Burglar Stabbed To Death: Is This Self-Defence?

[Millman]

It depends on the circumstance. To elaborate - if a policeperson enters without a warrant and/or a burglar without permission it's not necessarily fair game.

They might be trying to get something I accidentally took and didn't know I was home. The police could be warning me of an imminent threat.

I like reasonable force. If someone came in intending harm to me and my stuff that's murder in addition to burglary. Better name for a title.

 

[Farm Boy]

I will have to echo that standards of "reasonableness" make a large deal of sense to me as well. Attempting to hold people to arbitrary and measured responses in any fashion during emergency situations, not just violent ones like this, is foolhardy and inhuman at best. It is borderline psychopathic of the state at worst.

Granted, basing self defense on reasonable fear can lead to aggravating escalation of justification - ie a burglar is whacked by a bat-wielding homeowner who is justifiably afraid, so the then justifiably afraid burglar shoots the homeowner, but these situations are generally settled with felony homicide statutes in the States. Not that those are perfect either. Like when a pedestrian flees an officer because they don't want a misdemeanor drug conviction - fleeing the officer is a felony, so if the officer looses his dog to catch you and the dog subsequently gets run over by a car during the chase - the canine(who is considered a full officer of the law for some ------ reason) dying now constitutes felony homicide, equivalent to 1st degree murder of a police officer, which could theoretically be a capital offense. I have not actually read a report of this, I am hoping the reason is a reasoning judiciary rather than a lack of media coverage.

 

[civver_764]

Out of interest civver, how would you deal with an intruder in your home?

I can't know for sure. Maybe I would be really scared and sneak out my window. What I like to think I would do is just go out and question them with a weapon of some sort in my hand(I don't intend on ever owning a gun so probably a knife or a bat of some kind).

 

[bhsup]

...so the then justifiably afraid burglar shoots the homeowner...

Problem. The burglar has no legitimate justification to be afraid. If he'd never put himself in the place of illegally invading a home and thereby causing the homeowner to (justifiably) fear for his life, the burglar would never be in the position to be fearful of the homeowner.

It's akin to my conceal carry permit. If I start an argument/incident with someone, and that someone becomes enrages and charges me which prompts me to grab my gun and shoot that someone, I am going to jail because I was the one responsible for the whole thing to begin with.

Ditto a burglar. They are 100% responsible for everything that happens the moment they invade my home.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Indeed. I think that it is at points like this that the so-called "libertarianism" of many paleoconservatives breaks down, and it becomes clear that their conception of "rights" is not substantially related to any classical liberal or libertarian conception of natural rights, but is a set of implicit social treaties based upon mutual respect for property entitlements.

Well, there's conditional rights and there's unconditional rights. I'd say the protection of the law is a right conditional upon obedience to that law. Now, that doesn't mean, of course, that if I shoot someone who is speeding I am in the clear. When and how that right is no longer in effect is conditional on how exactly you breached the law. Say, fines. Would you say it is OK for a police officer to walk up to you and say, "Hey, I want $100, so give it to me." No! That would be a violation of your rights if he forced you to hand over the money.

If, on the other hand, I broke the speed limit, the cop could say, "You broke the speed limit, and there's a $100 fine for that." Is this a violation of your "Rights?" No, you broke the law, you pay for it.

While it doesn't really apply to speeding, in cases of more serious crimes, the law is allowed to do things that wouldn't normally be OK to catch a criminal. Police can't shoot people on sight by default, but if a murderer is fleeing, perhaps he can. If you break into someone's house, I feel this is severe enough to (Temporarily) lose the right to legal protection.

If you don't think this is POSSIBLE, than you should be against prisons, and heck, also against fines, and probably any form of criminal punishment. Rights can't be taken away arbitrarily, but some rights are conditional.

If there's 4 guys breaking into my house with the intent to steal my stuff, I should be use whatever means available to stop them. If that means shooting them, then so be it. Your rights stop whenever you forcibly break into my house. You should not get the protection of the law while you are in the act of committing a serious crime.

Agreed.

What situation are we talking about? If you see a burglar in your house and you shoot them before they even see you that's unquestionably wrong. Trying to justify that sort of behavior by claiming they have "lost their rights" is both absurd and despicable. You may have property rights, but they don't trump everything else, especially not someone's life. This is all a poorly disguised attempt to paint "undesirable people" as inhuman. I personally don't want to have anything to do with that sort of thinking.

Innocent people's rights ALWAYS trump guilty people's rights. You have no right to demand the protection of the law if you do not obey it.

And yes, the gravity of the breech of the law does affect just how badly that breech affects you. If I speed, a cop has the right to pull me over and demand money, which he could not do arbitrarily. Breaking into a house, of course, if far more severe.

This is an important point, yeah. Anyone who breaks into somebody else's house should fully expect, at the very least, a good hard thump round the head. It's not upon innocent people to wait quietly by and see exactly how criminal you plan to be.

Exactly.

 

[civver_764]

Innocent people's rights ALWAYS trump guilty people's rights.

That doesn't give you the right to just kill someone.

You have no right to demand the protection of the law if you do not obey it.

