Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[sarge]

I'm of two minds on SYG laws.

On one hand, I believe that it is perfectly okay to shoot someone that is stealing from me. I don't buy the "no property is worth a human life" line of thinking at all. Frankly, all of my stuff is worth someone else's life if they are trying to steal it from me.

On the other hand, I do not trust anyone but me to be responsible enough to only shoot the guilty. in fact, i'm not sure I trust me that much. I can imagine that, if confronted with the opportunity, I'd weild a gun and make threats to use it, but if the thiefs simply bolted, I'd probably not shoot.

 

[NoahFence]

So property is more important than life?

I'm sorry but laws that let people go around killing people is BS.

MY property is.

You break into my house, you leave in a body bag.

Period.

 

[Bikewer]

I recall discussing this case when it came out.
I would imagine that here in Missouri, Hill would have been indicted, but that he could likely have presented a defense that would have been effective.
This would depend on a number of things which are not clearlly presented in the Wiki. Hill did have the right to attempt a citizen's arrest; the suspects were patently committing a felony in his presence.
Once he does this, he is justified in using force should the suspects resist. The problem arises from the "resistance" part.
According to the Wiki, one suspect entered his yard (evidently just open ground) and "came at him" while apparently attempting to flee. Hill does not know the suspect's intentions at this point, and might have been justified in firing.
However, he did not, and instead (according to the article) shot the individual in the back as he went by. No specifics are given for why he shot the other suspect, how close that individual was, or his positon. The suspects were apparently not armed and it's unknown if they made any verbal threats.
In order to avoid indictment, or to win against a charge of homicide in court, he would have to prove that he was "reasonably in fear of his life". This would be a hard sell considering the circumstances as given, at least "in these parts".
The prosecution would argue that he left a place of safety to confront the criminals, in spite of being told not to, and that he apparently shot the suspects as they were fleeing.

We (police) would not be justified in firing under these circumstances.


In Texas, with a long tradition of defending one's "land" against tresspass, and with a long history of violent response to crime... This might be a hard case to make to a jury. Only one would need to be convinced Hill was in the right.

 

[Psi Baba]

It's like this: If you creep into a cave and poke a sleeping bear with a sharp stick, guess what's going to happen. And it's your own stupid fault.

 

[RandFan]

It's almost always best for you to choose where the confrontation occurs, rather than let them decide, if a confrontation seems inevitable.

If you call the police I think they are going to tell you to stay in your home and leave the Dirty Harry stuff to the cops.

 

[RandFan]

MY property is.

You break into my house, you leave in a body bag.

Period.

IMO: Someone entering your house doesn't give you a license to kill them. That said, if someone entered your house and ended up dead I wouldn't run to JREF to start thread about it. Absent evidence to the contrary I would assume you reasonably feared for your life.

Had this situation been about someone who had entered the home of the shooter then this thread wouldn't even exist. So, by all means, have at it Hoss.

 

[NoahFence]

IMO: Someone entering your house doesn't give you a license to kill them. That said, if someone entered your house and ended up dead I wouldn't run to JREF to start thread about it. Absent evidence to the contrary I would assume you reasonably feared for your life.

Had this situation been about someone who had entered the home of the shooter then this thread wouldn't even exist. So, by all means, have at it Hoss.

If they enter my house with the intent of harming me or my family, they're dead. I'll deal with the consequenses later.

Again, very easy way to prevent this. Don't break into my house.

If they come in with the intent of stealing from me, they'll wish they were dead. I'm not going to step aside and allow them to do whatever they want, like you apparently are willing to do. I worked hard for my stuff, my house. I'll be damned if some lowlife is going to bypass hard work just so he or she can take whatever they want. NO WAY.

 

[fuelair]

Mr. Horn had every right to go confront the burglars and arrest them.

From the Texas Criminal Code:
Horn saw two men committing a felony in his presence. Texas law gives him the right to go and make a citizen's arrest--the same right a peace officer might have. So whatever the dispatcher may have said to him was a bunch of bunk as far as the law is concerned--bunkum, hogwash, humbug, etc etc.

Whether he had the right to shoot them is a different story, but it appears that the grand jury found that he was justified in doing so.

According to best info he told them to stop and they kept moving towards him. That was, as it proved, not wise of them.

 

[RandFan]

Do you feel lucky...

Exactly.

But why stop at your neighbor's house? Fire up that police scanner. Liquor store down the street being robbed? Better grab your gun and get down there before they make their way to your house.

The smart play might be to just drive around with a sawed-off in your lap. You never know what kind of unsavory types are out lurking around that might eventually try to break into your home.

...well do ya punk?

 

[RandFan]

I'm not trying to be a prick toward you or anything, I (usually) disagree with your opinions and (usually) admire how you present them.

If I were to hop a flight to SoCal, drive out to your casa and try to help myself to the nice electronics suite that I know you keep in you vehicle, would you feel compelled by law to stand idly by and wait for police?

For the record, I'd be more likely to show up with a nice single malt and hours of innane stories of past exploits. Deadly force would certainly be justified at some point there as well.

Thanks. I don't think anything I have is worth your life. You would have to revert back to a 1st trimester fetus for me to think anything I have is worth terminating your existence. I really do value human life for its own sake.

But I understand your point. There are evil people in this world but there are also people who make mistakes. No, I would absolutely wait for the police. I would be very angry. I would feel violated. No question about it. But I would not escalate the situation and that's my honest opinion.

