Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

[twoskinsonemanns]

I think the real problem is whether the burglar was actually a threat to the homeowner or not.
Charles

You err sir. it does not matter if the crook was a "actual threat". It only matters if the the victim "reasonably believes" he was a threat.

Sorry crook but you got killed in the act of a home invasion, I would never convict your killer were I the juror.

 

[XD40sc]

Then the police should not be allowed to use bait cars.

I agree, but apparently some courts have said it is OK. To me it screams entrapment. But at least the cops don't shoot first.

 

[georg jetson]

Sure, because property is actually more important than life itself? (end sarcasm)

That is exactly the image of gun owners that the media, Brady Bunch, and other gun grabbers would like to foster.

Lest anyone think your position is reflective of the larger, gun-owning community let me state for the record that I find your position morally reprehensible and entirely indefensible.

Charles

Some proprty is life... like food. We should leave the victim alone to decide how important his property is.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I agree, but apparently some courts have said it is OK. To me it screams entrapment. But at least the cops don't shoot first.

Entrapment

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. If the crime was promoted by a private person who has no connection to the government, it is not entrapment. A person induced by a friend to sell drugs has no legal excuse when police are informed that the person has agreed to make the sale.

The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

 

[Logan 5]

//snip// Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.//snip

Convicted by his own words ... or 'here-say':question:

Interesting name and event, really.
Kaarma....
Karma....
Hmmm.

 

[utbagpiper]

Some proprty is life... like food. We should leave the victim alone to decide how important his property is.

No. I'm not going to let some crackpot decide that his plastic pink flamingo is more important than the life of a 14 year old pulling a stupid prank.

Life is more important than property.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

You err sir. it does not matter if the crook was a "actual threat". It only matters if the the victim "reasonably believes" he was a threat.

You are correct.

But in this case it appears the homeowner did a fine job of removing all reasonable doubt about whether he actually had any reasonable belief the thief was a threat.

Castle doctrine / defense of habitation laws have the general effect of shifting the burden away from the homeowner by assuming that any home invader is a threat until evidence suggests otherwise. But that legal assumption is subject to challenge and if the evidence shows a homeowner used deadly force when he reasonably knew it wasn't needed, we are no longer talking about defense of life or limb nor anything else justified; we are instead talking about an execution or vengeance.

Sorry crook but you got killed in the act of a home invasion, I would never convict your killer were I the juror.

It would take some very strong evidence that the homeowner used deadly force when it was not justified before I'd part company with you. I wasn't on the jury and can't say for sure, but this case might have had sufficient evidence to that end. I am loathe to criticize juries too often.

But anyone who acts with the hope that he gets you, me, or another person of like mind on his jury is all but volunteering for a long stay at the grey bar hotel. Prosecutors are not generally stupid and they don't tend to put self-defense enthusiasts on juries. Not to derail a thread, but as an aside I'll note that I'm more concerned about the broken voir dire process in our courts than I am with police violence on the streets. The latter is relatively rare and generally condemned when it comes to light; the former is common and routinely accepted as appropriate.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

So having an alarm system is illegal now?

I have had to leave a garage door cracked at night while I was allowing air circulation to clear out chemical vapors from stripping/finishing wood, cleaning car parts, and stripping/repainting firearms.

I did not mean to get lost in the details. Of course an alarm is legal. Of course it is legal to leave your garage door open. I have never accepted the false notion that I might "help a good kid go bad" by failing to secure my property like Fort Knox. I resent having to lock up everything of value lest it walk away. I resent the keys in my pocket that represent the costs we bear to keep the parasite scum from robbing us blind.

But in the totality of circumstances, it appears this homeowner did not act with any reasonable belief he was in danger. He acted out of vengeance and with gross regard for human life.

A violent criminal assaults a cop who then shoots him and we have people asking which of the criminal's conduct deserved a sentence of death.

Here, we have a non-violent thief shot dead with a fair bit of evidence the homeowner was not in any danger, and knew he wasn't in any danger, and some think the homeowner ought to get a full pass?

