Castle doctrine has another success

[Skwink]

edit: why not just not go around attacking each other in the first place? What a novel idea!

Hey, I'm all for that. Just make sure people who break into house to get drugmoney, and the people who break into houses with knives get the memo.

 

[JohnRM]

John, this is not true in Connecticut. I wrote about this concerning the trial I sat on. Self-defense is not at all a 'get out of jail free card'. Specific conditions have to be met, and from the little that's being reported on this, it's too early to tell here.

Granted, the NRA would like people to think that they are within their rights to shoot anyone who tries to enter their house without permission. I'd wager they even help draft legislation to that effect...

The result is that people think they need a gun to protect themselves, that the police are ineffective, that they are justified in killing someone who may not even pose a threat. Better to kill someone than risk that they might steal your laptop or cut your arm...

That's not what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about stealing laptops or even Connecticut specifically. I was talking about, in general. It is my personal belief that if someone attacks you, you have the right to use deadly and overwhelming force to protect yourself and your family. I do not support the use of force to protect personal property.

 

[Grisu]

you've made a lot assumptions in this thread. "If you make a lot of noise going down the stairs, the burglar will run away!" Will maybe in Borachio land. In the real world you do not have a clue what this intruder wants. He may be just a common thief, or he might be a murderer or sex attacker. Do you really want to risk your personal safety and your families safety on a flimsy assumption? Are you really going to run the risk of giving up your position and alerting a criminal by clumsily running down the stairs or are you going to find the heaviest weapon to-hand and sneak downstairs to investigate? (After phoning the police of course).

You're making just as many assumptions. What if it's some ex-commando just itching for a fight with a armed defender, or a Predator? You'll be sorry you grabbed your gun then or something a bit more common, hust a regular thief who happens to be armed. Thing is, I just don't believe that having a gun at home increases your personal safety even slightly

 

[Quackers]

You're making just as many assumptions. What if it's some ex-commando just itching for a fight with a armed defender, or a Predator? You'll be sorry you grabbed your gun then or something a bit more common, hust a regular thief who happens to be armed. Thing is, I just don't believe that having a gun at home increases your personal safety even slightly

Nope. My main assumption is that you have NO IDEA the reasons why a person is in your house and you have no idea what is motivations are. Thats a reasonable assumption to make. Some people think that if you walk heavily upstairs and make your floorboards creak the burglar is going to run away. Thats a dangerous and unreasonable assumption to make.

 

[Borachio]

you've made a lot assumptions in this thread. "If you make a lot of noise going down the stairs, the burglar will run away!" Will maybe in Borachio land. In the real world you do not have a clue what this intruder wants. He may be just a common thief, or he might be a murderer or sex attacker. Do you really want to risk your personal safety and your families safety on a flimsy assumption? Are you really going to run the risk of giving up your position and alerting a criminal by clumsily running down the stairs or are you going to find the heaviest weapon to-hand and sneak downstairs to investigate? (After phoning the police of course).

I have indeed made assumptions. Perfectly reasonable ones based on experience of being repeatedly burglarized (apparently that is a word, though I don't believe it). Though not recently it has to be said. I have also had one or two (people are often reluctant to claim this as an occupation so I can't be certain - in all but two cases) burglars as acquaintances.

A decent burglar of course won't be heard, so what I'm faced with here is:

1) a rank amateur, more than likely of the teenage variety. And, believe me, such a person is not particularly to be feared;

2) a homicidal maniac intent on mischief. (These are fortunately extremely rare. If you have evidence to the contrary then please present it to me.) No doubt faced with such a person my position may well be hopeless but I shall face such a one fearlessly since what do I have to gain by behaving otherwise?

3) a fiend of the vampire, werewolf, zombie type. (These are vanishingly rare, but, again if you have evidence to the contrary then you should present it here, there, everywhere.) I'm still going to face the bgr fearlessly. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

4) a sex fiend. After lulling such a one into a false sense of security, I shall bite his nuts off. That'll learn him. (If it is a him. I think it likely it would be.)

