JohnRich 4 #1 February 17, 2004 From the London Telegraph:BBC listeners want right to kill burglarsIf listeners of the Today programme could introduce a new law to Britain, it would be one allowing them to kill an intruder in their home should the need arise. That was the surprise - and, in the programme's own word, controversial - choice of listeners who voted for the piece of legislation they would most like to see in the statute book. The audience for the Radio 4 programme were asked to put forward ideas that had a real chance of becoming law. Five were shortlisted and more than 26,000 took part in the final vote. The winning idea, announced yesterday, would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their properties from intruders. It received 37 per cent of the vote. The result was welcomed by Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his Norfolk home four years ago. He told the programme: "People now know what is going on and they are taking notice. "It is heinously wrong that you should live in fear in your home. That if somebody breaks in you are going to have the law jump down on you. It is just not right." "I can't remember who it was who said, 'The people have spoken - the bastards.' It is quite likely that this Bill is unworkable. "In the end it depends on whether an MP is willing to take it forward. But just because Today listeners come up with the Tony Martin Memorial Bill doesn't mean it will become law." Longon Telegraph So, British citizens who wish to be able to use deadly force against intruders in defense of their families inside their own homes, are "bastards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lister55 0 #2 February 17, 2004 "I can't remember who it was who said, 'The people have spoken - the bastards.'Quote I get this feeling all the time...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CrazyIvan 0 #3 February 17, 2004 Are they behaving like Texans now? __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #4 February 17, 2004 Silly Brits....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveMonkey 0 #5 February 17, 2004 It's almost as bad as the man who broke into someone's house, cut himself on the window HE broke, then sued the family - AND WON ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #6 February 17, 2004 QuoteIt's almost as bad as the man who broke into someone's house, cut himself on the window HE broke, then sued the family - AND WON HOW!!! I would be suing my attorney for negligence.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveMonkey 0 #7 February 17, 2004 Fucked up UK laws mate. The family didn't clean the glass away quick enough probably ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #8 February 17, 2004 This is a startling idea, especially coming fromt he Brits. We do not have the authority anywhere in the US to defend property with deadly force. And now the Brits want to take that step? Dang. This is shocking. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #9 February 17, 2004 Then check this booby trap wrongful death lawsuit.... Clicky *** Family of Dead Booby Trapper Forced to Pay Family of Dead Burglar If the other cases described here make a mockery out of our legal system, this case yanks the pants off of our legal system, screams “check out my dong, ladies!”, then shoves our legal system into the girl’s bathroom. In 1997, a bar owner, Jessie Ingram, suffered three burglaries in a little over a month. This forced him to booby trap the windows so that any further people trying to break in would get electrocuted. However, as a polite booby trapper, he posted warning signs informing burglars of their potential death by electric shock. Five days later, Larry Harris, a cocaine-filled drunk burglar, smashed his way through a window by one of these signs and was promptly blasted to death by Jessie’s kick ass security system. Obviously, this hit the intellectual community the hardest, as the loss of Larry, one of its preeminent members, pushed the invention of the Pasta Pro Mk. 2 back dozens of years. Since Illinois law doesn’t care if you use deadly force to protect your home or business, Jessie was not charged with a crime. However, the family of the brilliant but now deliciously deep-fried Larry filed a wrongful death suit against Jessie and the man who owned the property. The Harris family lawyer argued that no one could really be sure what Larry was up to that night. And it’s true, there’s a chance that this drug-addicted multiple breaker-and-enterer might have only been breaking the bar’s window at 2am to deliver an anonymous bouquet of tulips and Care Bear bath salts. It’s somewhere around the same chance of you shitting a six leaf clover that can breakdance, but it was a compelling enough argument that the case dragged on long enough for Jessie to die during the course of it. Finally, after everyone involved was dead, a jury decided to force the family of Jessie to pay $150,000 to the family of Larry. However, the jury conceded that Larry was HALF responsible for throwing himself onto the clearly marked electrical trap and cut the fabulous cash prize down to $75,000. I think we can all agree on the message that this case is sending: keeping my valuables in the bottom of that shark tank is nothing but a ticking time bomb of lawsuits."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #10 February 17, 2004 It is a fundamental rule of tort law that you cannot use deadly force in the defense of property. The most discussed cases involve "spring guns," where a person will booby trap his shed with a shotgun to surprise burglars. Deadly force is simply not allowed to protect property. Think of an empty mine that has power lines running to it. The owner of the power lines decides to keep power running through them so that nobody raids the power lines for scrap copper. Some buffoon gets electrocuted. That power line owner will go down. There's no good reason to kill someone ove copper power lines. By the way, my review of the statutes indicates that the use of deadly force in Illinois is only to protect against death or great bodily harm, and not available to protect property. Of course, I'm not licensed in Illinois. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #11 February 17, 2004 You are way wrong about that. I'm pretty sure both TX and FL allow you to stop the commision of a felony (including robbery) with deadly force, and even to prevent fleeing from the scene of a felony with deadly force. I also seem to recalll La. passing legislation to make it permissable to use deadly force to prevent a carjacking. And I'm pretty sure every state in the nation has castle doctrine rules, whereby if someone is in your house, you do not have a duty to retreat and can use deadly force if you believe they are a threat. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #12 February 17, 2004 Thanks for clarifying.....time to deactivate my alarm then"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,155 #13 February 17, 2004 I believe in all those cases there have to be people at the location involved. People can be in danger. Booby traps aren't allowed, and shooting someone as they ran away has gotten people indicted here in Houston at least. Especially when it was a confused foreign student who was shot. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #14 February 17, 2004 I believe that too, and it should include to having a phsyco ex in PA......"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #15 February 17, 2004 Ahhhh...I see. I hadn't read the prior post and was responding to "you cannot use deadly force in the defense of property". Yeah, I would think boobie traps are too close to "lying in wait" to pass muster on justification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #16 February 17, 2004 There is a guy who owns a local machine shop and he had a break-in problem. He has a box of rattlesnakes. The box has no lid. He has a sign that says so. The sign is posted on the outside of the building. Once he put the sign up, the breakins stopped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #17 February 17, 2004 QuoteYou are way wrong about that. I'm pretty sure both TX and FL allow you to stop the commision of a felony (including robbery) with deadly force, and even to prevent fleeing from the scene of a felony with deadly force. I also seem to recalll La. passing legislation to make it permissable to use deadly force to prevent a carjacking. And I'm pretty sure every state in the nation has castle doctrine rules, whereby if someone is in your house, you do not have a duty to retreat and can use deadly force if you believe they are a threat. . Kev: You are correct about what you are saying about the laws. But, I am not wrong. You are correct about an entirely different issue. Not a single time did I ever say that the use of deadly force is prohibited when protecting people. I said that it is prohibited when protecting PROPERTY. This means you cannot shoot someone who steals your empty car from a parking lot. If there is a kid in the car, you can fire away! Notice your example of the Castle Doctrine includes people in the house? If there are people, then it isn't property we are protecting, now is it? It is PEOPLE we are protecting. The Castle Doctrine does not extend to empty castles. You have an occupied house and an armed perp comes in? You can use deadly force. But, if you've got an EMPTY house booby trapped with a bouncing betty to make sure that anyone breaking and entering the EMPTY dwelling will be splattered on the wall, then you will find yourself in a heap of trouble if the plan works. Keep to the issue here - burglary v. robbery. Empty v. occupied. Edited to add: I see wendy already corrected him. Protection of property v. protection of people. A pretty big difference My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BBKid 0 #18 February 17, 2004 Just thought I'd post my opinion, as a Brit. If someone broke into my house and threatened my family, I'd want to neutralise the threat, whatever way I could. If that meant scaring them off, so be it, if it meant fighting them off, with them winding up dead, so be it. But then think - you wake up and you can hear scuffling around outside. Due to the new law, you pick up your gun and blow the intruder away - after all, you've been burgled four times in the last year. Then you find out it was someone who had been attacked themself and would go to any lengths to seek protection, or was just some homeless guy who saw an open door and wanted to take some food just to survive. Both these situations are far-fetched, I know, but they're entirely possible, so I would oppose this law. Besides, if I do need to defend myself or my family, I've got a Japanese sword under my bed (for martial arts - I'm not a complete tosser!) which I'm sure, combined with the sight of me coming downstairs naked, would deter any would be attacker! Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #19 February 17, 2004 Florida law - deadly force cannot be used to defend property, only people. A few years back, my friend was a witness in a trial. They live on a farm. Before the trial, they heard noises on the porch, but no barking. He looked out the window and saw 3 people. He yelled that he was armed and was going to shoot, they ran. He found his dog dead (knife). They killed the dog so that he wouldn't alarm anyone. The police took an hour to get there and told him 2 things. "Good thing you didn't shoot them, they were outside" and "Don't call us next time". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #20 February 17, 2004 Looks like he's right: Texas penal code: § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites souleh 0 #21 February 18, 2004 Not so sure about killing intruders, as that's a double sided knife, but I do think reasonable force being legal is very much nessecary. I may be mistaken, but I recollect hearing something about a burglar falling on something, breaking his leg - and the homeowner being liable. It's this insane legal situation that seems to laugh in the face of reason. In my view, if someone breaks entry into your house, then they do so entirely at their own risk. I know for a fact, if I found an intruder in my house, and I felt I could hurt them without being hurt (badly) back, I'd give them a beating to remember - but not kill.. Is this irresponsible? I dont think so. The fcukers shouldn't have been there in the first place. "Bastards" indeed. Fcuk you too matey. Sorry.. rant over. This is just one of those stupid issues that really gets to me. 'buttplugs? where?' - geno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #22 February 18, 2004 Actually, read that TX penal code that was posted. If you see someone stealing your unoccupied car, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #23 February 18, 2004 Why, my dear Phillykev, this is elementary. Well, not elementary. Rather, it is a matter of statutory construction. Also, note that I generally limited my comments to tort questions. Just because it is not a crime doesn't mean it is not the basis for tort liability. A crime just makes it easier to prove a tort. Here's the statute as quoted by Nightingale, my commentary within (of course, I could be wrong): Texas penal code: § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (Reasonably necessary - it means no more force than necessary - think of bouncers tossing a dude from a bar) (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession (This means immediate - like chasing a dude down who stole my wallet) and (one of the most important words in law): (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor (the sctor thought it was a thief he shot, and not the repo man); or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. (This means, in effect, a robbery) § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes (oooh! "Reasonably Believes") the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes (there's that phrase again) that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means (death is the only way to stop this) ; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Sounds like the same justification for deadly force for self defense) Conclusion: Wha we have here is a limited set of circumstances where deadly force is authorized. Notice two points - when disposses of real property, deadly force is authorized if dispossession is accompanied by force, and no lesser force can get you back on it (in other words, you were threatened with death or severe bodily injury unless you got off - you can reciprocate that threat to maintain possession). The other point is when recovering moveable property with deadly force, there are a couple of key requirements - imminent threat or hot pursuit; and at night. Why these requirements? If it is almost going to happen, you can stop it. If it just happened, you can try to get it back. But, this only works at night. Why can't you use deadly force to recover property except at night? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the requirement of nighttime is due to the greater ease in which a perpetrator can conceal a deadly weapon. Tough question. I guess there is no criminal penalty in these circumstances. But, I do not believe that it ensures that there is no civil penalty for it. A person does not get pinched for every car accident. But, in many instances, the person still gets sued and loses. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nbblood 0 #24 February 18, 2004 QuoteActually, read that TX penal code that was posted. If you see someone stealing your unoccupied car, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them. God Bless Texas! Really though, I'm all in favor of stacking the odds in favor of the law abiding citizen in protection of his/her property and the right to protect it. I'm tired of the ridiculous lawsuits where criminals are winning settlements because they were foiled and hurt/killed. That all said, if I saw somebody driving away in my brand new Chevy Truck (fill in the blank, whatever vehicle you want), and I had an arsenal of weapons at my disposal, which I do, I would NOT use deadly force for the sake of a vehicle. I am not willing to kill for the sake of material property. Now, if an innocent life is threatened, completely different story. Having said that, I'm not about to criticize someone that does protect thier property in this manner. This is simply my choice. And, yes, I do know what it's like to have a brand-new (7 months old) truck stolen. It sucks, but I still feel that way. I say drive on Brits, pass that law. I believe the threat of armed defenders of property will reduce crime some, probably not a lot though. Just my opinion. Blues, NathanBlues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #25 February 18, 2004 Ok, UK law as it stands now... we already have the right to kill in certain circumstances. We always have the right to use reasonable force in our own defence, the defence of others, and the defence of property. The thing is, our law has dictated that it can never be reasonable to use lethal force in defending property. Its one simple rule for all situations, its just firmly established that lethal force is just far too much for it to be ever considered “reasonable” in the defence of property alone. Someone’s life is another matter. In the appropriate circumstances, lethal force can be justified in the