Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[triforcharity]

I wonder what the minimum threshold is that someone would kill for.

Let's say a thief comes in to your house but no one is home other than you. Thus, no need to protect your family or anyone else. In fact let's keep it simple. Or even better, the thief is not in your house, he's in a field but about to take something of yours.

What would you kill an intruder for?

If he is in one of my outbuildings, then I would certainly confront him, yes, and if he then became aggressive towards me, then yes, I would certainly use deadly force.

Just showing up?

In my house? Yes.

Your tv?

If the TV in my house? Then yes.

A sandwich?

Is he in my house? Then yes.

To prove you can shoot better than a felon?

Nonsense. I have no reason to even consider this, and quite frankly, it's an asinine question.

To feel manly?

Just curious.

My manhood doesn't depend on me being able to shoot someone. Being a man means taking care of your family to the best of your ability, and holding yourself to be of good moral character.

So, in essence, your entire post is quite silly.

 

[triforcharity]

OK.. so killing to retain property is not self defense. Therefore, if an intruder breaks into your home, but no one is there and he has no weapon.. is it self defense?

Well, if nobody is there, how is this supposed scenario possible?

Can you kill him legally.

Yes. In the state of Florida, if someone enters your house, you are presumed to be in fear of your life, and can legally use deadly force.

More importantly .. would you?

Yes. I have no idea of his intention, nor do I possess x-ray vision to see if in fact he is armed.

 

[triforcharity]

he starts to run... man can that guy run fast. Even with the cooler, he's like a cheetah on a trampoline with roller blades.

Ok, now that was funny!

 

[lionking]

Well, if nobody is there, how is this supposed scenario possible?



Yes. In the state of Florida, if someone enters your house, you are presumed to be in fear of your life, and can legally use deadly force.



Yes. I have no idea of his intention, nor do I possess x-ray vision to see if in fact he is armed.

Why are you pretending that disproportionate use of force is not an issue in tne US? From what I've read, you would likely be charged in many states for shooting an intruder who was not threatening you.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Why are you pretending that disproportionate use of force is not an issue in tne US? From what I've read, you would likely be charged in many states for shooting an intruder who was not threatening you.

In many (most?) states, the intruder simply being there creates the presumption of a deadly threat that you are allowed to respond to in kind.

 

[RandFan]

In many (most?) states, the intruder simply being there creates the presumption of a deadly threat that you are allowed to respond to in kind.

I understand those laws. I'm not contesting them. What I don't understand is the anxiousness with which some are willing to kill and to assume that the person deserves it. I could understand, "I'd kill but would wish I hadn't been put in that position by the intruder" (the intruder bears responsibility for his actions). What I don't get is, "scumbag deserves to die. Wouldn't bother me in the least". That's when I ask why we shouldn't have cruel and unusual punishment. At least one poster here honestly says we should.

 

[lionking]

Reasonable force is legal, excessive force is not.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I understand those laws. I'm not contesting them. What I don't understand is the anxiousness with which some are willing to kill and to assume that the person deserves it. I could understand, "I'd kill but would wish I hadn't been put in that position by the intruder" (the intruder bears responsibility for his actions). What I don't get is, "scumbag deserves to die. Wouldn't bother me in the least". That's when I ask why we shouldn't have cruel and unusual punishment. At least one poster here honestly says we should.

I would prefer that that a low life not put me in that position. But I wouldn't feel too bad. He didn't value his life enough to not risk it by breaking into my house so I wouldn't value it enough to feel bad about it.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Reasonable force is legal, excessive force is not.

And the law states that deadly force is presumed to be reasonable to use against a person who broke into your home.

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-419

13-419. Presumptions; defense of a residential structure or occupied vehicle; exceptions; definitions
A. A person is presumed to reasonably believe that the threat or use of physical force or deadly force is immediately necessary for the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421 if the person knows or has reason to believe that the person against whom physical force or deadly force is threatened or used is unlawfully or forcefully entering or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in the person's residential structure or occupied vehicle.
B. For the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421, a person who is unlawfully or forcefully entering or who has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in a residential structure or occupied vehicle is presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm to any person who is in the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

 

[RandFan]

I would prefer that that a low life not put me in that position. But I wouldn't feel too bad. He didn't value his life enough to not risk it by breaking into my house so I wouldn't value it enough to feel bad about it.

Thanks, I know enough about human behavior and human psychology to know that your reasoning about the hypothetical defendant is simplistic and has no basis in cognitive or behavioral science.

BTW: I can live with your opinion. I understand it. I've no judgement. I don't know how to write my opinion without sounding patronizing and condescending.

 

[triforcharity]

Why are you pretending that disproportionate use of force is not an issue in tne US? From what I've read, you would likely be charged in many states for shooting an intruder who was not threatening you.

Sorry, I should have specified that my post was only in regards to Florida.

So, let's look at Florida's statute.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

So, how that reads is simple. If I am in my home or car, and someone forcibly and illegally enters my home, I am presumed by law to be in fear of my life, and can use deadly force.

I could then legally shoot that person dead, and would never face any charges, and could not be sued for wrongful death.

Other states have similar laws, but which ones, I don't know. Texas does, and IIRC, so does Arizona, but I could be wrong on AZ.

It's called the "Castle Doctrine" and most states do in fact have such a thing. Some may have stipulations, but what ones do or don't, and what they are, I honestly don't know.

 

[crimresearch]

I lot of the people that I have taught in the past were seeking to learn martial arts because they had been attacked. Many times, they simply didn't know what to do or what they should do.

It's an important question and one that still has not been attempted clearly by anyone on this thread that I have seen.

A number of people said they would not kill someone unless they had to. A few seem to be sitting in their house, stroking their gun and hoping that someone comes in uninvited. One of the most common rationalizations is that anyone coming in their home poses a threat to them and their family.

So.. free of any rationals...

1. What would you kill for?
2. Could you realistically kill?
3. As a follow up... what are you willing to die for?

I sometimes remind my students, if you are willing to kill you should be willing to die. If you get involved in a violent situation, even with training, even with a gun, you run a risk of being killed.

Something everyone should think about... and few do.

You asked specific questions about what people would do under the law in a real life situation, and you've spun the answers into strawmen that don't reflect what you were told at all.

And that makes it look very much like projection of insecurities onto people you know nothing about.

The decision to use a weapon, complete with the consequences of screwing up, is what it is.
Some people are ready for it, some people only think they are ready for it, and some people delude others into thinking that 'important questions' and other mystical mumbo jumbo will make them ready for it.

 

[crimresearch]

Why are you pretending that disproportionate use of force is not an issue in tne US? From what I've read, you would likely be charged in many states for shooting an intruder who was not threatening you.

From what you've read? That's fantastic.

 

[lionking]

Sorry, I should have specified that my post was only in regards to Florida.

So, let's look at Florida's statute.

Fair enough. I thought debate had moved beyond Florida, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[lionking]

From what you've read? That's fantastic.

Yes, it's called research. Heard of it?

 

[crimresearch]

Yes, it's called research. Heard of it?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What states?

What are the controlling Supreme Court rulings?

(And BTW, I've posted the answers to those questions repeatedly).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OK... he has no weapons at all but he starts to run... man can that guy run fast. Even with the cooler, he's like a cheetah on a trampoline with roller blades. Now.. what do you do hotshot?... what .. do .. you .. .do?

Shoot a hole in the cooler.

 

[PetersCreek]

Are you willing to kill to keep your property?

Normally, no...but under certain extreme circumstances, yes.

Are you willing to kill in war?

Being a retired veteran, I'd have to say yes.

Are you willing to kill to protect yourself from non deadly harm?

Yes. The law in my locale (and I think many/most others) provides that the use of deadly force is justified not only when a deadly threat is reasonably perceived but also when there is a threat of grave bodily harm.

So.. free of any rationals...

1. What would you kill for?

In service to my country. For the exigent protection of myself and others.

2. Could you realistically kill?

Yes.

3. As a follow up... what are you willing to die for?

See #1...and being a bit of a space geek, I'd risk it for the opportunity to explore another planet.

I understand those laws. I'm not contesting them. What I don't understand is the anxiousness with which some are willing to kill and to assume that the person deserves it. I could understand, "I'd kill but would wish I hadn't been put in that position by the intruder" (the intruder bears responsibility for his actions).

I recall the average self defense situation being described as taking place at a distance of 21 feet, across which 2-3 shots are fired. That's hardly conducive to getting to know someone on a whole-person basis, so I wouldn't be able to say that a perpetrator on the wrong end of a SD shooting deserved to die. However, I will say that if it ever becomes necessary for me to use deadly force, and the perpetrator dies as a result, that person would have brought it upon himself.

I don't like the "blow 'em away" attitude, either but in my experience it doesn't always equate to a desire to kill someone. Sometimes it's just an inelegant expression of their intent to act decisively and effectively in stopping a threat. Still, just as if it were expressed that way by hot-headed Rambo wannabe, it does a disservice to responsible gun owners and practitioners of CCW.

Fortunately, I haven't yet had to point a weapon at another human being...other than military training...and I would be quite content to never have to do so. The closest I've come is to shoot a dog in defense of livestock.

 

[RandFan]

I recall the average self defense situation being described as taking place at a distance of 21 feet, across which 2-3 shots are fired. That's hardly conducive to getting to know someone on a whole-person basis, so I wouldn't be able to say that a perpetrator on the wrong end of a SD shooting deserved to die. However, I will say that if it ever becomes necessary for me to use deadly force, and the perpetrator dies as a result, that person would have brought it upon himself.

I don't like the "blow 'em away" attitude, either but in my experience it doesn't always equate to a desire to kill someone. Sometimes it's just an inelegant expression of their intent to act decisively and effectively in stopping a threat. Still, just as if it were expressed that way by hot-headed Rambo wannabe, it does a disservice to responsible gun owners and practitioners of CCW.

Fortunately, I haven't yet had to point a weapon at another human being...other than military training...and I would be quite content to never have to do so. The closest I've come is to shoot a dog in defense of livestock.

Good post. Thank you.

 

[triforcharity]

Fair enough. I thought debate had moved beyond Florida, but thanks for clarifying.

I should put that as my signature....