Wisconsin Homeowners' Right to Kill Intruders

[mikeb302000]

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/128722503.html">TMJ4 reports on the controversy over homeowner rights in the aftermath of a supposed DGU.

In Okauchee, Mike Fitzsimmons claims Babe broke into his garage in the middle of the night, that there was a confrontation and Fitzsimmons felt threatened.

"He told me he had a gun. He came at me with a gun. I told him to drop it, backed up, shot him, killed him," Fitzsimmons said of the shooting early Saturday morning.

In their investigation, police found Babe actually didn't have a gun. He did have a cell phone in his hand.

Current law states that a person may use deadly force only if they "reasonably believe" that doing so will save them or another person from death or serious injury.

The problem is when a homeowner unnecessarily kills someone, even if he realizes it, he always claims to have been justified. "I felt my life was in danger," is easy to say.

There are three possibilities:

1. In other cases it's true that he felt that way, and he was right, his life really was in imminent danger.

2. In some cases it's true that he felt that way but he was mistaken.

3. And in still other cases, he knew damn well his life was not in danger but being so outraged that some punk would dare to break into his home, he shoots and kills the intruder.

In all three, his description of events is more-or-less the same. The guys in the 3rd category are certainly not going to admit something that would work against them. The guys in the 2nd category, although they may be telling the truth about how they felt at the time, they've committed an unnecessary killing.

The current debate is to expand the rights of homeowners, as have many other states, pertaining to the requirement to retreat. In this case for example, it happened in the garage, the homeowner might have been able to retreat into the house. Some say they shouldn't have to.

To me this sounds like adolescent school-yard posturing, not a serious consideration of a life-or-death decision. If retreating is possible and would have reasonably diffused the situation, then wouldn't that mean the homeowner's life was not truly in jeopardy?

And, naturally you have the real fanatics, for whom it's very simple.

"I think the current law is ridiculous," said Kallay. "I should be able to do anything to protect my home my belongings and my family."

You get that, even "belongings." To protect belongings, these guys want the right to kill.

What's your opinion? Where's the right place to draw the line on the homeowner's right to use lethal force?

Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[mikeb302000]

5. asking for proof

when you know none exists is the oldest trick in the book.

There's a difference between "making shit up" and making a reasonable analysis of people's motives. You may find that too subtle, but we do this kind of thing all the time. Your problem is you don't like it when it pokes holes in your theory that all DGUs are legit.

[MrDiaz]

9. What exactly would

the motive to rob people be if you know your life isn't in danger. It's pretty simple, the CRIMINAL made the decision of putting HIS LIFE in jeopardy by BREAKING and ENTERING someone else home. Why is it that so many people are more on the CRIMINALS side these days, rather than the average non-law breaking citizen. I don't know about you, but if I catch someone INSIDE my home rather it be the garage or anywhere else, I feel my life is threatened, why else would he have broke into my home. If someone broke into your home mikeb would you tell the criminal to just go ahead and take everything you have, and as long as he doesn't harm you nothing will happen to him? Talk all you want if you have a family in your home, and are in an encounter with someone who ILEGALLY broke into your home, you AUTOMATICALLY go in defence mode, because you have no idea how serious the situation is or how far the criminal is willing to take it.

[pipoman]

11. I didn't see anyone claim "all DGUs are legit"..

some of us believe the benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS be freely given to the innocent victim of a crime or attempted crime, and that said innocent victim should not have to spend their life savings defending their actions. I have also seen nobody who would defend someone who was complicit in the crime against them, i.e. a drug dealer whose disgruntled customer breaks in, etc. The straws' a fly'in now..

[rl6214]

29. Your "reasonable analyhsis" is the "oldest trick in the book"

and it's just reasonable bullshit. You come up with that crap because that's what you would do. No one's buying the crap you're peddling around here.

If it were "reasonable analysis" there would have to be some legitimate proof to back that analysis up, if not it's just a fairytale and you're the fairy.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

52. Pretending something is a fact...

...when you know it is nothing of the sort is an even older trick. It typically goes by the term "lying your ass off", but hey - call it what you want.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. I see your post as a complete fabrication

You can not back it up since it is basically false

[mikeb302000]

97. well, in that case,

why don't you, dear Professor, tell us how it breaks down. You don't even have to back it up.

[SteveM]

108. Twice over. nt

[rl6214]

101. So saying you are "making shit up" is now grounds for

having your post deleted.

How about you are not being entirely truthful. You are making statements about gun owners that you have absolutely no research or proof to provide to back up your claims.

