3067

In nearly every state you have a right to defend yourself in your home. Being legally forced to flee your own home is almost never the case. Now how far you can go in defending your home is often different, but if someone is in your house, damned near everywhere you can use any amount of force to make them leave. Once they walk out the door things tend to change, however. Castle doctrine is usually an extension of household rights to one’s vehicle and/or workplace - basically anywhere people would not expect you to flee.

Even New York allows you to use deadly force if you’re in your home (and they don’t consider your doorway “your home”). Duty to Retreat ends when you are in your home, because where else are you able to retreat to with known safety? The street at 3 am?

But, I think you guys back up my earlier statement pretty well. :)

3068

I think this issue is about a -lot- more than just turf and honor. Its about poverty, its about perceived and real social injustice, if people are suffering, they tend to react violently to even slight changes, if they got weapons, well you can see the result. The stand your ground seems to get more use to defend poor judgement calls rather than actual defending. As a law its terrible, as a self-defense mechanic it suffer from not being given a reasonable range, thus people can take their anger and rage out on hapless victims with some sense of self-justification.

As for pacifism, if you are one, then I recon you won’t defend yourself, however if you’re not, like me, then I will wail on your ass despite being quite the socialist, infact socialist needs to know their way around weapons…for various reasons.

3069

Not everyone lives in the United States. In my jurisdiction, you can use force to defend your property (including a home), but only if that use of force is reasonable under the circumstances. You would not be entitled to use deadly force if deadly force was not reasonable. There is no express duty to retreat, but the possibility of retreat goes to the reasonableness of the use of force.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-14.html#docCont

But, I think you guys back up my earlier statement pretty well. :)

In what way do we back your statement? I believe in a right of self-defence, but only where the right is exercised reasonably and where it is necessary under the circumstances. I therefore don’t believe in “Castle doctrine” or “stand your ground”.

3070

Oh, I think Stand Your Ground is a fundamentally flawed concept. I my book it’s really a law that says “kill the other guy”. If he isn’t around to tell his story, odds are you’re fine. It strongly encourages vigilantism and the like.

I think Iowa has a decent middle ground.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&input=704

“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a
reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary
to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is
reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or
risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it
is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a
like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may
be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the
alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety
of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one’s
dwelling or place of business or employment.

The defense of justification is not available to the following:
1. One who is participating in a forcible felony, or riot, or a
duel.
2. One who initially provokes the use of force against oneself,
with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict injury on
the assailant.
3. One who initially provokes the use of force against oneself by
one’s unlawful acts, unless:
a. Such force is grossly disproportionate to the provocation,
and is so great that the person reasonably believes that the person
is in imminent danger of death or serious injury or
b. The person withdraws from physical contact with the other
and indicates clearly to the other that the person desires to
terminate the conflict but the other continues or resumes the use of
force.

704.7 RESISTING FORCIBLE FELONY.
A person who knows that a forcible felony is being perpetrated is
justified in using, against the perpetrator, reasonable force to
prevent the completion of that felony.

I think the problem with Stand Your Ground laws (especially Florida as an example) is that you can start shit and then shoot the other guy. As long as there aren’t any witnesses or those witnesses don’t see you start things you’re justified in killing the other guy. So you can walk up to someone, toss out a racial slur under your breath, when they get offended and take a swing, you can shoot them dead in the middle of Denny’s. You have no Duty to Retreat in any situation.

3071

Granted, but this thread is basically US gun laws.

In what way do we back your statement? I believe in a right of self-defence, but only where the right is exercised reasonably and where it is necessary under the circumstances. I therefore don’t believe in “Castle doctrine” or “stand your ground”.

My statement was that some people believe you should call the police and nothing else. People have pretty much said that same thing. Someone said they’d never heard anyone that believed that way, but we have many in this very thread that do to one extent or the other, thus my original statement is backed. I think everyone falls in a different place on the spectrum, but most people are in the camp that once you break into someone’s house they’re fully justified in doing whatever they want/can do to remove you. Pretty much every law in the Union agrees with that. Once you leave your home, that’s where things become much muddier and laws can vary wildly.

3072

Also, the problem I have with “reasonable force” especially in one’s home is that is extremely subjective. Some people say “well if he isn’t armed, then you shouldn’t be,” or some such nonsense. If someone the size of Jon Cena busts into your home he doesn’t need a weapon to kill you. Saying your legal response should be limited to a frying pan or grappling with a dude that could break your arm with a twist of his wrist is silly. Even in the US people have run into that scenario. I read an article about a dude that showed up to a guy’s front door, punched him square in the face and broke his skull. When the dude responded by shooting the guy, the state tried to play the whole “you killed an unarmed man!” card, even though this dude displayed his ability to kill the other person without a weapon rather well in the first 10 seconds of the confrontation.