NB A good shillelagh is all the weaponry any householder needs. And I've never had to use one.

 

[Grisu]

Nope. My main assumption is that you have NO IDEA the reasons why a person is in your house and you have no idea what is motivations are. Thats a reasonable assumption to make. Some people think that if you walk heavily upstairs and make your floorboards creak the burglar is going to run away. Thats a dangerous and unreasonable assumption to make.

Yes, it is, but so is getting your gun out and going down to investigate.

 

[Quackers]

Well I haven't mentioned anything about guns.
If you bring your gun down you will likely face two scenarios. You shoot to kill straight away, or you immediately threaten to shoot and the burglar surrenders or attacks you, then you revert to shooting. Either way you have maximised your own personal safety. Getting your gun out is not the first act of agression. The first was the intruder breaking into your home and violating your human right; getting your gun out is meeting that initial agression with overwhelming force to secure your own safety. I'll leave the rights and wrongs of that up to you. But would I feel safer if I know i could rely on a handgun in my bedside locker if i ever heard an intruder? Yes probably - would it make me paranoid? Hopefully not
You will have to carefull explain to me why having a weapon close at hand is equally as safe as having nothing at all. To me thats not evident.

 

[peter grimes]

Getting your gun out is not the first act of agression. The first was the intruder breaking into your home and violating your human right; getting your gun out is meeting that initial agression with overwhelming force...

Here's yet another assumption: that the act of entering a house is aggressive.

I know two people who have done exactly this: a woman who went off her meds, and a sleepwalker.

Neither case was aggressive.

And when discussing burglars it's important to remember that most of the time they are hoping that nobody is home.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. I think anybody keeping a gun in the house is paranoid and foolhardy beyond description.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Here's yet another assumption: that the act of entering a house is aggressive.

I know two people who have done exactly this: a woman who went off her meds, and a sleepwalker.

Neither case was aggressive.

And when discussing burglars it's important to remember that most of the time they are hoping that nobody is home.

So always assume they're benign or always assume they're dangerous? What's wrong with being armed and discretionary?

It seems like everyone here is brainstorming situations that fit their own opinions while ignoring everything else.

And it's not like it matters anyway. Simply possessing a gun in the home for self-defense is not an automatic endorsement of shooting first and asking questions later.

 

[Borachio]

Keeping a gun, though, does give you an option to kill someone.

Why do you want to do this?

It also means it's possible that you will accidentally shoot yourself, shoot someone by mistake, have your own gun turned on you. None of these is possible if you don't have a gun.

 

[innonimatu]

And it's not like it matters anyway. Simply possessing a gun in the home for self-defense is not an automatic endorsement of shooting first and asking questions later.

It doesn't force a person to shoot first and ask later, but it does create the opportunity to do so. And what people seem to be questioning here is if that opportunity is at all desirable. On the one hand you have the situations where having a gun for defense turned out to be a positive thing; on the other, the situations where having a gun escalated situations which would have amounted to little (burglaries?) or no damage (plain mistakes) to the level of killings.
I can understand that in places where the threat of violence is low having people with guns and a mindframe of "self-defense" will lead to more killings.

And regardless of risks of violence, what we are talking about in the event of "shot first and ask questions later" is whether it is worst, when in doubt, to convict an innocent person or let a guilty person go free. Justice in most countries holds that it is best to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person. Even though the guilty persons who go free may go on to commit crimes in the future.

Why, then, make laws that encourage individuals to do the exact opposite? When in doubt, to kill innocent persons in "self-defense" rather than risk being victims of criminals? One standard for society, a different standard for the individual members of society? Because they're individually afraid?

 

[Bugfatty300]

double post.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It doesn't force a person to shoot first and ask later, but it does create the opportunity to do so. And what people seem to be questioning here is if that opportunity is at all desirable. On the one hand you have the situations where having a gun for defense turned out to be a positive thing; on the other, the situations where having a gun escalated situations which would have amounted to little (burglaries?) or no damage (plain mistakes) to the level of killings.
I can understand that in places where the threat of violence is low having people with guns and a mindframe of "self-defense" will lead to more killings.

