Attorney General defends burglars' rights (UK)

[The Straight Story]

Attorney General defends burglars' rights

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday December 12, 2004
The Observer

The government's top lawyer further stoked the debate over home-owners' rights to defend their property this weekend by saying that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.

In an interview with The Observer, Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith said that existing legislation was adequate to give home owners the right to repulse burglars using 'reasonable force'.

'We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens,' he said. 'But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct.'

Last week, Tony Blair ordered a review of legislation protecting householders after the Conservative party threw its weight behind calls from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens for reform of the law. Stevens said it should allow the public to use whatever means necessary to repel intruders from their home.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1372154,00.html

[Guarionex]

1. um....no...

You come to burglarize me...I'm going to slash you with the Samurai sword that I keep next to my bed....

Want protection from violence? Don't burglarize...

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. is it a high quality katana

or a cheap chineese knock off?

[sweetheart]

6. It would be so nice

I would love to travel to japan and get one properly made to my
size.... but alas, economic reality obscures fanciful dreams. :-)

[7th_Sephiroth]

7. my uncle has one made by Masamune

he's rich as hell

[DoNotRefill]

67. My "samurai sword" is made by Gaston Glock....

it's not at all sharp, it's very, very short, but it's lethal as hell...

[Yuugal]

3. and then comes the tea act of 2005

"It is unlawful and very un-British to not offer a pot of tea and some biscuits to burglars. Burglars have a right to a minimum standard of nutrition after all."

I wonder if the Hamburgler can still be harassed by PETA. Hmmmmm.

[Menshevik]

9. lol

[MrSlayer]

4. We can discuss it over the corpse.

I'm not buying this. If you break into my house, I'm going to kill you.

[frogfromthenorth2]

5. Well, that's what make you a REAL American... and that is sad...

[MrSlayer]

10. Well what would you want me to do? Give him cookies?

Invite him to take whatever he wants? Rape my wife? Kill my kids? I don't know about you but with me these are not options. If someone breaks in, they're getting shot. No one is violating my home and family if I can help it.

[frogfromthenorth2]

11. You can't understand.. sorry, but it's in your genes.

Just listen to yourself. If he comes in, I KILL HIM... yeah... You sound like a NRA freak.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Let me give you a scenario, Mr. genetic supriority.

I am awakened in my bed at 4:00 in the morning by some kind of noise. I turn on the light. There is a strange man in my bedroom. There are lots of reasons he could be there, none of them good. Perhaps he's here because he wants to take some of my property or money. That's the likeliest possibility. On the other hand, perhaps he's there to murder me and my wife and rape my children. Perhaps he's a lunatic. Quite frankly, I don't have the time to ask, as I've just flipped on the light and am probably in a state of panic. Now, one of two things will probably happen when I turn on that light:

1) He'll run away.
2) He'll try to immobilize me, and possibly my wife and children, so as to complete his task.

If he picks #2, I'll do whatever is necessary to protect myself and my family. If he's bigger than me, or he's armed in some way, what would you have me do as opposed to shooting him? Bang pot lids together? Call the police?

Let's start this from the beginning again, this time with the assumption that he was smart enough to cut the power to the house before entering. Now there's no light. Now I can't even tell whether he's armed. I yell "GET OUT." Let's say he doesn't get out. What then?

What, in your genetically superior opinion, should I do? I'm interested to hear this, as I'm obviously too much of a bloody fucking ape to figure it out for myself, and you seem to enjoy explaining things to those who are inferior.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. You are putting all kinds of conditions on it

such as the burglar being in your bedroom, or the light being off.

MrSlayer, on the other hand, said he'd kill anyone who broke into the house. He could see that it's a hundred pound weakling struggling to pick up a video recorder, or someone trying to get out, and he'd still shoot automatically, to kill.

[MrSlayer]

15. You are being ridiculous.

Am I supposed to wait and see what kind of asshole is robbing me before I decide to defend my home? Should it matter if it is a "hundred pound weakling", whom I'm guessing you are suggesting is a sympathetic character like a poor homeless guy or addict with no where to turn to, or a five hundred pound monster? They are in my home illegally and I have no idea what their intentions are or what they may have on them. I can only infer from their being in my house without my permission that they are up to no good and it is my obligation to defend my family. I know it's harsh but I shoot to kill in that situation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Why was I ridiculous?

You are still concluding that you'd shoot to kill anyone who broke into your house.

My point is that these people may not be any threat to your family. In the situation I gave, they were just a threat to your video recorder. You are putting your posessions ahead of someone's life by saying you'd always shoot them without regard to whether they are a threat to anyone. You don't even consider shooting to wound.

[MrSlayer]

19. Because you act like it's ok to invade someone's home.

"Oh he's only stealing the VCR" or "only your TV is in danger" implies that you believe it's no big deal for someone to intrude on my personal property. I don't think so, he shouldn't be in my house at all. And if you shoot to wound, the asshole turns around and sues you as if you did something wrong. To hell with all that, if you don't want to be killed stay out of other people's houses. That's the lesson.

[AP]

22. You don't have to shoot at all. You say "Freeze. I have a gun. I will...

...shoot you if you move."

These are all established issues in the law that have evolved over 100s years.