I don't always obey the law, should we not prosecute someone if they kill me?

And yes, the gravity of the breech of the law does affect just how badly that breech affects you. If I speed, a cop has the right to pull me over and demand money, which he could not do arbitrarily. Breaking into a house, of course, if far more severe.

Personally I think traffic fines are BS so find a better analogy.

 

[MobBoss]

That doesn't give you the right to just kill someone.

No, the fact that they invade your home and present a threat to you is what gives you that right.

 

[civver_764]

No, the fact that they invade your home and present a threat to you is what gives you that right.

If they aren't a threat to your life or your safety then there is no justification for putting their life at risk. Those things are not always at risk and assuming so is faulty thinking.

 

[MobBoss]

If they aren't a threat to your life or your safety then there is no justification for putting their life at risk. Those things are not always at risk and assuming so is faulty thinking.

If someone breaks into my house they are a threat to me and my family. End of story.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's akin to my conceal carry permit. If I start an argument/incident with someone, and that someone becomes enrages and charges me which prompts me to grab my gun and shoot that someone, I am going to jail because I was the one responsible for the whole thing to begin with.

Not entirely true. You have a legal concealed carry permit. You start a fight fight. It is your fault. You are winning and your opponent pulls a knife and attempts to use it on you. You shoot and kill them. Yes, you have committed criminal acts and will be going to jail. Will you be convicted of 1st degree, possibly capital murder? Not unless you are engaged in a felony, no. You committed criminal actions in starting the fight. Those criminal actions may be exacerbated during sentencing by the fact that they culminated in homicide. But starting a fight or breaking and entering have break points between them and premeditated or 2nd degree murder. Self-defense is one of those break points. It does apply to those who initiate criminal conduct.

Innocent people's rights ALWAYS trump guilty people's rights. You have no right to demand the protection of the law if you do not obey it.

This is patently false. Criminal actions void your protection under the law in stages. Only a few things are serious enough to void your right to protect your life. Anything else would be barbaric.

Let's take a different example. You are at the gym and you and your friends catch somebody stealing your wallet out of your locker. Your friends start to beat him severely. He has a right to self defense. If he reasonably fears for his life or grave injury he can off his attackers without being guilty of first degree murder. He's still in trouble for triggering the situation, yes. Being a criminal =/= waiving the right to self defense. The exception to this rule in most states are felony homicide laws. These laws dictate that if you are engaged in a felony action, and a death can be attributed to that action for any reason, you are by statute guilty of first degree murder of the deceased. Examples - you are breaking and entering, a cop is responding to the call with within standard procedure, running lights and sirens and runs over a 6 year old since he is speeding. You, the burglar, are guilty of murdering the 6 year old. You and a friend rob a drugstore. The clerk kills your friend. You are guilty of the murder of your friend. You are doing some other random felony, and a cop is chasing you. He dies of a heart attack triggered by the exertion. You are guilty of murdering the cop. Etc etc etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, there's conditional rights and there's unconditional rights. I'd say the protection of the law is a right conditional upon obedience to that law. Now, that doesn't mean, of course, that if I shoot someone who is speeding I am in the clear. When and how that right is no longer in effect is conditional on how exactly you breached the law. Say, fines. Would you say it is OK for a police officer to walk up to you and say, "Hey, I want $100, so give it to me." No! That would be a violation of your rights if he forced you to hand over the money.

If, on the other hand, I broke the speed limit, the cop could say, "You broke the speed limit, and there's a $100 fine for that." Is this a violation of your "Rights?" No, you broke the law, you pay for it.

While it doesn't really apply to speeding, in cases of more serious crimes, the law is allowed to do things that wouldn't normally be OK to catch a criminal. Police can't shoot people on sight by default, but if a murderer is fleeing, perhaps he can. If you break into someone's house, I feel this is severe enough to (Temporarily) lose the right to legal protection.

If you don't think this is POSSIBLE, than you should be against prisons, and heck, also against fines, and probably any form of criminal punishment. Rights can't be taken away arbitrarily, but some rights are conditional.

This is exactly what I mean, though: rights being posed as granted by adherence to understood social contracts, to be revoked at will by the appropriate authorities, in this case the state. This exist in contradiction to the classical liberal and libertarian perspective in which natural rights are eternal and irrevocable, and merely come into conflict; in which the apparent revocation of the liberties of one individual is in fact the defence of the liberties of the majority.

That's not to say that I endorse said liberal conception of "natural rights"- I'm a filthy red, after all, so my views obviously sit outside of the mainstream- merely that you, for all your enthusiastic self-identification as a "libertarian", do not in practice endorse them yourself.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That doesn't give you the right to just kill someone.

Well, I think I have a human right to not be required to just sit there and allow someone to pillage my house, and if I have to do so, that just encourages the criminal. If I choose to shoot him while he is on my property, even if he is fleeing with stolen goods, I should have a legal right to fire the gun because I have a right to protect my property. Is this the most moral option? Probably not.

I don't always obey the law, should we not prosecute someone if they kill me?

