Florida's No Retreat Law

[stevento]

I read something on CNN that I found interesting, so I did a bit more research on it. Sheriff: Law protects SUV owner who shot, killed woman (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/florida.shooting.law/index.html)

In florida, when you're under attack, from an attacker, you don't have to retreat. You can use deadly force. Florida's no retreat law (http://jerrythegeek.blogspot.com/2006/05/florida-no-retreat-law-in-action.html)


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A father fatally shot a man who tried to rob his family as they waited early Saturday in their sport utility vehicle for a summer camp enrollment to open, authorities said.

The alleged robber approached the driver's window, pointed a gun at the father and demanded money, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson told The Florida Times-Union.

He then ordered the family of five to unlock one of the SUV's doors, Jefferson said.

"The father, sensing something was wrong, decided to defend his family ... pulled out a gun and he shot and killed the suspect on the scene," Jefferson said.

It was not clear if the father was licensed to carry a gun, Jefferson said.

The father's 10-year-old son was somehow wounded during the shooting. Brevon Ricks remained hospitalized in critical condition late Saturday, officials said.

The names of the other family members and the alleged robber were not released.

The family had been parked at the entrance of McGirts Creek Park, waiting to enroll their children in a summer camp, authorities said.

Under a Florida law that took effect in October, people don't have to retreat before responding to an attack, and can use deadly force as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be. It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer.



Because the man pointed a gun at the family, the father had the right to use deadly force to protect his family. But this is what has deeply confused me: Isn't that the law in all states?
I would do the same thing. If someone comes up to my loved ones and points a gun at them, I would not hesitate for one second to use deadly force to protect them.
Based on the amount of detail that is present in the story, I don't think the father should feel guilty in any way. But would he have gone to jail in other states?
This is a controversial law signed by... get ready for it.... Jeb Bush. But this is one time that I have to agree with a Bush.
What do you think?

[pooky]

This is generally common practice in most states, but in general, I think prosecutors in each jurisdiction have discretion as to whether to press charges. In other words, it is taken on a case-by-case basis. Also, in California, for example, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Had this occurred in CA, the father may well have been charged for that, while being spared a homicide or manslaughter charge if the prosecutor deemed it was justifiable self-defense. From the wording in that article, it sounds like the man automatically becomes immune to any charges related to the incident because the incident involved self-defense.

[Desertrat]

There two important parts, here: First is that there is no duty to retreat from some clown who offers gratuitous threat. Second is the part, "It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer."

That keeps some shyster from getting the relatives of some bad guy with a record five miles long to sue on behalf of the "precious little angel". While courts usually find in favor of the righteous shooter, he's still out a bunch of wasted money on legal fees as well as the emotional stress and hassle.

'Rat

[srl7741]

Florida will save Million's of dollars with this new Law. I'm happy for any and all potential future victims.

[Zombie Acorn]

I agree 100% with this law. If you know how to fire a gun and someone breaks into your house unload on them. If you don't know how to fire a gun, learn. If you refuse to learn you shouldn't have access to one, you'll get yourself killed.

[jarjarblinks]

Deadly force is usually the easiest of all threatening situations.

The question remains when the threat is not of deadly nature, or yet, but possibly leading up to. Does this give the defendant the right to "escalate" the situation - knowingly or unknowingly - to discharge force, up to deadly force to protect himself?

Let's say, you are mugged at an alley, the aggressor has a knife, and he is easily 2-3 metres away from you. At that instant, you pull out a pistol and shoot him. You perceive that you are under deadly threat because of a knife which can be fatal in the aggressor's hands, but unlike law enforcement, as a civilian does this give you the right to hop over the "challenge and warning" procedures before discharging a round?

Another grey area is that of self defence that leads aggravated assault. You are under threat by a man who is attempting to harm you by punching you repeatedly. You grapple with him and unknowingly breaks his arm, or dislocates his arm, effectively causing him a much more significant amount of damage than what he originally intends to cause upon you.

Fair, or disproportionate use of force in the name of self defense?

[Rodimus Prime]

Deadly force is usually the easiest of all threatening situations.

The question remains when the threat is not of deadly nature, or yet, but possibly leading up to. Does this give the defendant the right to "escalate" the situation - knowingly or unknowingly - to discharge force, up to deadly force to protect himself?

Let's say, you are mugged at an alley, the aggressor has a knife, and he is easily 2-3 metres away from you. At that instant, you pull out a pistol and shoot him. You perceive that you are under deadly threat because of a knife which can be fatal in the aggressor's hands, but unlike law enforcement, as a civilian does this give you the right to hop over the "challenge and warning" procedures before discharging a round?

Another grey area is that of self defence that leads aggravated assault. You are under threat by a man who is attempting to harm you by punching you repeatedly. You grapple with him and unknowingly breaks his arm, or dislocates his arm, effectively causing him a much more significant amount of damage than what he originally intends to cause upon you.

Fair, or disproportionate use of force in the name of self defense?

well in example 1. You are at least always allowed to 1 up the person. If they go to a knife you go to a gun.

The 2nd one clear case. You caused more harm than they intended to cause to you. So what they intended to cause you harm you can one up them. They intended to inflict minor injures with the possibility of causing major. You cause a much worse injury but still they were harming you.

Over all I see nothing wrong with the law. For every grey area case it would protect a 100 crystal clear from being covered legal fees. The only people who truly will hate this law will the the lawyers who are cut out of a lot of money.

[dsnort]

I believe in some states you are required to attempt to escape the threat through retreat, deadly force is only permissible when retreat is no longer possible.

It's been a few years, but I think Delaware and Maryland either have or did have this law.

[jarjarblinks]

Don't get me wrong, I fully support this law.

It's just a little tenacious in the spotty areas, such as where escape is evidently possible, or you inflict serious damage to an attacker in order to incapacitate him just so stop him from inflicting a much lesser act of physical damage onto oneself.

This has repurcussions into the areas of vigilantes the way I see it. The important thing is, it leads to escalation. In time to come, every attacker, besides being opportunistic, will remain cautious of the ability of the defendent to be fatalistic. It will not bode well for the average citizen, especially so for law enforcement Officers.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Let's say, you are mugged at an alley, the aggressor has a knife, and he is easily 2-3 metres away from you. At that instant, you pull out a pistol and shoot him. You perceive that you are under deadly threat because of a knife which can be fatal in the aggressor's hands, but unlike law enforcement, as a civilian does this give you the right to hop over the "challenge and warning" procedures before discharging a round?
The figure I've heard most often is 21 ft, i.e. anything within that range can be considered a lethal threat, so sayeth my cop friends whom I asked about this. If 21 feet is good enough for a cop wearing body armor, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Another grey area is that of self defence that leads aggravated assault. You are under threat by a man who is attempting to harm you by punching you repeatedly. You grapple with him and unknowingly breaks his arm, or dislocates his arm, effectively causing him a much more significant amount of damage than what he originally intends to cause upon you.

Fair, or disproportionate use of force in the name of self defense?
In this I'd guess it depends on the continuing nature of the threat and whether or not it has been neutralized. If his arm is broken and he's clearly out of the fight and you withdraw, I don't see a problem. Beating the crap out of him in rage/anger when he's down crosses the line.

[Desertrat]

jarjarblinks, the onus is on the one who begins hostility. When gratuitous violence is offered, there is no such thing as a fair fight. If you come at me with your fists, I will do my best to ruin one of your knees and probably your sex life. I'm old and slow, but I can walk faster than a one-legged man can chase.

Four meters with a knife? If your handgun is concealed, and I begin with a knife at that distance, you WILL be cut. You don't have time to stop me, absent skills in unarmed self-defense.

I Googled for "Tueller Drill", and this is but one of many articles about it: http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/11/Beyond-the-Tueller-Drill.aspx

Basically, the time required to identify a threat and draw and present a handgun takes at least 1.5 seconds. A healthy person can cover some 21 feet in that time: Seven meters.

As far as personal opinion, I can but ask why any honest person has any duty to retreat from evil. It's just the opposite: An evil person should fear me--or you--and retreat.

'Rat

[jarjarblinks]

jarjarblinks, the onus is on the one who begins hostility. When gratuitous violence is offered, there is no such thing as a fair fight. If you come at me with your fists, I will do my best to ruin one of your knees and probably your sex life. I'm old and slow, but I can walk faster than a one-legged man can chase.