defence of your own life – no problem there in English law. I’m not exactly sure how the listeners of the “today program” want the law to change. From the write up of the article it would appear that they are demanding what already exists. If they are asking for any more than that, they can forget it, it simply wont ever happen. The law as it stands is well entrenched, and not only that, its right. And it’s only a radio show for God’s sake. There’s no need to prevent situations like the Tony Martin case. The biggest problem with that situation was Tony Martin is a raving nut bag - the jury put him away because he came across as a fruit loop and had killed someone. Many other people may have fared better in the same situation. The other answer is that you can only shoot at people with a shot gun if you are in danger or threatened. I guess the jury concluded he wasn’t and thus lethal force was not “reasonable”. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
CrazyIvan 0 #3 February 17, 2004 Are they behaving like Texans now? __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #4 February 17, 2004 Silly Brits....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #5 February 17, 2004 It's almost as bad as the man who broke into someone's house, cut himself on the window HE broke, then sued the family - AND WON ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #6 February 17, 2004 QuoteIt's almost as bad as the man who broke into someone's house, cut himself on the window HE broke, then sued the family - AND WON HOW!!! I would be suing my attorney for negligence.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #7 February 17, 2004 Fucked up UK laws mate. The family didn't clean the glass away quick enough probably ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 February 17, 2004 This is a startling idea, especially coming fromt he Brits. We do not have the authority anywhere in the US to defend property with deadly force. And now the Brits want to take that step? Dang. This is shocking. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #9 February 17, 2004 Then check this booby trap wrongful death lawsuit.... Clicky *** Family of Dead Booby Trapper Forced to Pay Family of Dead Burglar If the other cases described here make a mockery out of our legal system, this case yanks the pants off of our legal system, screams “check out my dong, ladies!”, then shoves our legal system into the girl’s bathroom. In 1997, a bar owner, Jessie Ingram, suffered three burglaries in a little over a month. This forced him to booby trap the windows so that any further people trying to break in would get electrocuted. However, as a polite booby trapper, he posted warning signs informing burglars of their potential death by electric shock. Five days later, Larry Harris, a cocaine-filled drunk burglar, smashed his way through a window by one of these signs and was promptly blasted to death by Jessie’s kick ass security system. Obviously, this hit the intellectual community the hardest, as the loss of Larry, one of its preeminent members, pushed the invention of the Pasta Pro Mk. 2 back dozens of years. Since Illinois law doesn’t care if you use deadly force to protect your home or business, Jessie was not charged with a crime. However, the family of the brilliant but now deliciously deep-fried Larry filed a wrongful death suit against Jessie and the man who owned the property. The Harris family lawyer argued that no one could really be sure what Larry was up to that night. And it’s true, there’s a chance that this drug-addicted multiple breaker-and-enterer might have only been breaking the bar’s window at 2am to deliver an anonymous bouquet of tulips and Care Bear bath salts. It’s somewhere around the same chance of you shitting a six leaf clover that can breakdance, but it was a compelling enough argument that the case dragged on long enough for Jessie to die during the course of it. Finally, after everyone involved was dead, a jury decided to force the family of Jessie to pay $150,000 to the family of Larry. However, the jury conceded that Larry was HALF responsible for throwing himself onto the clearly marked electrical trap and cut the fabulous cash prize down to $75,000. I think we can all agree on the message that this case is sending: keeping my valuables in the bottom of that shark tank is nothing but a ticking time bomb of lawsuits."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 February 17, 2004 It is a fundamental rule of tort law that you cannot use deadly force in the defense of property. The most discussed cases involve "spring guns," where a person will booby trap his shed with a shotgun to surprise burglars. Deadly force is simply not allowed to protect property. Think of an empty mine that has power lines running to it. The owner of the power lines decides to keep power running through them so that nobody raids the power lines for scrap copper. Some buffoon gets electrocuted. That power line owner will go down. There's no good reason to kill someone ove copper power lines. By the way, my review of the statutes indicates that the use of deadly force in Illinois is only to protect against death or great bodily harm, and not available to protect property. Of course, I'm not licensed in Illinois. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 February 17, 2004 You are way wrong about that. I'm pretty sure both TX and FL allow you to stop the commision of a felony (including robbery) with deadly force, and even to prevent fleeing from the scene of a felony with deadly force. I also seem to recalll La. passing legislation to make it permissable to use deadly force to prevent a carjacking. And I'm pretty sure every state in the nation has castle doctrine rules, whereby if someone is in your house, you do not have a duty to retreat and can use deadly force if you believe they are a threat. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #12 February 17, 2004 Thanks for clarifying.....time to deactivate my alarm then"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,155 #13 February 17, 2004 I believe in all those cases there have to be people at the location involved. People can be in danger. Booby traps aren't allowed, and shooting someone as they ran away has gotten people indicted here in Houston at least. Especially when it was a confused foreign student who was shot. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #14 February 17, 2004 I believe that too, and it should include to having a phsyco ex in PA......"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 February 17, 2004 Ahhhh...I see. I hadn't read the prior post and was responding to "you cannot use deadly force in the defense of property". Yeah, I would think boobie traps are too close to "lying in wait" to pass muster on justification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #16 February 17, 2004 There is a guy who owns a local machine shop and he had a break-in problem. He has a box of rattlesnakes. The box has no lid. He has a sign that says so. The sign is posted on the outside of the building. Once he put the sign up, the breakins stopped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 February 17, 2004 QuoteYou are way wrong about that. I'm pretty sure both TX and FL allow you to stop the commision of a felony (including robbery) with deadly force, and even to prevent fleeing from the scene of a felony with deadly force. I also seem to recalll La. passing legislation to make it permissable to use deadly force to prevent a carjacking. And I'm pretty sure every state in the nation has castle doctrine rules, whereby if someone is in your house, you do not have a duty to retreat and can use deadly force if you believe they are a threat. . Kev: You are correct about what you are saying about the laws. But, I am not wrong. You are correct about an entirely different issue. Not a single time did I ever say that the use of deadly force is prohibited when protecting people. I said that it is prohibited when protecting PROPERTY. This means you cannot shoot someone who steals your empty car from a parking lot. If there is a kid in the car, you can fire away! Notice your example of the Castle Doctrine includes people in the house? If there are people, then it isn't property we are protecting, now is it? It is PEOPLE we are protecting. The Castle Doctrine does not extend to empty castles. You have an occupied house and an armed perp comes in? You can use deadly force. But, if you've got an EMPTY house booby trapped with a bouncing betty to make sure that anyone breaking and entering the EMPTY dwelling will be splattered on the wall, then you will find yourself in a heap of trouble if the plan works. Keep to the issue here - burglary v. robbery. Empty v. occupied. Edited to add: I see wendy already corrected him. Protection of property v. protection of people. A pretty big difference My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #18 February 17, 2004 Just thought I'd post my opinion, as a Brit. If someone broke into my house and threatened my family, I'd want to neutralise the threat, whatever way I could. If that meant scaring them off, so be it, if it meant fighting them off, with them winding up dead, so be it. But then think - you wake up and you can hear scuffling around outside. Due to the new law, you pick up your gun and blow the intruder away - after all, you've been burgled four times in the last year. Then you find out it was someone who had been attacked themself and would go to any lengths to seek protection, or was just some homeless guy who saw an open door and wanted to take some food just to survive. Both these situations are far-fetched, I know, but they're entirely possible, so I would oppose this law. Besides, if I do need to defend myself or my family, I've got a Japanese sword under my bed (for martial arts - I'm not a complete tosser!) which I'm sure, combined with the sight of me coming downstairs naked, would deter any would be attacker! Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #19 February 17, 2004 Florida law - deadly force cannot be used to defend property, only people. A few years back, my friend was a witness in a trial. They live on a farm. Before the trial, they heard noises on the porch, but no barking. He looked out the window and saw 3 people. He yelled that he was armed and was going to shoot, they ran. He found his dog dead (knife). They killed the dog so that he wouldn't alarm anyone. The police took an hour to get there and told him 2 things. "Good thing you didn't shoot them, they were outside" and "Don't call us next time". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #20 February 17, 2004 Looks like he's right: Texas penal code: § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