I don't seem to see it. Most of this thread has been:

Poster A: This and this can happen so it's bad to have a gun.
Poster B: But this and this can happen so it's good to have a gun.
Poster A: What if this happens? Definitely bad to have a gun.
Poster B: But you're forgetting about this and this. It's good to have a gun.

And regardless of risks of violence, what we are talking about in the event of "shot first and ask questions later" is whether it is worst, when in doubt, to convict an innocent person or let a guilty person go free. Justice in most countries holds that it is best to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person. Even though the guilty persons who go free may go on to commit crimes in the future.

Why, then, make laws that encourage individuals to do the exact opposite? When in doubt, to kill innocent persons in "self-defense" rather than risk being victims of criminals? One standard for society, a different standard for the individual members of society? Because they're individually afraid?

You're not seriously trying to argue that doctrines that dictate courts and governments should also apply to individual cases of self-defense? Because that's not a very good path to go down. Trust me, I've been there and done that. But if you really want to then by all means. At least it will be different than Poster A versus Poster B.

 

[Quackers]

Here's yet another assumption: that the act of entering a house is aggressive.

I know two people who have done exactly this: a woman who went off her meds, and a sleepwalker.

Neither case was aggressive.

And when discussing burglars it's important to remember that most of the time they are hoping that nobody is home.

well i used the word "intruder" which implies an individual has forced his/her way into your dwelling. also just because i have a gun doesn't mean i'm going to shoot immediately. i will obviously take the neccessary actions to see whether this person is a sleepwalker, a cat falling off the kitchen table or a professional burglar.

 

[Borachio]

Don't all debates go:

Poster A: This.
Poster B: No, that.
Poster A: But this and this.
Poster B: No, that and t'other.

I don't see what you mean.

Do you mean it should go:

Poster A: Is it this?
Poster B: Well maybe. But it could be that.
Poster A: I see what you mean. But maybe it's something else.
Poster B: Yeah, it could be. We'll never know for sure, will we?

well i used the word "intruder" which implies an individual has forced his/her way into your dwelling. also just because i have a gun doesn't mean i'm going to shoot immediately. i will obviously take the neccessary actions to see whether this person is a sleepwalker, a cat falling off the kitchen table or a professional burglar.

And then shoot them? While they're not looking?

 

[Quackers]

Keeping a gun, though, does give you an option to kill someone.

Why do you want to do this?

It also means it's possible that you will accidentally shoot yourself, shoot someone by mistake, have your own gun turned on you. None of these is possible if you don't have a gun.

To defend yourself, duhh.

 

[Borachio]

You want to kill someone to defend yourself? Why? Is that the best you can do?

I'm sorry it just doesn't make sense to me. Why on earth would I want to kill someone in order to protect myself, or indeed anyone else? Surely by the time things have reached this pretty pass, where it would even be possible, it's simply too late. What kind of idiot would I have to be to put myself in such a situation?

Just don't live in such dangerous places, would seem sensible. I wouldn't dream of building a house in a flood plain or in the mouth of a volcano. Far less would I want to raise babies there.

On the other hand, by presenting an obviously non-threatening appearance I have been able to go all sorts of places that more blatantly capable people have feared to go.

This is a big and interesting subject. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of it.

 

[Quackers]

If it comes down to it yes. If I came downstairs and there was a man with a big machete and he noticed me and charged at me I would shoot to kill. If he stood still I would tell him to drop it or i will kill him. Simples. He gets to choose whether he lives or die.
It's a far, FAR more effective method then making a lot of noise upstairs and hoping to god the criminal runs away.

 

[Crezth]

well i used the word "intruder" which implies an individual has forced his/her way into your dwelling. also just because i have a gun doesn't mean i'm going to shoot immediately. i will obviously take the neccessary actions to see whether this person is a sleepwalker, a cat falling off the kitchen table or a professional burglar.

Or your son. Either way they all get the gun!