Summations Only

Right, but how is your life in danger?There is a dude in your house. Check. You have announced that YOU have a gun. Check. He/she has not moved or responded, but isn't running away. Check.Now, where is the threat to YOUR life that your decision in this case is to use deadly force?What if you happen to shoot a deaf, retarded kid who managed to find a way into your house? Would that sit well with your conscious?- Oni

Because someone is engaged in a criminal act in his house. The threat is that there's a criminal trespasser who has invaded his home.

So now we are the jury, too? There is a person in his house, that is all he knows. No. There is a trespasser, but no criminal intent has been determined. Especially none where the death sentence is to be carried out. A Jehovah's witness that walks into your yard is trespassing. Like I said, it could be a deaf, retarded kid who managed to find a way into his house. Shoot first then find out why they were trespassing? That's where we want our society at?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Whether or not he's found guilty of a crime is irrelevant to whether or not he's committing one. Who's not a resident or anyone else who is supposed to be there, and is thus trespassing. Are you under the impression that a deaf, retarded kid isn't capable of having the intent to harm someone? Isn't capable of the act of hurting someone? (Individuals with mental retardation are more, not less, likely to commit crimes.) Mental retardation doesn't vacate criminal culpability unless it's literally so profound that the individual doesn't know right from wrong. And of course criminal culpability has absolutely nothing to do with self-defense - you're allowed to defend yourself using lethal force even against persons incapable of having the intent to harm you, because they can still harm you. If the kid can't or won't take any action except those that demonstrate threat - like breaking, entering, and refusing to leave when asked - then the use of force in self-defense will be a tragedy, but the resident, who is not the one breaking the law, shouldn't be the one who bears the burden of another's risky criminal activity.

It's a difficult topic to write a law on, really. We don't want to criminalise the use of force to stop criminals, as this seems to do away with the whole idea of a law that protects people from criminal activity. On the other hand, you don't want to give people carte blanche to use as much force as they feel like.The new government promised to clarify the law, but have been vague about the details.

Indeed.It is not reasonable to use lethal force against a trespasser, nor is it reasonable to use lethal force against a burglar. It is reasonable to use lethal force to defend your own person, or that of your family, but not your property.

At what point does property equal security of person. They used to hang people for stealing horses. I had asked previously if a hungry man deserves to die for stealing your food. Perhaps he does if it is the only food that you have.

Never. They used to be wrong then. No. No he doesn't. I can get more food.

I think Oni was implying that if you shout a warning at a stranger you find in your home, it's possible they may not be able to hear or understand you. So you wouldn't necessarily be justified in shooting at them just because they didn't heed your warnings.You may be correct that a disabled person is more likely to do you harm, I really don't know, but it is also more likely that a disabled person might wander into your home because they were lost, confused or needed help.

I entirely agree. No surprise there! But as you say, it's very difficult and I should imagine almost impossible to write a law that specifically covers all possible scenarios.

Should it really matter?According to the link in the OP, some states do have "Duty-to-retreat":

quote:

---

the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

---

I'm against that and I support the Castle Doctrine.If someone is in my home and I believe they intend to commit a felony, then I'm justified in shooting them.If you don't immediately leave after hearing me, then its reasonable for me to believe that you intend to commit a felony. He isn't running away (and he's intruded my house).I don't think I should have to wait to establish that my life is in immediate danger before I'm justified in shooting. Seriously?...we should lower the speed limit on the highways, what if there's a deaf retard out there!...what, did his blind midget lose him?C'mon now. Appealing to a retarded exception isn't convincing in any way at all. Dontcha think? Probably. Sure, I'd feel bad that someone needlessly died. But I wouldn't think I was at fault. Besides, if someone is so deaf and retarded that they're getting themselves killed from breaking into people's houses, then they need to be watch or supervised or something. Its their gaurdian's fault for letting their deaf retard run around in the middle of the night and getting themselves killed. What if they wandered out onto the highway?Anyway, you seem to think that I should be under immedate threat of death before I'm justified in shooting, no?From Message 78: That's where the announcement comes into play. Rather than a deaf retard, I'd be more worried about, say, my drunk cousin looking for a place to crash. But he'd immediately respond with who he is. Say he's passed out on the couch. That's why you always identify your target before you start shooting. I wouldn't shoot someone who's apparently sleeping on my couch.Some guy still rummaging around my house after my announcement deserves to be shot at. According to the Castle Doctrine, the criminal intent has to be suspected, not determined. You think it should be determined first? How's that work?You're gonna let them get the first assault before you do anything? Well, its not really "carried out". I'm a bad shot and people can survive a gunshot. No, not just shooting willy-nilly at anything that moves. I think you should announce your intention and indentify your target first. But yeah, I'm not gonna wait to find out what they are gonna do.I'm the one sitting at home, here. They're the one who's in somebody else's house. I'm the one who gets all the slack, they're already in some serious trouble to begin with.

That's an interesting parallel. We don't expect every driver to be Dale Earnhardt Jr., yet you seem to expect every homeowner to be Wyatt Earp.

---

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

Right, they're definitely trespassing. Now, should they die for that? No, I just meant he/she might not be able to hear you or understand you. He/she may have wandered in unknowingly, for whatever reason, and you shot without finding out. Hell, it doesn't have to be a deaf, retarded person, it could someone who was drunk and you forgot to lock your door. They wandered in thinking they were home and know they think YOU are in their house.In these cases, shooting without knowing what's going on or properly assessing the situation can result in innocent lose of life. And frankly, someone who shoots like that should be thrown in jail. You still fail to establish how it is self defense???If YOU have a gun drawn on someone in your house, who has stopped moving, isn't leaving, but isn't attacking you...YOU are in control. You have done what you needed to do, you are not in danger. Walk back into your room, lock the door and call the cops. A B & E does not constitute the death penalty.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Huh? I'm not followin' ya...

Before you kill someone? Yes, of course. Jeez What the...? If someone is in your house with the intention to steal your microwave, you believe you are justified in shooting them? There are many other reasons why they may not hear you. As long as your life isn't in danger, you have no reason to kill someone. You specified that you had a gun drawn to an intruder that wasn't moving. You can retreat to your room, lock the door and call the cops ending the matter in a non-violent way. There is no reason to shot to kill in the scenario you described. I figured an intelligent fella like yourself would have understood that I was just describing a situation where there would be a logical reason why someone might not be able to hear you. No he doesn't dude. First, the Castle Doctrine is only for the states that have it, if your state doesn't then you don't have the same rights.Second, you described the situation. In your scenario YOU had the gun, locked and drawn, the intruder stopped moving but wasn't leaving - that situation is now under control. You have iced it, there is no need for you to use any deadly force, I repeat, in this case. The only thing left to do is call the cops and let them arrest the person. That's it.Your job is not to determine anything, your job is to make sure you're not in harms way. In the case you described, you did that. You iced the situation. Well done, now put the gun away Mr. Eastwood. - Oni