[Katya Mullethov]

17. There was that recent $300k wrongful death judgement

for "future earnings "the bulk of which will soon be fueling the meth economy of El Paso County Colorado. That one left an awful lot of speed readers confused at first glance .

With multipliers in the precursor agent, barrel, pallet , 300gallon tote manufacturing and various other industries in China , the service industry employees of Mexico , undertakers ,bailiffs ,jailers,liquor stores ,tire and wheel shops,and ultimately pawnshops will all benefit from yet more of the innovative thinking that is driving our national economic recovery .

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Rochester]

3. The resident should have the right to kill the intruder under certain conditions...

...if the intruder is inside a building that's part of the guy's place of residence (house, garage, apartment, whatever.)
He should not be allowed to kill the intruder if the intruder is not in a building (for example, he's running across the yard), or if the guy doesn't live there (for example, it can't be a friend's house or a business, not even if he owns the business himself) EXCEPT if he is protecting his person, in which case he should be allowed to kill the intruder regardless.

[Tesha]

20. Why do you think you should have the right to kill someone merely for breaking-in...

...to your residence?

Does that really fit a reasonable interpretation of Justice?

Death for burglary?

What if the "burglar" were, in fact, a drunk entering the wrong home?
Would you still feel you had "had the right"?

Tesha

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Because I have a right to keep my property.

Why do you think you should have the right to kill someone merely for breaking-in...

First of all, when you find an intruder in your home you have no idea what that person's motives are. You have no idea whether they are armed or not. The safest course of action is to assume the worst and act accordingly.

Second of all, even if they are there "just" to steal my property, it is my right to prevent such theft by any means, including deadly force, available.

What if the "burglar" were, in fact, a drunk entering the wrong home?
Would you still feel you had "had the right"?

Yup. I'm not going to take the time to play 20 questions with an intruder in my home.

[Starboard Tack]

82. You have a right to keep your property, but not to kill in protecting it.

Your right to kill is directly tied to your personal safety and the safety of others. Life trumps property, except apparently in Texas. But Texas tends to do things it's own way.

[Atypical Liberal]

84. I should though.

Texas has it right.

The rest of us will just have to say we feared for our safety.

[Starboard Tack]

85. No Texas has it wrong, but I'm sure they would welcome you with open holsters.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. And Arkansas. And Indiana. And Montana. And North Carolina. And New Mexico.

And Washington. And West Virginia.

Everyone else is stuck with claiming they feared for their safety.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Maine_Nurse]

28. Because any douchebag that is willing to commit the felony of home invasion...

is pretty likely to be willing to use violence to prevent getting caught and arrested. That makes them a threat. Very glad my state recognizes that, especially since my wife did suffer from a home invasion while she was here alone a few years ago. I'm glad the scum ran like hell when he saw her drawing her pistol from the nightstand, but I'm even happier to know that the wifey would not have hesitated to pull the trigger if said piece of shit hadn't taken out the screen door in his rush to escape.

[mikeb302000]

100. two problems

your referring to criminals as "douchbags," indicates a lack of respect for them as fellow human beings.

and your assuming they're "willing to use violence to prevent getting caught and arrested" is probably true in some cases, but not in all. Many would run away. many are too loaded to do anything.

But you, prince of a guy that you are, would blow him away first and ask questions later.

[Spoonman]

104. "lack of respect for them as fellow human beings"

You have got to be kidding me!

What fucking planet do you live on?

These DOUCHBAGS rape and kill little children, young and old ladies, and anyone and everyone else in between indiscriminately.

YOU nor I have a fucking clue which one them is capable of doing it, at any given time.

But you and your ilk would basically have society as a whole live by a roll of the dice with these DOUCHBAGS instead of having the right to ENSURE our personal safety.

If a DOUCHBAG comes in my house, garage, barn, or fucking storage shed for that matter, and I encounter him/her, they are going to get shot.
I'm not going to give them a chance to pick up a wrench, screw driver, garden tool, or anything else that could be used as a weapon.
GET IT?
I'm going to immediately assume the DOUCHBAG is armed, poses a threat to my safety and react to ensure the treat is eliminated.
End of fucking story.



The BOTTOM FUCKING LINE is real damn simple, DON'T BE A CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

105. What color is the sky in your world?

Criminals are not worthy of respect as fellow human beings. The simple fact that they are criminals indicates they have no desire to respect the rights of others, so why on earth should anyone respect them?

[GreenStormCloud]

106. I don't have time to ask questions of a burglar.

While I am asking him your stupid question he will can be shooting me. I won't play that dumb game. I someone illegally breaks into my home I will shoot first and without warning, multiple shots aimed at center mass. However if there are two or more of them then each gets one shot untill all have been served, then seconds for any who need them.

