Protecting your home gets into legal gray area

[Common Sense Party]

{excerpt}

"It's really similar to the training we give police officers in a use-of-force situation," Gruber said. "You really can't paint a black or white picture as to how someone should respond."

A person has always had the right to self-defense in the face of imminent and inescapable danger. In 2008, Ohio law removed the duty to retreat from the victim when they are in their home or vehicle. This means the use of an appropriate amount of force, even deadly, rather than being forced to flee is perfectly legal.

The castle doctrine, passed in Ohio three years ago, perhaps most importantly shifts the burden of proof from the resident to the government in these cases.

"If it's on the street, (the shooter has) to prove that all the elements of self-defense are applicable," Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt said. "In a home, the government would have the duty to prove it wasn't (self-defense)."

{excerpt}

----------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't any intruder in my home be a potential "inescapable danger"? If I find a bad guy in my kitchen, sure, I might be able to flee, but my wife, my son and my daughters would be left behind. If I flee, I'm exposing them to danger and harm. Ohio was right to remove the "duty to retreat."

[mitchtv]

1. sounds fair to me

after all, your home is your refuge of last resort

[Glassunion]

2. Quite smart.

Because if you were in your home and had to retreat you would then be out in public with a firearm. And that would be tacky and uncivilized.

[ileus]

5. A toter with his bulging gun poking out in public...unacceptable.

[cleanhippie]

63. I see that your need for thinly veiled sexual references overrides your ability for rational thought

How sad.

[oneshooter]

7. In the frozen North the law says that you

must offer the "unauthorized entrant" a cup of tea and a sandwich. It's more civilized up there.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Glassunion]

40. I thought it was

a pint of tasty Molson and bacon from the wrong part of the pig?

[bluerum]

3. Turn on the lights. Bad guy runs away 9 out of 10 times.

[Glassunion]

4. Do have a cite for that stat?

In actuality 26% of burglaries where there is someone home the event ends in a violent crime.

[ileus]

6. my light is bolted to a picatinny rail....it's not nice to point a gun at someone.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Does muzzle flash count as a light?

[michreject]

9. Only light that he'll see is muzzle flash

He won't see the lighted dial on my phone when I use it to call the police afterward.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. What do you suggest for that one out of ten event? N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Nice

you packing a concealed flashlight, are ya?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Those who...

...incorporate violence into their theft, larceny and burglary parties are repugnant.
Those who murder, rape and assault have only one good use...




....mulch.

[ileus]

13. awful smelly mulch...how about chum instead?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I don't fish much.

On the other hand there is the prime law of thermodynamics:

Very few problems can't be solved with enough heat. ;)

[Euromutt]

15. More like "gets OUT OF legal gray area"

The whole notion of "duty to retreat" is such garbage. It's saying, in essence, "even if it's utterly beyond dispute that you were under imminent threat of permanent injury or death, some prosecutor who wasn't there can still prosecute you because he doesn't believe you tried quite hard enough to run away before you shot the guy who broke into your house." The very idea that you have some moral obligation to avoid harming someone whom you reasonably believe intends to severely injure or kill you--a belief the prosecutor's office does not contest--is simply abhorrent to me.

[burf]

16. Better to be tried by twelve

than carried by six.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

18. You feel free to ascertain whether or not a home invader is only after 'stuff'.

I am under no obligation to do so, moral or legal.

If someone kicks in my door, they can expect to get shot.

[dpbrown]

21. Then you should go to prison

Force, under the long-developed common law, may only be met with commensurate force, and one is under a duty to retreat if possible unless one's life is under threat. Anything else is a needless cheapening of life under consumerist ideology.

[X_Digger]

22. No, I'd probably puke my guts out and fall down shaking from adrenaline let-down.

Then I'd offer what medical aid I could as I talk to 911.

There is no duty to retreat in one's home. That's as disgusting a concept as I've ever heard.

[gejohnston]

24. legislation trumps common law

What is commensurate force? Fist v Fist? If equal what if not equal? What does this have to do with consumerism? Of course, you believe this as long as it applies to other people. If someone breaks in my house with a weapon, my life is under treat. Anything else is stupid.

[spin]

28. Why would any rational individual kick down the door to an occupied home ...

unless he wanted to seriously injure or kill the occupants.

