Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[crimresearch]

Claus gets all his legal knowledge from Shanek.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said nobody's home?

That's the starting point: Why would people break into homes with nobody there, if not to steal something?

They sure can't rape someone, because nobody is home!

Am I going too fast for you? I can type slower, you know...

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus gets all his legal knowledge from Shanek.

If you really have me on ignore, you should take me off ignore, if you want to appear less stupid.

If you don't really have me on ignore, at least do yourself a favor and fess up to it, so you won't appear so stupid.

Either way, each time you respond to any of my posts, you appear stupid.

I hope you are not too stupid to realize this.

 

[Grammatron]

That's the starting point: Why would people break into homes with nobody there, if not to steal something?

They sure can't rape someone, because nobody is home!

Am I going too fast for you? I can type slower, you know...

Where's this starting point, please point me to it, thank you.

 

[Beerina]

The three states with which I am familiar do not have it codified into law.

They all basically say that a successful legal defense using the concept of self-defense comprises these items:

1. A reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death to yourself or to others

AND

2. The use of only enough force reasonably construed to be necessary to remove the threat

So let's see. Someone is coming at me with brass knuckles. I have a baseball bat and a disintegration ray.

Pray tell me why I should only be allowed by prosecutors sitting in a safe building somewhere to only use the bat and not the disintegration ray?

Disintegration ray = 100% certainty I come out safely (or very close to that)

Baseball bat = 70% certainty I come out safely


In any case, let's suppose the difference was 100% for disintegration ray, and 99% for baseball bat. Why should I risk that 1% just to avoid the death of my assailant?

 

[Beerina]

The law has traditionally recognized that a person claiming self-defense has a "duty to flee". There are some exceptions; you never have to flee your own home, for example.

This new law seems to be removing this duty in all cases.

Is this "duty to flee" something that's been around for hundreds of years, or is it something cooked up by (said with kindness) liberality within the past 50 years?

It always seemed odd to me that you'd have to attempt to flee (rather than simply attack back). Who is the prosecutor or state to determine that somehow I must respect someone else's life as they are attacking me?


Then again, I always thought it reasonable to shoot someone in the back whose running away with your stuff. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Shanek
This prevents crime, people.

Prove it.

You are being forced to break in and rob a house. Your choices are:

1. Boston
2. Em Eye Ess Ess Eye Ess Ess Eye Pee Pee Eye

Choose. Choose now!

 

[crimresearch]

So let's see. Someone is coming at me with brass knuckles. I have a baseball bat and a disintegration ray.

Pray tell me why I should only be allowed by prosecutors sitting in a safe building somewhere to only use the bat and not the disintegration ray?

Disintegration ray = 100% certainty I come out safely (or very close to that)

Baseball bat = 70% certainty I come out safely


In any case, let's suppose the difference was 100% for disintegration ray, and 99% for baseball bat. Why should I risk that 1% just to avoid the death of my assailant?

Using a baseball bat requires you to engage the attacker in a way that a reasonable person might feel would be more risky.

Now change your example to a choice between a 'disintegration' ray, and a 'make them fall down and go to sleep' ray, and your analogy holds.

And just when you thought it was safe to rely on technology:


"COLUMBUS, Ga. (AP) - A man who telephoned a hot line to say he had a gun and was dreaming of killing children died after police shot him with supposedly non-lethal bean bag projectiles, officials said."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050408/ap_on_re_us/bean_bag_death_1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hint: That is why people in that line of work refer to those gadgets as 'less lethal', not 'non-lethal'...I guess the Chief didn't get the memo.

 

[crimresearch]

"Is this "duty to flee" something that's been around for hundreds of years, or is it something cooked up by (said with kindness) liberality within the past 50 years?"

Oh, you *are* one of them there skeptics, aren't you?

 

[Beerina]

So, a theoretical.

Let's say I'm in a moderately crowded public place (say, a city street) and feel justifiably in fear of my (or my family's) life. I pull a handgun (properly registered in the State of Florida) and shoot at my assailant. I take four shots and fatally wound him. Everything's jake, because I was acting in self-defense and have no obligation to flee under this new law. Let's also say it turns out that one of those four shots hits a passer-by, and fatally wounds him.

Tough break for him. The death lies on the head of your attacker, though.

I do recall a friend whose wife was sued because some people turning left pulled out in front of her as she was driving thru an intersection. These were frauds who had done this several times before, so it was deliberate to all but the shysters supporting them.

The frauds' lawyers (plural on frauds, the car was full as more people can sue that way) claimed, and I am not kidding, that she should have swerved into oncoming traffic, causing herself a worse accident. In other words, she had a choice to swerve into something else besides the frauds' car.

So in crazy, lunatic practice, I wouldn't rule out your suggestion, but morally the death is on the head of your attacker.

From a legal perspective, maybe I can still be prosecuted under some other Florida criminal law, which is fine.

Why do you think this is fine? The death is a tragedy, but at least 1. it isn't you, and 2. it isn't you because some lawyer in an office thinks you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.