[SteveM]

110. Two problems back at you...

I refer to criminals by more than the term "douchbags." I use "thug," "HyperPunk," "Blowhole," "EFU (Enable Fuck-Up)," "Gangsta," "Gangsta Wannabe," and a host of other terms. When they break into my house, I no longer have respect for them. That they are human beings is evident; I don't have to (nor do I) respect them.

Don't assume that everyone who is defending themselves wants to "blow him away first and ask questions later." Most "victims" DO make a threat, verbally or by weapon brandishing. If da thug starts punking around, jiving, threatening, moving toward me, he/she is liable to get shot.

Later, you can "ask questions" all you want.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. The problem is that it may not be burglary

If someone breaks into an occupied residence, under castle doctrine, there is a presumption that the occupants are under deadly threat and they are allowed to respond with deadly force.

- It is not a right, it is a presumption
- It is not for burglary it is that they pose a threat to the occupants.

[PavePusher]

35. Are you going to be there to read the mind for the intentions of the intruder...

and to assist in my defense?

I'm gussing "No.", which leaves you with exactly no moral authority, and no intellectual weight.

Good luck with that.

[cleanhippie]

42. Why shouldn't you?

[Tesha]

45. Because, in a *JUST* society, the penalty is always proportional to the crime.

Above, I postulated a drunk inadvertently entering the
wring house and the poster *STILL* felt he had the right
to shoot the person dead.

Really, that exposes such a wide gap in our relative
concepts of "Justice" that there's no point of further
debate. It is *EXACTLY* because of persons such as
that that I believe guns must be further regulated.

Tesha

[cleanhippie]

47. I agree, in our justice system, the penalty should fit the crime,

But this incident did not take place in our justice system, and there was no "penalty", just the interaction between two people that has a less than desirable outcome.

Perhaps if the person that did not initiate the interaction had considered some of the possible outcomes beforehand, none of this would have happened.

[Tesha]

54. "Justice" isn't a concept that's constrained to courts.

You can live a just life or you can shoot to death
the drunk who climbs in the window; your choice.

Tesha

[cleanhippie]

56. And "justice" isn't a concept applied to everyday life.

You can live a just life or you can be a drunk who breaks into someones home; your choice.

[X_Digger]

62. Actually it is.. you may fall afoul of the justice system..

but that's a function of protection of individuals' rights and the state, not between individuals.

When you attack me, I'm under no moral or legal obligation to offer you due process.

Just as on my private property, I don't owe you 'freedom of religion', 'freedom of the press', etc.

[Tesha]

67. And that's the kind of society you want to live in, ehh?

Where the guard from Exxon/Sears/Walmart can shoot
you for trespass? (They have the same rights you
have.)

No wonder things are such a mess!

Tesha

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. If i am breaking into those locations...

by all means, feel free to shoot me.

Incidentally, no, a business cannot shoot you for mere trespass on their property - and neither can a private individual for that matter.

Perhaps if you actually knew the facts, you would have a slightly different perspective.

Oh one more thing - entering a person's window is NOT simple trespass. Most jurisdictions, would consider that breaking and entering or forcible entry. Dont let the facts bother you though. Keep living in your fantasy world where criminals do not exist.

To answer your question more directly, yes, I would LIKE to live in a society where crime did not exist, but since I live in the real world and crime is a reality, i want the ability to protect myself and my property.

[X_Digger]

70. That's the way our society is.. that's western civ..

If you steal from or assault me, I can't lay a claim of violation of the fifth amendment against you ("deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). If you shot me, I couldn't lay a claim of violation of the eight amendment against you ("cruel or unusual punishment"). If you rifled through my backpack, I couldn't lay a claim of violation of the fourth against you.

This being a private website, Skinner doesn't have to provide for freedom of religion or speech.

'Justice' is a concept that is applied between individuals and the state, not between individuals.

[Tesha]

73. Actually, it's decidedly *NOT* Western civilization.

It's America's alleged civilization. The rest of the
Western world does things differently.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

75. you think

Right to lethal self defense exists in those other countries too, in many cases mostly in theory. It is a natural human right.
But duty to retreat (duty to whom?) is part of common law which dates back to the middle ages. Castle doctrine, as best I can find, is a product of the enlightenment, which was embraced mostly by the US and France.
So, please explain to me how it is more civilized to expect the lawful occupant and their family to give way to an intruder who is likely to be a violent predator? I fail to see how that is more "civilized"? How is it ethical or humane to expect the innocent at the mercy of the predatory?
In another post, a restaurant worker and a member of the working poor (If you ever work one, you will never work so hard for so little in your life. Most of the kitchen managers I have come across are the biggest drug addicted assholes I ever had to deal with) should meekly surrender his rent and food money to a predator who wants a quick buck?
In the US, breaking and entering an occupied house is not burglary and is most likely not about stuff.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. That is their problem. N/T

[X_Digger]

87. You're missing the point..

It's fundamental principle of western civilization that governments protect rights. Individuals aren't owed a duty to those same rights by each other.