It's not extremely difficult to determine if someone is home. If all you seek is to steal items, you wait until the home is unoccupied.

In Florida we have Castle Doctrine law.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.emphasis added

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Florida is not alone in having Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws.

Castle doctrine

***snip***

Adoption by States

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,<9> Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,<10> South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,<11> West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,<12> New Hampshire, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.<13><14><15>

Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law<16> before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.

Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat<17> from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained.

In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Stand-your-ground

Obviously the law in many states differ with what you said:

"Force, under the long-developed common law, may only be met with commensurate force, and one is under a duty to retreat if possible unless one's life is under threat. Anything else is a needless cheapening of life under consumerist ideology."

I disagree that a person who stands their ground against a violent assault should go to prison. I probably would have different views if I were either a fool or a criminal.

[Common Sense Party]

31. Commensurate?

Definition of COMMENSURATE

1
: equal in measure or extent : coextensive <lived a life commensurate with the early years of the republic>
2
: corresponding in size, extent, amount, or degree : proportionate <was given a job commensurate with her abilities>

Equal force? Please answer me this: if a guy comes breaking into my house and starts punching me, but I outweigh him by 80 pounds and I'm much better at martial arts, would "commensurate force" doctrine require that I hit him only as hard as he hits me? And that I refrain from using any moves that he doesn't know how to counter?

Do you not realize how silly and dangerous your "commensurate force" idea sounds?

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Many states have replaced such common law with Castle Doctrine and No Retreat Law.

Thankfully, my state, Texas is one of them. I have no duty to retreat from my home, or from anywhere else that I have a legal right to be. The concept of duty to retreat means that a violent thug can chase you off from anywhere by threatening you. It turns civilization over to violent thugs.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. Where did you get THAT pile of garbage?

Common law has never seen it as "commensurate force" and the concept of a "duty to retreat" is absolutely absurd - especially in one's own home.

The one cheapening life is the criminal who has decided that his life is worth risking over my property.

[PavePusher]

75. The fuck you say. n/t

[gejohnston]

19. you miss the point

In the US burgers interested in stuff, case the house and wait until you leave. Those do don't are stupid, suicidal or have other motives than than taking your stuff.

Secondly, it's morally reprehensible to suppose that someone should die for breaking into a house.

No, it has to do with the reason someone is breaking in your house. If you are there, there is a good chance you will not be left unharmed. Oh you think I should ask him if he is just here for the TV or if he is a stoned sociopath what wants might decide to create bloodshed of his own? Sorry, your sense of morality is bullshit. I will tell them to sit down, shut up, and wait for the cops, nobody gets hurt.

That's a problem created by the me-first narcissist spawn of the consumer society.

consumerism has nothing to do with it.

And thirdly, the gun nuts that promote shooting as a solution for almost any problem put all the rest of the world in danger.

bullshit straw man if there ever was one

[dpbrown]

20. The common law precept of a duty to retreat is still valid, despite all the hoodoo

All the particular attributes applied don't matter, the common law precept of only justifying similar force against similar force, and the duty to retreat unless your life is threatened is still valid. This co-opts that ages old common law precept for no reason other than the cheapening of the meaning of life under consumerism.

[gejohnston]

25. what hoodoo is that

who decides if life was not threatened? Some lawyer who was not there? Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with consumerism. It has everything to do with the flaws and injustices of duty to retreat, like inviting malicious prosecution disguised as taking a stand against vigilantism because the victim "should have went out the back door instead of to the bedroom". Even if the legal conditions are met, and are acquitted under duty to flee, the family of criminal will come after you in a wrongful death suit. The crime victim is victimized three ways,
first by the criminal, second by the state, third by family to feed their own consumerism.

Ask yourself this, duty to retreat. Duty to whom? Duty to a shallow and half baked ideology?

[Common Sense Party]

29. Scenario: I'm awake downstairs, working in my office at 11:00 at night.

My wife and kids are all asleep in bed--she downstairs, my 3 children upstairs.

I hear someone breaking in through my upstairs back door.

If I have the duty to retreat, how do I retreat with my wife and three children, when first I have to wake them up and rouse them into action, and when all paths for retreat take me directly past the intruder--intentions unknown?

Please explain my duty to retreat in this scenario, if you will.

