Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[merphie]

The FBI isn't in the business of defining crimes...

They are in the business of coming up with a bureaucratic filing system to present a quantified picture to politicians and the media. (The UCR...and as I've pointed out in the past 'Uniform' has nothing to do with what cops wear).
Their classification of crimes against property and crimes against persons, has absolutely zero statutory authority...just like Black's law dictionary.

And their abbreviated filing system in no way, shape, or form, limits the legal elements of crime, which are what I actually posted:
--------------------------------------------------------
"Entering with the intent to commit a crime.

As in an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime."
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice that when you read the original, instead of Shanek's altered partial quote, there is nothing about whether or not a person is present.

Bottom line, it can be a burglary when a person is present inside the structure, and the crime committed after the entry doesn't have to be limited to theft.

Footnote: I have to deal with UCR a lot in my job. It actually has a lot of flaws. The new NIBRS system they are implimenting is better, but it still has problems.

 

[Bjorn]

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

Ian Osborne

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

Shanek:

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, blah blah nothing about burglary

Bjorn

burglary, which was the crime in question:

Per 100,000 in Mississippi - 1035.6
Per 100,000 nationwide - 740.5

Shanek:

No, it wasn't.

Bjorn

Do you happen to have a definition of burglary handy? If not, I can help you out:

Breaking into a building illegally, especially in order to steal.

Please, now show us how your first statement about how nobody in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi is not about burglary?

Shanek:

I specifically stated in my initial statement the ability of someone to shoot an attacker as a means of defending his life, home, or property. In the case of a burglary, that would necessitate them being home at the time.

bjorn

So when 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 really ment there would be less robberies, not less burglaries?

shanek

I didn't use the word robbery, but I didn't use the word burglary, either. Stop putting words in my mouth, people. What I said was crystal clear.

bjorn

shanek

Bang your head all you want (apparently an acceptable substitute for rational argument in the minds of some), but it doesn't change the fact that you put the word "burglary" in my mouth.

Ian

All I did was quote your interpretations of your statistic.

shanek

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.

ian

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

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

ian

It was YOU who said housebreaking (and I consider 'burglary' a fair synonym here) was deterred by an armed population (well, specifically a sympathetic judicial system, but from what you said we can safely assume the armed population).

shanek

I don't care what you consider fair.

I specifically didn't use the word "burglary."

The correct FBI definition:

"Burglary is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft."

Bjorn wonders what a felony is.

Ian

Do you have anything at all to justify your statement that 'no one in his right mind breaks into a house in Mississippi', now you've rejected burglary statistics in this respect?

shanek

I have clarified my original statement again and again and again.

Bjorn

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you.

Shanek has managed to avoid the issue completely.

This thread has not solved where shanek stands on this, but it has proven, once more, than he has very muddled thinking.

If you are losing the argument, try to confuse your opponents.

 

[Kerberos]

Name calling? Hrmmm.. . .

You seem to be saying that you should let the police handle everything. So what does that say about the victim who the police can't help.

No I didn't "seem" to say any such thing, what I "seemed" to say was what I personally would have done in a specific situation.

 

[Kerberos]

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).

I think that Shanek is right in saying that most buglaries happen when nobodyes home.

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.

That's hardly as obvious as you seem to believe, we’re dealing with a person who’s purpose is to steal rather than to kill after all. An armed homeowner is obviously better of in a fire fight, but an armed intruder is probably far more likely to shoot at an armed homeowner than an unarmed one. Also if a significant portion of homeowners are armed a burglar is probably both more likely to carry a gun and to use it, perhaps under the mistaken belief that an unarmed homeowner is armed, especially if the burglary happen when it's dark.

 

[Ralph]

I don't think that you should have an uatomatic right to kill people in any case of selfdefense. As I said I can't know exactly what happened since I wasn't there, but the situation as Luke descriped it doesn't strike as serious enough to justify killing the guy. Also as Fool said Luke's post had a distinct air of macho chest beating. That's not saying of course that I wouldn't be OK with Luke beating the guy if it had come to that.

Well--Luke did make it clear that he did nothing violent--even after a drunken stranger struck his son. I think he showed more restraint than many others would.

I think he was trying to make that point that if the threat level ESCALATED beyond that point---he would assume the man posed a clear threat to his family and he would stop it by whatever means possible..........including killing him.

I think AUPs original intent in this post was to infer that this law was a licence for our "violent gun-crazed citizens" to kill people at will.

I think the law is just an attempt to allow a little more leeway towards the victim and away from the criminal in some of the grey areas like Lukes situation.

As someone mentioned---there are many examples of injustices being done against people who were just defending themselves and behaved as any rational person would under the given circumstances.

 

[shanek]

The correct FBI definition:

"Burglary is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft."

I posted the full definition of both burglary and the classification of crimes for which burglary is in. You have contributed nothing new to this thread and appear to be doing nothing more than selectively quoting statements.