Are you seriously asserting that I should be able to sue you for violating my fifth amendment rights? Fourth?

*snort*

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. Yes as a matter of fact, it is.

You can feel free to assume the person entering your window at 3:00am is merely a drunk who retained the ability to open a window from the outside, but not enough mental capacity to realize it wasn't his home. I, on the other hand, will assume it is someone who has decided to bet his life that he can take my stuff.

Justice is something to be handled by the state. Self defense is my exclusive domain, and if someone gets his dumb ass killed because he thought I was an easy target, that's really just too bad for him.

Why do you expect the victim to assume the assailant only has good intentions? Does not the victim deserve some respect for HIS rights, or do you only extend that concept to those who refuse to live by the laws of society?

[GreenStormCloud]

107. You leave your windows unlocked? N/T

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. The penalty imposed by the STATE, yes.

However, when a person is defending himself, he is not imposing a penalty - he is stopping an attack. If that attack ends up with the assailant having a bad case of the deads, that's pretty much his problem.

I agree, if the criminal was arrested and tried, his sentence should not be death. We're not talking about a court of law though - we're talking about a split second where the victim is being attacked. It is insane to expect someone to act in that moment as if they have all the time in the world and the benefit of hindsight.

[cleanhippie]

49. Exactly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Actually that has happened and the State concurred there was no crime comitted

Forcible entry into an occupied house is not burglary...it creates the conditions necessary to qualify such a shooting as reasonable self defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. How can a drunk accidently BREAK into the wrong house?

You keep saying "drunk inadvertently entering the wrong house". He can only do that if the door is left unlocked. Those of us who keep guns for home defense LOCK OUR DOORS AND WINDOWS. So your drunk has to BREAK in by using violence. He can't just peacefully wander in.

[Tesha]

74. It's happened. Google for it.

I realize it can't happen in your perfect world.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

77. cost saving idea for criminal justice system?

DA: So Billy Bob, we think you knocked over the 7-11 on Pine Road, but we had to lay off investigators so you will have to make our case for us to use at trial.
Billy Bob: No problem

You make the claim, you provide evidence.

[GreenStormCloud]

81. I said BREAK IN, not wander in.

Anyway, you are the one asserting that it happens so you provide the proof. A few months ago there was a drunk teacher who entered through an unlocked door and was shot. My doors are locked and barred.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Indeed it did, he was killed and the homeowner exonerated

[MicaelS]

76. If the Appeals Courts of the United States

And the SCOTUS were of the opinion that the use of deadly force, specifically Castle Doctrine Laws, were Unconstitutional, the laws that permit the use of deadly force and Castle Doctrine would have been overturned. Since they have not, it is clear that the current laws that permit the use of deadly force are Constitutional, and SPECIFICALLY DO NOT violate the 5th Amendment.

You do not like the use of deadly force, that is clear. If you object to it on moral grounds, that is your personal belief. But use of deadly force, (even to protect property in certain states), is not illegal.

And you obviously do not trust ordinary people in this country. Then I bet you wonder why more ordinary people don't vote Democratic.

[PavePusher]

78. If you can propose a method that will enable me to ascertain the intent of an intruder....

with a guarantee of 100% effectiveness, then you'll have a talking point.

As it stands, you are asking, nay, you want to require me to trust that the intruder intends me no harm.

What do you propose?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. Because simply put,

I do have that right.

First off, I am not applying a judicial decision, and I am not rendering justice. I am protecting myself and my home.

Second, I have no idea if he is just there to steal some stuff or is merely a drunk in the wrong place (although the latter is a big fucking stretch since the doors are locked).

Why do you think a person should be obligated to permit the criminal to do as he wishes?

Remember, the goal of shooting his sorry ass is not to kill him, it is to STOP him. Yes, this has a good chance of killing him, but so what?