3073

My dad was pretty close to this mentality but it came from years of watching media stories where victims would be sued for defending themselves. He always pointed out that if you had to shoot someone in self defense you better make sure they’re dead. Sure there have been some odd cases here and there, and its likely to never be a real issue but that was his driving force behind lethal force.

Speaking of the media and its role in peoples’ mentality. Reasonable force is force that any reasonable person could find necessary. Well, I’m a fairly reasonable person, but I’ve seen enough media stories (take the knock out game as the most recent) where random acts of violence are perpetrated. Gun use in crimes is highly reported and innocent people are often killed, even when they are complicit. Those cases might make even a reasonable person assume that they need to respond to any violent threat with lethal force. I may not know if the intruder is armed or not, but can I take that risk with my wife and kids upstairs?

3074

The idea that firearms haven’t changed much in the last 150 years or so hit part of this problem on the head. People are familiar with guns. They can be very cheap, and they are a great equalizer. A 90 pound weakling that never spent a day in the gym can defend himself/herself against anyone because of them. Composites have come and gone, sighting technology has made them more accurate and easier to handle, jams are less frequent but the basic principle is the same and we are very familiar with it. The problem is that guns are not less than lethal solutions. Trick shots in movies where someone is disarmed or winged to slow them down are fantasies.

Contrast that to other options for less than lethal responses. Stun guns can be effective but only at arms reach. Taser’s are at best a 30 ft range with most being around 15 ft. Thier cost is basically $400-800 and if you want one that can fire 2 shots, be prepared to spend over $1300. Pepper spray is only effective to about 15 ft, Bear repelant is more powerful but still only reaches about 30 ft. You could argue that a colapsable baton, for melee, is less that lethal if used with restraint.

I suppose my thoughts are that I’m fine with using less that lethal force. I don’t see my wife ever being able to take a persons life and I would hate for her to be in danger and hesitate to use a firearm, where she knows she could kill someone. A taser in her hands is more effective, she doesn’t have that moral struggle and can do what she needs to. There just aren’t as many solutions that are as economical and equalizing as firearms, imo.

3075

The problem with most of those is range and you’re looking at a one shot solution. If you miss with that taser or it doesn’t work because he’s wearing a big coat or something you’re screwed. Worse yet if there are a couple of them. The range can also be an issue.

That said, they’re perfectly viable solutions.

3076

That’s a very, very extreme position for someone to take. For you to say that you personally know five people that do, I’d be more inclined to believe that they either exaggerated for effect or that their viewpoint was misunderstood. I live in a bastion of Liberalism (big L) and have never heard someone profess such a belief in the years I’ve spent here.

3077

I’m sure if you put them in an actual home invasion scenario they might change their minds, but they profess that it is their belief. Insert the old adage about a conservative being a liberal who’s been mugged or whatever.

That said, look at some of the posts on this page, people are basically saying something similar. Someone breaks in, you hide upstairs and wait for the police or the like. So it isn’t that radical really, everyone just has a different line, if you will.

3078

I’m pretty sure this is what is going on. He’s confusing “confronting an intruder is stupid” with “you shouldn’t be permitted to confront an intruder.” Most sane people, if questioned, will take the former position, while agreeing that you have the right to confront them if you want to. Given that this is the only response he’s gotten here, and yet he’s filtered it through his preconceptions to support his position, I don’t doubt this applies to his earlier conversations.

3079

Where do you live and what kind of home invasions are you dealing with? O_o

3080

The issue of course is that violent crime in general is reported in such a way to make the layman (such as your father) feel that it is hyper-likely to happen, when in fact it is much less likely to occur today than it was back when he was your age. Whatever your age is.

A semi-related anecdote that may or may not be bearing… I just enjoy telling the story.

Years ago I took martial arts (to keep weight off and as a sport), and every once in a while the instructor would teach us some Hapkido techniques to deflect punches, disarm a knife-wielding attacker, break an attacker’s arm, etc. One day while we were practicing a knife-disarming move, one of the students asked the sensei about the best technique to use against someone with a gun.

The instructor thought for a moment, then nodded. “If,” he said, “you are robbed at gunpoint and the criminal is within arms’ reach, do the following: Get into your ready stance.”

We all complied, standing with our weight primarily on our back feet, elbows relaxed.

He continued: “with your primary hand open, slowly shift the arm behind you.”

We did as he was showing us.

“Then, in a slow, fluid movement, remove you wallet and hand it to the robber.”

