said for a rifle or shotgun. But if you can't empty your clip into six inches at 25yards, you are not proficient. Any decent handgun with a proper load and a trained user can do this. Doing this under stress is much, much harder of course. However, IIRC, most handguns are used within 7 yards.
Rifles and shotguns ARE easier to use than handguns. Certainly can be more accurate. Definitely more accurate at range. However, rifle cartridges and shotgun slugs may overpenentrate (bad for populated areas). Shotguns can be very inaccurate (buckshot). The best use of shotguns may be for their sound effects. Chambering a round will encourage any sensible criminal to leave....
Look, rifles and shotguns have their uses and compliment handguns. Each has their place in home defense. But remember, it is irrelevant if you can kill someone at 100yards outside your house with a rifle. You likely cannot identify their INTENT at that range (or even their identity). And you you don't go shooting people first and asking questions later except in rare cases-there are plenty of stories of homeowners doing this and killing loved ones....
"...even though you couldn't possibly predict whether or not it will actually cause long-term harm to the company as a whole?"
A company that allows poor management to exist IS ALREADY causing long-term damage to the company ALL BY ITSELF. The fact that they do nothing about it indicates poor management extends above the immediate PHB. Poor management is easy to spot - it is rarely a secret which boss(es) is(are) really bad....
Any reason why the company doesn't just replace the computers? I mean, if they are typical PC's, it would be cheaper to replace them, reload the software/data, etc. than to clean them. Downtime surely isn't a problem (will be needed to clean them). If it is high end stuff, well, it is probably worth paying someone to do it.
On a side note, who is the idiot who designed/signed off on the ventilation system for the old location? Possibly the one too cheap to replace the computers?
Ah, the old "the change in police recording practices" excuse. Look, it may be true, I don't really know.
However, I would classify assault and battery (aka common assault, I assume) as a violent crime. Physical force WAS involved. And what is "little" injury. Perhaps like my car accident? "Minor injuries" included a concussion, sprained fingers and wrist (which are still not healed after 8 weeks). In short, minor physical harm is "real harm".
"The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously."
Well, like, DUH! Perhaps that's why people are opposed to cameras in public places (even if supposedly you don't have a right to privacy). It is all about the SCALE.
I don't trust the police any more than the general public to watch the feeds. I have known/interacted with too many police-they are no more trustworthy/professional/intelligent/etc. than the general public. But if we are going to have the cameras (and we ARE), I want public access.
Cameras will not stop crime. It may reduce some types but more likely move it. It will be used to reduce the amount of police on the streets (the type that reduce crime). It may make it easier to catch criminals but so what, I don't want them caught, I don't want crime to happen to begin with. Preventing crime is hard. Pretending you are doing something about it (cameras) is easy.
"A pedestrian only has the right of way when they have a green light with traffic, or a walk sign."
This of course varies by jurisdiction. At traffic lights, probably true anywhere. In other locations, ANY intersection has an implied crosswalk and the pedestrian always has right-of-way (within reason of course-you step out 5 ft in front of a speeding car....). Of course this sucks if you are one of the few drivers who knows the traffic laws (hmmm, chance hitting the pedestrian or get rear-ended stopping because idiot behind me isn't paying attention...)
"They are only trying to avoid the chargebacks that would follow such fraudulent uses as these radically cut into the amount of money they are going to make."
But how do the CC companies lose money? I mean really? If there is a chargeback it is the MERCHANT that has to eat the loss, NOT the CC company IIRC. Sure there are higher support costs but these are hidden in fees and rates. I don't see CC companies refusing to allow their cards to be allowed for these types of purchases. So they can't really be losing money. They only lose money if the customers don't pay the bills (a chargeback is of course no longer on a customers bill or a CC company problem).
I suspect the real reason is that Paypal doesn't want to be treated like a bank even though it essentially is one, so it is bowing to pressure (brown-nosing).... Of course, IIRC paypal allows the use of CC, so any chargebacks and associated fees may hit THEM, so that could also be a reason....
Slashdot Mirror
"If you break the law, you are assumed to have ill intent. This is first-semester law course stuff. Why else would you be breaking the law?"
:)
Perhaps that's why law school has more than one semester?
Hmm, why would you break a law. Ill intent is one. Ignorance is another (if lawyers disagree about law interpretations do non-lawyers have a chance...). Civil disobedience. Because you want to/It's inconvenient-I mean you never break any traffic laws do you? You just can't assume someone who breaks a law has ill intent-if that really is taught in law school, well, the law school isn't very good.
Second, you have not really broken a law until you have been convicted of it. Innocence is assumed in the US. So, I could be an alledged or suspected trespasser (under the law) but would not have legally trespassed unless convicted.
And why is walking up to their door and knocking an inappropriate method for asking permission? No trespassing doesn't imply I can't go to the front door (fences, guard dogs, other signs may of course...) It is quicker than a telephone or letter.
Yeah, unfortunately she sounds like a career criminal. Obviously must be punished. Problem is, will jail time change anything? Or just stop the crimes while she is in jail...
