Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

Lots of black and white thinking in this thread.

Agreed.

 

[triforcharity]

Now. Let's say someone is breaking into your home, you're armed. The burglar has the intention of stealing your property, but you don't know that, so you draw your gun, after calling 911, that is.

You confront the burglar.

There are two possibilities:

1. He is unarmed and backs off, runs away. Problem solved, let the cops handle the rest. Worst case scenario you've lost an inanimate object. Where I live, the police response time is very short, and I don't even live in city. They wouldn't get far.

2. He attacks you, he is armed with a gun or a knife. You have the advantage, you shoot. You've defended yourself.

That is, if you chose confrontation at all.

I really couldn't live with having shot someone because of some thing. "I've killed a person, but I sure defended my TV."

I value a human life above all.

I agree that human life is valuable. However, when the hilited occurred, it is not longer about property, it is about your/my life, and i'll be damned if I am going to get hurt because of someone else's ignorance.

And, when it comes to being in your home, are you willing to be your life, or the life and safety of your family that the only intention is to steal your tv?

I'm not. But, that is just my opinion, and you of course are free to disagree, and I won't think any differently, nor will I think your opinion is silly.

To each his own.

Cheers!

 

[epepke]

I really couldn't live with having shot someone because of some thing. "I've killed a person, but I sure defended my TV."

I value a human life above all.

I value my life, quite frankly, more than I value the life of a burglar. I even value it more than I value your life. Which, by the way, was why my grandparents left your fine peace-loving country, so as not to get gassed with Zyklon-B.

In any event, I would not kill someone for property (except that I might, yes, if it were, say, an invading force that wanted to take over the country). However, the idea that self-defense is for property seems based on rather a bizarre model of criminal behavior, where all burglars are law-abiding citizens who never drink alcohol or do drugs, let alone rob to support their habits, where there is never such a thing as a home invasion, or rape, or carjacking and then killing the driver. Where criminals are just tickety-boo and it is offensive to question their honor, honesty, and bona fides.

So, if you want to, let the burglar in because of your trust that he will not harm you if you just give him stuff. In fact, I approve of that behavior, because I think that it serves a useful eugenic effect.

As for myself, anyone who threatens me is forfeit. This does not mean that I will always react by rendering the miscreant unconscious with a firearm, and, in fact, I have survived half a century without the need to do it. Neither, however, does it mean that I will engage in a lot of, or even any, hand-wringing if it seems to me the appropriate thing to do and I am in a position where I can do it.

 

[RandFan]

Some substantive posts. Thanks.

 

[Greedo]

I agree that human life is valuable. However, when the hilited occurred, it is not longer about property...

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

However, the idea that self-defense is for property seems based on rather a bizarre model of criminal behavior, where all burglars are law-abiding citizens who never drink alcohol or do drugs, let alone rob to support their habits, where there is never such a thing as a home invasion, or rape, or carjacking and then killing the driver. Where criminals are just tickety-boo and it is offensive to question their honor, honesty, and bona fides.

I wasn't talking about self defense. I was responding to those that think it's okay to shoot someone because he stole someone's, or that person's property. Self defense is a completely different issue.

I haven't encountered anyone that fits what you described.

So, if you want to, let the burglar in because of your trust that he will not harm you if you just give him stuff. In fact, I approve of that behavior, because I think that it serves a useful eugenic effect...

Straw. Nobody just "lets in" a burglar.
Nobody here thinks it's okay to break into people's homes and steal. Nobody thinks these criminals are just harmless misled kids.

.. I even value it more than I value your life. Which, by the way, was why my grandparents left your fine peace-loving country, so as not to get gassed with Zyklon-B.

And that had to do what exactly...with anything?

 

[luchog]

You confront the burglar.

There are two possibilities:

1. He is unarmed and backs off, runs away. Problem solved, let the cops handle the rest. Worst case scenario you've lost an inanimate object. Where I live, the police response time is very short, and I don't even live in city. They wouldn't get far.

This is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that it isn't; even though the likelihood of the criminal being apprehended is almost nil in most areas of the US.

2. He attacks you, he is armed with a gun or a knife. You have the advantage, you shoot. You've defended yourself.

That is, if you chose confrontation at all.