You simply cannot kill people because they're trying to rob you. Even a burglar's life is more valuable than any piece of property in your house.

Human beings are not rats and you can't break their necks just because they grab for a piece of cheese in your house.

You can certainly trap them, using the threat of violence, but you need to call the police and let them deliver the punishment (which is not death for robbery in America).

[MrSlayer]

29. Most of the time that is not an option.

Most likely someone is breaking in during the night while you are sleeping. If I'm fortunate enough to get the drop on the intruder I have to shoot him because I have no idea what this person might have or what they might be doing. I'm not going to draw attention to myself in the dark by calling out because they might swing their gun around and get me first. You see it's scary when someone who isn't supposed to be in your house is in there. I can't afford to wait and see what their motive is because I have a wife and kids to protect, if they kill or incapacitate me then who is left to defend them? No one. I can't have that. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand here. Don't I have a right to protect myself from someone who isn't supposed to be there? I'm not the one acting in the wrong, why should the person violating my rights get any consideration from me?

[AP]

39. You can kill to protect your life, but you can't kill to protect property

except in TX.

There's a famous case where a guy set up a booby trap in his cabin in the woods, which I think didn't have anything in it and was clearly unihabited most of the time.

He mounted a gun in front of the door. The trigger was connected to the door with a string . A guy came in the door, the gun went off. I believe he got shot in the legs.

Needless to say, that's wrong.

There are obviously varying degrees. And by all means, if someone on angel dust is busting through your door, shoot them. But you simply cannot go around shooting people to protect property until you have a pretty good reason to believe they're going to hurt you.

A guy busting the door off the hinges when he knows your home and sitting on the other side of it sounds like a good time to start shooting. However, if you come downstairs at night and see a guy headed for the front door with your DVD in his arms, trust me, you better not shoot him in the back or you could go to jail.

[TO Kid]

45. Even Canada allows it

The Criminal Code allows people to defend themselves against assault using the amount of force necessary "to stop the assault and prevent its repetition". The definition of assault includes refusing to leave a property when tresspassing and failing to let go of a stolen item. So if you kill someone in defence of your property, the onus is on the Crown to prove that it was unnecessary.

[AP]

49. Are you sure about that? Failing to let go of a stolen item = assault?

I'd love to read that statute, especially the part that gives guidance on the difference between and unnecessary and necessary defense of property.

I presume that's a provincial law and not a federal law.

Have a cite?

[TO Kid]

55. Yep

Learned it back in my security guard days- I forget the exact sections (it is listed at least twice) but it pertains to trespassing and to theft and the exact phrase in both cases is "deemed to have committed an assault without justification or provocation." In the case of theft, if a burglar takes an item, the moment you lay your hands on it the burglar must immediately let go or he is deemed to be committing an assault. With trespassing, if you put your hands on a trespasser to push him away from your property and the trespasser resists he is deemed to be assaulting you.

BTW all criminal law is federal here, spelled out in the Criminal Code of Canada.

[AP]

52. Candada doesn't allow you to kill to defend your property:

The Criminal Code of Canada permits a person to defend himself or herself, those under one’s protection, and one’s property as long as the force used to protect oneself is “necessary and reasonable” according to the circumstances. What is determined as reasonable and necessary depends on the facts of individual cases. The defendant must convince the court that he or she had a genuine fear of injury and that his or her actions were not excessive in order to ensure his or her safety. Self-defence may also be used as a defence when the person accused strikes the first blow or shoots the first bullet—for example, as long as the accused can convince the court that it was the only means available to protect himself or herself.

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/newsinreview/sept%2099/sour%20gas/lawful.html

[DoNotRefill]

51. But isn't the majority rule...

that if somebody breaks into an occupied dwelling to commit a felony, there's a presumption that they do intend to harm the occupants?

If you shoot them in the back, you may have a problem. If you shoot them in the front, in most of the country, you're fine.

[AP]

56. Felonies are generally not property crimes, right?

So saying "with the intent to cause a felony" is like saying with the intent to beat you up or rape you. No?

I'm going to google to see what the rule is.

I'd be surprised if many states let you shoot burglars, but I wouldn't be surprised if some created a presumption in favor of people who shoot arsonists, rapists, robbers (robbers take things off your person, burglars take things from your drawers), and people who violently break into your house (home invaders) in situations where it's clear your life was threatened.

I think most states have rules similar to Canadas which is posted below.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Huh???

Theft of anything with a total value over $200 is a felony. Breaking into a house with the intent to rob it qualifies.

Google "Castle Doctrine".

On edit: There are certain circumstances where it's NOT OK to shoot a person breaking into your house here. One is if they are breaking in to recover stolen property (ie they have a right of entry), another is if they are breaking in seeking shelter from the elements (ie they have a necessity defense). Otherwise, it's pretty much open season, provided that you don't shoot them in the back. Now if you DO shoot them in the back, it isn't NECESSARILY illegal, but it looks bad. If there are others in the house that the burglar could have been heading for, it's still legal if you shoot them in the back. An example of this would be if they came to the top of the staircase, and could turn left or right to occupied bedrooms. If you're in the right bedroom, and your kids are in the left bedroom, and they turn to the left, you can still legally shoot them. If they turn and go down the staircase, and there's nobody downstairs, you can't shoot them in the back unless you have a reasonable belief that you're still in danger (for example, if they have a gas can and lighter.)