Four meters with a knife? If your handgun is concealed, and I begin with a knife at that distance, you WILL be cut. You don't have time to stop me, absent skills in unarmed self-defense.

I Googled for "Tueller Drill", and this is but one of many articles about it: http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/11/Beyond-the-Tueller-Drill.aspx

Basically, the time required to identify a threat and draw and present a handgun takes at least 1.5 seconds. A healthy person can cover some 21 feet in that time: Seven meters.

As far as personal opinion, I can but ask why any honest person has any duty to retreat from evil. It's just the opposite: An evil person should fear me--or you--and retreat.

'Rat

Well augmented. I concur with many of your points.

However, in my opinion, the general public will have to educated that escape, where available, should be pursued. Thererupon call law enforcement and let them respond to the neccessary threat. Many civilians are unarmed, untrained, and if they physically commit to aggression with a motivated attacker, the dice might be rolled against them. Self preservation should be the main consideration.

That being said, vigilante pursuant is admirable, but only to the correct individual with the neccessary skills sets. However, that does not entail a stand off, aloof reporting while leaving the innocent in harm's way. I definitely do not subscribe to that mentality. I will be involved. But that's me, because I am a trained individual. I agree that its irresponsible to blanket coverage the entire civilian populace with that civic duty.

[Desertrat]

The general belief among street cops, based on what they actually see on the street, is that those who resist as strongly as possible--whether trained or untrained, no matter--suffer less injury than those who try to run or who merely obey.

Newspaper stories usually are given over to the politically appointed chiefs of police, who always say the opposite. Chiefs are many years removed from street work, and often have spent little time "out there". They're politicians.

Drifting, and FWIW: I know or have known on at least a "beer drinking buddy" level some twenty cops. This is across many states and several decades. (I'm not a "cop groupie".) All of them view the Second Amendment as does the NRA. Among the moderators at a couple of RKBA sites where I moderate, we have at least two active LEOs and three retirees.

'Rat

[Rodimus Prime]

Well augmented. I concur with many of your points.

However, in my opinion, the general public will have to educated that escape, where available, should be pursued. Thererupon call law enforcement and let them respond to the neccessary threat. Many civilians are unarmed, untrained, and if they physically commit to aggression with a motivated attacker, the dice might be rolled against them. Self preservation should be the main consideration.

That being said, vigilante pursuant is admirable, but only to the correct individual with the neccessary skills sets. However, that does not entail a stand off, aloof reporting while leaving the innocent in harm's way. I definitely do not subscribe to that mentality. I will be involved. But that's me, because I am a trained individual. I agree that its irresponsible to blanket coverage the entire civilian populace with that civic duty.

While that is good in theory and in practice a better idea. If retreat is an option if threaten then retreating is more than likely the best option. But here is where it breaks down.

Civil law suites. Lets say for example you where threaten by some one with a knife and got back into a corner where you thought you could not retreat. you pulled the gun and killed the guy. Now the cops did not see a problem with the choice but that guys mother is mad because you killed her baby and turns around and sues you under the argument that you had the option to retreat. Now you will win the law suite but you are going to be out thousands in legal fees paying for a lawyer and lets not forget the huge amount of stress all that mess would add. You have no hope of recovering that lost money.

it protects you more from that than anything else. It protects you from having to prove that you could of retreated. It protects you from paying a huge amount in lawyer fees and the stress from the law suit.

[srl7741]

The general belief among street cops, based on what they actually see on the street, is that those who resist as strongly as possible--whether trained or untrained, no matter--suffer less injury than those who try to run or who merely obey.

Newspaper stories usually are given over to the politically appointed chiefs of police, who always say the opposite. Chiefs are many years removed from street work, and often have spent little time "out there". They're politicians.

'Rat

Based on my experience I support that opinion and will simply say even if they were not out of touch (which most are) they still could not publicly support it. That is one of those topics that do not fare well and can get blow out of proportion quickly.

[jarjarblinks]

I guess it really goes both ways. 'Rat is right in saying that retaliation is a good means of defense, fully agree on that.

Likewise concur about the additional lawsuits which could have been avoided if prudence in action was adopted.

I think 1 thing that we can all concur on is - if our loved ones are being attacked, there will be no quarter, no back down, no hesitation involved in the discharging of aggression to protect and keep them out of harm's way.

I will, without a doubt, even if that entails deadly force. Whatever that could happen, will happen. But at that moment, its my loved one's safety above else. No other worry will come close.

[skunk]

I agree 100% with this law. If you know how to fire a gun and someone breaks into your house unload on themImpressively macho attitude, but presumably you are not entitled to "unload on them" if someone merely breaks in. Surely they have to offer force themselves before you can claim self-defence.

[Rodimus Prime]

Impressively macho attitude, but presumably you are not entitled to "unload on them" if someone merely breaks in. Surely they have to offer force themselves before you can claim self-defence.

Breaking in is force and danger enough in my book.

They are breaking into where I live and that is dangerous to me. I am not going to try to figure out if they are going to harm me or run. If they do not start turning the 2nd they see me expect multiple slugs to enter their body.

They are breaking in with the intend to steal and me being there is an huge unknown in how they will react. Just that unknown factor means I am not going to risk my life nor my family life on the possible they are not going to hurt me.

[skunk]

I did not ask whether you shared Zombie Acorn's "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, I asked whether he was legally entitled to make himself judge, jury and executioner in the absence of a clear threat. Fortunately perhaps, such blanket assertions of willingness to kill intruders are not the same as legal entitlement.

[Gelfin]

Impressively macho attitude, but presumably you are not entitled to "unload on them" if someone merely breaks in. Surely they have to offer force themselves before you can claim self-defence.

This varies heavily from state to state in the United States. As I'm sure you're aware, many states are quite proud to promote that "impressively macho attitude." A great uncle of mine was a quintessential Georgia sheriff, and often offered advice along the lines that if someone is at your door threatening you, shoot him and then drag him inside. Intruders inside your home are considered fair game.

[rhett7660]

I did not ask whether you shared Zombie Acorn's "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, I asked whether he was legally entitled to make himself judge, jury and executioner in the absence of a clear threat. Fortunately perhaps, such blanket assertions of willingness to kill intruders are not the same as legal entitlement.

Skunk..

Wouldn't someone in your house who broke in be a clear threat? One does not know the true intention. For some reason I am not going to wait around to find out. Would you?

[MikhailT]

This (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html) explains the information about the "Stand Your Ground" Law also known as No Retreat law.

[skunk]

Skunk..

Wouldn't someone in your house who broke in be a clear threat? One does not know the true intention. For some reason I am not going to wait around to find out. Would you?I would not assume that a person who broke into my house was intent on causing physical harm to me or my family. Why would they be?

[Desertrat]

skunk, it is a common belief that if somebody breaks into your residence when you are home, they are willing to kill. Why would they not be? After all, it is reasonably thought that some 40% of all US households have one or more firearms. It is thus taken that anybody breaking in is himself likely to be armed. Who would criminally go into a dangerous situation otherwise?

That belief is the position taken by various legislatures around the country.

The reality, of course, is that if you don't have to shoot, you don't. Just because you're legal, shooting is not mandatory. If nothing else, there's all that carpet cleaning!

And most of us who halfway regularly mess with guns figure that the macho-type Keyboard Kommandos are closer to Special Edu. than Special Forces.

[dukebound85]

Impressively macho attitude, but presumably you are not entitled to "unload on them" if someone merely breaks in. Surely they have to offer force themselves before you can claim self-defence.

oh yea? laws such as colorado's "make my day" law disagree with you

if someone knowing breaks into my house, it is with ill intentions from the start. id have no issue shooting them if necessary

if they dont want to accept that chance of being shot, then dont effing break into my house to begin with

its a simple concept really

I would not assume that a person who broke into my house was intent on causing physical harm to me or my family. Why would they be?

what do you assume? they are there to make friends with you? lol

chances are no, they are there to rob you and use violent means if necessary

[skunk]

skunk, it is a common belief that if somebody breaks into your residence when you are home, they are willing to kill. Why would they not be? After all, it is reasonably thought that some 40% of all US households have one or more firearms. It is thus taken that anybody breaking in is himself likely to be armed. Who would criminally go into a dangerous situation otherwise?Interesting contrast with my post: is this an argument for or against the widespread possession of firearms, do you think? Such a presumption would be absurd in this country.

if someone knowing breaks into my house, it is with ill intentions from the start. id have no issue shooting them if necessaryHowever, if that person ever made it to a court of law, it is highly unlikely that he or she would be sentenced to death for breaking and entering. Your self-esteem issues apparently trump due process, proportionality and the right to life.