As for shooting someone who is stealing property, well I equate property as part of my life because I have had to exchange part of my life to acquire that property. So, if you decide to steal from me, I take it as you're trying to take my life in one way shape or form and thus deadly force would be appropriate.

While your position is not irrational, it is morally reprehensible. Unless we're talking about a survival situation and someone trying to steal your food, the theft of property does not endanger your life. It is a violation of your rights, an inconvenience, and an insurable event. It does not place your life and limb in imminent danger.

It is morally repugnant to deliberately shed human blood over mere property. And so far as I know, with very rare exception, the laws of this nation and the several States reflect that. Even castle doctrine / defense of habitation laws are premised on the notion that anyone willing to invade an occupied home poses a threat to everyone in the home. These laws are based on defending life far more than defending property.

Also, what was the home owner supposed to do? Call the police?

Yes.

He might have also not deliberately left valuables out for thieves to easily steal. He is legally entitled to do so, of course. But having chosen to do so, he should not be shocked when thieves steal his valuables.

You have no right to police protection and the police are not that great at actually catching B&E thieves. I got to talk to one in jail one of the times I was arrested. He had committed over 100 in just one county and over 100 in the neighboring county and that was just what he was admitting to through a reduced sentence plea deal so the police could close those cases.

He told me how he did it and the only way the police caught him was through a tracked laptop computer and someone who snitched on him when the sale came back on the snitch.

I share your frustration. I've been the victim of home burglaries twice, fortunately while no one was home. I have felt the initial anger, the sense of violation, the desire to exact revenge. But at the end of the day, I'm glad I wasn't in a position where I felt the need to use deadly force to defend myself or my family. I think taking a human life would be a much heavier burden to bear than was the loss of some property.

And I simply cannot countenance the notion that in our society, any moral, decent man really wants to see another human dead over property, and certainly the kind of property than can be quickly picked up and carried out of a garage. Yes, we need to better deal with thieves. We need to recognize such crimes are not "petty", they deserve significant punishment and then require real restitution to the victims.

But at the end of the day, human life has to trump property. Even the life of a scum sucking parasite is worth more than mere property. Give me reasonable cause to believe my life or limb are in danger and I'll use whatever force is necessary. But theft doesn't threaten my life or limb.

Charles

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Not to derail a thread, but as an aside I'll note that I'm more concerned about the broken voir dire process in our courts than I am with police violence on the streets. The latter is relatively rare and generally condemned when it comes to light; the former is common and routinely accepted as appropriate.

Charles

In this I agree with you.

 

[georg jetson]

No. I'm not going to let some crackpot decide that his plastic pink flamingo is more important than the life of a 14 year old pulling a stupid prank.

Life is more important than property.

Charles

Well good.

And im not gonna let a politically motivated, greedy, self serving government tell me how I can defend my property.

Saying something naive like "Life is more important than property" is insinuating that life exists in a vacuum. Spend some time reflecting on your position.

 

[Aknazer]

"Life is more important than property" let's see you argue that when the government kills someone for simply breaking into a restricted area or for refusing to obey a command even though they don't act in a threatening manner.

I'm sorry, but generally speaking killers don't start as killers. They start with smaller crimes and you never know when they might flip. I understand why this particular person was convicted and given the laws I agree (though I disagree with the laws, I see nothing to make them unconstitutional and thus allow me to reasonably find the person not guilty if I were on the jury). IMO it was both this guy's mouth and the fact that he blindly fired without ever seeing the criminal that got him convicted. I don't care how many times one's house is robbed, you should always feel threatened when it happens as you never know when the criminal might flip on you. Also you should always have gotten eyes on your target before firing. Now if they duck behing cover/concealment that is one thing. But to open fire on something/someone that you haven't seen is wrong as that means you aren't able to identify an actual threat.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I did not mean to get lost in the details. Of course an alarm is legal. Of course it is legal to leave your garage door open. I have never accepted the false notion that I might "help a good kid go bad" by failing to secure my property like Fort Knox. I resent having to lock up everything of value lest it walk away. I resent the keys in my pocket that represent the costs we bear to keep the parasite scum from robbing us blind.