[AP]

60. What state are you in?

[DoNotRefill]

62. Virginia

eom

[AP]

65. While waiting for you, I picked CA randomly, and the only

felony burglary offence I could find was this:

464. Any person who, with intent to commit crime, enters, either by
day or by night, any building, whether inhabited or not, and opens
or attempts to open any vault, safe, or other secure place by use of
acetylene torch or electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen
lance, or any other similar device capable of burning through steel,
concrete, or any other solid substance, or by use of nitroglycerine,
dynamite, gunpowder, or any other explosive, is guilty of a felony
and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for a term of three, five, or seven years.

There might be more, but that was the only thing I found in my brief search.

I googled, and it looks like Idaho has a pretty crazy felony burglary statute (lots of people getting charged with it, it seems, in crimes invoving stealing from a car), but I didn't look up the definition.

[DoNotRefill]

66. I'm sure....

that if you look through the larceny statute, you'll find that there's a very low dollar amount to differentiate between petit and grand larceny, with grand larceny being a felony.

[DoNotRefill]

63. BTW, IIRC...look at §18.2-32, Code of Virginia, annotated...

it'll save you having to try and find the section....

[AP]

70. You read that wrong. That statute says it's first or second degree murder

for the BURLGAR who kills when burgaling.

That's not excuse or justification defense for victims of burglary.

18.2-32. First and second degree murder defined; punishment.


Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction, except as provided in § 18.2-31, is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.


All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years.

[DoNotRefill]

72. That's why I said annotated....

look in the caselaw listed with that statute. That's where the self-defense law is spelled out. It gives defense of self and others as an exception to the statute.

[AP]

75. Do you have a cite for the case law?

[DoNotRefill]

79. Not without going in and looking it up....

and the books are at the office, while I'm currently at home. What I remember is that the elements are: if a person is engaged in a lawful act and is attacked or reasonably believes that they are about to be attacked, they have no duty to flee, can stand their ground, and use what force is reasonably necessary to defeat the attack. That's a paraphrase, but a relatively accurate one. The language is strange...IIRC, there's something about "reigning blows upon the attacker until such time as..." in the language...It's archaic, but still good law. There's another case which extends that to the defense of others. Now if they PROVOKE the attack while not in their residence or it's curtelage, THEN they have a duty to retreat, but only "to the wall", at which point their right to self-defense reasserts itself.

This kind of thing comes up here fairly frequently...

[AP]

83. This isn't VA law, but it's probably the last word on this issue:

Defense of home. To the law, your home is your castle. It is your place of last retreat. You are not required to retreat from a threat in your home. When defending your home against a burglary, authorities rarely question the use of force, even deadly force. Burglary is legally defined as:

the breaking and entering,
without consent,
of the dwelling house of another,
while it is occupied,
at night,
with the intent to commit any felony or larceny therein.


If you believe a burglar is serious physical threat to you or your family, the law allows you to use whatever force you feel is necessary to neutralize the threat. However, here again, one must be careful since not all intruders are burglars. Someone may be intoxicated and enter the wrong apartment. A firefighter may be trying to break-in to warn you of a fire in your home. Wildly shooting at anyone who trespasses onto your property is not reasonable self-defense. If the mistaken use force is reasonable under the circumstance and no one is seriously injured. the law will generally excuse the action. However, remember that the victim may still pursue you in civil court.

The use of force is justifiable only if the actor first requests the intruder to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that:

1. Such request would be useless,
2. It would be dangerous to the actor or another person to make the request, or
3. Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
4. The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that:
A. The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the actor of his/her dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
B. The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that
C. Deadly force does not become justifiable under A or B unless:
a. The person against whom it is used has used or threatened deadly force against, or in the presence of, the actor or
b. The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or consummation of the crime would expose the actor, or another in his/her presence, to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

These are defenses to criminal charges which will be brought against you if you defended yourself. Even if the prosecutor or police decide not to bring criminal charges against you or if you are successful in proving that you were protecting yourself as permitted under certain provisions of the criminal code, the attacker if injured still may attempt to bring a civil suit to recover for any medical expenses or injuries incurred.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:whAb0TFoPUgJ:tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Laws.htm+virginia+law+of+self-defense+burglary&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[DoNotRefill]

86. heh. From that site:

"Defense of property. Generally, where only property is involved and the offender makes no threat against a person, the use of force is not justified. If a person approaches you and demands your wallet, but makes no threats whatsoever, you may refuse the request, but you may not use force against the person. Remember there must be the threat of force and/or an overt action of force. In general, the law does not view property as important enough to justify the use of force to protect or regain it. An exception to this general rule is "hot pursuit.""

Here, at least, that conduct would constitute, at a minimum, strong-arm robbery, and it would be quite legal to defend yourself appropriately. The mere demand of the wallet would constitute a threat.

[Silverhair]

82. Those are called spring guns, and they are illegal everywhere.

After all, they could end up killing a fireman who was trying put out the fire in your house.