[MikhailT]

I support the fact that this law immunizes the people from getting sued even if they had some retreat options.

A person shouldn't be sued if the family of the accused claim that the victim had options to retreat and chose instead to defend themselves and killed the accused. Unfortunately there is no way to say who is right in that case, so this law removes any possibility of having those kind of lawsuits. The accused shouldn't be in the house in the first place or in the car/boat.

However the problem with this "No Retreat/Stand your ground" law is that it can bring some confusion into the public mind about protecting themselves. Somebody will think that if there is some person on the lawn of his house, he has the right to stand the ground and attempts to shoot at the people to defend his property. This law at first sight would suggest that the owner is right in doing so.

The link I posted in the last post explained some of the situations where this law may not be acceptable.

[dukebound85]

However, if that person ever made it to a court of law, it is highly unlikely that he or she would be sentenced to death for breaking and entering. Your self-esteem issues apparently trump due process, proportionality and the right to life.

you do realize that if the cops were involved, they can use deadly force if the situation warrants itself

once that person is a threat to me, they have given up any due process at that moment. my first instinct is to protect myself. if that means shooting him, then fine

the cops do the same thing. if the criminal points a gun at them or people with the intent to harm, they will open fire before they get shot. due process is suspended and rightfully so

[MikhailT]

Breaking in is force and danger enough in my book.

They are breaking into where I live and that is dangerous to me. I am not going to try to figure out if they are going to harm me or run. If they do not start turning the 2nd they see me expect multiple slugs to enter their body.

They are breaking in with the intend to steal and me being there is an huge unknown in how they will react. Just that unknown factor means I am not going to risk my life nor my family life on the possible they are not going to hurt me.

What if they had no weapon and was going to retreat (thinking that the family wasn't home in the first place), 13-15 years old just rebelling kids, somebody doesn't care and attempts to shoot them to "defend" his property because he knows nothing will happen to him. That's murder in my mind, not self-defense.

What if that 13 year old was your son or daughter? You would not be supporting this law at all.

You rather your kids to spend their lives in detention centers until age of 18/21 than being dead.

[EricNau]

you do realize that if the cops were involved, they can use deadly force if the situation warrants itself
Cops are trained to determine situations that warrant deadly force, and only use it as an absolute last resort. A human life must be in immediate danger before officers are given discretion to use their weapon. Should not everyone be subjected to the same standards?

Using lethal force to save one's life is understandable; using lethal force to protect property is shameful.

[dukebound85]

Using lethal force to save one's life is understandable; using lethal force to protect property is shameful.

hence "if necessary" in my original post

[Rodimus Prime]

What if they had no weapon and was going to retreat (thinking that the family wasn't home in the first place), 13-15 years old just rebelling kids, somebody doesn't care and attempts to shoot them to "defend" his property because he knows nothing will happen to him. That's murder in my mind, not self-defense.

What if that 13 year old was your son or daughter? You would not be supporting this law at all.

You rather your kids to spend their lives in detention centers until age of 18/21 than being dead.

I would raise my kids not to break in.

In my book you break in you are vermin while you my home and vermin deserve to be shot. Vermin have no rights.

I will not take a any time to figure out if they are armed or some stupid kids. They broke in and gave up any rights they had and became vermin. Vermin are to be shot on sight.

Now to protect my car with lethal force no. But if you are in my home I consider you a treat to my life. it is not there to protect my stuff. It is there to protect myself They better start turning to run the 2nd they see me other wise they will be shot on sight. I will not take the time to question if they have weapon or not.

[EricNau]

hence "if the situation warrants itself" in my original post
The criminal act of breaking and entering does not warrant lethal force. Ever.

[dukebound85]

The criminal act of breaking and entering does not warrant lethal force. Ever.

BS it does if it escalates them putting me or my family at risk

i would have no issue shooting them once that line is crossed PERIOD

[EricNau]

BS it does if it escalates them putting me or my family at risk

i would have no issue shooting them once that line is crossed PERIOD
The act of breaking and entering doesn't endanger your life or the life of your family, does it?

[jarjarblinks]

I am for using deadly means to protect my property, if say there is an intruder who is intent on breaking into my property.

I am for using deadly means to protect my loved ones and family from physical harm, even if it need not be a deadly assault, it could be a sexual attack or physical altercation with a drunk.

I am for using deadly means to protect an innocent citizen for loss of property or physical harm, if I happen to be in the vicinity.

When I mean deadly means, I mean either I will have a deadly weapon such as a firearm or a knife, both of which I have a high level of proficiency with in attack and defensive situations. Barring the lack of a weapon, I will inflict deadly means using my body as a weapon, either in a strike attack or a locks and grip grappling defensive stance.

However, and the big however, is that, as far as possible, I will offer a chance of negotiation to the aggressor, until I perceive that the boundary is crossed and I will have to retaliate to achieve the means of self defense. There really is no hard cast rule stating the line, its really down to individual perception, comfort level, experience, even.

In my hands, a firearm is a tool of deterance, even hard diplomacy, until the first round is triggered and it becomes a tool of aggression.

IMO, it is exceedingly hard, to commit that final act of physical action, to bring about a deadly act to another person. It can be the pull of a trigger aimed at a man's torso, the slash of knife across the carotid artery, the strike into a man's larynx to crush his windpipe. It's better to work towards de-escalation, but that again, is my humble opinion. I'm definitely sure it does not apply in all situations.

[MikhailT]

I would raise my kids not to break in.

In my book you break in you are vermin while you my home and vermin deserve to be shot. Vermin have no rights.

I will not take a any time to figure out if they are armed or some stupid kids. They broke in and gave up any rights they had and became vermin. Vermin are to be shot on sight.

Sorry, no parents are perfect. You can say you'll raise your kid to be some perfect law-abiding citizens all you want, it is not a guarantee. Your kids will rebel because it is in human's nature to explore and do stuff that is not "socially" norm.

I just hope the kids never get into your house drunk and make sounds that sound like vermins are breaking into your house and you shoot them dead because you refused to take a quick sec to see.

[Rodimus Prime]

The criminal act of breaking and entering does not warrant lethal force. Ever.

act of trying to break in no. But the 2nd they set foot inside my home while I am there it changes the rules.

You now have some one in your home who will act like a corner animal if caught. They are in side ones home and that should always be a safe place for a family or a person. Some one is volating that safety and in side ones home some one should not have to figure out if the person is going to harm them or hurt them. It they crossed a line the 2nd they set foot inside the house while some one is there.

I full support these laws. If the cops rule it self defense then there is no way to sue the person.

[jarjarblinks]

Sorry, no parents are perfect. You can say you'll raise your kid to be some perfect law-abiding citizens all you want, it is not a guarantee. Your kids will rebel because it is in human's nature to explore and do stuff that is not "socially" norm.

I just hope the kids never get into your house drunk and make sounds that sound like vermins are breaking into your house and you shoot them dead because you refused to take a quick sec to see.

The conumdrum is you lose the element of surprise if you delay for too long. As with any defender, you have the element of familiarity of your property. It is very important from a tactical POV.

The trade off will reside between doing the right moral action VS losing ground to a real potential deadly aggressor.

[MikhailT]

I am for using deadly means to protect my property, if say there is an intruder who is intent on breaking into my property.

I am for using deadly means to protect my loved ones and family from physical harm, even if it need not be a deadly assault, it could be a sexual attack or physical altercation with a drunk.

I am for using deadly means to protect an innocent citizen for loss of property or physical harm, if I happen to be in the vicinity.

When I mean deadly means, I mean either I will have a deadly weapon such as a firearm or a knife, both of which I have a high level of proficiency with in attack and defensive situations. Barring the lack of a weapon, I will inflict deadly means using my body as a weapon, either in a strike attack or a locks and grip grappling defensive stance.

