|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Castle Doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. You said:
quote: Back a little further:
quote: What are you basing this on? That some cops have made mistakes?
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Breaking into my house is a physical threat. We're talking about a situation where we are both in the house and I've announced that I'm there with a gun and he is not leaving. I'm justified in shooting him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. Then why did you say "personally"? Why make it sound like you're talking about preferring to risk your life rather than kill someone, when what you really meant was that you'd rather risk my life than kill someone, which is quite a different matter?
I didn't say a word about feeling superior. Yes, you did. Did you, or did you not say:
quote: Note the direction of movement - down. Don't you have to start above someone in order to be lowered down to where they are?
I'm talking about taking more responsibility for one's actions instead of less. You're talking about innocent residents "taking responsibility" and suffering the consequences for the actions of criminals. That's an insane standard of ethics.
I'm talking about behaving better than the law requires instead of doing what I can get away with. That can't be a tactical consideration when your safety is at risk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No it isn't. Yes, it is.
The intruder may not know you're there and probably hopes there's nobody there. Completely irrelevant to whether or not he's a threat. You really have no idea how to think tactically, do you, Ringo? "He can't be a threat - look, his shoes are brown!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? Ultimately, it would seem so (unless it was willful or wanton misconduct), but that isn't really what it is. I wouldn't be "killing" them. I'd be shooting at them in defense of myself and property. But yes, they might end up dying as a result.
Surely not one that is worthy of the death penalty? No, but it isn't the death penalty. The death penaly is a punishment for a convicted crime. This is me defending myself and, presumably, someone ending up dead.
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. Well I'd vote to put you in jail for making that vote But seriously, it wouldn't be me killing someone for stealing a microwave in the first place. It'd be me defending myself and someone ending up dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Cops do make mistakes which cost human lives. Homeowners, with less training, are likely to make even more mistakes which cost human lives. For that reason. homeowners should be under equal or greater constraints than cops when using force.
What are you basing this on? That some cops have made mistakes? Catholic Scientist writes:
I'd say no. "Not leaving" is not a threat. You have the option of calling the police. We're talking about a situation where we are both in the house and I've announced that I'm there with a gun and he is not leaving. I'm justified in shooting him. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Catholic Scientist Writes Yes, he does write that. Now, can you show me some place where he's written that misdemeanor theft of microwaves should be a capital crime?
So all one has to do is believe that an unspecified felony is to be committed against ones property and "deadly force" is justified. Who else's beliefs should CS be required to rely on, if he and the criminal threat are the only two people in the situation? Who else's head is he supposed to think with? Who else's judgement should he be required to exercise beyond his own? Yours and Ringo's don't seem to be doing him much good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"Not leaving" is not a threat. It's a crime, which puts the residents at physical risk. That makes it a threat.
You have the option of calling the police. How will that bring the situation to a safer and more immediate resolution than the use of force, right now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Because that is the input that society will get from me, my personal opinion. I'd rather risk my own life than kill somebody else's and I'd also rather that society as a whole discourage killing people over perceived risks.
Then why did you say "personally"? Why make it sound like you're talking about preferring to risk your life rather than kill someone, when what you really meant was that you'd rather risk my life than kill someone, which is quite a different matter? crashfrog writes:
Of course not. I'm talking about level of behaviour. Better or worse behaviour in one isolated incident doesn't imply better or worse person.
Did you, or did you not say:
quote: Note the direction of movement - down. Don't you have to start above someone in order to be lowered down to where they are? crashfrog writes:
A lot of people live their lives that way every day. If you want to think we're insane, fill your boots.
You're talking about innocent residents "taking responsibility" and suffering the consequences for the actions of criminals. That's an insane standard of ethics. crashfrog writes:
Can be and is, every single day. ringo writes:
That can't be a tactical consideration when your safety is at risk. I'm talking about behaving better than the law requires instead of doing what I can get away with. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Of course not. I'm talking about level of behaviour. Better or worse behaviour in one isolated incident doesn't imply better or worse person. Now you're just comically backpeddling.
Can be and is, every single day. No, it cannot ever be, by definition of a "tactical situation."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
crashfrog writes:
Sorry, I'm not an American and I guess I don't have the same level of timidity. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a threat unless it's an actual threat.