[Silverhair]

32. In most states you CAN do exactly that.

Also, you are assuming that the assailant is not high, or crazy, and that you have to time to see what he is going to do after you warn him. While you are trying to figure that out, he swings his gun around and shoots you.

You are writing from idealism, and have little understanding of how violent encounters with real world criminals really happen. I hope you never have to learn that lesson first hand.

[TO Kid]

42. Famous last words

I recall several cases where cop-killers were on trial and the last words uttered by the victim were, "Drop that gun or I'll..."

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSlayer]

28. Do the world a favor and break into my house.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. I'm a Bush voter now? Is this what you are going to bring to the table? Don't be a fool, I dedicated much time, money and effort to getting Kerry elected and I've also donated to this site, wear DU shirts and promote DU's message. Now, because I feel I have a right to defend my family from intruders, I'm a Neo-Con? If you want to allow people to break into your house and run roughshod over your family, by all means go ahead. I will not. Being a liberal does not mean you have to be a victim.



BTW I did not alert on you, ratting on people is for grammar school kids.

[TnDem]

35. Moron?

You statements are EXACTLY why the Democratic party starts every election here in the USA at 200+ electoral votes behind. For better or worse, this Canadian poster shows what the side of "liberalism" that SO SO turns off most of the USA.

The fact that we are even holding a rational discussion on this issues shows how out of touch some people are with red states and red state voters.

Shoot the sonofabitch dead. The idiot that espouses a criminals "rights" play right into the feeling by much of America that the Democratic party are weak pussies who wouldn't kill a criminal while he raped your wife, ( ala Dukakis).

Pathetic..

[Silverhair]

85. Well said!! NT

[Silverhair]

31. "Shooting to wound" is immoral.

I know it sounds like the right thing to do, but it is the wrong thing to do, and can be used as evidence against you.

First, ones does not shoot with the purpose of killing. That is wrong. The only reason for shooting someone is that they are doing something so evil that they must be STOPPED immediately, even if in the action of being stopped also kills the threat. Stopped means rendered physically incapable of further threat. It does not mean an attempt at persuasion.

Any shot has the potential to be fatal. A shot to wound in the leg could severe the femoral artery and death would occur quickly. Because any shooting has that potential, all shooting are uses of deadly force. DEADLY FORCE CAN ONLY BE USED IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME. That is not just a legal phrase. It is a reality. The GRAVEST EXTREME means that you have NO OTHER OPTIONS. They have all been eliminated. You HAVE TO STOP THE ASSAILANT NOW!!! THIS SECOND!!! Two or three seconds later will be too late. Only when things get to that state are you justified in shooting someone.

If you shoot to wound someone, you are attempting to persuade by extreme measures. That means that you have the time to see if the wound does indeed stop him, and if it doesn't then you can try another shot. But if you have the time to see if the wound stops the crook, then you were not in the gravest extreme. You took an action that could have been fatal before it was justified. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

If I ever have to, (And I hope I never will.) I will be shooting to stop, not to kill. To increase my chance of hitting my target and successfully defending myself, I will aim for the center of the target. The heart happens to be in that area, but that is not my problem.

[TO Kid]

47. Also dangerous to the innocent

If you shoot at anything but the centre of mass the probability is quite high that you'll miss- and hit someone else instead.

[ebayfool]

18. "Am I supposed to wait ..." I've been broken in on (?) before, I agree ...

w/you. If I had waited to see what particular species of criminal - 100 lb misguided vcr punk or 200 lb menace - my daughters would have been harmed. You haven't the luxury of armchair quarterbacking in that situation - if they BROKE in your home, they are liable for the repercussions. Talk is easy till it's your home & your family standing behind you screaming in terror. Sorry if it's not PC - my home, my family - I use any maximum threat or force that I lay hands on first. Been there, would shoot again.

[AP]

23. So what did you do? Did you shoot them dead? Or did you shoot to scare?

[Silverhair]

33. Shooting to scare is a fast way to get yourself killed.

The crook will naturally think that you were shooting at him an missed. He will think that his life is in danger, and will shoot back. Shooting warning shots in that type of situation is a very, very bad idea.

[AP]

40. So, I guess, shooting to kill and missing is probably a pretty good way

to get yourself killed too?

[Silverhair]

81. Yes, it is.

That is why, if you are going to own a gun you should become very proficient in it's use. For many years I have qualified expert with a handgun.

Also, one NEVER shoots with the intention of killing. You shoot to STOP immediately. If the criminal dies, that is an unfortunate by-product.