Putting an essentially non-violent person in jail isn't cheap. I've seen estimates of 20 to 50K a year. Not to mention it may result indirectly in the release of more violent offenders earlier....
Can't say I have an answer...
Naw, what you really want is a trunk monkey. According to the car commercials, it will even dispose of the body :)
Anyone in central Ohio will know the reference. Still can't believe they used it in advertising...
Look, state laws vary and I was being general. If you feel threatened by the intruder you are justified in using deadly force. But it doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted or even sued successfully by intruder's estate (or the intruder is he lives)-it has happened even in states with "enlightened" laws. So, if your life really isn't threatened, you realistically shouldn't use deadly force.
"Get the police to drive by when you've got a non-threatening trespass going on? Give me a break."
That was my point - shooting someone for a non-threatening trespass is overreacting.
If the police don't consider it important, there MIGHT be a reason. I am well aware that the police response for property crimes is often, well, poor, to say the least. I have experienced it first hand.
Look, I place no faith in the police to protect people, have a clue, or even investigate well. But there is other legal recourse (civil court) and private methods available (private investigators and insurance) that are proportional to the situation.
That was an excellent reply. Thanks.
"but when push comes to shove if you were acting in good faith, have a clean record, and were protecting yourself, your family, or your personal property you will get away with it."
:)
Well, you MAY get away with it. There are a number of reasonable qualifiers in that Penal Code.
I certainly wouldn't want my life to suck badly over a mere property crime covered by insurance. Being charged with murder, paying an attorney, lots of publicity, possible civil suit by the dead persons family.... No thanks.
But go ahead and let us know how it turns out
Ummm, perhaps you should read that a little closer...
because there are a few caveats:
"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"
and
"reasonably believes that: the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
there are a number of "reasonable" qualifiers in that Penal Code. Yes, you could shoot someone in the back for stealing your garden gnomes but I strongly suspect this would not be considered "reasonable" by the prosecutor at least.... Especially if you happened to kill a unarmed teenager with no record.....
While you may not be convicted, your life isn't going to be pleasant...
"...the only way your gun will be useless is if you don't have the will to use it or you let the bad guy get too close..."
And how would you identify a "really good criminal"? They may be that good because they are dressed in a suit and next to you before you realize they have a knife sticking in your ribs demanding your wallet. That would be a really good criminal. Or maybe they stab first-no gun will help you there.
If you cannot ID the threat, and you may not, the gun isn't going to help.
"simply presenting the weapon is usually enough to defuse the issue before it becomes necessary to use it."
When you say "presenting" I sure hope you mean "pointing at". Because if you don't you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. If you have a CC license, "flashing" your gun is generally forbidden and is grounds for losing the permit. Flashing the weapon also allows the bad guy to justify using deadly force ON YOU because you just threatened his life....
"If in doubt shoot first."
Well, I disagree. If you have doubts, then you probably don't meet the criteria for use of deadly force. And almost certainly will go to jail.
You know, I don't think Michael Moore opposes firearm ownership.
He is a member of the NRA.
"He also only covered at best 2-3% of the 9-11 situation, BTW, in his movie."
Newsflash. Movies are not "real", not even documentaries. They all have biases (ommissions, points of view, inaccuracies, etc.)
"And if he is indeed unarmed he try to disappear as quickly as possible after the first shot in the air IF he gave you enough time/distance to make that first warning shot."
AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!?!?! Where the hell do people get the idea that a warning shot is EVER a good idea. Too much TV or movies perhaps?
Repeat after me. NEVER, EVER, fire a warning shot. Either you are justified in using deadly force or you are not. Period. The only time you discharge a weapon in a self-defense situation is with the intent of hitting the person/thing causing the deadly threat.
If you fire a warning shot, you become the aggressor. The attacker is now justified in killing you because they are (rightfully) in fear for their life.
"Someone in my home illegally has forfeited his right to liberty and, if he is armed, he has forfeited his right to life."
One of the more reasonable comments. If they are armed and in your house, deadly force is warranted (intent is pretty obvious). If they are unarmed, it may or not be.
Of course, you rarely serve jail time for trespassing...
"Shooting doesn't mean killing."
No, but the generally accepted rule is, two in the chest, one in the head. If you have the right to shoot, it is because you believe your life is in danger. If the first two bullets in the chest don't drop the person, you assume they are wearing body armor and aim for the head. A shot to the head will tend to kill someone (as will a couple bullets to the heart).
The alternative (if they have a stabbing/slashing/blunt weapon) is to aim for the groin with the third shot. If they can't walk, they can't harm you.
Only a fool aims for a body part (hand, etc), fires a warning shot, or flashes a weapon. In the first case, you are likely to miss. In the other cases, YOU become the aggressor, and make it legal for other guy to KILL YOU!! If you are not willing to kill someone (or shoot them in locations likely to kill them), you should not have a firearm for self defense. PERIOD.
"Maybe they shouldn't have ignored the "No Trespassing" signs posted on the property?"
It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing.
I have trespassed numerous times-it is virtually impossible to do geology field work and not trespass and some time. Most of the time, you won't know it (think rural areas, not reliably posted). In other cases, it is perfectly legal to enter an area that has been posted "no trespassing" - many times people who post those signs have no right to post them.... Maybe they are entering your property to ask permission, ever consider that?