But in the totality of circumstances, it appears this homeowner did not act with any reasonable belief he was in danger. He acted out of vengeance and with gross regard for human life.

Sorry the criminal risked his life to steal from others. This time he lost.

A violent criminal assaults a cop who then shoots him and we have people asking which of the criminal's conduct deserved a sentence of death.

Here, we have a non-violent thief shot dead with a fair bit of evidence the homeowner was not in any danger, and knew he wasn't in any danger, and some think the homeowner ought to get a full pass?

If you're breaking into a home in someway shape or form, you have agreed that your life has no more value.

While your position is not irrational, it is morally reprehensible. Unless we're talking about a survival situation and someone trying to steal your food, the theft of property does not endanger your life. It is a violation of your rights, an inconvenience, and an insurable event. It does not place your life and limb in imminent danger.

It is morally repugnant to deliberately shed human blood over mere property. And so far as I know, with very rare exception, the laws of this nation and the several States reflect that. Even castle doctrine / defense of habitation laws are premised on the notion that anyone willing to invade an occupied home poses a threat to everyone in the home. These laws are based on defending life far more than defending property.

The founders of this great nation shed blood and took lives over violations of rights.

By your logic, if it only violates your rights and could be a mere inconvenience to you then you cannot take the life of another. You do not need your hands to live, it's just an inconvenience to have them removed. It's been shown to not kill people by removing their hands. feet, arms, legs, eyes, etc. So why bother defending your rights/property?

Yes.

He might have also not deliberately left valuables out for thieves to easily steal. He is legally entitled to do so, of course. But having chosen to do so, he should not be shocked when thieves steal his valuables.

She was deliberating wearing a suggestive dress, she is, of course, legally entitled to do so, but having chosen to do so, she should not have been shocked to be raped. Rape is just an inconvenience and a violation of rights after all.

I share your frustration. I've been the victim of home burglaries twice, fortunately while no one was home. I have felt the initial anger, the sense of violation, the desire to exact revenge. But at the end of the day, I'm glad I wasn't in a position where I felt the need to use deadly force to defend myself or my family. I think taking a human life would be a much heavier burden to bear than was the loss of some property.

So, no-one was home.... That is odd, the case that this thread is about was about a home owner who was on vacation? No, it is about a home owner who was home.

And I simply cannot countenance the notion that in our society, any moral, decent man really wants to see another human dead over property, and certainly the kind of property than can be quickly picked up and carried out of a garage. Yes, we need to better deal with thieves. We need to recognize such crimes are not "petty", they deserve significant punishment and then require real restitution to the victims.

But at the end of the day, human life has to trump property. Even the life of a scum sucking parasite is worth more than mere property. Give me reasonable cause to believe my life or limb are in danger and I'll use whatever force is necessary. But theft doesn't threaten my life or limb.

Charles

My property is worth more to me than your life is, when you take my property by force. I, personally, am not interested in seeing more people dying over property, that is why I would stem the spread of those who wish to do so by making only those whom I catch stealing from me, the end of the line for their shallow gene pool.

Each case is different and mercy is to be delivered as needed. I might have loaded with rock salt coated in hot pepper oils some time.

 

[Freedom1Man]

"Life is more important than property" let's see you argue that when the government kills someone for simply breaking into a restricted area or for refusing to obey a command even though they don't act in a threatening manner.

I'm sorry, but generally speaking killers don't start as killers. They start with smaller crimes and you never know when they might flip. I understand why this particular person was convicted and given the laws I agree (though I disagree with the laws, I see nothing to make them unconstitutional and thus allow me to reasonably find the person not guilty if I were on the jury). IMO it was both this guy's mouth and the fact that he blindly fired without ever seeing the criminal that got him convicted. I don't care how many times one's house is robbed, you should always feel threatened when it happens as you never know when the criminal might flip on you. Also you should always have gotten eyes on your target before firing. Now if they duck behing cover/concealment that is one thing. But to open fire on something/someone that you haven't seen is wrong as that means you aren't able to identify an actual threat.