However, and the big however, is that, as far as possible, I will offer a chance of negotiation to the aggressor, until I perceive that the boundary is crossed and I will have to retaliate to achieve the means of self defense. There really is no hard cast rule stating the line, its really down to individual perception, comfort level, experience, even.

In my hands, a firearm is a tool of deterance, even hard diplomacy, until the first round is triggered and it becomes a tool of aggression.

IMO, it is exceedingly hard, to commit that final act of physical action, to bring about a deadly act to another person. It can be the pull of a trigger aimed at a man's torso, the slash of knife across the carotid artery, the strike into a man's larynx to crush his windpipe. It's better to work towards de-escalation, but that again, is my humble opinion. I'm definitely sure it does not apply in all situations.

I agree with you on most of those except this,
"I am for using deadly means to protect an innocent citizen for loss of property or physical harm, if I happen to be in the vicinity."

Property can be mostly replaced, not lives.

I would call the cops and tell them that there are people trying to break in the house but I would not be going in to protect those people. The mere act of entering those would escalate the situation into something much worse, you would endanger those people's lives more than the aggressors themselves.

[MikhailT]

The conumdrum is you lose the element of surprise if you delay for too long. As with any defender, you have the element of familiarity of your property. It is very important from a tactical POV.

The trade off will reside between doing the right moral action VS losing ground to a real potential deadly aggressor.

Delaying too long is not the same thing, if you confirm that they are endangering your lives and family, then shoot the crap out of them. If you can't be sure, that is the question that always warrant the option to retreat to safety if it can be done, if no, then shoot the crap out of them but knowing those lives are on your hand.

Read the wording from the other guy,

I will not take a any time to figure out if they are armed or some stupid kids. They broke in and gave up any rights they had and became vermin. Vermin are to be shot on sight.

[Peterkro]

Brits are somewhat aware of Americans propensity to shoot at the first opportunity:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1994_1176188

in case you think the two guys were drunk:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/21/us/scot-shot-to-death-in-texas-was-not-drunk.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If the view of some posters in this thread is the commonly held one by US citizens it makes US foreign policy a little easier to understand.

[skunk]

I would raise my kids not to break in.And if you failed in this task of parenting - because for example your putative kids flirted with heroin or were simply up to some teenage high jinks - you would not object to them being executed on the spot by some pumped-up householder? Right.

In my book you break in you are vermin while you my home and vermin deserve to be shot. Vermin have no rights.Unfortunately for your simplistic world view, people are not "vermin". Calling them such does not extinguish their rights.

I will not take a any time to figure out if they are armed or some stupid kids. They broke in and gave up any rights they had and became vermin. Vermin are to be shot on sight.Your attitude becomes more absurd and more repulsive by the paragraph. What kind of a psycho universe do you inhabit?

Now to protect my car with lethal force no. But if you are in my home I consider you a treat to my life. it is not there to protect my stuff. It is there to protect myself They better start turning to run the 2nd they see me other wise they will be shot on sight. I will not take the time to question if they have weapon or not.In that case you are a dangerous lunatic and should be locked up yourself.

BS it does if it escalates them putting me or my family at risk

i would have no issue shooting them once that line is crossed PERIODI assume you are a good enough judge to make the whole of due process and the criminal law redundant. Breaking and entering is not a capital offence in any modern jurisdiction.

I am for using deadly means to protect my property, if say there is an intruder who is intent on breaking into my property.You people are collectively barking mad. Do you have no regard for the value of any life bar your own? Is your property worth taking someone's life? Really?

I am for using deadly means to protect my loved ones and family from physical harm, even if it need not be a deadly assault, it could be a sexual attack or physical altercation with a drunk.This gets worse and worse: now an argument with a drunk is enough to warrant summary execution?? WTF???

I am for using deadly means to protect an innocent citizen for loss of property or physical harm, if I happen to be in the vicinity.

When I mean deadly means, I mean either I will have a deadly weapon such as a firearm or a knife, both of which I have a high level of proficiency with in attack and defensive situations. Barring the lack of a weapon, I will inflict deadly means using my body as a weapon, either in a strike attack or a locks and grip grappling defensive stance.I can hardly believe the level of mindless aggression and willingness to kill shown in these responses. Just who do you think is the danger to society, the potential housebreaker or you, the crazed and righteous vigilante?

[Desertrat]

skunk, in your Post #23 you said, "I would not assume that a person who broke into my house was intent on causing physical harm to me or my family."

That doesn't seem to fit with what I've been reading or hearing for many decades. The intent to do harm may not be the reason for breaking in, but the willingness to do harm in order to succeed in robbing or escaping is common.

There is no "One size fits all" in these situations. Many break-ins have been concluded without any shooting at all. Others were only stopped by shooting the Bad Guy(s). Or, at them, anyway...

What is desirable is that the proverbial reasonable and prudent person can defend himself without having to worry about an unreasonable aftermath of his having taken a legal action. This is the intent of laws with nicknames like "Castle Doctrine" and "No Retreat". None of them eliminate the need for judgement and common sense.

[jarjarblinks]

Delaying too long is not the same thing, if you confirm that they are endangering your lives and family, then shoot the crap out of them. If you can't be sure, that is the question that always warrant the option to retreat to safety if it can be done, if no, then shoot the crap out of them but knowing those lives are on your hand.

Read the wording from the other guy,

Delaying too long is not the same thing, if you confirm that they are endangering your lives and family, then shoot the crap out of them. If you can't be sure, that is the question that always warrant the option to retreat to safety if it can be done, if no, then shoot the crap out of them but knowing those lives are on your hand.

Agree on this approach. I believe you will likewise agree that the confirmation process will involve some sort of negotiation, or at least, interaction, be it visual or verbal. Its like "who's the bigger badass now". Do you withold deadly intent because they are teenagers? They could be armed with survival knives that can gut you senseless. Do you retaliate immediately if they are big men with multiple ink on them? They could be the usual drunks looking for a pissroom and just happened to stumble across your backyard.

As for the Vermin statement, I think that is high handed, to put it politely, too. It is disproportionate use of force. I will definitely offer a recourse to the intruder to back off, stand down, before I employ retaliatory force, in ascendancy. I don't believe in shooting a vital organ. I will shoot to incapacitate, in a non fatal area first. But once again, that's me, because I am familiar with firearms. To the general civilian who has not gone through much firearm exposure, I'ld still recommend to shoot at the main torso area. It's impossible to miss from a distance of 10 - 15 metres, even with a high recoil tendency weapon such as a magnum.

[skunk]

skunk, in your Post #23 you said, "I would not assume that a person who broke into my house was intent on causing physical harm to me or my family."

That doesn't seem to fit with what I've been reading or hearing for many decades. The intent to do harm may not be the reason for breaking in, but the willingness to do harm in order to succeed in robbing or escaping is common.If in your firearm-infested country the danger comes from preventing the theft of property, all the more reason not to prevent it. It's still not worth a summary execution, yours or theirs.

[jarjarblinks]

You people are collectively barking mad. Do you have no regard for the value of any life bar your own? Is your property worth taking someone's life? Really?

This gets worse and worse: now an argument with a drunk is enough to warrant summary execution?? WTF???

I can hardly believe the level of mindless aggression and willingness to kill shown in these responses. Just who do you think is the danger to society, the potential housebreaker or you, the crazed and righteous vigilante?

Understand that this is a situation where your loved ones are under threat. At the risk of sounding crazed, yes, I will still respond in position to protect them.

Let's say my family is out and they attacked by a pack of wild dogs which surround them, barking ravenously, spittle and drool dripping from their mangled mouths. My 4 year old nephew is present. I will not hesitate to inflict suitable damage to the rabid dogs, up to deadly level, to protect them.

Same logic, if it is a drunk, be it at an alley or a crowded coffeeshop, with a broken beer bottle in his hand.

[srl7741]

This is an interesting topic that has changed a bit from the OP. I have thought about this many a moon and here is what would happen if it were me faced with the tremendous decision.

The person(s) would be given one chance (which would last 3-5 seconds, a life time) to re-think entering my house of pain. After those 5 seconds it would be over. They will never hurt another person nor create fear in another victim again.

ps. No one gets caught steeling candy their first time.

[Desertrat]

Addendum: skunk, the comments by rodimus prime were rather calm. YOU are the one who got excited and brought in "crazed and righteous vigilante" when that was totally out of line and an egregious misstatement. Self defense is in no way a vigilante action. You are wrong in both the law and in the dictionary meaning.