I really couldn't live with having shot someone because of some thing. "I've killed a person, but I sure defended my TV."

See, this is where it stops being reasonable and turns to pure irrational emotionalism. If he attacks you, you're not defending your TV, you're defending yourself. It amazes me that people simply don't get that. I personally would have no problem shooting someone under those circumstances. I wouldn't be happy about it; but I wouldn't have a huge breakdown over it either. Just treat it as an unfortunate fact of life and move on.

 

[luchog]

I will take the null hypothesis to your claim that having guns and shooting thief's lowers crime rates. I honestly don't know. I'm skeptical that your plan will A.) lower crime rates. B.) is worth the risk.

If you have any evidence for your claim I will consider it.

First, provide evidence I ever made such a claim. You seem to be quite fond of putting words in people's mouth in this thread. First, you accuse me of saying that I would defend property with lethal force, which I have clearly refuted, and now this. Honestly, I expected better of you.

 

[luchog]

If that is true then I would be a bit more understanding. I lived in a gang infested area of LA county for two years. We had problems but nothing, nothing even close to that. I would guess you live in the worst area in America.

So yeah, if it's utter anarchy where you live then I wouldn't berate you for patrolling at night with guns. If it were me I'd move to the gang infested neighborhoods of Los Angeles. They are much better.

This is just plain ludicrious, and unworthy of you.

 

[Greedo]

See, this is where it stops being reasonable and turns to pure irrational emotionalism. If he attacks you, you're not defending your TV, you're defending yourself. It amazes me that people simply don't get that. I personally would have no problem shooting someone under those circumstances. I wouldn't be happy about it; but I wouldn't have a huge breakdown over it either. Just treat it as an unfortunate fact of life and move on.

Oh boy, it seems you too have misunderstood me.

I see it exactly like you do!

Of course, defending yourself is perfectly right.

I do think that my "point 2" describes a reasonable reaction.


I think I wrote it in a confusing way.

 

[abaddon]

Neighbors often look out for each other's property, though.

I live in a small town and it would take a lot of restraint on my part to just sit and watch two crooks rob a neighbor's house while waiting for the police to arrive.

I would probably just wait though if it seems like it's just a property crime. Maybe take their picture if I can. But then they might see me taking their pic and take offense.

At least the Horn case went to a GJ and Horn himself testified.

Well, I have to agree. I look out for my own stuff. But when I am not about, my neighbours look out for my stuff, and vice-versa. It's quid pro quo.

 

[luchog]

You quoted me and argued RandFan. I am uncertain as to how to respond. I do consider using deadly force to protect personal property to be justifiable under some circumstances.

Despite Randfan's insistence that his psychic ability allows him to know my thoughts better than I do, I do not consider the use of deadly force justifiable to defend property. But since I do not possess his psychic powers, I also do not know that the criminal invading my house, or my neighbor's house, is only there to peacefully steal property, and has no violent intent. So I protect myself accordingly. If he's only there for the property, then he will either flee or submit when challenged, and no one gets hurt. If he has violent intent, then he is likely to respond with the threat of harm when challenged, and I'm fully within my rights to defend myself with lethal force. Either way, I don't see why some people bizarrely insist on attaching some sort of moral superiority to cowering in a closet. Talk about living in fear.

If I discover an intruder entering my home, under most circumstances I would shoot from a concealed position without warning.

Which, unless the circumstances are close to ideal, is a very good way to accidentally shoot the wrong person. Unless I have a very good view of the person and reason to believe he presents a clear and immediate threat, I will challenge the intruder and give him an opportunity to submit or flee. If he responds with an imminent threat of harm, then I will use whatever force I deem necessary to end the threat; otherwise I will allow him to flee, or hold him until police arrive. According to FBI statistics, he vast majority of the time, the simple presence of a firearm is enough to end a threat; and firearms are effectively used for self defense around 2 million times a year, without ever being fired.

 

[Indy418]

I think that in the case of my house being broken into, I would be most concerned with my safety and the safety of my child (and my husband, too). They might just want to steal my tv and my computer (I think the most expensive item in my house might be worth $200), but how do I know they won't hurt/kill my child? I don't, so I'm going to proceed as though our lives at at risk. I'll call the police and hope they get here fast enough, but I will subdue anyone breaking into the house (though I'm more likely to use non-lethal force to stop someone as I am not trained to use a firearm).

