Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Crazycowbob]

You don't think a society which values human life, encourages communality and relies on the rule of law rather than the heated decisions of armed vigilantes isn't better than the alternative you're proposing?

What you're advocating here is a regression of society to the 18th century. You realise the Enlightenment happened, right?

There are plenty of rational reasons why advocating violence against criminals are bad. The first is one MobySeven has suggested, and that's that criminals aren't actually any different from you or I. People is people. I don't think anyone deserves the right to take the life of another human being. The second is that advocating violent responses to wrongs breeds a culture of violence and revenge and anger which does nothing to address the root causes of the problem and possibly serves to makes them worse. The third is that lots of rapists are mentally ill, and I think that advocating the killing of mentally ill people, even in the process of crime, is quite hard to justify. The forth is that sanctioning this type of behaviour encourages the carrying of offensive weapons, which seems to do little act as a deterrent, but actually increases the rate of gun deaths in the wider population.

In short, a society which sanctions murder is no kind of society at all.

You make a good argument, but I'm going to have to disagree. In an idealic society, sure, we can dream that everyone be rehabilitated (perhaps even before commiting a crime, in utopia), that everyone grows up in a good environment, and that a good environment is all it took to make people "good" citizens. But that's a dream world. Environment may influence criminal behavior, but it doesn't force the choice anymore than being a teenager forces you to be reckless. Not every criminal can be rehabilitated (though, admittedly, our rehabilitation system needs work). Despite that, we do live in society that values human life, encourages communality, and relies on the rule of law. Vigilante justice is punished, executions are in decline, society is constantly trying to improve itself. But society also has to take into account the right of those being victimized to defend themselves. You say a rapist is mentally ill, and that it's wrong to kill the mentaly ill, but isn't it also wrong to hit them as well? And if so, is it wrong for the woman to struggle? If someone attacks you, is it wrong for you to fight back? What if they're no match for you physically, is it then wrong, because you're stronger? Fist, club, knife, gun, these are all tools, all designed to cause injury, and all lethal. Of course with greater lethality comes greater responsibility, but I feel it is not the tool, but the intent that matters. The intent should be to stop the criminal behavior, be it robbery or rape, and you use the tools available to ensure that you are stronger than your foe. One should do their best to choose the appropriate tool for the situation, but sometimes in the heat of things that is dfficult. If someone loses their life, it's sad, but in my opinion, no more so than dying while skydiving or bungee jumping.

 

[Autolite]

In an idealic society, sure, we can dream that everyone be rehabilitated (perhaps even before commiting a crime, in utopia), that everyone grows up in a good environment, and that a good environment is all it took to make people "good" citizens. But that's a dream world.

Actually Crazycowbob might not be so crazy. That's pretty much how I see it also and it's why these anti-gun-pro-gun discussions are futile. One side bases their opinions on how they observe the real world while the other side lives in some self delusional imaginary utopia. Never-the-less, the posts are entertaining. Keep-em coming...

 

[volatile]

Did you mean "One side bases their opinions on how they observe the real world while the other side lives in some self delusional imaginary distopia"?

 

[Gate2501]

In a world with no guns... There would be a lot of ninjas.

 

[Drudgewire]

Acting in the way sanctioned by the 'Castle Doctrine' would most likely have you up on a murder charge in my country. So yes, you are.

We define "murder" differently. So no, we're not.

 

[volatile]

We define "murder" differently. So no, we're not.

You sanction killing people. Your legal system allows people to deliberately kill other people and get off scot free. That, sir, is sanctioning murder.

 

[Drudgewire]

You sanction killing people. Your legal system allows people to deliberately kill other people and get off scot free. That, sir, is sanctioning murder.

We allow people to defend themselves with equal perceived force. I can't shoot a kid who breaks into my house just because he's there... even in Texas as the OP shows.

From Miriam Webster:

Murder: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a: something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b: something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

Since it is LAWFUL to defend oneself with lethal force here, as long as you stay within the law it's not murder... even if you really, really think it makes you a better person to believe it is.

 

[volatile]

We have a justification in law of "reasonable force", justifiable in that you are able to respond to an intruder in kind (though of course, we don't have guns). If you deliberately try and kill an intruder, you're a murder.

What you have, on the other hand, is legal space for the home-owner to respond with more force than he himself faces. In the statutes, this is referred to as "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death", ergo, "with malice", ergo murder by the definition you provided.

The Castle Doctrine, as far as I can tell, legitimises the use of deadly force in order to be "better safe than sorry", at least in some States. Wiki says:

"Other states have a stand-your-ground clause, or no duty to retreat policy which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves" Stand-your-ground laws (sometimes called shoot-first laws by critics) are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another."

Sorry if that makes you feel a little uncomfortable (and so it should), but that's how it is. Shooting people dead when they present no direct threat is murder.

 

[Drudgewire]

"Duty to retreat" gets innocent people MURDERED. The Castle Doctrine simply means "they don't have to shoot first before you can defend yourself."

If it was as broad as you imagine it to be we wouldn't have this thread in the first place because the guy in Laredo lives in a state with a castle doctrine... and what do you know? He's being charged for killing someone in his own home.

 

[Gate2501]

"Duty to retreat" gets innocent people MURDERED. The Castle Doctrine simply means "they don't have to shoot first before you can defend yourself."

