Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

Use of disproportionate force described in the OP would have the shooter charged with manslaughter in Australia. I'm comfortable with that.

Oh come on, that is NOT fair. Your per capital crime rate (1.16) is much, much lower than ours (4.8).... wait, um, never mind.

Oh jeez, ours is the highest of most industrialized nations. I wonder if we are doing it wrong.

 

[RandFan]

He has stated that he would use a gun to protect the lives of his neighbors children, he has stated that he would not kill to protect his personal property, he has stated that he would not leave the safety of his home to confront prowlers outside his home, and he has stated that while he would not automatically kill an intruder, he would have no issue with someone killing an intruder if the victim legitimately felt his life to be in danger.

These positions (some of which I disagree with) are not vague and state quite clearly what he thinks should be done.

Thank you. That means a lot to me. I also said:

I accept that protecting property can lead to confrontation and deadly force. I could envision myself being in those circumstances. ... Most people honestly just want to be secure in their homes and not have to fear for losing property. I get that.

 

[Xulld]

My apologies to Randfan then, I clearly have not read this thread very well then.

My only difference of opinion is that I would challenge a break in to my neighbors home, and would "leave the safety of his home to confront prowlers outside his home", and its not about property or vigilante tendencies. I mind my own business in nearly every other regard. I am extremely socially liberal until someone decides to target our community.

Criminals get away with far too much these days. Police response times are high, and often when a criminal has had success in a neighborhood they will then continue to target that neighborhood which places everyone in danger.

I also believe that if we stop challenging crime by waiting for someone else to do it then we are actually enabling that anti-social behavior.

Most criminals get guns from houses they break into, and often sell them on the black market to very bad peeps for very bad purposes.

I would not want to see anyone harmed, but would not hesitate to shoot if a threat of deadly force was perceived after challenging the illegal behavior.

--PS
I think the caricatures, and off hand jibes make reading through threads like these less than appealing, and if you really want someone from the other side to fairly engage you should do the same.

 

[LTC8K6]

let the crook have what he wanted

That's the problem right there.

That's the attitude that is the stumbling block, if you will, in the USA.

Why would you accept that he only wants what he claims?

It's as if you trust the criminal.

What does he have to want before you resist?

 

[RandFan]

That's the attitude that is the stumbling block, if you will, in the USA.

Really? I seriously doubt it. I'll take the null hypothesis. Do have any basis for this or is it just your impression based on personal observation?

 

[LTC8K6]

Really? I seriously doubt it. I'll take the null hypothesis. Do have any basis for this or is it just your impression based on personal observation?

Not among the whole country. Among those who want to defend their property with their guns.

 

[GeeMack]

Curiousier and curiouser.

I'm getting a different impression of RandFans opinion. It reads to me as if he is saying that he can certainly understand why someone wishes to feel secure in their home, and that he can understand that a home invasion might legitimately result in the justifiable use of deadly force - indeed, I suspect that is what he was agreeing with.

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

He may well correct any or all of my understanding of his position. Otherwise, while I don't completely agree with him, I can't imagine thinking his position unreasonable.

None of the Castle laws or Stand-Your-Ground laws, as far as I know, require anyone to defend themselves. What they do is allow it. As far as I'm concerned it's reasonable for anyone to choose to hide in a closet, but I also feel it's reasonable for anyone to choose to defend himself or his family against injury or death, or even to defend his property from damage or theft. It's reasonable for me to establish how the value of my property compares to the value of the life or safety of someone who would try to take it.

Any particular person may believe their life is more valuable than my property, but they shouldn't try to second guess my priorities. If they're concerned that my values don't square with theirs, they can choose to not take my property. If anyone believes someone else's life is more valuable than my property, they shouldn't try to get me to reassess the value of my property. They should try to get the prospective thieves to reassess the value of their lives.