[ebayfool]

36. Shot to STOP, I'm not trained in the police arts so couldn't 'aim' ...

in any other way. To stop, square in the middle of the largest part (which also would be the most likely to cause death or extreme injury) of the person coming at us. No, he didn't die - but not because I had any discretion in my choices. In the situation, he was lucky. I was home w/ my 10 yr & 1 yr old daughters & 2 little girls, 8 & 9 yrs, that I was babysitting - watching TV together in the living room. 7:00 PM, crowded apt. complex, a stranger I had never laid eyes on before, battering our flimsy front door down (broke right off the frame). 3 screaming girls & a wailing baby, me grabbing the shotgun from under the sofa beneath me & pushing the girls toward the hallway w/1 hand & trying to hold up the damn shotgun w/the other. The entire time, I'm alternating between screaming 'get in the bedroom & go out the window to help' at the kids & screaming at the bouncing door 'stop, I have a gun'. When the door shattered off the hinges, the only thing that stopped him from getting a full load in the middle of his torso instead just the side spray (that hurt him but let him live to plead out) was my hysterical 10 yr old being too scared to run w/the others & trying to climb mommy like a tree, spoiling my aim. Live in low income housing, you learn to keep a weapon nearby - whether doing dishes or watching the Brady Bunch. Cops said he was on angel dust, that's why he wasn't scared of a female pointing a gun. No fear, so how do you rationalize w/that? Never got a reason why we were chosen, other than his statement that he had seen it was a all female (no big bad dad around) so he thought it would be safer for him to go to our apt instead of another.

You cannot expect the same guidelines (shoot to wound, ascertain intent & adjust force accordingly, etc) that you demand from a trained police officer. Most moms & dads are not trained in this, we aren't a nation of trained policemen. If someone breaks in, they better expect someone terrified for their family to be inside ready to kill to defend their family. In the above scenario, can anyone here truly believe that I or they could seriously afford to stop & ponder if the maniac was after electronics or mayhem? This happens FAST! There is no time for the pretty niceties I've seen posted in this thread, you have to react. Fast. And you better be right, cause there's no 'do overs'.

[AP]

41. See post 39

A guy busting into your house through the front door when he knows you're in the house is probably not going to be a property theft, so that's obviously a good time to shoot.

You have to distinguish that from coming down stairs at night and seeing a guy sneaking OUT the window with your DVD player (you can't shoot in that situation), or from setting up a booby trap in your uninhabitiated cabin in the woods.

[ebayfool]

43. Agreed n/t

[DoNotRefill]

53. Police officers are never trained to shoot to wound....

EVER.

[ebayfool]

84. Yes, you're right @ that. Even more reason people can't expect ...

the average citizen to be capable of 'shoot to wound'. I knew that, but responded to posts in the thread that espoused the idea that private citizens should do that .Need to learn to think when I'm 'het' up on a subject - this one just hit a little too close to home. I'm backing out of this one before I really show my lack of reasoned response! LOL

[DoNotRefill]

88. The reason behind no shoot to wound training....

is because shooting to wound is still the application of lethal force, just in a non-lethal manner. If the person poses enough of a risk that lethal force is justified to be used, it should be used. If the situation isn't one where lethal force should be used (for example, to shoot to wound somebody) then NON lethal force should be used.

Besides, it save huge amounts of money from a liability perspective....dead people need no rehabilitation. ;)

[Silverhair]

30. I will defend my family. Let me explain.

In the act of breaking into an occupied home, (Called a hot burglary.) the criminal knows that there is the possibility that he may encounter a resident who doesn't want him there. Since he is a burglar by trade, then he also knows that sooner or later he will be confronted. Therefore, he has already decided what he will do in that eventuality.

I, as resident, do not know what his plan is for dealing with me. I don't even know if he is sober or high. (Many burglars get high first.) I do not have the luxury of waiting to find out. At the time of the confrontation, things are going to happen real fast. Fractions of seconds will count. My only concern is the survival of my family and myself. I will take only enough time to make sure that the form is not a family member, (The entire house has night lights.)and then I will open fire, without warning. I will aim for center of mass of the target, not because I want to kill him, but because I don't want to miss. I qualified expert in the service with .45 auto and still did extremely well my last time on the range a few months ago. Shooting is kind of like riding a bicycle - once you learn, you don't forget. I am extremely unlikely to miss, but still, just to make sure - since it will be a close range snap fire (Point & shoot, instead of carefully aimed.), I will aim for the center. My pistol is loaded with Glazer Safety Slugs. They are prefragmented so that they do not over penetrate, (Go though the criminal, then through the wall, and present a danger to an innocent beyond the wall.) do not ricochet if I do miss and hit something solid at a glancing angle.

Here is why I will not give warning. It could be fatal to me. If I give a warning, I then have committed myself to waiting to see what his response is, then evaluating that response, then making my decision and acting upon that decision. That takes a total of about 2/3 second if you have fast reflexes. In that time, he can already have his shot off. So I don't have the time for a warning.

As soon as he is no longer a threat, I will call police and then genuinely attempt to give first aid.

Of course, I hope I never have to be in that situation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Do you support the death penalty for burglary then?

What other crimes would you extend it to?

[DoNotRefill]

54. There's a HUGE difference...

between shooting to stop a crime in progress/self defense and shooting as a form of PUNISHMENT, which is what the Death Penalty is.

On top of that, you've got the whole "state actor"/"private actor" issue.

The death penalty for burglary would be an overreaction. Shooting somebody in your house illegally isn't an overreaction.

[fujiyama]

16. This is a violent country

Don't blame the other poster for reacting that way. I'd feel the EXACT same way if someone broke in here.

I don't know if it's different in Canada, but here home invaders and burglars are often violent and have a firearm on them.

[frogfromthenorth2]

26. Firearms... nope... seen once in my lifetime and it was when I visited

my friend in Ohio. Around here, you only have the right to use the necessary force. If you kill to protect your home, you go to prison.