[ileus]

30. you put too much value in your family...

Most of us have the same problem. I have two children at the other end of my home...I have to remove them from harms way first. While my wife and I have an exit from our master bath, our children have no such option.

[Glassunion]

37. Fuck em'... Just make more.

:sarcasm: lots and lots of :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

43. "ages old common law precept"

Cite your evidence, please?

[iverglas]

46. read any one of several dozen posts by me in the last decade

and stop making yourself look like a ninny.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. That would make sense...

...if you were the supreme authority on such matters.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. He is not the one looking like a ninny...

[rl6214]

70. You have quite an opinion of yourself

" read any one of several dozen posts by me in the last decade"

as I've seen you post this quite a bit.

[Common Sense Party]

72. It's as easy as ABC

Some posters' modus operandi:

Arrogance
Belligerence
Condescension

[iverglas]

26. interesting thing ...

In the US burgers interested in stuff, case the house and wait until you leave. Those do don't are stupid, suicidal or have other motives than than taking your stuff.

"Stupid" isn't really all that uncommon, is it? It isn't up here in Canada.

There's another interesting phenomenon up here though, and I wonder whether it's present in the US.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100325/dq100325b-eng.htm

Home invasions are committed by strangers less often than other types of robberies. In 2008, 63% of home invasions were committed by a stranger compared with 90% of other types of robbery.

Just over one-quarter of home invasions were committed by acquaintances, which include criminal relationships.

In over 1/3 of "home invasions" the offender was not a stranger.

In the cases involving acquaintances, some of the victims were involved in criminal relationships with the offenders.

Interesting question that I've raised here before: should criminals be entitled to shoot other criminals who "invade" their homes for purposes like drug ripoffs, score settling, and such like?

On the general question of victim-offender relationship, we had a fascinating one recently. A Vietnamese-Canadian couple were shot in their home in a comfortable suburb by "home invaders". The community and beyond were horrified. But oh look:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/895431--daughter-arrested-in-markham-home-invasion

Daughter charged with murder in Markham home invasion

Two weeks ago, Jennifer Pan sobbed at her father’s hospital bedside, keeping vigil with her brother as they mourned the murder of their mother in what appeared to be a random home invasion by three hooded gunmen.

On Tuesday, 24-year-old Pan appeared in court charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Police are still searching for three men in the Nov. 8 home invasion on Helen Ave. in Markham.

Bich-Ha Pan, 53, was shot and killed. Her 57-year-old husband, Huei Hann Pan, was shot in the upper body and neck. After speaking to police, he is recovering at an undisclosed location.

In Canada:

In 2008, police reported 2,700 home invasions — robberies that occurred in a private residence. The rate of home invasions rose 38% between 1999 and 2005 and has been relatively stable since.

2,700 offences in a population of 34 million is a rate of about 8/100,000. In the same year there were 29,300 other types of robberies.

2,700 of which fewer than 2/3 were committed by strangers: 1700. Fewer than 5 a day in a country of 34 million.

That would be equivalent to about 45 a day in the US.

Is the rate actually way way higher in the US? What's the rate of homicide / home invasion?

The rate of homicide during robbery is multiples higher in the US than in Canada ... precisely because lots of robbers in the US have firearms and overwhelmingly do not in Canada.

If somebody is really worried about murder and mayhem in the course of a residential or any other robbery ... well, I just always wonder. Why aren't they advocating effective methods of reducing criminals' access to firearms?

:shrug:

[gejohnston]

27. simple

One difference in the two countries, a home invader has a greater chance of getting shot.

The rate of homicide during robbery is multiples higher in the US than in Canada ... precisely because lots of robbers in the US have firearms and overwhelmingly do not in Canada.

If somebody is really worried about murder and mayhem in the course of a residential or any other robbery ... well, I just always wonder. Why aren't they advocating effective methods of reducing criminals' access to firearms?

If that isn't the perfect example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, I don't know what does. It is also not accurate. Most robbers do not in the US.

No for the reason above, nor can it be proven. Because they know it would hinder their access to firearms and not the robbers. Since most robbers and rapists (or serial killers for that matter) don't, the defender would be at a disadvantage.