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Locked, inaccessible to the driver or passengers, unloaded, with the gun and ammo in separate containers.

sorry to derail again, but this is incorrect. it must be unloaded and in a case, but the case does not have to lock, can be accessible to the driver/passengers, and ammo (including full magazines) can be in the same case

also, the center console of the vehicle constitutes a legal case

 

[RandFan]

First, provide evidence I ever made such a claim.

You asked me a question.

And explain how acquiescence to criminal activity in a nation where police have no responsibility to prevent crime works to reduce crime rates?

First I never made such a claim. That is you putting words in my mouth.

As others have noted, when criminals discover they are able to burglarize a neighborhood with impunity, they will continue to do so; and may even escalate their crimes if they believe there is a low likelihood of retaliation.

Second, what inference can I draw from that? You are saying that you can affect the crime right by not allowing criminals to discover that they can burglarize a neighborhood with impunity? If the crime rate is high then the logical inference is that doing as you suggest will lower the crime rate, right? So, I won't apologize for that, not on Tu Quoque grounds but on the grounds that it logically follows from what you said.

First, you accuse me of saying that I would defend property with lethal force, which I have clearly refuted...

I apologize.

...and now this. Honestly, I expected better of you.

Chill out Francis, if I make a mistake I will apologize. I'm human and quite capable of making mistakes. You?

 

[RandFan]

This is just plain ludicrious, and unworthy of you.

How is it ludicrous? I lived in a crime infested area of Los Angeles county. We had gangs. We didn't have the crime rate you claim. So, again, how on earth is it ludicrous?

 

[crimresearch]

How is it ludicrous? I lived in a crime infested area of Los Angeles county. We had gangs. We didn't have the crime rate you claim. So, again, how on earth is it ludicrous?

If the area you lived in didn't match the description given earlier, and didn't have the crime rate that the records show, then you weren't living where you claimed.

Logic, its not just for dinner anymore.

 

[RandFan]

Despite Randfan's insistence that his psychic ability allows him to know my thoughts better than I do...

If you are honest you will admit that you first asked me to defend a claim I didn't make.

And FTR, I was defending a position that you agree with (in theory). I should have picked up on that and instead challenged you on your practical argument only.

 

[GeeMack]

sorry to derail again, but this is incorrect. it must be unloaded and in a case, but the case does not have to lock, can be accessible to the driver/passengers, and ammo (including full magazines) can be in the same case

also, the center console of the vehicle constitutes a legal case

Yes, that was decided by the courts just a few years ago as I recall. While hunting or fishing we are required to transport firearms according to the Illinois Wildlife Code which is more strict. That requires a case specifically designed as a container for a gun. It could be argued that a glove compartment constitutes such a container, but you might have to convince a judge.

In any case, loading a gun carried in your vehicle to use in a self defense situation, or even exposing it unloaded, would likely be considered illegal. It may be overlooked or not prosecuted depending on the situation, but any provisions we have for transporting firearms in Illinois are just that, for transportation and not for self defense purposes.

 

[luchog]

How is it ludicrous? I lived in a crime infested area of Los Angeles county. We had gangs. We didn't have the crime rate you claim. So, again, how on earth is it ludicrous?

It's Logic 101. As I stated, I live in a very small neighborhood. Any middle-class and lower area of LA has a much higher crime rate than we do; any area that is "gang-ridden" is going to have a much higher crime rate than we do (despite being "gang-ridden" here as well). A moderate crime rate in a very small area with a small number of people is going to have a disproportionately larger impact on the residents than a high crime rate in a much bigger area with a lot more people. This is so basic I shouldn't have to explain it.

 

[RandFan]

It's Logic 101. As I stated, I live in a very small neighborhood. Any middle-class and lower area of LA has a much higher crime rate than we do; any area that is "gang-ridden" is going to have a much higher crime rate than we do (despite being "gang-ridden" here as well). A moderate crime rate in a very small area with a small number of people is going to have a disproportionately larger impact on the residents than a high crime rate in a much bigger area with a lot more people. This is so basic I shouldn't have to explain it.

Oddly it explains nothing. It's just regurgitating your claim. It doesn't explain how or why my response to your claim is ludicrous.