We all just stared at him for a few seconds before chucking. He then proceed to lecture us about the appropriate times to use deadly force - in his view (like mine today), force was only to be used to protect yourself and others. As reasonably well-off middle-classers, there was effectively no situation in which deadly or even maiming-level force should be used to protect material “stuff”. Instead of concentrating on what move you might make to potentially take down a robber, he advised, use that time to memorize his face, his stance, his clothing, his accent, and especially any distinguishing marks that you could use to positively identify the criminal later on.

Yeah, but what no one is saying (including yours truly) is that a valid threat to one’s health or the health of your dependents should not be met with all due reasonable force, up to an including an armed response. In my previous scenario, if the intruder were to venture upstairs to where my family and I were cowering - despite my warnings that I was armed and would shoot him - I would absolutely attempt to kill him.

3081

So I’m misunderstanding while you’re misunderstanding? Awesome. Look over the responses people gave here and what I’m trying to say. Or just twist it so you’re right and I’m wrong or whatever floats your boat.

When a person posts on Facebook about how no one should ever harm another person or that everything in your home should just be given away if someone shows up at your door… well whatever.

I’m only going by what people say and post in social media. I can’t read their minds. When they say they’d lock themselves in a bathroom and call the cops or the like, I just assume they’d do that. Since I can’t read their minds. When they act superior to everyone who says anything remotely different, again, I’m going by the things they’re saying. My psionic powers are pretty shitty, so that’s all I have. Are the full of shit? Maybe, hell if I know, I’m not going to go over to their house, break in and start taking shit to see.

3082

The problem is what constitutes a “valid” threat? I’d say anyone I don’t want in my home who is there is a valid threat. I don’t know what the fuck they want. They could want some CheezyPoofs or to wear my skin around, I don’t know. They could be naked, they could be armed. Again, I probably don’t know. I think someone you don’t know in your home is a reasonable threat to a reasonable person. The laws of pretty much every state agree with that assessment. In a perfect world you could always barricade yourself someplace or the like, but most of these things aren’t ideal situations.

That said, a lot of these things are people being fucking paranoid as well. If they aren’t inside your home, like physically, odds are you can just wait on the police. Some dude creeping around outside in your yard - call the cops, keep an eye on him while you wait. Same dude creeping around your living room? Quite a few people would shoot him dead at that point and I can’t say I would look down on them for it.

3083

And since I’m apparently a pariah anyway, I’ll post this in regards to the whole “wait for the cops” angle.

The police have no obligation to protect you. So much that if they leave you to be raped and brutalized you can’t even get your day in court.
An extreme viewpoint that I don’t agree with 100% by any means, but since everything I say gets twisted so that I say something other than what I say and I’m not smart enough to understand… well fuck it, I’ll just throw this log on the fire I guess.

Edit: Also this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

They’re outliers, but the cops don’t have to do shit to help you and if they don’t you have no recourse.

3084

You did say this:

There is a sizable part of the population that believes you call the police and anything else should be illegal. I know quite a few of them.

Which implies there are people who believe self-defence should be illegal. So I think thats where the whole misunderstanding kicked off.

Turns out what you meant is that there is a sizable part of the population that beleives you should not be allowed to shoot people without warning or imminent threat (i.e. an actual self-defence situation), even if they are in your house without permission. That I would tend to agree with.

3085

There are people that believe that. They might not realize it, but they think all weapons should be illegal and only in the hands of the police. So if someone breaks in and you’re hiding in upstairs and they decide to come up… well I hope you’re trained in hand to hand combat and there aren’t more of them than one or two. These tend to be in the minority or people who haven’t thought the whole thing through. Basically someone shoots some guy in their yard and they scream “this is why only police should have guns!!!” Cause police never shoot innocent people and they always show up in time to stop anything bad.

I think the 2nd group you mention is definitely a bigger group. I think shooting without warning is how bad things happen. That’s where you get stories about someone shooting their son as he’s trying to sneak in after curfew or the like. However I think any time a stranger is in your home without permission constitutes imminent threat. If you’re willing to surrender any initiative you can be sure, but that’s asking a lot. I’d rather shoot a burglar than risk my own life. The law says that is reasonable and supports that position pretty much across the board.

3086

I generally agree with this. A few months ago, our house alarm malfunctioned and went off around 3AM. My terrified wife hid with her phone while I chambered a round and investigated. From a hidden position behind our second floor landing, I called out that I was armed and any intruder should leave now. I was fully prepared to fire on anyone who came up the stairs from my ambush position, but I issued a warning first and did not seek out a confrontation. Had there been an actual intruder, I sincerely hope they would have left. That’s what the alarm’s for, after all. The sound and signage are deterrents designed to frighten intruders before things get out of hand. The gun is a last resort if they ever do, but even then I think it needs to be used with great caution.