I agree, sight your target and be sure of your target.

I knew a guy who put a few shells of rock salt into the neighbor's meth-head son. He was tired of having his garage robbed and started sleeping in the garage.
Someone broke in under cover of darkness, he pumped a few shells of rock-salt in to the intruder and the intruder left. The neighbor came over and complained about her son being full of holes. Buddy told her, well, I shot someone with rock-salt when they where breaking into my garage. If he does not want to be shot, he should have never broken into my garage and stolen my property. That neighbor packed up and moved shortly after that.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--
My property is worth more to me than your life is, when you take my property by force. I, personally, am not interested in seeing more people dying over property, that is why I would stem the spread of those who wish to do so by making only those whom I catch stealing from me, the end of the line for their shallow gene pool.

--snipped--
Someone broke in under cover of darkness, he pumped a few shells of rock-salt in to the intruder and the intruder left. The neighbor came over and complained about her son being full of holes. Buddy told her, well, I shot someone with rock-salt when they where breaking into my garage. If he does not want to be shot, he should have never broken into my garage and stolen my property. That neighbor packed up and moved shortly after that.

Each of these would seem to be an illegal act in most states (all but Texas?) and could well get someone a lengthy prison term.

"It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...criminalLaw/defenses/ProtectionofProperty.asp

"Use of deadly force is never justified to protect Personal Property other than a dwelling. For example, a person would not be justified in shooting a person who is taking an automobile, no matter how expensive. Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to protect such personal property."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

 

[Aknazer]

Each of these would seem to be an illegal act in most states (all but Texas?) and could well get someone a lengthy prison term.

"It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...criminalLaw/defenses/ProtectionofProperty.asp

"Use of deadly force is never justified to protect Personal Property other than a dwelling. For example, a person would not be justified in shooting a person who is taking an automobile, no matter how expensive. Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to protect such personal property."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

1) I would think that rock salt would be a reasonable less-lethal use of force to protect one's property if they aren't in fear of their life. Why would it not be?

2) This comes down to one's personal view, but if one breaks into your house/garage would it not be reasonable to have a fear for one's life? Sure one might not be "afraid," but why aren't they? If it is because they have a weapon then could it be more of a placebo and at the root they are still concerned for their safety? For example if someone has a knife but I have a gun I might not be afraid of them. Not because they can't kill me, but because of my (potentially misplaced) faith in my skills and weapon.

Sure in the past they haven't harmed me and mine, but what is to say that this isn't the time that they decide they want more and will go through me and mine to get it? As such I could see someone not being afraid, but yet still being threatened.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

1) I would think that rock salt would be a reasonable less-lethal use of force to protect one's property if they aren't in fear of their life. Why would it not be?

I would assume that rock salt traveling at 1200fps plus out of most shotgun shells up to 20 feet or so would be very deadly maybe farther.

Even through rock salt is fairly light weigh it is hard and in fairly decent size chunks at close range I sure it would cause a decent wound.

Even with less then lethal rounds One has to be very careful with the range and target areas. Plus the chance of blinding or maiming would be high.

I don't think that firing a firearm at some one your not intent of harming is a good idea.

 

[Grim_Night]

Each of these would seem to be an illegal act in most states (all but Texas?) and could well get someone a lengthy prison term.

"It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...criminalLaw/defenses/ProtectionofProperty.asp

"Use of deadly force is never justified to protect Personal Property other than a dwelling. For example, a person would not be justified in shooting a person who is taking an automobile, no matter how expensive. Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to protect such personal property."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

In Washington state, the use of deadly force is justified when used against one who is committing a felony.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Since residential burglary is a felony, one would be justified in using deadly force to defend against such crime. So I think that in this case, Grapeshot is wrong. If anybody commits a felony in my presence for example, Washington state law provides a defense for the use of deadly force.