As for a person's rights, the law itself says that in certain circumstances a criminal voluntarily gives up his rights. One such circumstance is breaking into a residence--which is where this thread started.

[skunk]

Addendum: skunk, the comments by rodimus prime were rather calm. YOU are the one who got excited and brought in "crazed and righteous vigilante" when that was totally out of line and an egregious misstatement. Self defense is in no way a vigilante action. You are wrong in both the law and in the dictionary meaning.Firstly, my specific response which you quoted was aimed at jarjarblinks and his high-protein "my body is a lethal weapon" scenarios, as you should have noted. Secondly, I have talked only of breaking and entering, as any careful reading of my posts would tell you. The insinuation of self-defence into this scenario is entirely gratuitous escalation to justify righteous slaughter.

As for a person's rights, the law itself says that in certain circumstances a criminal voluntarily gives up his rights. One such circumstance is breaking into a residence--which is where this thread started.Please quote the statute which states this.

[MikhailT]

Addendum: skunk, the comments by rodimus prime were rather calm. YOU are the one who got excited and brought in "crazed and righteous vigilante" when that was totally out of line and an egregious misstatement. Self defense is in no way a vigilante action. You are wrong in both the law and in the dictionary meaning.

As for a person's rights, the law itself says that in certain circumstances a criminal voluntarily gives up his rights. One such circumstance is breaking into a residence--which is where this thread started.

This isn't really about the laws or rights. It's all about the fight for survival. Once somebody breaks in, there is an immediate threat to the survival of the family. The family has the right to immediately neutralize that threat at all costs against their family, not against their property. If the family has a panic room or an immediate escape route, they should take those first instead of going all out war against those threats. However if they have no such safety, they must neutralize those threats without worrying about some stupid laws and lawsuits.

[jarjarblinks]

Firstly, my specific response which you quoted was aimed at jar-jar binks, as you should have noted. Secondly, I have talked only of breaking and entering, as any careful reading of my posts would tell you. The insinuation of self-defence into this scenario is entirely gratuitous escalation to justify righteous slaughter.

Reference to my previous posts. I explicitly mentioned that negotiation and escape should be a first consideration, foremost to other courses of action.

That post you quoted off me, was an advancement into my earlier train of thoughts.

I do not support violence, I do not support righteous kill, nor oppressive vigilantism.

What I do support, however, is the safety, and protection of my loved ones. When all else fails and no other choice remains, yes, I will retaliate, up to deadly force if neccessary, if incapacitation is insufficient in this context.

[srl7741]

There is no "One size fits all" in these situations. Many break-ins have been concluded without any shooting at all. Others were only stopped by shooting the Bad Guy(s). Or, at them, anyway...

What is desirable is that the proverbial reasonable and prudent person can defend himself without having to worry about an unreasonable aftermath of his having taken a legal action. This is the intent of laws with nicknames like "Castle Doctrine" and "No Retreat". None of them eliminate the need for judgement and common sense.

Well put, i agree we often forget about common sense when emotions re involved.


As for a person's rights, the law itself says that in certain circumstances a criminal voluntarily gives up his rights. One such circumstance is breaking into a residence--which is where this thread started.

thanks, its gotten off topic a little (which is ok) but true

[skunk]

What I do support, however, is the safety, and protection of my loved ones.It is extraordinary how often this line is brought up to justify the most extreme reactions. The salient point that I have been talking of nothing but breaking and entering and posters' violent responses to it seems to have escaped notice almost entirely.

[jarjarblinks]

It is extraordinary how often this line is brought up to justify the most extreme reactions. The salient point that I have been talking of nothing but breaking and entering and posters' violent responses to it seems to have escaped notice almost entirely.

If you were under duress, you will wish that there is someone of my skills sets, with the willingness to step forth, and discharge the necessary actions, for you. When I was attacked in 2001 on a busy street by a mob of 5 gangsters that left me in hospital, that, was what I felt inside me. I have decided that no one, especially my loved ones, deserves to be held at ransom because corrupt personalities. There are some actions that will precipitate a necessary, accompanying action. This, is one of them.

I will not comment anymore on this issue because it seems a quagmire. Nevertheless, I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your POV's regarding the sanctity of human life. That is something I hold in high esteem as well.

[skunk]

There are some actions that will precipitate a necessary, accompanying action.Breaking and entering should not precipitate an execution.

[mactastic]

One such circumstance is breaking into a residence--which is where this thread started.
I thought this thread started with threatening someone in a vehicle? :confused:

[mactastic]

Breaking and entering should not precipitate an execution.
And what of breaking and entering combined with presentation of an imminent threat of physical assault?

[rhett7660]

skunk

You people are collectively barking mad. Do you have no regard for the value of any life bar your own? Is your property worth taking someone's life? Really?



At what point do you decide that it isn't just property this person is coming for????

I agree, that property can be replaced etc. But at what point can you tell me when the person who just broke into your house in the night,,, is coming for your stereo or coming to do harm to you and/or your family or do both? Tell me when you will make that distinction?

[rhett7660]

I thought this thread started with threatening someone in a vehicle? :confused:

It did...... somehow it went into breaking in to a house.... :)

[srl7741]

At what point do you decide that it isn't just property this person is coming for????

I agree, that property can be replaced etc. But at what point can you tell me when the person who just broke into your house in the night,,, is coming for your stereo or coming to do harm to you and/or your family or do both? Tell me when you will make that distinction?

I think most people will tell you that your can't make that distinction and by the time you do it's too late. Which is what most of the replies are about. Weather to give in and let the burglar have/do what they want or protect yourself from it by not allowing the burglar to make that decision for you.

[skunk]

And what of breaking and entering combined with presentation of an imminent threat of physical assault?I would deal with that as non-violently and non-confrontationally as possible.

[MikhailT]

At what point do you decide that it isn't just property this person is coming for????

I agree, that property can be replaced etc. But at what point can you tell me when the person who just broke into your house in the night,,, is coming for your stereo or coming to do harm to you and/or your family or do both? Tell me when you will make that distinction?

Only a person's judgement at that time will decide that. There is no true answer for this. For somebody like Rodimus Prime, he won't make any distinction, he will just shoot without any delays. For somebody like me and others, they will take a few sec to see what's going on and what kind of action to take.

[mactastic]

I would deal with that as non-violently and non-confrontationally as possible.
That's a given in all situations. In life in general, as a matter of fact.

But does someone have to kill you before you would feel justified in using lethal force? :confused:

[iJohnHenry]

I thought this thread started with threatening someone in a vehicle? :confused:

I commend your memory.

In the original premise, the car, with his entire family in it, were in a line to enter a summer camp site for early registration. It was not stated, but I would suggest, that the car was blocked-in, front and back, by others waiting for the same purpose. Or perhaps just the perps car was behind them. Whatever. Flight was probably impossible.

Kill the bastard if he has a gun, and demands that a car door be unlocked.

This is not just about property, this is about the lives of his family.

[skunk]

But does someone have to kill you before you would feel justified in using lethal force? :confused:Given that I have no gun nor any desire to own one, I'd have to take any opportunity that presented itself to reduce or neutralise the threat by other means. I do have a rather handy knobkerrie.

[mactastic]

Given that I have no gun nor any desire to own one, I'd have to take any opportunity that presented itself to reduce or neutralise the threat by other means.
This has nothing to do with a particular means of deadly force. I presume you do own a kitchen knife or two? Perhaps a cast-iron skillet or cricket bat? Are you telling me that there is no situation in which you would not resort to some form of weapon -- or even your own bare hands -- to defend yourself or your family?

[iJohnHenry]

I do have a rather handy knobkerrie.

Excellent. What is the fps delivery punch of that system, and at what range??

[skunk]

This has nothing to do with a particular means of deadly force. I presume you do own a kitchen knife or two? Perhaps a cast-iron skillet or cricket bat? Are you telling me that there is no situation in which you would not resort to some form of weapon -- or even your own bare hands -- to defend yourself or your family?I would defend myself - and any dependants - if attacked as best I could, with whatever was to hand. Have I implied otherwise?

[rhett7660]

I would defend myself - and any dependants - if attacked as best I could, with whatever was to hand. Have I implied otherwise?