[GreenStormCloud]

71. If someone illegally breaks into my home...

...I don't know what level of threat he poses to me. I don't know if he is armed, nor do I know what his intentions are. You are asking me to bet my life that the intruder only wants to steal some stuff. I am under no moral or legal obligation to take any measures to protect the intruder from harm. I will presume the worst on his part and will respond accordingly. I will open fire, rapid fire, targeted at center mass, with no warning given.

A drunk entering the wrong house???? Do you think I leave my doors unlocked?? My doors have reinforced locks and a bar across each door. NOBODY is going to enter by mistake. He will have to batter that door in. If he does that and then turns out to be a drunk at the wrong address, that's his tough luck. From my Point of view he was a violent drunk who was a treat to me and mine.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Good point Tesha. However, the home is sacrosanct.

and those who invade it for criminal purpose, be it burglary, rape or murder, do so at their own risk. The home owner cannot be expected to ascertain the intruder's motives in an instant. If the homeowner perceives an imminent threat to himself or his family, then he is justified in using deadly force.
If the intruder exits or is in the process of exiting the premises, then there is no justification to use any deadly force.
If it were a drunk entering the wrong home, then that would be a tough break for all concerned, but the onus is on the intruder, drunk or not.

[mikeb302000]

98. that's right, Tesha. nt

[SteveM]

109. Here's my take, Tesha...

When someone breaks into my house, I tell them to leave (while holding a revolver in my hand). If he/she doesn't leave, threatens me, or moves toward me, he/she will get shot.

Your "what ifs?" and sense of justice are dependent on believing what the break-in person says.

My actions are dependent on what the breaking-in person quickly does.

Analysis of the break-in person's motivations/actions can be done later as much as one sees fit. But that is a vastly more secondary consideration. The break-in person MUST take responsibility for his/her actions; preferably before rather than after.

One of the purposes of so-called "castle doctrine" laws is to put the burden of proof on someone who ALREADY is in clear violation of felony laws, not on the citizen whose place is invaded.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Easy way to aviod the dilemma - Don't break into houses or assault people... don't get shot at.

If someone acts on their desire for my possesions or wishes to do me harm... then they have made the premeditated choice that engaging in those kinds actions is more valuable to them than their own lives. That souds more like their problem than mine because I know to what extent I value my life, safety, and possesions - and more importantly to what extent I'm willing/equipped to go to protect those things.

Perhaps if you advocated against the illegal actions of the perpetrator, no situations fitting your hypothetical scenrios would arise. No... of course not... just keep blaming the victim. :puke:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. logic

pretzel.

[pipoman]

7. Yeah, you're right,

if someone breaks into some poor schmucks house and said schmuck responds by protecting himself, he should be subject to immediate arrest, then required to lawyer up to defend his actions in protracted legal proceedings, designed to draw out hindsight and analyze each second in hours of discussion. Ultimately having to mortgage his home or sell his possessions to pay for his legal defense. If in the process he loses his job, fuck'im, thats what the dumb bastard gets for defending himself against the poor, poor less fortunate, misguided, 'good boy' who just made a kid mistake and had to pay for it with his young and yet untapped bright future...such a shame, RIP sweet boy...


Edit as usual unrec for pounding the blog

[baldguy]

8. Are you saying some Fine Upstanding Gun Owners™ might *LIE*?

That never happens. :sarcasm:

[MrDiaz]

10. are you saying

That a criminal never does?

[ileus]

15. remember the criminal is the good guy in this story...

it's not homeowner shoots criminal, it's gunowner shoots innocent intruder. He was just looking for some soup...

[SteveM]

111. LOL! nt

[MrDiaz]

12. Simple Question for you sir

Who is more likely to lie if given a chance in your honest opinion, a CRIMINAL or a LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN? I doubt you will ever answer such a simple question ut I figured i'd give it a shot.

[baldguy]

14. What makes you think gun owners are any more "law abiding" than anyone else?

After all, criminals use guns too. And they have to get them somewhere - usually from those same "law-abiding" gun owners you're so enamored by.

Owning a gun doesn't make a person special.

[MrDiaz]

36. for one

I know that in order to buy a gun you cannot be a FELON, if you break into a home you are a FELON. In order to buy a gun legally you must be a law-abiding citizen for the most part, if you are breaking into someone else home you ARE NOT a law-abiding citizen. Do you agree with the analysis or are you going to disagree with this as well.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. Well among other things....

...the fact that they have to pass a background check to purchase one - which does check the criminal record.

So its safe to say they have no criminal history, unlike, say, a criminal...

[Scout]

57. it's safe to say they've never been CAUGHT, tried and convicted of a crime....

doesn't mean they've never committed a crime. DUH.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. True....