[TO Kid]

50. Home invasions are a big problem in Canada

They're very common because the crooks know that most homeowners are unarmed. Our firearms laws, like airport security, are very effective at ensuring that the innocent are defenceless.

[AP]

21. Check with a lawyer first. Most states don't let you kill people in order

to protect your property.

Most states require your life to be in jeopardy before you can take somebody else's life.

[sweetheart]

24. Its the texas takeover

Its ok in texas, and that's all that counts in rhetorical america
these days.

There is a statistic, that many home gun defenders, are often
injured by their own weapons in such circumstances, as the burglar
finds the family home defense gun and uses it. In such gunfights,
something like an average of 6 shots are fired... so its not so
clear, with all that emotion.

I think there is sort of a karma there. If you keep guns around with
the intent of killing burglars, its more likey to happen to you.

[Silverhair]

34. If a burglar is in your home, YOUR LIFE IS IN JEPORDY!!!

You are NOT required to inquire of the burglar what his intentions are. You are allowed to conclude that he means you serious harm, and you are allowed to defend yourself.

Now if you wake up as he is leaving out the door with the TV, then you can't shoot as you are not in danger. If you wake up as he is coming in the window, you can defend youself.

[AP]

44. Only in Texas.

Seriously. Most burglars don't want to have a confrontation, and the circumstances will suggest that. So, you have to be careful about killing burglars. If it looks like you saw the person first and they didn't see you and they weren't interested in you at all, and you kill the burglar, you're going to have some explaining to do to Johnny Law.

If someone sneaks into your bedroom, when all the stereo equipment is downstairs, then you can defend yourself without having to worry about the consequences.

I think this is pretty commone sense. If they're trying not to be detected and you notice them first, don't be shooting people in the back. If you're the target and not your property, fire away.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Here it's legal to shoot burglars...

the test is a "reasonable person standard". If a reasonable person would be afraid that they faced death or greivous bodily harm, or that a member of the family faced it, it's legal to shoot. And no, I'm not in Texas.

[AP]

59. facing death, grievous bodily harm -- that's the key part.

I think in TX, you don't need that, but I'm not sure.

[DoNotRefill]

61. Texas's law is strange....

and I've done a fair bit of reading on it. It's legal to kill to defend property, provided that the property is "necessary to ordinary life". Therefore, you can shoot somebody stealing your car, you can shoot somebody stealing your horse, you can shoot somebody stealing your work tools that you use to make your living, you can shoot somebody stealing your oxygen tank, but you can't shoot somebody for stealing your VCR.

Here, if they break into an occupied house, there's a legal presumption that they are there to cause the occupiers bodily harm. If you shoot somebody in your house, call the cops, the cops come, and you say "I was scared that they were gonna kill, rape, or beat me" or whatever, the cops will arrest you, confiscate your firearm, and release you the next day, when the prosecutor "declines to press charges" unless there's some extraordinary circumstance at work (like the dead guy has an invitation in his pocket from you to him inviting him to come and visit).

[Silverhair]

78. If it is obvious that he is no threat to me, I will not confront him.

Even with all the tactical advantages, I could still lose a gunfight. A criminal with his brains blown out could still fire a reflex shot that could hit me. My computers aren't worth taking a bullet for. My family is.

[DoNotRefill]

89. 100% correct.

well, with the caveat that many states allow lethal force for greivous bodily injury too..

The big thing is what constitutes having your life placed into jeopardy? What's reasonable in Virginia isn't reasonable in, say, New Jersey.

For example: In Virginia, there was this Navy guy. He had a wife and kids who stayed in port when he deployed. They were repeatedly "hot-burgled" by a well-known crackhead while the husband was out on deployment. It got so bad that the wife and kids fled the house for their safety. When he got back, he got a gun and went and sat in the house deliberately waiting for the crackhead to break in again. Sure enough, the crackhead broke in again, and the Navy guy shot and killed him. It was a borderline case, with some saying the sailor had lain in wait for the guy, effectively ambushing him. He was tried and acquitted. In some other places, he'd be on death row. BTW, race wasn't an issue, everybody involved was from the same race.

[Silverhair]

93. The guy should have made up a better story.

It should have been easy for him to anticipate the need to talk to the cops after the shooting so have an easy story ready.

Buy a popular novel, actually read it up to page 256 or something like that so you can prove that you were reading it.

"Officer, I was having a hard time sleeping so I was sitting in the living room reading when this guy broke in. Yes, I had a gun handy because this is a proven high crime area and I was afraid something might happen. That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

[sweetheart]

8. The torys are desperate

They figure they can energize their base with this pathetic ruse.

This comes from the famous case of tony martin, who shot dead a
teenager who was running away in his basement. Mr. Martin was seen
to have used deadly force inappropriately and served time in prison.

Underneath this, is a rural dissatisfaction with policing, that
city centers have cameras, and rural areas get dick, slow response
times and repeated criminals. So this Martin chappie, seemed to have
had run ins with these kids before, and had an issue that he vented
with his shotgun.

Its sorta like the Bernard Goetz (sp?) subway shooting in NYC that
similarly publisized the "victem".