Well, as you saw, I differentiated between serious felonies and more minor infractions. If I break into someone's house, I'm a pretty serious criminal, if I'm speeding, not so much.

The difference also is defined by you harming someone. If you are smoking weed (Don't make this a dispute on the legality or otherwise of doing so) you aren't harming anyone, and so a random passerby obviously has no right to shoot you. If you break into my house, I am your victim, so no matter what I do to you while you are criminalizing me (The moment the crime ends, this is no longer true) I am not guilty. Or at least, I shouldn't be. But the government would rather protect "Criminal's rights."

Personally I think traffic fines are BS so find a better analogy.

What exactly should be done about reckless driving BTW?

 

[bhsup]

Not entirely true. You have a legal concealed carry permit. You start a fight fight. It is your fault. You are winning and your opponent pulls a knife and attempts to use it on you. You shoot and kill them. Yes, you have committed criminal acts and will be going to jail. Will you be convicted of 1st degree, possibly capital murder? Not unless you are engaged in a felony, no. You committed criminal actions in starting the fight. Those criminal actions may be exacerbated during sentencing by the fact that they culminated in homicide. But starting a fight or breaking and entering have break points between them and premeditated or 2nd degree murder. Self-defense is one of those break points. It does apply to those who initiate criminal conduct.

I'm just going by what was gone over in our conceal-carry class under Missouri law. If you begin an incident that eventually ends in you having to use your weapon to defend yourself, you're not getting a pass for self-defense.

 

[civver_764]

Well, I think I have a human right to not be required to just sit there and allow someone to pillage my house, and if I have to do so, that just encourages the criminal. If I choose to shoot him while he is on my property, even if he is fleeing with stolen goods, I should have a legal right to fire the gun because I have a right to protect my property. Is this the most moral option? Probably not.

You don't have a right to kill to protect your property, because it's value will never surpass that of a human life.

Well, as you saw, I differentiated between serious felonies and more minor infractions. If I break into someone's house, I'm a pretty serious criminal, if I'm speeding, not so much.

The difference also is defined by you harming someone. If you are smoking weed (Don't make this a dispute on the legality or otherwise of doing so) you aren't harming anyone, and so a random passerby obviously has no right to shoot you. If you break into my house, I am your victim, so no matter what I do to you while you are criminalizing me (The moment the crime ends, this is no longer true) I am not guilty. Or at least, I shouldn't be. But the government would rather protect "Criminal's rights."

Ok, just don't go around saying "criminals shouldn't be protected" when it's clear that the fact they aren't obeying the law isn't what you're concerned with, it's the fact that they're harming people.

The government is also going to protect your rights(theoretically). It's not an either/or situation.

What exactly should be done about reckless driving BTW?

I don't really care I just know traffic tickets are a load of crap and cops should not have that authority.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm just going by what was gone over in our conceal-carry class under Missouri law. If you begin an incident that eventually ends in you having to use your weapon to defend yourself, you're not getting a pass for self-defense.

That could be statutory under Missouri law or a product of state judicial precedent. It is probably a good call either way in my opinion. This could very easily be common law as I argued above without a statute though. Say you start the fight, you know you are armed(concealed) but your opponent does not. The standard of reasonableness could dictate that since you know you are packing and can withdraw before the situation escalates, you are failing the reasonable action standard by participating in a situation knowing you have an "out" by ending it with lethal force. The very act of initiation/escalation with knowledge of a weapon present could fulfill the mental component of premeditation required for murder. You would essentially have a higher standard for conduct because you have chosen to be armed. This is again appropriate in my opinion.

I don't have a bar license, much less one in Missouri so am unqualified to answer on the specific legal interpretation. In situations like these, unless otherwise specified, we are speaking with inhabitants of 2+ continents so I am falling back on the most widely applicable standard I can, which is typical common law in western societies. Even that is mostly English and colonial. If making a statement pertaining to a specific governing body, it helps if you specify that. A citation would be even more helpful, but legal research is an obtuse enough process it would be unreasonable to hold that as an expectation.

 

[Farm Boy]

What exactly should be done about reckless driving BTW?

In what context? Criminal culpability for reckless driving? Appropriate citizen or police response to witnessing reckless driving?

 

[Flying Pig]

You don't have a right to kill to protect your property, because it's value will never surpass that of a human life.

OK, slightly different question - at what point does it become justified (read: should one be able to walk away from court with) to kill someone else to remove a risk that they pose to your life?

Even if it is law enforcement exercising a no knock warrant?

Oh, for a 'like' button!

 

[JollyRoger]

If someone breaks into my house they are a threat to me and my family. End of story.

Even if it is law enforcement exercising a no knock warrant?

 

[SerriaFox]

Even if it is law enforcement exercising a no knock warrant?

Now I may not know what I talking about but "no knock" doesn't mean silent, doesn't the first thing they do upon entering is yell that their the police? And in appropriately labeled gear?

 

[Flying Pig]

Now I may not know what I talking about but "no knock" doesn't mean silent, doesn't the first thing they do upon entering is yell that their the police? And in appropriately labeled gear?

The point is that they would be breaking in, but not constituting a threat to his life. In other words, the statement was wrong.