In addition, if anyone enters my home without my knowledge and/or permission, I do not know their intentions or if they are armed. I will respond with any and all force needed to stop a potential thread to myself and those inside my home. This especially goes for if someone were to enter my home in the middle of the night when visibility is drastically reduced and my ability to determine if the uninvited individual is armed with anything more then a feather duster.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--
Grapeshot is wrong. If anybody commits a felony in my presence for example, Washington state law provides a defense for the use of deadly force.

In addition, if anyone enters my home without my knowledge and/or permission, I do not know their intentions or if they are armed. I will respond with any and all force needed to stop a potential thread (sic) to myself and those inside my home. This especially goes for if someone were to enter my home in the middle of the night when visibility is drastically reduced and my ability to determine if the uninvited individual is armed with anything more then a feather duster.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken

The words I have quoted are the words of the legal community who have provided us with a well of knowledge from which we can drink or not.

When a person takes another human life which is potentially a major felony, an arrest and charges will frequently follow. Then in court one will have the opportunity to first plead guilty but with either a justifiable or an excusable homicide exception. The huge problem is that the defendant (you) will invest considerable time and a LOT of money to present the best defense possible + you might lose and become a ward of the state.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+or+Excusable+Homicide

Stop a potential threat? PLEASE don't do this. Your son/daughter could be thought to be an intruder potentially. A neighbor with one too many not wanting wake his wife came to your house by mistake. Stop real threats not potential threats. Isn't everyone a potential threat? (rhetorical)

Even if you are justified in using lethal force, you may be sued civilly and have to live with your life altering decision for a long time.

What would I do? I don't know yet, depends on a lot, but I won't share that here in any event.

 

[Grim_Night]

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken

The words I have quoted are the words of the legal community who have provided us with a well of knowledge from which we can drink or not.

When a person takes another human life which is potentially a major felony, an arrest and charges will frequently follow. Then in court one will have the opportunity to first plead guilty but with either a justifiable or an excusable homicide exception. The huge problem is that the defendant (you) will invest considerable time and a LOT of money to present the best defense possible + you might lose and become a ward of the state.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+or+Excusable+Homicide

Stop a potential threat? PLEASE don't do this. Your son/daughter could be thought to be an intruder potentially. A neighbor with one too many not wanting wake his wife came to your house by mistake. Stop real threats not potential threats. Isn't everyone a potential threat? (rhetorical)

Even if you are justified in using lethal force, you may be sued civilly and have to live with your life altering decision for a long time.

What would I do? I don't know yet, depends on a lot, but I won't share that here in any event.

Again, you are assuming things. I was speaking for myself only based on Washington state laws only. Only 2 people have keys to my home, my roommate and myself. There is only 1 way into my current apartment that is a "normal" entry way, the front door. All other ways of gaining access to the apartment are through a window or through the deck. Since I live on the 2nd floor, those are improbable access points. So again, if anybody enters my home without my permission/knowledge, they are committing a crime of at least a felony level. I am fully justified in using lethal force to stop a threat to my safety.

I have no children so I don't have to worry about a kid coming home late at night. I and my roommate keep the doors locked even when we are home. So anyone seeking to gain entrance to our home without permission/knowledge would need to force entry. Again, this is a felony per Washington state law. I suffer from physical disability that limits my range of motion as well as my ability to move swiftly. This means, I am more susceptible to attack with limited choices to defend myself.

Again, I am speaking for myself only based on the laws of my state.

 

[Grapeshot]

Again, you are assuming things. I was speaking for myself only based on Washington state laws only. --snipped for brevity--

Again, I am speaking for myself only based on the laws of my state.

I made no assumption. My reply was as much for other readers as it was to you - the conditions suggested are simply examples.

Could your roommate have gone out w/o your knowing it, could he becoming back from the kitchen or LR, could he be sleep walking? Some of the possible misunderstanding was in your original choice of words.

I'm not debating your state laws or your right to defend yourself.....hope you never need to exercise that right, but it is good that you are prepared.