Frankly, i think the police should have mobile-camera units that they
loan out to rural folks for 2 years, if they ask, that function like
inner-city video surveillance units and are monitored by the
police at the "monitoring place". This would allow the police to
get on top of trouble spot crimes, beyond ABSO's (Anti Social Behavior
Orders)
These ABSO's are a new thing where on very little proof, except
neighbors complaining, people can be legally barred from doing
some things ... and arrested if they break the order....

Michael Howard is a cheap politician, attacking tony blair on the
most trivial of points, and attempting to get the government to
move to the right, like tony's kneejerk reaction generally is.

In this case, i expect them to do nothing... like this article is
suggesting.

[DoNotRefill]

64. IIRC...

one minister told a media outlet to ask people what law they most wanted to see enacted or repealed. He was unpleasantly surprised when the law that most people wanted to see repealed was the one saying people couldn't defend their homes.

[sweetheart]

68. link?

I'd like to read that. The current law says you can defend your
home. The right to execute people for breaking and entering is not
in the current law. This is newspaper populism, and the whole thing
is started by the eidtors of the telegraph because they felt like
stirring the pot prior to next spring's general election.

This goes far towards seeing how newspapers stirr up public FEAR, as
this is a FEAR ploy, make no mistake. After seeing the success it
worked for bush, the british conservatives are jumpin at the bit to
copy.

As well, there are lesser publicized crime things, as all parties
try to out-right labour on being tough on crime. Another one is the
attempt to make carrying a knife automatic 5 years jail time, like
for a gun. Really, its a bit OTT, and the government should be
proud of its reduced crime, and economic success, especially with
the very poorest where labour has done an outstanding job.

In terms of income inequality, that is the real biggest problem in
the UK with strategic crime reduction. An increasingly uber-wealthy
upper crust is pushing more and more towards the american gated
community model of society, and this, due to the very poorest they
seek to get away from by earning 500 times more.

In this regard, tony's third way bullshit, is the same rot that is
creating income disparity in the US, that we have seen destroys
social cohesion. Sadly, nobody is listening in downing street, just
talking.

[DoNotRefill]

71. Here's one...

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3672701.stm

"Mr Gale had been spurred on to introduce his Bill after Today listeners were invited to vote on the private members' bill they would most want to see become law.

More than 26,000 votes were registered by listeners taking part in the poll and MP Stephen Pound was lined up to champion the winning bill.

But after listeners plumped for legislation that would protect homeowners' rights to defend themselves, the Labour politician appeared to withdraw his support, arguing: "This bill is unworkable," as it "endorses the slaughter of 16-year-old kids".

On Friday, Mr Pound attacked the proposals as a "knee-jerk" reaction which would create more problems than it would solve."

[sweetheart]

74. Ok, a radio call in show

I don't believe people are voting rationally, but rather on fear
based on some media stories that have bubbled along in the british
press for some time.

The comment about the 16 years old, is related to the tony martin
case i mentioned in the earlier post. He killed an unarmed 16 year
old kid in his basement by shooting him in the back... "home defense".

Also, like i mentioned in the earlier post, the labour party member,
is calling the push to make home-murder legal is "knee jerk", as it
is a fear-lust.

A real poll, would likely show that its not such a hot issue...
radio call in polls are not all that accurate, except of a focus
group, raving in fear for home defense. The ABSO, were it around
when tony martin was having his troubles with the teenagers, would
have been sufficient to sort him out.

[DoNotRefill]

90. the people have spoken...the bastards!!!

I thought Pound's quote was unintentionally hillarous!!! :)

[sweetheart]

91. I'm sure if you knew the parents of the killed teenager

You'd find it less funny.

The people have spoken, and that is why a massive supermajority
has labour in power doing the right thing, and ignoring
right wing focus groups, and newspapers who are, in the tradition
of GWB, trying to subvert the balance of the law by cultivating
fear.

The presumption that all perscriptions of culture are automatically
applicable in the UK, as in the US, is the "over here" problem
that so many brits complain about.... and each time, the conservatives
look silly trying to import the bush stupidity in to a more healthy
democracy.

They've tried the teenage abstinance thing, and got laughed at,
missile defense, and got demonstrated against, now its murdering
people in your home, at least they've sorted out that bush himself
is not welcome in the UK, as he'll be avoiding here in his next
journey towards europe this winter... to spare Blare the embarassment
of being seen with a criminal as to not hurt his election chances.

I'm sure a call in to rush limbaugh could convince some folks that
all of america was looking foward to having hand guns mandatory in
every bedroom.... its hardly the "people have spoken"... that
the labour MP knows this is a sign of labour government sanity.

[DoNotRefill]

92. If I was the parent of the dead 16 year old I'd feel guilty....

for not teaching my child civility and respect for others.

That kid died because HE fucked up. It's like people who die bungie-cord jumping.....they did something stupid, and paid the price for their stupidity.

[DoNotRefill]

73. Here's an audio file....

"The people have spoken...the bastards..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/ram/today5_0840_20040101.ram

[AP]

20. Tories are desperate. Calling Labour weak on crime is so 1983.

[SmokingJacket]

27. Britain has a horrible problem with burglary.

I'm only speaking from personal experience, but my family members in the UK have been robbed mercilessly. All the family heirlooms are gone. My grandparents had their jewelry stolen one evening while they watched TV, and the burglar also took a dump in their hallway.