If it was as broad as you imagine it to be we wouldn't have this thread in the first place because the guy in Laredo lives in a state with a castle doctrine... and what do you know? He's being charged for killing someone in his own home.

My opinion is that "Duty to Retreat" is stupid, and could get you killed when you could otherwise defend yourself.

My opinion is that "The Castle Doctrine" is also rather stupid, and could allow for many situations where you end up killing someone needlessly.

It seems to me that any real "meet in the middle" kind of solution is going to have to be vastly complicated and will probably require 1500 pages of "gray area" rules.

 

[Drudgewire]

My opinion is that "Duty to Retreat" is stupid, and could get you killed when you could otherwise defend yourself.

My opinion is that "The Castle Doctrine" is also rather stupid, and could allow for many situations where you end up killing someone needlessly.

It seems to me that any real "meet in the middle" kind of solution is going to have to be vastly complicated and will probably require 1500 pages of "gray area" rules.

I'm not arguing any part of that, except to say in a perfect world there'd be no gray area about anything. But in the real world I'd much rather the law remain broad enough to protect the people who never wanted to have to make such a choice.

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

 

[Gate2501]

I'm not arguing any part of that, except to say in a perfect world there'd be no gray area about anything. But in the real world I'd much rather the law remain broad enough to protect the people who never wanted to have to make such a choice.

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

I can agree with this.

In my own personal case, if I heard someone coming in a window/door in the middle of the night, I would probably grab my carbon recon tanto (instead of my 45). I live with my girlfriend and son, so I would never want to accidentally shoot one of them, or even have a bullet pass through a wall and hit one of them (or god forbid one of my kitties).

I figure that in an unlit house that I can navigate blindfolded, I will definitely be able to own someone in melee combat with that dagger, even if they do have a gun.

 

[Drudgewire]

Part of being responsible with firearms is imaging scenarios where you'd actually fire. Speaking personally, if I feel there's time to yell "I'VE GOT A GUN" I'll do so and if he runs out with my TV on his shoulder he's welcome to it.

Whether that's because of compassion for my fellow man or because I don't want the hassle or guilt that comes with a justified shooting, I honestly can't answer that because I honestly don't know for sure... even though I ask myself that very question all the time.

 

[Bikewer]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

 

[Drudgewire]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

Oh once I make the announcement I better hear footsteps heading in the other direction IMMEDIATELY. Because otherwise the next (and likely last) sounds he'll hear are at least three very loud ones.

 

[leonAzul]

It's high time we outlaw guns. While we're at it, let's outlaw any weapon that can be used to kill someone.

Oh hell. I sense a gun thread coming on. I swear, if I ever see someone engaged in a gun debate, I'll shoot 'em.

That means we'll need to outlaw hands, feet, elbows, knees, heads and shoulders as well...

 

[leonAzul]

For the most part even the tough talkers who are law abiding don't really want to kill anyone if they don't have to. I'd imagine most burglars don't either, but they're the ones who forced someone else into making that split-second call.

That sums it up quite nicely for me.

Violate my space, then suffer the consequences.

For the record, I do not own a gun. I know of no instance where a gun can stop a bullet. There are many examples of how tactical awareness can avoid a bullet. Yet I would never infringe another person's ability to acquire a gun, nor their motive for so doing. Note well, licensing is not infringement, rather it is a tool for accountability.

 

[Architect]

Drudgewire: that's pretty much the standard that's applied generally. In a situation where you are in your home and, lets say, hear a burglar prying your back door open, an announcement of "I'm armed and I'm calling police" should be sufficient to discourage most.

Should the individual continue his activities despite your announcement, you would be justified in using deadly force.

Well, perhaps in America. Try it in Western Europe, Cananda, and the Antipodes then you're going to find yourself as a guest of the Goverment for a considerable period. Life, usually.

 

[Drudgewire]

While I'm not completely opposed to gun registration, I'm happy to live in a state where it isn't a requirement.

I'll never forget buying my first handgun from a friend, then going to Wal-Mart and asking the clerk if he knew where I went to register it. Oh how he laughed.

 

[Architect]

Those who support the concept of firearm defence of a home in a burglary seem to work on the assumption that deadly force is justified on the basis that there is such a threat against the occupants. There seems to be little consideration as to the legal principal of proportionality, for example, or whether inter alia the risk posted to the occupants was sufficient to merit deadly force.

The difference in the other mature Western democracies, which one might suggest are broadly comparable, seems simply to be that the law (and society in general) does expect the occupant to make such a decision. Our laws do allow us to defend ourselves, but not at any cost. If he comes at you with a knife or a gun, then the police aren't going to get unduly upset if you clobber him with a golf club. But if someone comes at us with fists raised, you're not allowed to blow him away on the infinitesimal off-chance he might be a drug-crazed nutter out to do a Manson.

And no, there is no "right" to protect your property at all costs and against all comers here. A home is not your castle. Well, unless you live in a castle of course. In Scotland we don't even have a law of tresspass, there is a de facto right to roam, and Scandanavia isn't hugely different. If a landowner tries to escort you off his property under threates of force or threaten you for ambling across his garden/field/whatever then he will get a rapid visit from the boys in blue together with some time in a special kind of hotel.