"Where's personal responsibility?"
If they call the police and cite me for trespassing, I will accept the consequences of my actions. I have been confronted before but never cited - so, was I actually trespassing?
You don't go shooting someone because they trespass. You shoot someone because you fear your life is in imminent danger (or someone you are protecting). If they are in your house you MAY have a case. On your property, not likely. Sure, you may not be prosecuted but only a fool would take that chance....
"Hand guns are notoriously inaccurate at much beyond a dozen feet or so."
You are incorrect. If you are not proficient with handguns, yes, they are inaccurate - the same could be said for a rifle or shotgun. But if you can't empty your clip into six inches at 25yards, you are not proficient. Any decent handgun with a proper load and a trained user can do this. Doing this under stress is much, much harder of course. However, IIRC, most handguns are used within 7 yards.
Rifles and shotguns ARE easier to use than handguns. Certainly can be more accurate. Definitely more accurate at range. However, rifle cartridges and shotgun slugs may overpenentrate (bad for populated areas). Shotguns can be very inaccurate (buckshot). The best use of shotguns may be for their sound effects. Chambering a round will encourage any sensible criminal to leave....
Look, rifles and shotguns have their uses and compliment handguns. Each has their place in home defense. But remember, it is irrelevant if you can kill someone at 100yards outside your house with a rifle. You likely cannot identify their INTENT at that range (or even their identity). And you you don't go shooting people first and asking questions later except in rare cases-there are plenty of stories of homeowners doing this and killing loved ones....
"...even though you couldn't possibly predict whether or not it will actually cause long-term harm to the company as a whole?"
A company that allows poor management to exist IS ALREADY causing long-term damage to the company ALL BY ITSELF. The fact that they do nothing about it indicates poor management extends above the immediate PHB. Poor management is easy to spot - it is rarely a secret which boss(es) is(are) really bad....
Any reason why the company doesn't just replace the computers? I mean, if they are typical PC's, it would be cheaper to replace them, reload the software/data, etc. than to clean them. Downtime surely isn't a problem (will be needed to clean them). If it is high end stuff, well, it is probably worth paying someone to do it.
On a side note, who is the idiot who designed/signed off on the ventilation system for the old location? Possibly the one too cheap to replace the computers?
Ah, the old "the change in police recording practices" excuse. Look, it may be true, I don't really know.
However, I would classify assault and battery (aka common assault, I assume) as a violent crime. Physical force WAS involved. And what is "little" injury. Perhaps like my car accident? "Minor injuries" included a concussion, sprained fingers and wrist (which are still not healed after 8 weeks). In short, minor physical harm is "real harm".
"The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously."
Well, like, DUH! Perhaps that's why people are opposed to cameras in public places (even if supposedly you don't have a right to privacy). It is all about the SCALE.
I don't trust the police any more than the general public to watch the feeds. I have known/interacted with too many police-they are no more trustworthy/professional/intelligent/etc. than the general public. But if we are going to have the cameras (and we ARE), I want public access.
Cameras will not stop crime. It may reduce some types but more likely move it. It will be used to reduce the amount of police on the streets (the type that reduce crime). It may make it easier to catch criminals but so what, I don't want them caught, I don't want crime to happen to begin with. Preventing crime is hard. Pretending you are doing something about it (cameras) is easy.
"Airports in the US have lots of CCTVs in them. You don't think that people get robbed (pickpocketed, luggage stolen) at all in airports?"
I think that is the point of the argument. They don't stop crime. And if you don't have privacy in public, why can't I access the camera feeds?
"A pedestrian only has the right of way when they have a green light with traffic, or a walk sign."
This of course varies by jurisdiction. At traffic lights, probably true anywhere. In other locations, ANY intersection has an implied crosswalk and the pedestrian always has right-of-way (within reason of course-you step out 5 ft in front of a speeding car....). Of course this sucks if you are one of the few drivers who knows the traffic laws (hmmm, chance hitting the pedestrian or get rear-ended stopping because idiot behind me isn't paying attention...)
"They are only trying to avoid the chargebacks that would follow such fraudulent uses as these radically cut into the amount of money they are going to make."
But how do the CC companies lose money? I mean really? If there is a chargeback it is the MERCHANT that has to eat the loss, NOT the CC company IIRC. Sure there are higher support costs but these are hidden in fees and rates. I don't see CC companies refusing to allow their cards to be allowed for these types of purchases. So they can't really be losing money. They only lose money if the customers don't pay the bills (a chargeback is of course no longer on a customers bill or a CC company problem).
I suspect the real reason is that Paypal doesn't want to be treated like a bank even though it essentially is one, so it is bowing to pressure (brown-nosing).... Of course, IIRC paypal allows the use of CC, so any chargebacks and associated fees may hit THEM, so that could also be a reason....
"it all comes down to perspective. morality, good and bad, all that jazz are defined differently from people to people, culture to culture."
:)
True. And what quicker way to get a culture clash than via the internet....