[petronius]

32. I would say that criminals should have the same right to defend themselves as anyone else

Even in the case where there is a pre-existing relationship (accomplice-ship?) and a disagreement arising out of it, the assault and invasion would be a new crime. Of course, the targeted criminal shouldn't be off the hook for anything else, including any firearms-related violations that became apparent during the home-defense...

[Common Sense Party]

33. Not to mention that the criminals whose home is being invaded often

live there with their families, who may very well be innocent of any criminal acts.

A criminal has every right to protect his family from assault or murder.

To suggest otherwise implies that the lives of criminals' children are somehow worth less than other children's lives.

[iverglas]

36. oh dear; blaming the victim of a drug rip-off?

A criminal has every right to protect his family from assault or murder.
To suggest otherwise implies that the lives of criminals' children are somehow worth less than other children's lives.

Let us say: Said criminal is a righteous target for their brethren's wrath. They deserve what they get.

So if said criminal's children are in harm's way, isn't said criminal the one to blame?? Made their choice, they did.

Hell, even if the wrath wasn't righteous, surely by engaging in the drug trade they are still the ones who put their children at risk. Their choice.


Once again, my giggle for the day.

People engaged in drug trafficking are ENTITLED TO HAVE FIREARMS in their homes, on their persons ... whenever and wherever they might perceive a threat against them or theirs.

Hey, I've always said myself that if it's one of those big fat fundamental constitutional-type rights things, then you can't possibly justify denying the exercise of it to people with mere criminal records; yes indeed, they're as entitled to guns as anybody else. It's just that few around here seem to agree with me.

But now we have it. Drug dealers are as entitled to have guns as anybody else.

Well, I can breathe a sigh of relief now.

[Common Sense Party]

38. Yawn.

:boring:

NOTHING you say is worthy of a reply.

[PavePusher]

45. It's Jello all the way down for this one. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

47. Jello?

As in "Watch it wiggle, see it squiggle"?

[PavePusher]

74. Heh, mostly a Terry Pratchett reference, with a long history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Glassunion]

35. Yes the rate is much higher in the US.

In the US we experience quite a bit more than the equivalent of 45 a day. It works out to 10,172 per day. Just over 3.7 million a year.

26% or about 260,000(1,025,000 = 100%) of burglaries where an occupant(s) was home the occupant(s) become victims of violent crime.
18% of these burglaries(180,000) ended with the occupant being assaulted.
5.8% of these burglaries(58,000) ended with the occupant being robbed.
2.2% of these burglaries(22,000) ended with the occupant being sexually assaulted.

Of those victims(260,000), 60.5%(156,000) faced an unarmed attacker.
30.1%(78,260) faced an armed attacker. 12.4%(32,240) were armed with a firearm.

38.1% (389,880) of occupied burglaries occurred while the occupant was asleep.
44% (450,910) of occupied burglaries occurred while the occupant was doing other household activities.

32.9% of occupied burglaries occurred during day time hours.
61.3% of occupied burglaries occurred during night time hours.
The opposite is true for unoccupied 43.2% vs 26%

70.5% of occupied burglaries the attacker was unknown or a stranger to the victim.
10.6% of occupied burglaries the attacker was an intimate or former intimate.
18.9% of occupied burglaries the attacker was an acquaintance or relative.

[iverglas]

41. source?

It works out to 10,172 per day. Just over 3.7 million a year.

That's burglaries, right? Not "hot burglaries", and not hot burglaries by a stranger, which were what I gave an estimated equivalent for (45/day in the US if the same rate as the 5/day in Canada). For them, you seem to be saying 1,025,000 annually.

But how come that's not what the actual statistics say?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Burglary 2009, United States: 2,196,971

Where are you getting your numbers from? Your burglary figure is not far off double the one I see for burglaries. One of those victim survey things? No, I don't buy into them. And if so, they aren't comparable to Canadian police-reported figures.

You're saying there were 1,025,000 "hot burglaries" in some recent year in the US?

Hot burglaries should actually be classified in the stats under the offence committed: robbery, sexual assault, etc.

You have 58,000 of them ending in robbery -- so that's 1/7 of total robberies, if so:

Robbery 2009, United States: 408,217

The 45/day estimated equivalent I gave for the US was for stranger "hot burglaries".

