Summations Only

I think "necessary force" is the standard in the US as well. But the law understands that a firearm is a lethal weapon.I'm no lawyer, though.

of course. the only time I am home is in the evening, and its dark then, I am not going to wait until "i see" that they have a weapon, I'll draw down with my glock, and send 10 hallow points, and reload and send 10 copper jacketed rounds if I have too.I'll justify a shooting when I see them, and I will have them in my sights before I say one word, now wether I shoot or not is hard to say, but I will be ready to shoot. I always keep two loaded 10 round magazines for my 9mm, and 10 rounds (7.62mm X 39)loaded for the carbine. If i go down I'm going down swinging (hopefully shootin). word.

Are you certain that they will actually fire when they are that sticky?

I searched a bit, but nothing resembling this came up in Dutch news sources. Though I don't doubt this could've happened. Though I think that the judge would've thrown out the case. Yes, my thoughts exactly. As far as I can tell, it is. I don't find our judges to be particularly stupid, even though the media might throw a tantrum from time to time.

If you look at Hyro's link to WP, some state laws say that lethal force is automatically justified if you suspect that an intruder intends to commit a felony (which would include burglary). This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force".

Then you'll go to jail...with no guns...and lots of "intruders." - Oni

Even if true, is there a problem with that?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think you're thinking of the Ricky Bodine case. It was a school, and he was up on the roof to steal a floodlight.The case was settled out of court.There were special circumstances that led the school board to settle: the skylights had been painted over (with aluminum paint on an aluminum roof) and couldn't be recognized as skylights; the board were aware that students went up there for non-criminal purposes such as retrieving sports equipment; in spite of this they'd done nothing to make the skylights safe such as putting up barriers or warning signs; and a few months previously a student (on the roof for non-criminal purposes) had fallen to his death through a skylight in a neighboring school in the same school district.Now under these circumstances a lawyer could make the argument that, unlike a regular homeowner, the school board had neglected a duty to the public in general to make their roof safe --- a duty not nullified by the fact that the particular guy who ended up in a wheelchair had been up there to commit theft.Such an argument might just have swayed a jury, and so the school board decided not to roll the dice. It should be noted that if it the trial had gone all the way and Bodine had been awarded damages, that would have been a verdict, not a ruling, and it would have been down to the jury, not the judge.---In summary, this particular case doesn't really reflect the general state of the law, either in the state of California where this took place, nor anywhere else.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nah, just "see a gun." It works great, especially if you're white and the intruder was of color.I don't think people should be shot willy-nilly, but, you know? I don't think people should feel like breaking into someone else's house doesn't put their lives at risk. And I kind of think the physical risks of engaging in crime should be borne by the criminals, not by the victims.And I think maintaining that principle is worth a few human lives.

Is there a problem with:(a) imposing the death penalty for crimes against property;(b) substituting suspicion for proof;(c) uniting in one person the office of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner?You know, I think there might be. And I think the parents of Yoshihiro Hattori might agree.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well I can think of a couple but I would say the main one is that it goes against the principle that any real justice requires that the details of the case be considered. Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food?On the other hand I find myself in agreement with Ted Nugent when he said something like "I dont need the state to tell me that I have the right to defend myself."

But none of those are applicable in the case of breaking into someones home.It is not a property crime, it is an invasion.It is not substituting suspicion for proof, the person broke into someones home.It is not uniting in one person the office of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, it is protecting ones home.And yes, the parents of that kid did feel bad and I'm sure that even the person that shot the boy felt sad, BUT as happened in that case, the only crime committed was breaking into someones house.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But that is unrelated to the issue. No one says someone deserves to die for stealing food, no one even said anyone deserves to die. The question is whether or not you have a right to protect your home from invasion?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You're right, some states essentially have a shoot-on-sight policy. I think Texas has really loose laws in this regard.My own personal opinion requires some discretion on the part of the homeowner, but obviously far less than with someone in law enforcement.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Well, to a degree you are right. But you also need to think about it in an actual context. Think of it from the homeowners perspective. The homeowner is going to have no clue as to the intentions of the intruder, particularly if they are armed, nor is he going to be provided time to figure it out.Surely the homeowner isn't going to invite the intruder to sit down and have a friggin' cup of tea with him to discuss what his victimizer's intentions are, so... yeah...I do agree that some discretion is advisable. I don't think you should be able to turn some guys head in to a canoe just because he simply poked his head through your window, but generally speaking, citizens have every conceivable right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine