Summations Only

One case of the police making a bad judgment does mean we can't rely on them to make good shooting decisions.And their situation was a lot different than the ones applicable to the Castle Doctrine.I'm not seeing any relevance.

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony.I don't think I'd go to jail.

It isn't one case. Again:

quote:

---

Eberhard and colleagues (2004) conducted experiments with police officers which revealed that they were quicker to decide to shoot an unarmed black target than an unarmed white target, and were quicker to decide to shoot an armed black target than an armed white target.

---

There appears to be a systemic problem with police officers making good shooting decisions. And I'm sure we can come up with many more examples. I happen to know of a couple of Canadian examples too.The relevance is that police officers are much better trained than the average homeowner and much more likely to make a good decision.

---

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

I don't think so. If there was, then there'd be people getting shot up by the cops all the time, or at least more often than not.That cops have been shown to be racist doesn't mean they can't make good shooting decisions. I'd like to see them.Maybe I'm not on the same page as you with what good and bad shooting decisions are.

Nobody's being "killed for threatening your microwave." Someone may die as a result of legal and appropriate force being used to stop a situation that threatens the safety of the legal residents of the home.Since the person who may die is, in this case, the very same person who put the residents at risk by choosing to engage in illegality, I don't see any problem whatsoever. Law-abiding citizens should not be the ones expected to bear the burden of the physical risk of another person's choice to commit a crime. That's wrong.

Racist shooting decisions are bad shooting decisions. Here and here are two Canadian cases that immediately come to mind. A bad shooting decision is one that results in somebody being shot when he wasn't a (physical) threat.

---

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

Yes, that they can make bad decisions doesn't mean that they cannot make good ones. Yes, the cops make mistakes.That doesn't mean they cannot be relied on to make good shooting decisions.And a cop apprehending a suspect is a lot different situation that somebody breaking into my house. Breaking into my house is a physical threat. Its not like the people are slipping and falling into other peoples homes They've broken in.

On the contrary, law-abiding citizens are already holding themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Personally, I would rather risk my own safety than kill somebody for threatening it. Adopting a "better him than me" philosophy just lowers us to the criminals' level.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

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

I don't think anybody should be "shot for a crime", because I don't believe in the death penalty. But residents of a home have a legal right to use force to expel people who unlawfully entered, are committing crimes, and are putting the residents of that home in physical danger. Not to punish a crime; to bring to an end a situation that has put people at physical risk because a criminal decided to commit a crime. No, it's not unknown at all. It's very much known. By trespassing in my home. Obviously. Because they're trespassing and their intentions are unknown. Obviously. Why are you, asshole? No, it's not. If you find out someone trespassed in your home while you were away it's murder if you track them down and shoot them for it. If you found out someone murdered someone in your home while you're away it's murder if you track them down and shoot them for it. It's murder if the police track them down and shoot them for it, too.But you, the legal resident, have a legal right to use force to expel a criminal from your home, because it's not reasonable to expect you to bear the physical risk of someone else's criminality. If they die as a result of the use of force, that's unfortunate, but better them than you, and that's one of the potential consequences I'd like criminals to reflect on before they choose to commit crimes. You're free to make that decision in the situation where it is appropriate. If you're in the position of having to confront an intruder in your home, your judgement is the only judgement you'll have available. By trespassing and having unknown intent. Someone trespassing in your home, while you're in it right there with them does put you at risk of death or great physical harm. Someone trespassing in your neighbors home across the street doesn't put you at any risk at all. No, it generally won't, because of the Castle Doctrine and the principle that residents of a home have the right to use force to expel trespassers and criminals who are putting them at physical risk.

You're free to make that determination for yourself, but not for others. I think seeing yourself as superior to someone who is breaking the law makes you more, not less, likely to engage in bad judgement about what circumstances it's appropriate to use force, like the racist cops you linked to who believe that because they're better than black people they can use inappropriate force for inappropriate reasons.

I didn't say they couldn't. I said they sometimes don't and that the average homeowner is likely to make the same mistakes a lot more often. Actually, it's pretty similar and the constraints are pretty similar. No it isn't. The intruder may not know you're there and probably hopes there's nobody there. Physical confrontation is usually the last thing on his mind.Edited by ringo, : Spell'ing.Edited by ringo, : moar spelling.

---

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

If someone walks up to your door and you think they are going to commit a felony against you does that give you the right to kill them? Surely not one that is worthy of the death penalty? I don't know the law of your state/land.But on a moral level, if I was on a hypothetical moral jury and you had shot someone dead for attempting to steal your microwave I would vote to put your ass in jail."reasonable force"
"proportionate response"etc.

It gives you the right to use force to prevent that felony being committed against your person or property. Nobody has asserted that stealing a microwave is worthy of the death penalty. No crime is worthy of the death penalty. But that's not why he was shot. The intruder was shot because the resident had a legal and moral right to use force against someone who had put him and other residents of the home at physical risk of injury or death, by being engaged in a criminal activity while unlawfully on the premises.The microwave has nothing to do with it. The sole issue here is the use of force to resolve situations quickly and safely, which residents of a home have a right to do when they're placed in physical jeopardy by criminals.

On the contrary, as a member of society, I have the right and responsibility to help decide what restrictions are placed on other members of society. That's why most societies do place restrictions on how violently you can protect yourself. I didn't say a word about feeling superior. I'm talking about taking more responsibility for one's actions instead of less. I'm talking about taking the risk oneself instead of pushing it off on somebody else. I'm talking about behaving better than the law requires instead of doing what I can get away with.Edited by ringo, : Scpelling.

---

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

Are we reading the same thread?Catholic Scientist Writes (and as I understand it the "Castle Doctrine" supports)

quote:

---

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

---

So all one has to do is believe that an unspecified felony is to be committed against ones property and "deadly force" is justified.Have I got it wrong?