You're saying there were 1,025,000 hot burglaries, about 725,000 of them stranger, i.e. close to 2,000 a day. Wowsers. I never again want to hear how bad Canada's burglary/home invasion stats are (and trust me, I've heard a lot of that hereabouts).


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm

Break-ins are not only the most serious type of property crime committed in Canada, they are also one of the most common. In 2009, there were over 205,000 break-ins reported by police, accounting for 15% of all property crimes. Although break-ins continue to be prevalent, the rate has steadily dropped since peaking in the early 1990s ... . The 2009 rate was 4% lower than in 2008 and 42% lower than a decade ago ... .

So for actual comparable numbers for burglaries, we have 205,000 for Canada and 2,196,971 for the US. A 1:10.7 ratio. Not hugely off the rough 1:9 population ratio.

But somehow, out of that, we get this vastly enormously huge difference in "home invasion" rates.

Even though all those householders in Canada are sitting there unarmed and defenceless ...

[Glassunion]

42. I won't bother with the source. You have already dismissed it.

You don't buy into them.

[iverglas]

23. "duty to retreat" is just a red flag to the bulls of the species

They's real men; they don't gotta retreat from no bad guys.

The real duty, in the common law, historically, and in many civilized places still today (including states in the USofA), is not to use force unless one has a reasonable belief that there is no reasonable alternative.

A reasonable alternative could mean leaving the vicinity. It could mean calling for help, where it is reasonable to believe it is available. It could mean ...

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/newly-expanded-preemption-assassination-56501312

We may recall also Samuel Von Pufendorf's argument in his On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law:

{W}here it is quite clear that the other is already planning an attack upon me, even though he has not yet fully revealed his intentions, it will be permitted at once to begin forcible self-defense, and to anticipate him who is preparing mischief, provided there be no hope that, when admonished in a friendly spirit, he may put off his hostile temper; or if such admonition be likely to injure our cause. Hence he is to be regarded as the aggressor, who first conceived the wish to injure, and prepared himself to carry it out. But the excuse of self-defense will be his, who by quickness shall overpower his slower assailant. ...

... admonition in a friendly spirit. ;)

What would The Rifleman say??




sigh, html fixed

[Glassunion]

39. What is the intent of an individual who breaks into an occupied home?

[iverglas]

44. are you the one with the crystal ball?

You tell me.

What was this one's intent?

... well, the story I posted a few days ago seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth, both in this forum and on the net. The kid was 12 or 13, I forget -- no, wait, I remember what I said about this, so now google finds it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=440856&mesg_id=441274
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23745268/detail.html

Family Says Boy Shot Breaking Into Home
Brunswick Boy's Family Says He Was Shot, Killed By Homeowner
POSTED: Monday, May 31, 2010

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- The family of a 12-year-old said he was shot and killed breaking into a home.

... Ratliff said she though her son was at the pool. Instead, he and two friends were trying to break into a house.

"They was being kids ... doing things they didn't have no business doing," said Devron's mother, Monique Ratliff.

... A man and woman were in the home at the time, and the man came downstairs with a gun. The other two boys ran, but Devron did not. His parents said he got a bullet in the back.

... The parents said they were speaking out to help convince other young men that bad decisions can have tragic consequences.

Nobody had a thing to say in that thread.


What is the intent of an individual who breaks into an occupied home?

What was the intent of THIS individual? You can see a photo of him at the link. He wasn't one of those big size-13-feet 12-year-olds.

Here, I can save some people some time; I have your script pre-prepared:

http://www.hinterlandgazette.com/2010/06/african-american-teen-devron-frenell.html

What happened to Devron Frenell, 12, should be a lesson to all kids who are up to no good. There are penalties for bad behavior and Frenell learned the hard way. ...

... Well, they broke into the wrong home and I don't blame the homeowner for shooting him, though I don't believe he would have shot him if he had realized it was a child. He was protecting his home. According to News 4 Jax, when the man, who lived in the home, came downstairs, the other two boys ran, but Devron didn't and he was fatally shot in the back.

I'm just not reconciling that "protecting his home" and "fatally shot in the back" bit, myself, but I'm sure someone will explain it.

And yup, the penalty for a bad-behaving 12-yr-old is death. Always has been, always will be. Just kill your 12-yr-old next time they behave badly, you'll see. Nobody will blame you.