...but considering the vast majority of people do not commit crimes, it is reasonable to conclude that someone with no criminal record is, in fact, not a criminal.

What you're implying is someone should be treated as a criminal even though they've never actually been convicted of a crime...

[Scout]

58. simple-mindedness is what makes some think that. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Now that is simply insulting. N/T

[DonP]

61. A lot of people that probably can't pass a NICS background check behave that way

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. Behave what way?

Your statement is a little unclear.

[rrneck]

92. Think again.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty), is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised n many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is egally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted.

Bigotry, on the other hand, is certainly the result of simple mindedness.

[SteveM]

112. "owning a gun doesn't make a person special." You're right...

which is why gun-owners are as law-abiding as citizens who don't own guns.

And you were saying?

[ileus]

16. Let's think about this...

If homeowner runs out the back door and criminal steals his guns the homeowner is demonized.

If homeowner shoots criminal preventing guns from getting out on the street homeowner is demonized.


Hey it's a win win for the guns are evil crowd.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Of course they will lie.

It's pretty common knowledge among the gun owners I know that if you shoot someone the first words out of your mouth better be "I feared for my life."

If this is the lie I have to tell to do the right thing and protect my property, I'll tell that lie. I shouldn't have to, but if the law makes it so that I have no other choice, that is what I'll do.

[ileus]

13. play deadly games, win deadly prizes, another justified shooting.

barring a known local mentally handicapped or stupid kid, there should be no limitations on homeowners rights.

This is why we need to fight for strong castle doctrins and more stand your ground laws across the country....We've made progress but more work needs to be done. We've got a long way to go before we can all be assured criminals don't win from beyond the grave.

[safeinOhio]

19. To strengthen castle doctrins, they should

require moats.

[spin]

44. Good idea. In Florida I could add some alligators ...

But then, of course, the criminal would just sue me when he was bitten.

I think I will just continue to rely on Florida's 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

That doesn't mean that I am going to blow some fool away if I catch him in my home if he has no right to be inside, but if I decide that he does present a threat the law will support me. It's my decision.

Former NRA President Exposes the Lies and Misinformation Aimed at Florida’s “Castle Doctrine” Law

***snip***

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.emphasis added
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

[Burma Jones]

18. If someone is breaking in, I will protect the people in my house

I will kill them if they try to get where the people are. But they will get told to get out first, and the police will be called.

However, I do not have a problem with someone killing any uninvited intruder in their house. Fortunately, here in solidly Democratic Maryland, we are protected against criminal and civil liability when killing or wounding a Home Invader.

[Upton]

21. delete

wrong spot..

[Upton]

22. Break into someone's home..you're asking for trouble

and deserve whatever comes your way. I just don't understand why gun control advocates more often than not seem to side with the criminals..

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Defense of property is perfectly acceptable.

The problem is when a homeowner unnecessarily kills someone, even if he realizes it, he always claims to have been justified. "I felt my life was in danger," is easy to say.

The simple fact is if you find someone in your home you are quite right to feel in danger. I don't care if the guy is carrying a bazooka or a flower. You don't know what his intents are. Is he there for your computer or your daughter sleeping in her bedroom? Is he unarmed, or does he have a concealed weapon? The bottom line is you have no way to know. You are very much right to feel in danger, and thus use deadly force.

You get that, even "belongings." To protect belongings, these guys want the right to kill.

That's right. As it should be. In many states, like Texas, it is even legal. People should have the right to use deadly force to protect property. If someone does not feel that property is worth risking their life over, then they should not steal.

It's also funny that you don't hold armed robbers to this same moral standard. Here we have people who are willing to kill to steal property. Obviously they don't think that the property owner's life is worth the value of the property they are out to steal. If a thief doesn't value the property owner's life, why should anyone value the thief's life?

What's your opinion? Where's the right place to draw the line on the homeowner's right to use lethal force?

The place to draw the line to use lethal force is my doorstep.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Also note from the article...

"In their investigation, police found Babe actually didn't have a gun. He did have a cell phone in his hand."

Police have shot people like this before. It's 3am, and you have an intruder in your home with something in his hand.

Are you going to play 20 questions to make sure it's not a weapon?

Not me.

[Maine_Nurse]

27. As per Maine law...

illegally in my home with suspicion of attempting further crime = shot.

[DWC]

30. No one, including LEOs, has the right to "shoot to kill" anyone

Everyone has the right to "shoot to stop" anyone in defense of one's life and property. If the Bad Guy dies, so be it.

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.

Welcome to America!

Semper Fi,

[one-eyed fat man]

32. This is gonna be a tough one....

If you catch someone stealing from your house in the middle of the night are you going to help them load out your stuff?