If you don't want to risk getting shot breaking into my house, don't break into my house. If you don't want your kids to risk getting shot stealing my stuff, teach your kids not to steal people's stuff. And if you want to reduce the possibility of other people getting shot breaking into other people's houses, come up with a productive solution to the problem of people breaking into other people's houses. Those who choose to defend themselves or their property in such an instance aren't the problem, and that part of it requires no solution.

 

[RandFan]

Not among the whole country. Among those who want to defend their property with their guns.

I don't understand your answer. Perhaps I don't understand your proposition. I've re-read it and when you say "stumbling block", I'm not sure what that means. I thought you were talking about our high rate of violent crime compared to other countries. Now you say it is "among those who want to defend their property with their guns". I'm sorry but I'm at a loss. Are these people demonstrably failing to protect their property because they trust criminals?

 

[crimresearch]

None of the Castle laws or Stand-Your-Ground laws, as far as I know, require anyone to defend themselves. What they do is allow it. As far as I'm concerned it's reasonable for anyone to choose to hide in a closet, but I also feel it's reasonable for anyone to choose to defend himself or his family against injury or death...

And that gets right to the point.... The right to have a *choice*.

Some people are on record as respecting it whenever rationally possible, while factoring in reasonableness and circumstances, and pointing out that such choices cannot be had with no limits... pointing out that when those limits are exceeded, there should be consequences to protect society

Others are on record as employing any means necessary to support flat out denying choice to others.

 

[RandFan]

Curiousier and curiouser.

I'm getting a different impression of RandFans opinion. It reads to me as if he is saying that he can certainly understand why someone wishes to feel secure in their home, and that he can understand that a home invasion might legitimately result in the justifiable use of deadly force - indeed, I suspect that is what he was agreeing with.

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

He may well correct any or all of my understanding of his position. Otherwise, while I don't completely agree with him, I can't imagine thinking his position unreasonable.

You state my position better than I did. Probably the lack of emotion and snark.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't understand your answer. Perhaps I don't understand your proposition. I've re-read it and when you say "stumbling block", I'm not sure what that means. I thought you were talking about our high rate of violent crime compared to other countries. Now you say it is "among those who want to defend their property with their guns". I'm sorry but I'm at a loss. Are these people demonstrably failing to protect their property because they trust criminals?

No, they are unfamiliar with the attitude of just letting criminals steal their property. It's a strange attitude to them.

 

[RandFan]

No, they are unfamiliar with the attitude of just letting criminals steal their property. It's a strange attitude to them.

Okay, I'm going to let it go. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. But I appreciate the response. Thanks.

 

[Xulld]

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?

See this is where I say no thanks. For all I know my neighbors daughter's and her are walking down the street a block away while I am watching some guy climbing the fence with a bandanna over his face and a knife in his hand.

If I am a coward, or apathetic and cannot confront something I disagree with then I am responsible for when my defenseless neighbors daughter is raped and killed becuase that night she was walking her dog alone. I alone have the knowledge of the threat, and calling the police who are miles away and then wiping my hands of the situation is not an option. (I believe this is the core theme being talked about, that not engaging in challenging that which we disagree with leads to the apathetic enabling of that behavior, that the situation may be dangerous makes this all the more heinous, not less.)

I care about all life, but I care about the people in my neighborhood I have met more, and I care more about the people who choose to engage in reasoned argument to get what they want more than those that use force.

If life was always just as simple as staying inside your house when you see danger outside then this would be a pretty easy assessment.

Life is not always so simple. Perhaps if the situation was less clearly dangerous to any who might stumble on to it I might choose to stay inside.

I think if everyone decided in all such dangerous situations to not get involved then society would be far worse off. I personally do not want to live in a world where no one is willing to challenge wrong doing.

 

[sadhatter]

So property is more important than life?

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

If people valued their own lives over that of the property they were stealing, they wouldn't invade someone's house knowing that this could happen. Why should i be expected to value someone's life more than they do?

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, I'm going to let it go. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. But I appreciate the response. Thanks.