What the heck; here's his school picture:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iN6_nIJQcbM/TAcLK4vvr-I/AAAAAAAAFT0/agLr6eyN0UQ/s1600/devron+frenell.jpg

How could anybody be expected to realize that was a child?

If you google his name, you'll find that his African-American-ness looms large in some minds. (No word on the ethnicity of the killer.) I wonder whether that's why the story isn't looming so large in the news ...

[Glassunion]

48. I have no crystal ball. That is why I asked.

So all "hot burglaries" are 12 year old boys just being boys not wanting to hurt anyone.

Thanks

[iverglas]

51. so you have proved your distaste for truth once again

I'd thank you, but you really didn't have to.

[Glassunion]

54. My distaste for the truth? Yet again? WTF are you going on about?

I'm sure you can show a pattern. Whatever...

We were discussing a duty to retreat. I asked what is the intent of someone who breaks into an occupied home... To which you replied with an anecdote about a 12 y/o boy who was not doing anything wrong... Well except for breaking into someone's home. If they are all just like this why would we specify a duty to retreat or the ability to stand your ground? Just call their mom and she will come give the little fella a spanking.

My point is that no one, not one single person on this planet knows the intent of someone breaking into an occupied home. They do not wear a t-shirt that has their mission statement on it... IE "I'm only here for the TV", "I'm really drunk and I'm in the wrong home", "I'm here for as much as I can get, I will kill you to get it", "I'm strung out and need some cash, I have a knife under my shirt".


Even in the case of this 12 y/o, neither you or anyone else on this planet knows the intent of that boy. Why didn't he run, why did he stay, why was he really there? These are all questions no one can answer.

[iverglas]

64. I'm on about your statement, chum

So all "hot burglaries" are 12 year old boys just being boys not wanting to hurt anyone.

Yours and yours alone. You didn't even have the foresight to tack one of those disingenuous question marks onto the end of it.


I asked what is the intent of someone who breaks into an occupied home... To which you replied with an anecdote about a 12 y/o boy who was not doing anything wrong

I asked you what his intent was. Just as reasonable as asking me what the intent of "someone" is.

If they are all just like this why would we specify a duty to retreat or the ability to stand your ground?

If wishes were horses ... Did someone say "they" are all just like this?

But leaving aside your false premise, here's an answer -- I'm not going to bother looking up the source; it can be found in the paper cited here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

However, since the late nineteenth century, the duty to retreat has eroded as most jurisdictions have begun to view it as an unreasonable burden on societal notions of courage and dignity.(13)

(13) This trend emerged in the unsettled territories of the late nineteenth century, and decisions that removed the duty to retreat bear the imprint of the code of the West. The Ohio Supreme Court is credited with creating what has become known as the “true man” rule in Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186 (1876): "Does the law hold a man who is violently and feloniously assaulted responsible for having brought such necessity upon himself, on the sole ground that he failed to fly from his assailant when he might have safely done so? (A) true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise, maliciously seeks to take his life or do him enormous bodily harm."

Just as I said at the outset here: the reason is that true men can't be expected to "retreat" ... let alone "submit". We can't expect a true man to look like he left his balls in the closet. True men don't care about other people's lives, they only care about looking like true men.


Even in the case of this 12 y/o, neither you or anyone else on this planet knows the intent of that boy. Why didn't he run, why did he stay, why was he really there? These are all questions no one can answer.

And if you come up with an answer to my question: why was he shot -- in the back? -- I'm sure you'll let me know.

[Glassunion]

67. And if you come up with an answer to my question: why was he shot -- in the back?

That question can never be answered.

As you said, the story has vanished from the public. There was no police report released that either you or I could find.

I will not say with any surety one way or the other why he was shot in the back. He could have been retreating from the shooter and it was a bad shoot or he could have been advancing towards someone else the shooter wanted to protect and it would have been a good shoot. Neither are a certainty.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Easy to reconcile.

A person can have their back to you and still shoot you. It is quite easy to do, and rapid too - takes less than a second. All they have to do is is grab their gun and partly rotate the torso while pointing the gun arm straight behind them, head looking in the direction of the shot.

Under the laws of Georgia he was in the house illegally and was a threat to the residents. They could legally use lethal force.