souleh 0 #21 February 18, 2004 Not so sure about killing intruders, as that's a double sided knife, but I do think reasonable force being legal is very much nessecary. I may be mistaken, but I recollect hearing something about a burglar falling on something, breaking his leg - and the homeowner being liable. It's this insane legal situation that seems to laugh in the face of reason. In my view, if someone breaks entry into your house, then they do so entirely at their own risk. I know for a fact, if I found an intruder in my house, and I felt I could hurt them without being hurt (badly) back, I'd give them a beating to remember - but not kill.. Is this irresponsible? I dont think so. The fcukers shouldn't have been there in the first place. "Bastards" indeed. Fcuk you too matey. Sorry.. rant over. This is just one of those stupid issues that really gets to me. 'buttplugs? where?' - geno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 February 18, 2004 Actually, read that TX penal code that was posted. If you see someone stealing your unoccupied car, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 February 18, 2004 Why, my dear Phillykev, this is elementary. Well, not elementary. Rather, it is a matter of statutory construction. Also, note that I generally limited my comments to tort questions. Just because it is not a crime doesn't mean it is not the basis for tort liability. A crime just makes it easier to prove a tort. Here's the statute as quoted by Nightingale, my commentary within (of course, I could be wrong): Texas penal code: § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (Reasonably necessary - it means no more force than necessary - think of bouncers tossing a dude from a bar) (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession (This means immediate - like chasing a dude down who stole my wallet) and (one of the most important words in law): (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor (the sctor thought it was a thief he shot, and not the repo man); or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. (This means, in effect, a robbery) § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes (oooh! "Reasonably Believes") the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes (there's that phrase again) that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means (death is the only way to stop this) ; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Sounds like the same justification for deadly force for self defense) Conclusion: Wha we have here is a limited set of circumstances where deadly force is authorized. Notice two points - when disposses of real property, deadly force is authorized if dispossession is accompanied by force, and no lesser force can get you back on it (in other words, you were threatened with death or severe bodily injury unless you got off - you can reciprocate that threat to maintain possession). The other point is when recovering moveable property with deadly force, there are a couple of key requirements - imminent threat or hot pursuit; and at night. Why these requirements? If it is almost going to happen, you can stop it. If it just happened, you can try to get it back. But, this only works at night. Why can't you use deadly force to recover property except at night? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the requirement of nighttime is due to the greater ease in which a perpetrator can conceal a deadly weapon. Tough question. I guess there is no criminal penalty in these circumstances. But, I do not believe that it ensures that there is no civil penalty for it. A person does not get pinched for every car accident. But, in many instances, the person still gets sued and loses. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #24 February 18, 2004 QuoteActually, read that TX penal code that was posted. If you see someone stealing your unoccupied car, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them. God Bless Texas! Really though, I'm all in favor of stacking the odds in favor of the law abiding citizen in protection of his/her property and the right to protect it. I'm tired of the ridiculous lawsuits where criminals are winning settlements because they were foiled and hurt/killed. That all said, if I saw somebody driving away in my brand new Chevy Truck (fill in the blank, whatever vehicle you want), and I had an arsenal of weapons at my disposal, which I do, I would NOT use deadly force for the sake of a vehicle. I am not willing to kill for the sake of material property. Now, if an innocent life is threatened, completely different story. Having said that, I'm not about to criticize someone that does protect thier property in this manner. This is simply my choice. And, yes, I do know what it's like to have a brand-new (7 months old) truck stolen. It sucks, but I still feel that way. I say drive on Brits, pass that law. I believe the threat of armed defenders of property will reduce crime some, probably not a lot though. Just my opinion. Blues, NathanBlues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #25 February 18, 2004 Ok, UK law as it stands now... we already have the right to kill in certain circumstances. We always have the right to use reasonable force in our own defence, the defence of others, and the defence of property. The thing is, our law has dictated that it can never be reasonable to use lethal force in defending property. Its one simple rule for all situations, its just firmly established that lethal force is just far too much for it to be ever considered “reasonable” in the defence of property alone. Someone’s life is another matter. In the appropriate circumstances, lethal force can be justified in the defence of your own life – no problem there in English law. I’m not exactly sure how the listeners of the “today program” want the law to change. From the write up of the article it would appear that they are demanding what already exists. If they are asking for any more than that, they can forget it, it simply wont ever happen. The law as it stands is well entrenched, and not only that, its right. And it’s only a radio show for God’s sake. There’s no need to prevent situations like the Tony Martin case. The biggest problem with that situation was Tony Martin is a raving nut bag - the jury put him away because he came across as a fruit loop and had killed someone. Many other people may have fared better in the same situation. The other answer is that you can only shoot at people with a shot gun if you are in danger or threatened. I guess the jury concluded he wasn’t and thus lethal force was not “reasonable”. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