ringo writes:
It's a crime, which puts the residents at physical risk. "Not leaving" is not a threat. crashfrog writes:
I don't care if it's "more immediate". It's safer by my definition if everybody walks out alive. ringo writes:
How will that bring the situation to a safer and more immediate resolution than the use of force, right now? You have the option of calling the police. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Right back atcha. No real argument, so you run away. Now you're just comically backpeddling. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For that reason. homeowners should be under equal or greater constraints than cops when using force. That's precisely and stupidly backwards. It's precisely because civilians don't have access to the same resources, training, and advantages that police officers that they are afforded a wider latitude for the reasonable use of force. Similarly, a gun owner (whose weapon only seriously harms or kills) is afforded a wider degree of latitude for the use of force than a student of the martial arts or a man holding a taser, because he does not enjoy the benefits of incapacitive training or a weapon that can take down without killing. Police should be under far, far greater restriction in the use of force because they're trained to overcome the natural human resistance to using force on another person. (That's the "training" you guys seem to think would make them less likely to shoot an innocent person, but what they're actually trained for is to make them more likely to shoot a dangerous person. Police aren't trained in anything at all that would make them less likely to open fire in Oni's "inadvertent retard burglar who suddenly wants a hug" scenario.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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. Again, I agree with all of that. But if you find someone in your home, you don't know if they are there to commit a crime, you have not established that they have broken in, you have not determined if you are in any physical danger. Again, you may simply have stubbled onto a mistake of someone walking into the wrong house, a retarded person who got loss from their care-taker, someone on medication who is delusional and doesn't know where they are... etc, etc, etc. There are exceptions.
By trespassing in my home. Obviously. Not at all. Jehovah's witness trespass all the time, kids trespass all the time. No physical risk at all. Trespassing alone doesn't put you at risk physically.
Oni writes: You have only determined that someone is trespassing, their intentions are unknown - so, how are you and other residents at risk of being physically hurt?
CF writes: Because they're trespassing and their intentions are unknown. Obviously. Well then by your standards anything puts you at physical risk.
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. Agreed, but someone trespassing doesn't automatically mean they are a criminal, I gave you just a few situations where they weren't. Again technically you are right that the act of trespassing is a crime. But, unless that crime is worthy of killing someone, which you have agreed it is not, then there is no need for further deadly force until something more is established about the trespasser.
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. Not at all, unless you blindly determine that. But if the trespasser is a child, or an elderly person, or retarded person, or a delusional person that simply doesn't know where they are, you are not in any physical danger and or risk of death. So not every single trespasser puts you at risk of death, it should be determined first what's going on.
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. Not all states have the Castle Doctrine. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a threat unless it's an actual threat. But it is an actual threat. Breaking and entering is a threat. Felony burglary is a threat. It's defined so under the laws of both the US and Canada, and it's the reason why people who have experienced a home invasion burglary - even if they weren't there - are so profoundly affected by the experience. It's because they were actually threatened by it. It's not a matter of the size of your balls, Ringo, though I'm sure you're swinging a pair of clankers the way you so bravely pledge to put other people's lives in danger. It's a matter of how you have no idea at all about how to arrive at decisions and judge outcomes in dangerous, tactical situations.
I don't care if it's "more immediate". Because the part of your brain that does tactical assessment is broken. For people with functioning minds, quicker is safer, because you're not safe until it's over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But if you find someone in your home, you don't know if they are there to commit a crime, you have not established that they have broken in That's why they present a physical danger to me.
Again, you may simply have stubbled onto a mistake of someone walking into the wrong house, a retarded person who got loss from their care-taker, someone on medication who is delusional and doesn't know where they are... etc, etc, etc None of those situations would obviate the very real danger of having an unwanted stranger breaking the law in your home.
Jehovah's witness trespass all the time, kids trespass all the time. Not inside my home they don't, and if they did that would present a physical risk to me.
Trespassing alone doesn't put you at risk physically. No, of course not. If they trespass in my neighbor's pool or on the other side of town, what possible danger could I be in? It's when they trespass inside my home, with me there, that they present a physical risk. And it's not fair that I should be the one expected to bear the burden of that risk. They're the one who should be, and will be, because I have the right to use appropriate force to expel unwanted criminals from my home.
Well then by your standards anything puts you at physical risk. And by your standards nothing does. What's the risk, after all, of someone pointing a loaded gun at you? Why, nothing at all - it's not like there's a bullet coming out!
But, unless that crime is worthy of killing someone No crime is worthy of killing anyone for. I'm opposed to the death penalty, remember? But people in their homes have a right to use force to protect themselves and other residents from the risk of harm introduced by those who chose to put them at risk.
But if the trespasser is a child, or an elderly person, or retarded person, or a delusional person that simply doesn't know where they are, you are not in any physical danger and or risk of death. Why do you think you couldn't be harmed by a child, a mentally retarded person, a delusional person, or an elderly person? All these kinds of people can and have committed crimes, up to and including rape and murder. Indeed the mentally handicapped are more likely, not less, to be in your house to commit a crime than an abled person. Delusional people are frequently dangerous to themselves and others because they can't be relied upon to exercise appropriate judgement.
Not all states have the Castle Doctrine. Every state in the United States allows private citizens to use appropriate force to protect themselves from harm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024