I suspect knowing that my grandfather couldn't have a gun to blow his head off made the burglar rather more gutsy than otherwise.

Still... so a lot of people are poorer in material things and are being broken into regularly. To me, it's better than having a country loaded with guns.

But it's close.

[AP]

48. If burglars in the UK knew that occupants had guns, they'd just wait until

nobody was home and they'd steal the gun too.

It wouldn't make your relatives safer. It would just mean that he'd get robbed when he wasn't home.

[DoNotRefill]

69. "hot" burglaries...

are veiwed here as much more dangerous than "cold" burglaries.

Somebody did a study of burglars in prison (in Florida, IIRC) and they were many times more worried about encountering an armed homeowner than encountering even the police. That's why "hot" burglaries are so rare in the US...criminals don't want to get shot.

[AP]

94. I saw an interview with a reformed burglar on TV -- he said that a...

...majority of the homes he robbed had guns in them, and they were almost always kept in the exact same place.

He said he only robbed houses during the day, and only wanted three things: jewelry from the dresser, drugs from the bathroom cabinet, and that gun. Those were the things that were easy to sell.

He said that a burglar alarm never dissuaded him because he could be in and out before the cops came.

[qs04]

37. Injury while breaking into an inhabited home is a job hazard

That injury may result from making someone fear for their safety and react in a fight or flight manner -- flight generally not being much of an option -- should be written off as a job hazard. I don't want to risk falling off a roof so I don't perform roofing for a living; a person not wanting to be harmed by a frightened homeowner should find a source of income other than burglary.

[ben_packard]

38. People need context... the uk isn't the wild west

If you are burgaled in the uk it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the offender will be armed, and almost unknown for a firearm to be used. Most often you are talking about teenagers addicted to drugs, and while this is no excuse to some it is still a long way from the perception that some guy with an assault rifle is there to rape your kids. So assuming (as is the norm) that no firearms are involved, are all of you protectionists saying that it would be perfectly acceptable to aprehend the intruder, establish he's not armed, restrain him with rope or by sitting on him and then decide I should break his neck, or got to the kitchen and get a knife so I can stab him? Because that sort of behaviour is what you're advocating if you remove every right the burglar has.

[AP]

46. There are a ridiculously low number of homicides in the

UK every year -- (I guess the better way to phrase that is that there are a ridiculously high number of homicides in the US relative to the UK).

People are generally not breaking into your flat to kill you. They just want your VCR so they can sell it for 5 quid so they can buy some chronic.

[Ed C. Finley]

76. Well, if anybody breaks into my house

I am going to be in fear for my life and am not going to wait around to see if he is just going to satisfied with taking my property. I've got my wife and kids to think about, not to mention my own self. Perhaps these theiving burglars should get a real job and not force petrified homeowners like myself to give them a 12 gauge enama

[Ed C. Finley]

77. I Know "enema" is misspelled

Sorry to be so anal.

[DoNotRefill]

80. >GROAN<

Be careful being such an invertebrate punster here...people might slug you...

[w4rma]

87. Like Clinton, Blair is getting sucked into stupid crap, now.

Why? Because he refuses to tackle REAL problems (that Bush and the big corps wouldn't like him to tackle).

[AP]

95. I think it's for a different reason:like Clinton, Blair has built up a lot

of social wealth: he has increased wages (especially among the bottom two quintiles) and employment.

Clinton also created a lot of wealth in the hands of people who work for a living (it was invested in 401ks and IRAs and Ameritrade accounts).

Once you get a big enough pot of gold that liberals create for people who don't REALLY have a lot of political power (the middle and working class -- people who work for a living) then there's a pot of gold -- a treasure -- which Republicans covet. That's when Republicans REALLY want to govern. They want to transfer all that wealth from the bottom to the top.

That's what Reagan did with the S&L crisis (your savings accounts went to Neil Bush, and then Reagan taxed the middle and working class to pay for the government bailout of the banks -- the working class got screwed coming and going with the S&L crisis). That's what Bush did with the stock market, and it's going to be what Bush does with the housing market -- wherever the politicall powerless middle class accumulates wealth, that's where the Republicans are going to get their wealth.

And that's what the Tories are trying to do in the UK. They want that middle class wealth now that Blair has helped create some. That's all this about. I guarantee you that's the case.

[sweetheart]

96. Funnily, this article today, summarizes this thread

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/joan_smith/story.jsp?story=593188

Unfortunately, it is subscription, but it pretty much makes all
the points, as well, as calling it a climate of fear...


..<snip>
..the Metropolitan Police revealed that "knife-enabled" crime in
London had fallen by 5.5% compared with the same period in 2003.
There was more good news: "gun-enabled" crime fell by 12.7% and
residential burglary in the capital went down by almost 11 percent
between April and October this year...
.
<snip>
.
It is a sad fact that a climate of fear is already part of the
general election campaign, and our politicians have responded by
competing with each other tho show who is the toughtest on crime.
Tony Blair and Michael Howard may not have actually used the words,
but the message to voters is clear: "I'm hard, me."