It REALLY is that simple: if you don't want to get shot; stay out of other people's houses.

Dead burglars have reached the pinnacle of their careers.

Is there a shortage of criminals? Why should they be protected from the retribution they deserve?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You have not actually established the homeowner wasn't in danger, regardless of whether the aggressor had a gun.

It does not require a gun to seriously harm or kill another person. According to the victim, the aggressor advanced upon him. The investigating officers will likely attempt to determine if that is true. If true, tough cookies for the aggressor. The simple act of advancing upon the homeowner is threatening enough, coupled with the felony break-in.

Now, if the aggressor didn't actually advance upon the homeowner, then it's an entirely different ball of twine.

[PavePusher]

34. So, can you give us some limitations, please?

1. If someone seems threatening, do I actually need to let them harm me before I may use force to stop them? Why or why not? How much damage do I have to take before initiating force? What is your plan for guaging exactly how much force I may use to stop an attack? How much additional risk do I have to expose myself to in this undertaking? Can I use tools or not? What types?

2. Assuming someone wants to take my property, same questions... How much do I have to let them take before I resist? What level/methods of resistance am I limited to?

[jmg257]

37. My opinion is DON'T intrude into other people's homes with criminal intent. That's the only line.

Makes sense not to cross it.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. "They murdered him in cold blood for a toy gun!" the victim's sister, Claire Harding, told WFOR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44353153/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

[melm00se]

39. walking thru this

- Person broke into the garage
- Perpetrator claims to have a gun (in fact has something concealed in his hand)
- Perpetrator approaches the homeowner

If you are confronted with any combination of these factors, a reasonable person would reasonably fear for his/her life and is justified in using deadly force.

Just for shits and giggles, lets examine the homeowner's options:

1) call the police (a reasonable one)? response times according to one study can take anywhere from 9 - 11 minutes(if the call is prioritized). you and your family could be dead, beaten or raped in the response time.

2) upon confrontation, flee? this would involve turning your back upon someone who may be a threat (not the smartest move, especially if he is armed).

3) Lay in bed and hoping that nothing is happening? the burglar is now free to roam your home to rob you. Pop quiz: where are the highest value and most portable items in your home? Your bedroom? It is for most people. Upon entering the bedroom, you know have a perpetrator in your bedroom with you lying down and entangled in the sheets (extremely vulnerable) with someone now in a position of power. What about your kids?

Anymore?

so far we have 4 options. 3 of which turn out bad for the homeowner and 1 for the bad guy which is not a good thing from the homeowner's POV who did nothing wrong. While I may not go hunting for a bad guy in my home, God help the one who enters my bedroom in the middle of the night.

[rrneck]

40. The resident probably lied.

But there is no way to prove that. The only actual evidence that means anything is the break in by an individual who was not supposed to be there. Other evidence will include prior criminal history. The authorities will investigate, collect evidence, and decide if they can determine whether or not the shooting was justified.

We could require all kinds of actions from people in advance of an armed confrontation but without any way to prove those measures were not employed the point is moot. That's the difference between a duty to retreat in public where there will probably be witnesses and parties of interest for both combatants and a home where testimony will overwhelmingly favor the resident.

In the case here we do not know the intentions of the intruder and never will because he's dead. Nor do we know whether or not the resident gave him the opportunity to vacate the premises before he fired. But it is unreasonable to require the resident to allow a burglar to become a looter by demanding he retreat by default in response to a criminal act.

Criminals know the law too. It's their job to break it and their risk assessment includes actions allowed by law abiding citizens. They will exploit whatever advantage they can to get what they want. As in the case in another thread where the mugger was shot running away he probably thought he had figured out a pretty good way to mug people. He restrained the victim to rob him using an unprovable whispered announcement of kidnapping then quickly ran away no doubt expecting the honest citizen to not shoot him in the back of the head because his life was no longer technically in danger. He was wrong.

Confrontations like these require decisions and responses that simply cannot be controlled in advance by statute law. And especially by laws based on an attitude powered by some disembodied ideology. History has shown that when laws and the penalties they incur are for the violation of an ideology rather than an actuality tyranny and oppression are the result.

We don't adjudicate evil people. We adjudicate evil acts. The OP is a prime example of how people's emotions are used against them for profit and such behaivor is, while despicable, nonetheless unavoidable because the author is careful to couch his assault on decency in unindictable emotional terms.

Like the mugger who ran away he is holding a rhetorical knife to the throat of common courtesy and digging around in its pockets.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[jeepnstein]

46. I don't see where the homeowner was charged.

All that article reported was the emotional reactions of several people.