For me, yes. From the posts that you have made, it would seem to me that you wouldn't. I think it also seems that way for Mactastic, although I can't comment for him. Hence the reason you were asked the question a few times.

[iJohnHenry]

Skunk would (and perhaps does) have a Safe Room in his house, for just such an occurrence.

Difficult to duplicate in the family automobile.

[skunk]

For me, yes. From the posts that you have made, it would seem to me that you wouldn't. I think it also seems that way for Mactastic, although I can't comment for him. Hence the reason you were asked the question a few times.You should read my posts more carefully, then. What I have said is that I would not assume that anyone breaking and entering intended to harm me, that I would not automatically carry out a summary execution, and that if possible I would avoid violence rather than precipitate it. None of these precludes proportionate self-defence.

Despite iJH's preemptive answer on my behalf, I do not have a safe room. I would not be tempted to shoot someone attempting to rob my car either. Indeed, the person in the quoted story may well have critically injured his own child in his attempt to act decisively.

[mactastic]

I would defend myself - and any dependants - if attacked as best I could, with whatever was to hand. Have I implied otherwise?
Well, this exchange left me with a distinct impression otherwise.

And what of breaking and entering combined with presentation of an imminent threat of physical assault?

I would deal with that as non-violently and non-confrontationally as possible.
Given your insistence on being cagey in your responses, I felt it was necessary to repeatedly ask the question.

I think it's a given for most of us that resorting to violence is an absolute last resort, the chest pounding in this thread notwithstanding. For those of us trained in the application of potentially deadly force, it is *the* cardinal rule. Run rather than fight, honor be damned. That's what I was taught. But there can come a point where running is not an option; and when that point is reached, the person who has placed you in that situation is -- and should be -- subject to a proportional physical response.

Somehow, I suspect we don't disagree on that principle.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, mac, I goofed.

One thing that DOES relate to the opening post, however, is that it behooves one to know the gun/defense laws of the state in which he lives, and the pertinent laws of the states through which he travels. They can vary dramatically. What's fully legal in one state can be held illegal in another.

Separately, and with a grin: stevento, you mentioned Jeb Bush's signing of the Florida law. Dubya signed the Texas Concealed Carry law. :) I note that for all I liked Ann Richards, and drank more than one beer with her and David, she vetoed a bill which would have allowed a non-binding referendum on the issue of concealed carry. Heckuva note, that "the bad guys cared more about the citizens than a good gal". :D

[dsnort]

Four meters with a knife? If your handgun is concealed, and I begin with a knife at that distance, you WILL be cut. You don't have time to stop me, absent skills in unarmed self-defense.'Rat

I don't know if things have changed, but in the early '90's, 21 feet was the distance Deputy Sheriffs in Florida were trained to engage knife wielding assailants

I would not assume that a person who broke into my house was intent on causing physical harm to me or my family. Why would they be?

Hope you and yours survive determining their intentions! (Assume= Makes an Ass of U and Me.)

[MikeTheC]

Far as I'm concerned, the moment someone unjustifiably threatens another person's life, they've abrogated any right they have to their own. Don't make me into the instrument of your own destruction.

Common sense, a cool head and clear thinking (to say nothing of a moral compass) will keep any would-be villain from undesired unpleasantry. Their life is their responsibility, and my life is mine. Why should it be any other way indeed?

Peace at all costs is no true peace at all. Trying that is like trying to keep a beach clean by washing all the sand. Eventually there is no more sand and there is no more beach.

[skunk]

I think it's a given for most of us that resorting to violence is an absolute last resort, the chest pounding in this thread notwithstanding.Most here appeared to be more intent on pounding their chests and any apparently potentially threatening suspect who happened to cross their path, than on preserving any kind of sense of proportion. I would certainly seek to avoid, minimise or disable any perceived threat, but not necessarily by consigning it to oblivion on sight.

Hope you and yours survive determining their intentions! (Assume= Makes an Ass of U and Me.)I think it is you who are making the assumption, not me.

And whoever came up with that half-witted and worn out little aphorism really does need to be shot.

[Gelfin]

And whoever came up with that half-witted and worn out little aphorism really does need to be shot.

If you can find him, send him around to Rodimus' place.

[MikeTheC]

Most here appeared to be more intent on pounding their chests and any apparently potentially threatening suspect who happened to cross their path, than on preserving any kind of sense of proportion. I would certainly seek to avoid, minimise or disable any perceived threat, but not necessarily by consigning it to oblivion on sight.

I think it is you who are making the assumption, not me.

And whoever came up with that half-witted and worn out little aphorism really does need to be shot.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_Qte_FTAxLbY/Ry4zRsOFmbI/AAAAAAAABG0/UcCT-Ik8W0E/s400/Benny+Hill.bmp
"That would be me, sir. Benny Hill, at your service."

[Peterkro]

^^ I think it's use in The Odd Couple predates Benny Hill and I'd lay good money it's a lot older than that.

There's another hokey downhome saying that Americians use that seems more appropriate to this thread it starts "if all you have is a hammer ...."

[DZ/015]

I would defend myself - and any dependants - if attacked as best I could, with whatever was to hand.

As would I. However, I would be using a 12 gauge shotgun (full choke, 00 shot). I don't take threats lightly. Ever.

Breaking into a person's home is valid reason to kill them. Don't want to die, don't break into another persons home.

[skunk]

Breaking into a person's home is valid reason to kill them.Isn't it strange then, that it's not written into some statute somewhere?

[jarjarblinks]

My neighbour's house was broken into 2 months ago. I was at home at that point in time, but I heard nothing. It was not until the police came and dusted for prints that I came out and I knew the whole thing.

I asked myself the hypothetical situation if I saw the housebreaking in process. I will not have committed to any action that will lead to potential fatality. But if the intruder attacks me, lunges at me, with the intention of injuring me, yes, I would have retaliated with force, up to deadly force, without a doubt.

What is more important than the preservation of my own life at that point in time (especially so if my loved ones were around)?

It was just a case of house breaking. But if the intruder attempts to injure me, its all changed. It's no longer a case of a person who wants to grab something and run. It's about two people fighting for their self preservation already.

However, if the intruder sees me, and takes off, no damn way am I going to shoot him, in the back or otherwise.

It's not just a case of breaking in. It's a case of self preservation. No one should be denied that right.

The start of the thread has a grand theft auto felony. Here we're talking about a house break in. But in all essence it is the same - it is the attempted hijack of an owner's property which may premeditate him incurring grievous physical injury. The owner has a right to preserve himself from that situation. Every owner has a right to. That incorporates self defense.

[Peterkro]

The start of the thread has a grand theft auto felony. Here we're talking about a house break in. But in all essence it is the same - it is the attempted hijack of an owner's property which may premeditate him incurring grievous physical injury. The owner has a right to preserve himself from that situation. Every owner has a right to. That incorporates self defense.

I'm a bit confused are you saying a tenant or a driver of a rental car doesn't have this supposed "right".

[jarjarblinks]

I'm a bit confused are you saying a tenant or a driver of a rental car doesn't have this supposed "right".

IMO, it is the same.

[MikeTheC]

Isn't it strange then, that it's not written into some statute somewhere?
So you require The State to inform your sense of what's right and what's wrong?


It's not just a case of breaking in. It's a case of self preservation. No one should be denied that right.
Cry me a river. If they wanted food they could have gone to the local store and shoplifted some. At least then it would be perfectly obvious that it was a case of actual self-preservation.

[dukebound85]

Isn't it strange then, that it's not written into some statute somewhere?

if i recall, you dont agree with some statutes written in law such as capital punishment. please correct me if im wrong.

do you pick and choose which ones you think are just?

[bobr1952]

No complaints from me with this law--takes a lot of the "what if's" out of the equation.

[jarjarblinks]

Cry me a river. If they wanted food they could have gone to the local store and shoplifted some. At least then it would be perfectly obvious that it was a case of actual self-preservation.

Self preservation in the sense of the defendant (property owner). The assumption is that in the case of a break in, the owner will suffer some form of physical self damage, other than proprietary loss.

[Desertrat]

I thought about this, overnight. It seems to me that the consensus here is that the use of deadly force is a last resort and is to be avoided if at all possible.