If you were to visit a friend of mine, who lives in a tiny town in Virginia, and tell him that you thought a homeowner should just let a burglar have what he wants, he would cock his head at you, like Nipper.

 

[sadhatter]

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?

And how exactly do you know what the people are planning? Psychic skills like that can win someone a cool million from what i hear.

They could be planning on coming back, they could be planning on coming back with some friends, they could be simply retrieving weapons, among many other things. Once they have loudly stated " I don't give a **** about you." by breaking into my house, they have forfeited all rights to the benefit of the doubt in regards to intentions. And unless it can be assured that the police will be able to catch them before they can come back, a person is well within their rights to stop them, unless unconditional surrender ( waiting for the police to arrive) has been given.

Crime has risks, don't want to get shot for stealing something? Don't steal it, if your life is worth that television to you, so be it, you made that decision, not me.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

What does he have to want before you resist?

My black mask, screw driver and bag marked 'swag'. I need those for w...for a fancy dress party.

 

[sadhatter]

So if it's okay to gun down suspected criminals at your neighbor's house, why not the liquor store down the street?

Because the other psychotic folk should be doing their part to there is only so many guns one guy can own.

Seriously, stop hyperbolizing the living hell out of the argument. If this was an argument about fighting back during a mugging, by your statements, i would assume your logical conclusion would be that people should either just take the beating, or wander around like batman punching out all would be criminals.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

WE don't have the right to shoot them because if we did the cars would drive into oncoming traffic because of the dead idiot behind the wheel. Once we get some kind of autopilot system, i am sure the law will catch up.

Seriously, stop with the insane hyperbole. You don't want to ever hurt anyone? Don't buy any weapons, and don't ever confront anyone doing bad things to you. But don't expect the rest of the world to take the Slow Loris style of self defense , just because you don't value your safety as much as the rest of us.

 

[fuelair]

I have had these kinds of conversations too many times to recount. It always seems the person who is questioning using deadly force in this kind of situation is asking that we consider the thoughts and feelings of the person committing the forcible crime.

However in a situation where actions can be the difference between life and death, I would think most people are only concerned with perceiving actions, and responding to those actions.

Taking all of the danger out of the situation by looking at it from the distance of your couch using abstraction is all well and nice, but it ignores the very real danger brought to your neighborhood by unknown criminals.

No one knows their intent, no one knows their motivations, no one knows their character. Asking us to consider these things with no information about these factors from our comfy couches is all well and nice and we can have a nice abstract conversation about morality, but it is a different thing when you are the person and you are in that situation.

Actions are all that matter is such a situation. Breaking into a home is a violent action, it takes effort, intent to do harm, and offers many potential motivations which could end in a tragedy far worse than the death of the perpetrator.

Day in and day out we see in the news old ladies being raped by violent intruders, criminals pretending to the FBI and breaking in a door, armed men break into a house and shoot the occupants for no real reason. These may be statistically unlikely events, but statistics be damned when you are the person watching it happen.

IMHO a far bigger concern is that no one will choose to help you when you are in that situation because they want to, "mind their own business", or do not want to end up being questioned as if they are the criminal because they are forced to kill an intruder and then need to scramble to prove they feared for their lives.

Community means caring what happens to your neighbor. It means they look out for you, and you look out for them, and again its just my opinion, but when the members of a society stop getting involved in correcting injustice, when citizens are too scared of liability, or do not foster the level of personal responsibility to get involved to place a citizens arrest, or to even just challenge the crime, then the society is harmed for it.

The police, and authority is general is a cop out of personal responsibility. It seems many want the police, and the government to do everything for them in order to shuffle off the responsibility that each of us have to each other and to our communities.

Even the criminal when they enter into a house, get wounded and then try to sue the owner is saying he is not responsible for his own actions. He wants the government to be responsible, he wants the law abiding citizen to be responsible, he wants his child hood to be responsible, he wants anything and everything other than himself to be responsible.

I do not accept this line of thinking. I think it is what degrades society, and removes accountability.

/rant

Good rant!! Well said!!