Some claim he was just being a kid. Odd that when I was a kid I never, ever broke into anybody's house.

[iverglas]

52. some claim indeed

His mother did not say he was "just" being a kid -- she said he was being a kid, doing things he had no business doing. She said nothing to try to excuse his actions.

The individual in the house shot a 12-year-old kid in the back -- whose two companions had already fled, and I don't see how having his back turned could lend itself to any interpretation other than that he was leaving too.

You do have a crystal ball, I see. You know that he was a "threat to the residents". Can you tell me where to find my car keys?

When my little brother was a kid, he threw rocks at the neighbour's basement window til it broke, then blamed Billy down the street. We believed him for about 30 years.

When my cousin was a little kid, he ran onto the freshly seeded lawn of the neighbour on the other side to retrieve his baseball. That neighbour pointed a rifle at him. Perhaps he perceived him as a threat.

[Glassunion]

55. Have you seen the police report?

Were there any arrests?
What is the official statement from the police?
It has been well over a year since the shooting there should be some details that could shed light on everyone's claims.

"and I don't see how having his back turned could lend itself to any interpretation other than that he was leaving too."
There are other interpretations. He could have his back turned and not be leaving. He could be heading further into the home.

[iverglas]

60. have you looked?

I certainly have. I found a big fat nothing.

Strikes me that it was just another bad African-American kid getting himself shot ... nothing to see here ...

[Glassunion]

68. Take it up with the media.

While you are asking could you also ask why only cute, missing white girls get all the TV time?

[GreenStormCloud]

56. The LAW says that he was legally a threat. That's all I need to know. N/T

[iverglas]

61. "The LAW says that he was legally a threat."

Wowsers, parse that one.

Your "castle doctrine" actually says (and I paraphrase) that there is a legal PRESUMPTION that where a person who enters a home unlawfully the householder perceived a threat. The law doesn't say anyone IS a threat, "legally" or otherwise. Just like a law that incorporated a legal presumption that the earth is flat would not be saying the earth IS flat. But any legislature in the US that wanted to put a legal presumption that the earth is flat into one of its laws can do so at will. In Florida, the legislature's own legal advisors counselled against this particular presumption, but hey, what did they know?

If you don't know what I and some of your fine legal minds down there think about that little presumption, allow me to educate you. Since you don't actually seem to know "all you need to know".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237
(btw, for those wanting to dismiss a paper by a law student, the author's current data:
Current: Staff Attorney, Division of Enforcement at US Securities and Exchange Commission
Past: Law Clerk at United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Education: Harvard Law School, New York University)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

It's garbage law, apart from being sewer-rat morals.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Obviously you don't like it. You have posted that before. But it is still the LAW.

None of the states that have it have seen any movement to repeal it, and other states have been adopting it. So lots of voters must like it, including other posters on this forum. What you and Mr. Michael think of it doesn't matter.

BTW, Here in Texas we can use deadly force in defense of property too.

[iverglas]

66. it's the law

So many things have been the law ... hey, how 'bout that law in that Heller business?

"It's the law" works in a court. Settles the issue In a discussion forum, it IS the issue, ffs.

BTW, Here in Texas we can use deadly force in defense of property too.

BTW, have I mentioned lately that I've been to Texas, twice, and wouldn't go back if I was paid?

Maybe not totally true. There are nice things to see there. Gotta have a strong stomach to see them through the shit, though.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. I liked the Heller decision, and the McDonald decision too.

But until it was overturned the DC gun ban was the law. And the Castle Doctrine laws are the law now. As far as I know there are no serious court challenges to them, nor any movements to repeal any of them. There are movements in the remaining states to pass them into law.

[ileus]

49. Well most are just there to take what is theirs from a greedy homeowner.

maybe a good beating, or murder.....rape maybe, nothing worth noting.

[iverglas]

53. dawg a'might you do say some truly stupid things

Is there a handbook somewhere where you can just pick a few at random and memorize them?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Yet another failure on your part to recognize sarcasm

[PavePusher]

76. She's the only one in the room responsible enough to wield that terrible swift sword.

...to badly mix some metaphors...

[Philippine expat]

73. Its easy

if you break into my house while I am home YOU have decided that
your life is worth less then my property