The facts of the case as reported in the article would be enough for me to say good shooting based on Ohio Law. The deceased should not have broken into the garage. He brought this all on himself. Unless the homeowner baited the deceased into the situation, which is highly unlikely, I just don't see the problem here.

[gejohnston]

51. It was dark

the intruder claimed to be armed. Owner saw something in his hand and was told it was a weapon. Reasonable to assume it was a threat. A cop would have shot too.

[jmg257]

55. "not a serious consideration of a life-or-death decision"???

You confront a guy who broke into your home in the middle of the night, and he says he's got a gun.

"the homeowner MIGHT have been able to retreat into the house."

And you don't think that is a life or death decision??? I wonder how deadly getting shot in the back is, compared to getting shot in the front. Pretty much the same I'd say.


"IF retreating is possible and would have reasonably diffused the situation, then wouldn't that mean the homeowner's life was not truly in jeopardy?"

HUGE deadly "IF" I would say, especially if the guy says/acts like he's got a gun.

HOW WOULD THE HOMEOWNER KNOW???

When YOU have to make THAT 'fucking damn right it's a life & death" decision (YOUR life and death), you let me know how it turns out for you.

Hopefully, you'll be around to share. MAYBE it will be just a cell phone...then again - maybe not.

"Adolescent school-yard posturing"? Or likely trying to avoid having to make a deadly split-second decision about your own and your family's life and death when confronting armed burglars in your home. "IF", "might", "maybe", my ass - literally.

[S_B_Jackson]

68. So your position is....

that even though the burglar said, "I have a gun", and had something of about the correct size in his hand that the homeowner reasonably believed it to BE a gun, that the homeownwer should have not defended himself when the burglar made a motion as if bringing a weapon to bear upon him?

Bullshit!

The homeowner acted reasonably and responsibly in defense of himself against a validly perceived threat.

I would say that the law is appropriately drawn where a homeowner may defend himself, others or his property from a reasonable perception of threat.

Duty to Retreat? Unacceptable.

Castle Law? Appropriate.

Stand Your Ground (outside of one's home)? Appropriate.

Legal assumption defined by statute that at nighta homeowner that anyone who breaks into their home is armed and represents a lethal threat? Absolutely appropriate.

Legal to use force, upto and including lethal force, to protect oneself, others, or the tools of one's trade, or property? Yes.

Burden of proof on the state to prove criminality? Yes.

Civil Immunity of the homeowner for any shooting in which a determined to have been "justifiable"? Absolutely!

[Starboard Tack]

79. I think a home owner has the right to use whatever force necessary

if the intruder is entering the house, or is already inside and confronting the householder in any way considered threatening. If the intruder is on his way out, then he no longer poses a physical threat and there is no justification for shooting him. If the garage is joined to the house, then it is part of the house.

[X_Digger]

88. The question would be..

Is the intruder leaving, or is he going to get the crowbar that he broke in with then left by the front door to brain you and your family?

I don't know, can't know for sure. Any hesitation on the way out, and I might assume the latter.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Each situation is unique. You make the decision and live with it. Hopefully.

[SteveM]

113. That is what we all have to do. Looking at the big picture...

I don't think the enactment of "castle laws" or anything similar will cause a societal problem; abuses here and there, yes. But crime rates and real and imagined damage done to such notions as the national psyche, our "humanity," etc. -- there isn't going to be much happening. Or as those cops in Detroit said after 10 years of concealed-carry legislation: Nothing much.

How people suffer from their actions (both criminal and home-defender) will be a sadly private affair.:)

[rrneck]

90. I agree. nt

[Starboard Tack]

91. Well, let's drink to that

:toast:

[rrneck]

93. Heh

:thumbsup:

[rl6214]

102. This is one instance where I have to say I agree with you 100%

I can't believe I am saying this. Good analysis ST.

[DissedByBush]

86. "duty to retreat" gives the criminal power

As the homeowner is balancing his life with the possibility of having it ruined by the legal system.

Meanwhile the criminal gets to do what he wants.

[ManiacJoe]

94. Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion.

If the situation mets the criteria, then the shooting will be legal. Whether or not you should take the shot is a slightly different question.

According to the home owner, the situation met all the criteria:
Ability - criminal claimed he had a gun.
Opportunity - you are within range.
Jeopardy - criminal advanced toward the homeowner and did not drop the gun when ordered.
Preclusion - retreating was attempted to no avail.

[ileus]

114. You of course meant to title this : Wisconsin Homeowners' Right to defend their homes