Backing up to the issue of "No duty to retreat": Why should there be such a duty at all? Sure, wisdom might have it that setting a new world record for rapid flight would be the proper answer to potential violence, but that's irrelevant. The question is, why should an honest person by law be required to run? That says that a bad guy has more rights than an honest person. Why should there be any legal requirement that an honest person fear or flee from a bad person?

It seems to me that such things as "No Retreat" and "Castle Doctrine" clarify the rights and privileges of honest people against those who offer gratuitous violence. These laws do not mandate or recommend any action on the part of honest people.

'Rat

[jarjarblinks]

Backing up to the issue of "No duty to retreat": Why should there be such a duty at all? Sure, wisdom might have it that setting a new world record for rapid flight would be the proper answer to potential violence, but that's irrelevant. The question is, why should an honest person by law be required to run? That says that a bad guy has more rights than an honest person. Why should there be any legal requirement that an honest person fear or flee from a bad person?


My logic is if you are out of harm's way, no harm can come to you. Commit physically, and you suffer the fate of an unknown parameter.

The law actually does not explicitly state that you can summarily discharge fatal actions upon on aggressor, rather, it offers the opposite that you may not be liable for a deadly action in the recourse of self preservation. It's really quite different. I interprete the difference between the two angles as viewing the opportunity to escape.

[skunk]

So you require The State to inform your sense of what's right and what's wrong?If somebody asserts that they are perfectly within their rights to kill someone for breaking and entering, it flies in the face of the legal position even in your rather barbaric country, where the death penalty is generally only used in cases of murder, if then.

[rhett7660]

You should read my posts more carefully, then. What I have said is that I would not assume that anyone breaking and entering intended to harm me, that I would not automatically carry out a summary execution, and that if possible I would avoid violence rather than precipitate it. None of these precludes proportionate self-defence.

I did read and re-read your statements. From the sound of it and from the tone that I was interpreting from this conversation, I was getting that you wouldn't. Only after you pointed out what you would do if faced with violence did it become a little more clear on what you would do.

[NewGenAdam]

UGGGGH

I'm not racist
but I simply. can't. stand
how SO MANY Americans are so blasé about what amounts to them committing murder.

Dressing it up as "deadly force" is no more than easying euphemism, a spoonful of reassuring sugar; goodness, don't talk about actually MURDERING anyone, oh no, just "use deadly force". Please.
Honestly, I find it quite pitiable.

Although I shouldn't be critical; I am simply fortunate enough to live in a country where I don't need to reassure myself by carrying a firearm, because I CAN'T.

Is forbidding me to carry a gun restricting my human rights?
I think it's liberating me from the need.

[jarjarblinks]

I find it debilitating, that the notion of protecting oneself from opportunistic harm is being villified.

Adding altruism to that will be extending that "protection" to other innocent people, victims of corrupt designs.

Why should this ability be taken away?

[NewGenAdam]

I find it debilitating, that the notion of protecting oneself from opportunistic harm is being villified.

Adding altruism to that will be extending that "protection" to other innocent people, victims of corrupt designs.

Why should this ability be taken away?

I find many Americans' (who are otherwise respectable in EVERY way) manner of apathy with regard to what amounts to murder, quite debilitating.

I also feel that the ubiquity of guns propogates violent notions, and simply exacerbates many, many situations into becoming far worse than they otherwise would be.

I should add that I am horrified (lol) by a large number of British people; my distaste is by no means reserved for, or excessively directed towards Americans. Rest assured ^.^

[jarjarblinks]

<SNIP>I also feel that the ubiquity of guns propogates violent notions, and simply exacerbates many, many situations into becoming far worse than they otherwise would be.

I agree on the fact that firearms serve as a means of escalation, rather than aid in conflict resolution. However, firearms can serve as a very strong deterant factor, if employed in the right context. It is myopic to state that firearms increase the aggravation of assault to deadly assault.

I will like to clarify if your abhoration resides in deadly force as a means of self preservation, or self preservation in totality?

[NewGenAdam]

I agree on the fact that firearms serve as a means of escalation, rather than aid in conflict resolution. However, firearms can serve as a very strong deterant factor, if employed in the right context. It is myopic to state that firearms increase the aggravation of assault to deadly assault.

I will like to clarify if your abhoration resides in deadly force as a means of self preservation, or self preservation in totality?

I have no abhoration for self-preservation.
I simply find many American's attitudes and opinions on guns and their use to be
incongruous with the rest of their characters.

For example, you might find a really lovely parent, or student, who is considered, gentle, and intelligent, but ALSO who says incontrovertibly they would not hesitate, though in defence, to murder.

Tell me I'm in denial, but I'm more reluctant to express such sentiments; I'm uncomfortable in the presence of people expressing them.

[DZ/015]

Isn't it strange then, that it's not written into some statute somewhere?

But it is.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-12e.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm

[skunk]

But it is.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-12e.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htmNeither of those gives any authority to kill someone for simply breaking and entering, nor is there a statute laying down the death penalty as a punishment for doing so.

[Desertrat]

NewGenAdam, you're of course welcome to have your opinion about "murder", but it's irrelevant to almost all of this thread. For me, the use--if necessary--of deadly force in self-defense is in no way murder.

That I can remain alive is far more important to me than anybody else's opinion on the subject. That's reasonably easy to understand, is it not? And since weapons are in no way a necessity in order that somebody do bodily harm, the issue of weapons as weapons is in itself irrelevant.

As to self defense, I can but note that my handgun is far more convenient than the effort of jamming several inches of ball-point pen through some Bad Guy's eyeball--in itself an effective way to end hostility.

[srl7741]

NewGenAdam, you're of course welcome to have your opinion about "murder", but it's irrelevant to almost all of this thread. For me, the use--if necessary--of deadly force in self-defense is in no way murder.

That I can remain alive is far more important to me than anybody else's opinion on the subject. That's reasonably easy to understand, is it not? And since weapons are in no way a necessity in order that somebody do bodily harm, the issue of weapons as weapons is in itself irrelevant.

As to self defense, I can but note that my handgun is far more convenient than the effort of jamming several inches of ball-point pen through some Bad Guy's eyeball--in itself an effective way to end hostility.

Well said.

[skunk]

NewGenAdam, you're of course welcome to have your opinion about "murder", but it's irrelevant to almost all of this thread. For me, the use--if necessary--of deadly force in self-defense is in no way murder.We have not been talking about self-defence, merely the protection of property and prevention of trespass.

[NewGenAdam]

NewGenAdam, you're of course welcome to have your opinion about "murder", but it's irrelevant to almost all of this thread. For me, the use--if necessary--of deadly force in self-defense is in no way murder.

That I can remain alive is far more important to me than anybody else's opinion on the subject. That's reasonably easy to understand, is it not? And since weapons are in no way a necessity in order that somebody do bodily harm, the issue of weapons as weapons is in itself irrelevant.

As to self defense, I can but note that my handgun is far more convenient than the effort of jamming several inches of ball-point pen through some Bad Guy's eyeball--in itself an effective way to end hostility.

Bwaaaaaaaah
(justly?) villified =(

SORRY

I of course comprehend and SYMPATHISE with the instinct of self preservation.
I simply feel uncomfortable with people stating nonchalantly their ostensible indifference to KILLING someone else, EVEN IF the grounds for it are justified.

Apologies all round. Have some tea, there.

[jarjarblinks]

Bwaaaaaaaah
(justly?) villified =(

SORRY

I of course comprehend and SYMPATHISE with the instinct of self preservation.
I simply feel uncomfortable with people stating nonchalantly their ostensible indifference to KILLING someone else, EVEN IF the grounds for it are justified.

Apologies all round. Have some tea, there.

I don't think its "ostensible indifference", more of, "prepared to".

[FX120]

Neither of those gives any authority to kill someone for simply breaking and entering, nor is there a statute laying down the death penalty as a punishment for doing so.

I can only speak for the State of Oregon, but:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.219.html

§ 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1)
Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2)
Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3)
Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

I believe that most other states have similar statutes as well.

[Desertrat]

NewGenAdam, rest assured that away from a keyboard, few people are nonchalant about killing.

skunk, the opening post stated, "The alleged robber approached the driver's window, pointed a gun at the father and demanded money, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson told The Florida Times-Union."

"...pointed a gun..." brings it to the arena of self-defense.