 

[RandFan]

In December of 1974 I was abducted at knifepoint in a quirky case of mistaken identity. Once the mistake was discovered, there was talk of how to dispose of my body. Had I a handgun, I would've shot these motherlovers until I tired of it. And in Illinois, in 1974 I would have probably faced at bare minimum a weapons charge.

My escape was quirky as well, dumb luck in fact, but I dream about the incident a few times a year; I really don't care about the rightious indignation some display over SYG or concealed carry or self-defense. If one abuses those statutes, incarcerate, but don't tell me I can't defend myself.

I've no problem with self defense. I'm sorry that happened to you.

 

[fuelair]

Strangely enough, I've managed to live my entire life so far, without ever being even implausibly accused of a crime.

Of course, I've only lived a tiny fraction of that life in Texas... Where I guess my habit of robbing residences and threatening neighbors with deadly force would get me "plausibly" accused of commiting a crime.

What a good thing I live in California, where if anybody shot me during a robbery, I would be the victim!

California is not a state I would live in by choice, neither are New York or New Jersey. All three and some others have features that would tempt me, BUT none of them have immediate response police teams and all of them have laws that can be used to make criminals into victims and at the same time make the criminals "victims". Just does not sit well with me.

 

[RandFan]

Actually it's simpler than that. If you don't want to get killed while robbing someone's house, don't rob someone's house.

Exactly, what good is two thousand years of social and moral progress? Kill the, kill them all. Let god sort it out.

Don't want to die? Don't drive recklessly. Every year thousands die due to aggressive drivers. Why shouldn't we have the right to shoot them? Your logic does have a certain base appeal.

Win win.

 

[fuelair]

Oh hell that is so damn simple. Okay, here it is. If you are safe in your home with a loaded weapon and burglars are out side and don't appear to want to enter your home, stay in your **** ing house.

Any questions?

Sure, and not trying to be a smart ass, what if the burglars are entering your neighbors house and the neighbor has small children, say two of them, and the neighbor is a trucker who is not at home. I mention this because....that covers one of the choices I might have to make. Fortunately I am in Florida where that choice is a safe one to make. And no, I would not have done what Zimmerman did even with the best of intentions (and I do not think he had best of intentions).

 

[RandFan]

I worked hard for my stuff, my house. I'll be damned if some lowlife is going to bypass hard work just so he or she can take whatever they want. NO WAY.

So after all the fear of life stuff we get to the crux of the matter. Okay. For you, your property is more important than the life of those who would take it. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Resume]

Exactly, what good is two thousand years of social and moral progress? Kill the, kill them all. Let god sort it out.

Don't want to die? Don't drive recklessly. Every year thousands die due to aggressive drivers. Why shouldn't we have the right to shoot them? Your logic does have a certain base appeal.

Win win.

What about the intentions of the home invader? They certainly haven't made any social or moral progress. Go ahead, take my big screen sir, would you like me to hold the door?

I'm not saying blast away, but what business does anyone have in my house uninvited. Much can be avoided by just staying out of homes not your own.

 

[RandFan]

California is not a state I would live in by choice, neither are New York or New Jersey. All three and some others have features that would tempt me, BUT none of them have immediate response police teams and all of them have laws that can be used to make criminals into victims and at the same time make the criminals "victims". Just does not sit well with me.

So, this is based on intuition and not statistical data. Wouldn't that be irrational?

 

[RandFan]

Sure, and not trying to be a smart ass, what if the burglars are entering your neighbors house and the neighbor has small children...

Let me stop you there. I'd be over to my neighbor's house in a heart beat. This is about killing people for property.

 

[GeeMack]

If you call the police I think they are going to tell you to stay in your home and leave the Dirty Harry stuff to the cops.

As long as you continue to frame these arguments in a way that makes victims out of the burglars, home invaders, and thieves, and makes those defending their property or their neighbors' property into some kind of bad guys, you're not likely to make much headway. You are clearly wrong in the roles you're attributing to the players.

Here's a thought: If you want to see less criminals getting killed, preach to the criminals. Teach them how to be stealthier, or how to figure out which houses are empty, or how to case the joint better so as not to get caught. Maybe get those criminals to arm themselves better and tell them to shoot first to avoid getting shot by those pesky citizens who so ruthlessly defend their lives, homes, and property. Like I suggested in another post, put your valuables out on the porch, put a sign on your door that says, "Thieves welcome here," maybe invite them in for a glass of lemonade. Then they won't be bothering the people who might shoot them. Or you could let them know the risks. Tell them that if they choose to commit those kinds of crimes they just might die in the process.

About the Castle Doctrine, Stand-Your-Ground laws, etc., ain't it grand that you're not required to shoot anyone? You can hide in a closet, run away, or even help them carry your property out to their cars. It gives you the freedom to establish whatever value you choose for your own stuff and do as you see fit to protect it... or not.

But really, framing your argument in a way that makes the crooks into some kind of victims for getting killed in the line of duty, in a high risk job they chose, is just silly. With the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground, the crooks understand their risks are increased. If it's not a deterrent, at least they know the chance they're taking. How about doing the sensible thing and figure out a way to get those people to stop committing those crimes instead of advocating for more comfortable, safer working conditions for the criminals.

 

[fuelair]

Violent crime is way down since the castle doctrine laws have been passed.

Shhhhhh! You don't want to let truth scare anybody 'round these parts! And for somethings sake just DO NOT bring up the crimes rates in New York and California compared to castle/stand ground states.