Summations Only

Agreed. I'm not making an argument against diligence, but I am saying it's unreasonable to expect a besieged resident to make a detailed inspection and interrogation of an intruder before using force to defend himself.Frankly if you're unlawfully in someone else's home we should be talking about your responsibility to demonstrate that you don't pose a threat. The resident of the home is there lawfully and you're not. I don't think it's the resident who should bear the risk of someone else's criminal activity, which is why I think we should be careful of setting up an unreasonably high standard of diligence.Moreover, owning a firearm is not a privilege in the United States, it's a right that Americans have under our second amendment.

"Reasonable" is the vague but critical word in this context. Because in some circumstances it may be necessary to physically harm or even kill someone to prevent them carrying out a crime. But that may not be considered "reasonable".For example, if someone a lot bigger and stronger than you is about to take your TV, the only way you might be able to prevent them from doing so in the particular circumstances is to pick up an iron poker and attack them with it. Knocking them over the head might be the only way you could prevent the crime taking place. Even though that would be preventative rather than punitive, I don't believe that would be considered reasonable. In that case, you'd be expected to let them go ahead and commit the crime.I think this is where it gets difficult in the case of someone breaking into your home. Should that automatically be considered a threat to your person, and does that then give you the right to do whatever is necessary to eliminate any possible threat to you? Again, if the intruder is bigger than you, or you are outnumbered, your only chance to eliminate the threat might be to use very violent and possibly lethal force.

You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that this is very much not the case in my country - where, of course, the Tony Martin case occurred.

The fundamental question is still the same that I asked as the OP -- do you have a fundamental right to protect your home with force, if necessary?

---

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

With appropriate force, yes.(edit) Actually looking at the wording, no. You do not have a fundamental right to protect your home with force. It is right that the law allows the use of reasonable force in defending yourself or your property, but it's not a fundamental right.Appropriate force doesn't include shooting people in the back with a gun.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

I own a house and a handgun.If I think someone came into my house in the middle of the night, I'd grab my gun and yell:

quote:

---

Who's there!? I have a gun!

---

At that point they'll know I'm armed and should be running away if not immediately indentifying themselves.If they don't answer and I don't hear them running away then I'll go looking to make sure my house is clear while continuing to shout the same thing.You don't shoot a target you haven't indentified. Not identified in the sense of knowing their name, but in the sense of know what it is you're shooting.If a person is in my house and they're not running away after being informed that I have a gun while also not telling me who they are, then after I identify my target I will begin shooting.How's that sound for a plan?

Fundamental right? No. But the OP spoke only of legal rights.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

And, even trained people, highly trained in those sorts of situations, can and do misjudge. So imagine how badly a civilian who has never been placed in a situation to have to shoot someone will handle making that split second decision.We're just not that ggod at in anyway. Have you read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point).Summary:

quote:

---

It presents in popular science format research from psychology and behavioral economics on the adaptive unconscious; mental processes that work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information. It considers both the strengths of the adaptive unconscious, for example in expert judgment, and its pitfalls such as stereotypes.

---

The author talks about a few things on our ability to "thin slice" a situation and the benefits of not having to much info and making, in some if not most cases, a better decision.But he also points out the down falls of our unconcsious decision making process - that split-second decision that requires it - and how many factors, such as our prejudices, can come in to play.

quote:

---

Gladwell uses the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, where four New York policemen shot an innocent man on his doorstep 41 times, as another example of how rapid, intuitive judgment can have disastrous effects

---

It goes on to explain that intuitive judgment is developed by experience, training, and knowledge. But even in those individuals who have undergone all that, it can still fail. Imagine how shitty normal, everyday people, with no training, experience or knowledge will be at intuitive judgement. Just saying, guns can make matters worse than they were. Better them than me I always say.- Oni

True, just as armed home defenders can and are injured or killed by assailants anyway. Or better. That's why I nether oppose nor advocate gun ownership, nor own guns myself. Owning a gun and training to use it has unambiguous pros and cons. The decision to own a gun and use to to defend one's person or home is a decision that only the individual can make for themselves, after assessing their capabilities and temperament.

Irrelevant. My only point is to show that shooting before you're aware of the full dangers of the situation, like AE suggested, is not something that untrained, inexperienced civilians should do - when, even trained, experienced offices fail to fully assess these situations.To many factors render an untrained, inexperienced person incapable rationally assessing the situation. In those cases where they shot first and asked questions later, if they killed someone who possed no danger to them, they should be justly tried and convicted for that. The only way it could be better is if, by chance, they happen to shoot someone holding a gun that they could then try to use the excuse that they felt they were in danger for their lives. I'm sure given enough tries this will be the case sometimes. But even ONE single innocent life lost over an irrational shooting, is one too many.Now, if you see the gun, you're in danger, shoot to kill. On that I agree. Which is where I think the rest of your comment holds true: "The decision to own a gun and use to to defend one's person or home is a decision that only the individual can make for themselves, after assessing their capabilities and temperament."If you choose to defend yourself with a gun when there is a situation that calls for it, go right ahead. But (1) believing that average, everyday citizens can do this is false, and (2) making a mistake can cause the lose of innocent life and that makes the stakes too high.- Oni

How are you in danger?- Oni

Yes.

Well, but you're in danger before you're aware of all the dangers. Being unaware of the intention and capability of an invader in your home is dangerous. They pose a danger simply by being someone who isn't supposed to be there.It's not at all like a random stranger in your living room while your family is asleep in bed is a perfectly safe state of affairs until he announces that he's armed and capable of hurting you. That's a situation that's immediately dangerous, that poses an immediate risk to the residents of that home. The way that it's better is when someone comes in your house to kill you and take your stuff, you kill them instead. It's better because you're alive and the person who was going to kill you is dead. People do actually come into other people's houses and kill the people who live there, as happened to Sean Taylor recently, or to the Clutter family as detailed in Capote's In Cold Blood. These crimes do occur, and it's more likely that an intruder is in your home to commit a crime than by mistake. Someone entering your home to commit crimes puts you at risk, and it's not fair to ask you to shoulder the entire burden of that risk. Simply being someone of unknown intention and armament unlawfully in someone else's home puts the residents at risk. That risk should primarily rest on the invader. "Average citizens" don't reside in homes, individuals do. There's no such thing as "the average individual." Every individual has to determine for themselves whether or not to open fire on an invader in their home. Nobody can make that decision for them except after the fact, when it's too late. People can easily avoid being shot as home invaders by not invading armed people's homes.

A stranger has broken into my house.

Not at all. That's what an irrational assessment sounds like, and is exactly the reason why untrained, inexperienced civilians (what I meant by average citizen) isn't capable of assessing those situations like someone who is experienced and trained. That's why police must see the situation escalate before they can use deadly force. However, they are trained, experienced and have the knowledge to make a better decision than civilians. And even then they can fuck up. source

quote:

---

It is not a legally defined offense (federally) in the United States...

​

Persons charged with "home invasion" are actually charged with robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault charges.

---

...this is where the Castle Doctrine comes in in some states.But it still doesn't explain how someone is in danger, where deadly force is the only possible way out, by there being someone in your house. Personal prejudice can play a factor in making a wrong decision. How can you accurately determine that in a split-second? Or are you saying that the intruder has announced his/her intentions, pulled out a weapon and is coming at you? If that's the case, then shoot to kill.But if you just find someone in your home, have not determined if they forced their way in, don't know if there's a weapon in their possession, you have no idea what is going on. And shooting at this point is not justified. People can easily not be home invaded if they don't have a home.- Oni