But in a broader social sense, the state legislature is saying that I'm legally allowed to used deadly force to protect myself (which I would suspect for most people involves use of a handgun) in a public area, which reason tells us may have innocent others about. Do I not have an obligation to the safety of those others? I do feel that if I had a (near) certain expectation of death and the surrounding crowd had a minimal expectation of collateral death, I would probably shoot as in the hypothetical described above. Yet, the spouse or children of that fellow I accidently shot probably don't care a whole lot about that.

Let's suppose you were a god who knew you had a 70% chance of death at the hands of your attacker if you don't use your gun and merely attempt to flee, but you have a 3% chance of death if you use your gun, but if you do, a 30% chance (or 80% chance) of killing accidently someone else as you shoot a hail of bullets at your attacker?

What do you do?

Me, I'm choosing life. I will cry if other innocents die, but their death is on the head of my attacker, not me.


To make it even worse, let's assume the chance of your death is 30% without the gun, 0% with, but 90% chance of death of an innocent. In other words, you're trading your 30% for 0% for you and 90% for someone innocent.

What do you do?

 

[shanek]

You are being forced to break in and rob a house. Your choices are:

1. Boston
2. Em Eye Ess Ess Eye Ess Ess Eye Pee Pee Eye

Choose. Choose now!

Hehhehheh...heheheh...heheheheh...she said "pee pee"!

 

[crimresearch]

"Tough break for him. The death lies on the head of your attacker, though..."

And if by chance you only wounded the attacker, the elements of felony murder might kick in.... on your assailant.

The law, and society, and reason, all recognize intent as a factor in assigning accountability for things. And legally, intent can be inferred through actions.

So if, for example, you see a sky marshall on the street, and pull out your Danish Bergman 9mm assault pistol, and empty it on the crowd with your eyes closed, it would be a different story.

 

[Ian Osborne]

No, because I didn't. Can't you just admit you're using a bogus statistic and move on?

I didn't use a statistic at all. All I did was quote your interpretations of your statistic.

 

[Ralph]

That's the starting point: Why would people break into homes with nobody there, if not to steal something?

It's called vandalism.

Some people just do things out of sheer meanness.

 

[shanek]

I didn't use a statistic at all. All I did was quote your interpretations of your statistic.

That's just a lie. I deliberately didn't cite the burglary statistic, for reasons given. People have been putting that in my mouth, consistent with the levels of dishonesty people seem to have whenever their world-view is threatened.

YOU said, "So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?" YOU brought up burglaries, not me.

 

[shanek]

That's the starting point: Why would people break into homes with nobody there, if not to steal something?

It's called vandalism.

Or maybe they want to murder or rape a person in the home. Or kidnap their daughter.

Once again, Claus the pseudo-skeptic resorts to non-thinking to avoid the issue.

 

[Skeptic]

No criminal in his right mind would break into a home anywhere, unless they were really sure nobody was home. He gains nothing by it and runs a significant extra risk.

Not necessarily at all. Think about it: breaking into houses, obviously, tend to happen late at night since at other times neighbors or passerbys are likely to see you. But most people are at home late at night. It is only rarely--when someone is on vacation, say--that a house is without occupants late at night.

While it is obviously true that such houses are a burglar's "natural" target, there are few of them. I'm willing to bet significant money that the "average" burglary occurs when the occupants ARE at home, but the burglar bets that they are sleeping and will continue to sleep (e.g., he won't break into a house with a guard dog or an alarm system).

If you don't wake up, the burglar will likely not wake you up on purpose. But if you do... and he has a gun... you better have one as well.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's just a lie. I deliberately didn't cite the burglary statistic, for reasons given.

I compared YOUR statement that "no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them", with YOUR statement that "it makes perfect sense that there would be more burglaries, since the criminals are going to switch to crimes that don't involve the possibility of getting their head blown off". You didn't quote the figures, but they were clearly assumed in what you said.

YOU said, "So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?" YOU brought up burglaries, not me.

FFS, Shane. YOU said, "no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them". You didn't use the word 'burglary', but what's housebreaking if it's not burglary?

I can assume "break into a home" and "housebreaking" are synonymous even in your seemingly-unique thesaurus, right?

 

[shanek]

Think about it: breaking into houses, obviously, tend to happen late at night

I've already posted evidence that most burglaries happen during the day, when most people are more likely to be away from home.

I'm willing to bet significant money that the "average" burglary occurs when the occupants ARE at home,

You'd lose. Again, as I have already pointed out, 90% of burglaries in the US take place when there is nobody home.

Completely contradicting the evidence, especially when that evidence has already been provided in the thread, only makes you look foolish. But then, you're good at that.

 

[shanek]

FFS, Shane. YOU said,

absolutely nothing at all about burglaries until others brought it up. You like the others are trying to artificially insert the implied word "burglary" into what I said. And you continue to do this after numerous clarifications by both myself and other posters who had no problem understanding what I was saying.

You didn't use the word 'burglary', but what's housebreaking if it's not burglary?

Burglary ≠ housebreaking; housebreaking ≠ burglary. Burglary can entail housebreaking, and housebreaking can entail burglary, but not all burglaries are housebreaking and not all housebreakings are burglaries.