How about answering the questions I've been posing?

 

[shanek]

That's hardly as obvious as you seem to believe, we’re dealing with a person who’s purpose is to steal rather than to kill after all. An armed homeowner is obviously better of in a fire fight, but an armed intruder is probably far more likely to shoot at an armed homeowner than an unarmed one.

Evidence?

I would expect most burglars, upon hearing someone in the house, would choose to either hide or flee regardless of whether or not the person is armed.

Also if a significant portion of homeowners are armed a burglar is probably both more likely to carry a gun and to use it,

Again, evidence?

 

[shanek]

Here's something I find inconsistent about this whole mindset.

We have the "felony murder" rule. Look at law.com's explanation:

a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.

Okay, so the perpetrators of the felony are responsible for any deaths as a result of the felony and are treated as if it were first degree murder (which seems quite extreme to me).

But, apparently, this isn't the case when the person commits a felony and the victim shoots and kills the felon in self-defense. Why is the felon not responsible for his own death (felony suicide?) in that case? Why should the victim be persecuted just because he decided he didn't want to be a victim at all?

 

[T'ai Chi]

This was a different situation. A completely unpredictable madman in the presence of my pregnant wife and my young son. With no help in sight.

I'm skeptical. PGE Park (I assume) right after a game and no one else in sight??

 

[1inChrist]

If everyone had faith in God, we would not need guns. You think there was a need for guns in the Garden of Eden? NO. It's choosing evil that has brought this curse upon mankind. Violence, lust and greed.

 

[shanek]

More tidbits from the 2003 crime reports regarding burglary:

The majority of burglaries, 65.8 percent, were residential, and the remaining 34.2 percent were of nonresidences, such as stores and offices.

So over a third of all burglaries weren't even against a home.

The data also showed that most residential burglaries, 62.0 percent, occurred during daytime hours, and most nonresidential burglaries, 58.4 percent, occurred at night.

So it's absolutely not true that most home burglaries take place at night, when people are there. They take place during the day, when people are less likely to be home. On the other hand, most nonresidential burglaries were at night, again because people were less likely to be there.

(Both statistics from Section II page 46)

 

[Bjorn]

Imaginary scenario:

originally posted by shanek2
no one in his right mind breaks into a house in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them

originally posted by bjorn2/ion2
but they do break into houses in Mississippi, a lot in fact

originally posted by shanek2
Oh, well it looks like you're right.

But they have far less violent crime, look at these statistics I found

originally posted by bjorn2/ion2
that might be correct

Easy, isn't it?

 

[shanek]

but they do break into houses in Mississippi, a lot in fact

How many times do I have to sit here and explain that breaking into houses ≠ burglary? How many sources do I have to cite? How many statistics do I have to show?

Not all burglaries are people breaking into houses. Not all people breaking into houses are burglaries. According to the criteria the people who compiled the statistics used. Burglaries are in a class of crime where "there is no
force or threat of force against the victims." So burglary doesn't apply to the point being made.

Why do you keep ignoring these points?

 

[merphie]

No I didn't "seem" to say any such thing, what I "seemed" to say was what I personally would have done in a specific situation.

It was below that.

 

[Kerberos]

Evidence?

I would expect most burglars, upon hearing someone in the house, would choose to either hide or flee regardless of whether or not the person is armed.

So would I, but that is in no way inconsistent with what I said. If burglars make a successful getaway in 90% of all cases, it is still possible that any gun he might carry is 3 times more likely to be used in the remaining 10%, if the homeowner is armed (numbers are of course picked entirely at random). As for hard evidence I haven't got any, I was simply conduction, IMO, very reasonable speculation - just like you are.

Again, evidence?

Still just speculating .

 

[Kerberos]

It was below that.

Where I asked whether he felt it should be legal for him to kill the guy? You do know that there are levels of force in between lethal and none at all right? Besides, I was still referring to the specific situation.

 

[merphie]

That's hardly as obvious as you seem to believe, we’re dealing with a person who’s purpose is to steal rather than to kill after all. An armed homeowner is obviously better of in a fire fight, but an armed intruder is probably far more likely to shoot at an armed homeowner than an unarmed one. Also if a significant portion of homeowners are armed a burglar is probably both more likely to carry a gun and to use it, perhaps under the mistaken belief that an unarmed homeowner is armed, especially if the burglary happen when it's dark.

How do we know the criminal's intention is to steal?

 

[merphie]

If everyone had faith in God, we would not need guns. You think there was a need for guns in the Garden of Eden? NO. It's choosing evil that has brought this curse upon mankind. Violence, lust and greed.

That makes sense. Religion is the leading cause of death in the world.

 

[merphie]

Where I asked whether he felt it should be legal for him to kill the guy? You do know that there are levels of force in between lethal and none at all right? Besides, I was still referring to the specific situation.

Did you read anything?