'Rat

[DZ/015]

Neither of those gives any authority to kill someone for simply breaking and entering, nor is there a statute laying down the death penalty as a punishment for doing so.

You are incorrect. These 2 laws specifically allow for firing a weapon is self defense and providing a defense for killing someone that has broken into one's home. Defense of one's family and home is valid reason to kill someone.

You are correct that the state will not institute capital punishment for breaking and entering. But I will not face prosecution for killing someone that threatens my family or my property while in my own home. You may not like it, but that is the law in the US. Thankfully for you, prosecution in the UK is assured for such an act.

[Counterfit]

The father, sensing something was wrong, decided to defend his family ... pulled out a gun and he shot and killed the suspect on the scene," Jefferson said.

Someone points a gun at you and you sense something is wrong? What the hell would it take for you to know something is wrong? Having an extra hole or two in you?

"Hey I'm bleeding, this is wrong!"

You are incorrect. These 2 laws specifically allow for firing a weapon is self defense and providing a defense for killing someone that has broken into one's home.

No, he's actually quite correct in his interpretation of the MA laws.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property;

Notice that section 12e only deals with discharging a firearm, not with the injury or killing of someone, as is dealt with in 8A.

Defense of one's family and home is valid reason to kill someone.

Defense of the home is quite clearly NOT a valid reason in Massachusetts.

[skunk]

skunk, the opening post stated, "The alleged robber approached the driver's window, pointed a gun at the father and demanded money, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson told The Florida Times-Union."

"...pointed a gun..." brings it to the arena of self-defense.That I grant you. I was however arguing a subsidiary point in response to those who support shooting dead someone not threatening life.

[iBlue]

I always have mixed feelings about this. For the most part I think I support a law that allows a person to wound (perhaps fatally) a home invader that doesn't run for the door once they see you. Someone breaks into your house, sees you and not only does not retreat but escalates the situation with [whatever form] of aggression, I am going to assume they're not there for a friendly chat or surely they would have knocked first.

I think you forfeit your human rights once you encroach upon others' rights. This is where the lines get blurred for me.

I live in the UK and I am not sure on what the laws are here (ever complicated and unclear) but I get the feeling that *I* would be in deep shyte for killing or even badly injuring an intruder here even if it was in self defense. "Reasonable force" is too difficult to determine. I really resent that. It's impossible to know just how big of a threat someone is when they're attacking you. If I am being attacked I shouldn't be held responsible for matching their force in order to "fight fair". It was unfair for me to be in that situation to begin with. I'm going to put the hurt on any way I can and I feel that should be my right. Maybe this is the made in America part of me but that's how I see it. More leniency should be shown to the home owner/dweller for how they respond to a threat as it is a scary situation to be in.

It should be noted that I am gunless here so any intruder is just going to get the best of whatever this little scrapper thinks up. Guns change the equation. I also think they can be used as a shortcut to thinking and give someone who is pumped up with adrenaline a bit more power than perhaps is wise. But I won't make this about gun law. I'm just saying it changes the situation to some degree especially in a home invasion scenario.

[Peterkro]

The law is actually pretty clear about this, the article below covers it fairly clearly:



In law if one person inflicts force on another the initial presumption is that an unlawful act has been carried out. The lightest of touches can amount to an assault. However, there are situations in which it is recognised that force can be inflicted without a crime having been committed. For example:

Someone who takes part in a team sport is considered to have given their consent to a certain amount of force being used against them.
A doctor operating on a patient would be guilty of the most serious assault if the patient did not give their consent.
Bumping against someone on a packed train is excused as being part of everyday life.
In addition, the courts have always upheld the right of an individual to protect themselves, or other people, and have repeatedly said that they are permitted to use force or violence to do so. As long as the amount of force used is not excessive self-defence - or defence of another person - has the effect of rendering lawful what might otherwise have been a criminal act.
Public Perception of Self-Defence
There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.
However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.
The protection offered to the honest citizen by the principle of self-defence comes in two stages.
The Crown Prosecution Service
Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including:
Whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and,
Whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
The CPS has stated that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.
There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution.

Self-Defence and the Courts
If an individual is prosecuted after having acted, or having claimed to act, in self-defence the courts will apply the following test:
Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be?
The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.
What if Someone Makes a Mistake?
The law of self-defence can even excuse an assault, or a death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the way they did - when there was never any real danger. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough. However, if the only reason the person got it wrong was because they were drunk they are unlikely to succeed in using this as a defence.
Conclusion
The law as it stands offers very wide protection to those individuals who use violence to protect themselves or others. Such is the protection that an act which could otherwise have constituted a very serious offence becomes lawful. Further, it is the stated intention of the CPS that individuals who act in this way should not even find themselves in court.

http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

The case of the man who shot a teenage burglar in the back who was retreating using a illegally held firearm is clearly excessive force and amounts to acting as judge,jury and executioner. You are entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect yourself or others,your not entitled to try and punish someone for a act you perceive as unlawful.

[iBlue]

Thank you, Peterkro, that was helpful and more clear than the other things I've read on it.
I think it's a difficult problem deciphering what 'reasonable force' is, and that is where some of my concern lies. Florida's no retreat law at least has the advantage of simplicity. *shrug*

[Desertrat]

iBlue, there is a physical problem with "For the most part I think I support a law that allows a person to wound (perhaps fatally) a home invader that doesn't run for the door once they see you."

The idea of shooting to wound comes from Hollywood movies and western novels. The stress and adrenalin rush pretty much preclude that sort of precise aiming except for very highly trained and skilled "pistoleros", those people who shoot maybe a thousand rounds a week for practice. "Top Guns" shoot even more than that. Housewives and businessmen just don't have the time to do the practice--but they can become quite adequate in basic self-defense with a handgun. Or any other weapon, really.

Self-defense training focusses on shooting to center of mass. A lot of the concepts of self defense with a pistol began with people like Jeff Cooper and the old Southwest Pistol League, almost fifty years ago. He was asked one time if he shot to kill or shot to wound. "Neither," he replied, "I shoot to stop the threat." If you shoot and miss but the threat stops due to the bad guy's fear, you've done all you need to do.

'Rat

[jarjarblinks]

iBlue, there is a physical problem with "For the most part I think I support a law that allows a person to wound (perhaps fatally) a home invader that doesn't run for the door once they see you."

The idea of shooting to wound comes from Hollywood movies and western novels. The stress and adrenalin rush pretty much preclude that sort of precise aiming except for very highly trained and skilled "pistoleros", those people who shoot maybe a thousand rounds a week for practice. "Top Guns" shoot even more than that. Housewives and businessmen just don't have the time to do the practice--but they can become quite adequate in basic self-defense with a handgun. Or any other weapon, really.

Self-defense training focusses on shooting to center of mass. A lot of the concepts of self defense with a pistol began with people like Jeff Cooper and the old Southwest Pistol League, almost fifty years ago. He was asked one time if he shot to kill or shot to wound. "Neither," he replied, "I shoot to stop the threat." If you shoot and miss but the threat stops due to the bad guy's fear, you've done all you need to do.

'Rat

Well said. Double Tap exists in a realm where Operatives and competition shooters live and breath and eat rounds. Shooting the leg, shoulder, side stomach to inflict a non - fatal wound at a range of 15 metres can be incredibly difficult, especially if the attacker is mobile. Furthermore, it must be noted that a firearms expert is really only good at the make of the gun he is familiar with. Basics of foresight tip aim 'n' point, trigger / breath control, gun recoil, round trajectory can be applied, but every firearm is different in gun recoil characteristics and trigger sensitivity. It will be extremely difficult for a civilian to reach a military proficiency with firearms.

That being said, I really don't think - as some have spoken about - a defender protection his property and family from suspected intent of harm will "summarily execute" the invader / aggressor.

Anyone who exists in that state of mind obviously is either deranged or watched too much movies.

IMO, a defender "shoots to stop the threat", as you have correctly pointed out, and that the invader / aggressor dying is but part of the process of "stopping the threat". Sadly, hitting the torso is advocated because it constitutes 60% of the body mass and is non - angular in shape hence easier to hit. However, it is also highly fatal because of the high possibility of hitting a major organ, hence forcing the body into physical shut down. He may not die on the spot, but without a Level III care facility very very soon, it is highly unlikely he can survive. This is distinctly different from a summary execution.