Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am with you on this, I have had homes broken into, and if you have not, you have no right at all to speak about this issue.
I have had things sprawled all over the house, the gosh damn pervert, had things hanging from our ceiling, and decided to eat from my refrigerator. Prized possessions were stolen and I never will forget this. Things of importance. That meant something to our family.
And since I have had family members murdered in the privacy of there own homes, no one talk to me about taking an intruder's life. Maybe they ought to think twice about the way they make a living.
Break into our home which is huge, and they will get a gun shot and hubby and I both know how to shoot, and our legal gun owners.
I am tired as hell with those who make excuses for those who are dead wrong.
I don't give a crap about free speech. Someone breaks into another person's home there CASTLE, where there family lives. The criminal then must suffer the damn consequences. Or find a new way to make a living.
Some criminals make me laugh, they can break into your home, rob you of your belongings, destroy your property, threaten your life. But the home owner, has no right to threaten the criminal. Then they better find a new way to make a living, home owners I know, won't put up with that crap.
There are so many cases where home owners have been murdered, from home invasion robbery, I would say the homeowner seems to have no rights anymore.
I don't give a crap about free speech. Someone breaks into another person's home there CASTLE, where there family lives. The criminal then must suffer the damn consequences. Or find a new way to make a living.
Some criminals make me laugh, they can break into your home, rob you of your belongings, destroy your property, threaten your life. But the home owner, has no right to threaten the criminal. Then they better find a new way to make a living, home owners I know, won't put up with that crap.
There are so many cases where home owners have been murdered, from home invasion robbery, I would say the homeowner seems to have no rights anymore.
I have to hand it to you. You are a Master at Obfuscation.
I don't give a crap about free speech. Someone breaks into another person's home there CASTLE, where there family lives. The criminal then must suffer the damn consequences. Or find a new way to make a living.
Some criminals make me laugh, they can break into your home, rob you of your belongings, destroy your property, threaten your life. But the home owner, has no right to threaten the criminal. Then they better find a new way to make a living, home owners I know, won't put up with that crap.
There are so many cases where home owners have been murdered, from home invasion robbery, I would say the homeowner seems to have no rights anymore.
This may be a surprise to you, but the constitution guarantees that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Pretty sure your living room isn't a court of law, and you aren't a judge.
Someone isn't a "criminal" until a judge/jury determines they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they retain most of their rights until that point. You have a right to self defense. You do not have the right to shoot someone in cold blood and assume the authorities should "take your word for it" that the guy you shot in the back was trying to murder you and not some other explanation- as is apparently the case with the trigger happy jerk in the OP.
Even police have restrictions on what they can and can't do re: excessive force when making an arrest- someone gives up and surrenders? they're required to take him peacefully, and they are law enforcement with powers that exceed yours. Does your "castle" give you more authority than the police department? I don't think it does.
This may be a surprise to you, but the constitution guarantees that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Pretty sure your living room isn't a court of law, and you aren't a judge.
Someone isn't a "criminal" until a judge/jury determines they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they retain most of their rights until that point. You have a right to self defense. You do not have the right to shoot someone in cold blood and assume the authorities should "take your word for it" that the guy you shot in the back was trying to murder you and not some other explanation- as is apparently the case with the trigger happy jerk in the OP.
Even police have restrictions on what they can and can't do re: excessive force when making an arrest- someone gives up and surrenders? they're required to take him peacefully, and they are law enforcement with powers that exceed yours. Does your "castle" give you more authority than the police department? I don't think it does.
Based on MS law that I posted earlier, it does. If I wake up and see someone standing in my living room at 3am then I can use deadly force to protect myself for no other reason than someone is standing in the wrong place.
In NY you dont even have the right to defend yourself!
Knew someone who's apt was broken into. The burglar climbed in thru the fire escape while the victim was sleeping. The victim woke up, grabbed a bat and attacked the burglar. Called the police and when they arrived they charged the burglar AND the victim with assault. Turns out, in NYC you're only allowed to use equal or less force in order to defend yourself. They recommend that you run/hide/retreat as a first option.
One cannot make such statements unless you can understand the mindset of the home owner. How in the hell did he know that they were unarmed? Did they threaten him? Did they make threatening gestures? Were there other dependents in the house?
Certainly one does not have the right to commit murder. However, when one breaks into another citizen's house, I believe they have assumed the role of a potential murderer/assailant, as one can never predict thier behavior.
I am VERY well armed in my house. I have Benelli M-2 shotguns with combat loads distributed around the house which can be obtained in seconds. Would I kill someone if they entered my house? No- unless they had a firearm produced and were threatening me or my family. I would allow them to take the "stuff" they have stolen (with the exception of a few priceless artifacts) and leave the house (escorted of course, with the 12 gauge at thier backs). If it is not worth dying for, it is not worth killing for (words to live by).
The question is (and no one can put themselves in the mind of the home owner) to whether there are others in the house and whether they are armed and a potential threat to those in the home. One does not get second chances and the safe bet would be to shoot (dead people cannot kill you).
This is an ethical question which hopefully no one will face. I have had guns pointed at me a few times in my life and I can tell you it is a little more unnerving than on tv. I do not think that anyone can really understand the mindset of the home owner, nor those of the burglars, unless one was there.
Although I disagree with you on many issues, I had to pause and tell you that I appreciate the bolded. So often all we hear is a lot of chest-thumping and threats of kickin' ass and takin' names, etc. on here. I admire your nuanced response.
In NY you dont even have the right to defend yourself!
Knew someone who's apt was broken into. The burglar climbed in thru the fire escape while the victim was sleeping. The victim woke up, grabbed a bat and attacked the burglar. Called the police and when they arrived they charged the burglar AND the victim with assault. Turns out, in NYC you're only allowed to use equal or less force in order to defend yourself. They recommend that you run/hide/retreat as a first option.
I think that this ^^^^ is the reason for some of the confusion on this thread. In some jurisdictions you can only use deadly force if you think your life or the life of someone else is in danger.
In other jurisdictions, you can use deadly force if you find someone inside your house, no matter what they're doing. Those laws stem from the Castle Doctrine.
Also, to everyone talking about due process and having a homeowner be judge, jury and executioner, those arguments are usually applied to police officers who represent the government. An individual does not owe due process to another individual under the Constitution. However, if you're in a jurisdiction that does not have a Castle Doctrine law and you shoot someone in your home, if you can't prove that you feared for your life, you may face charges yourself. As a practical matter, it does not take much to convince a jury that a person feared for his life when he discovered a stranger in his house.
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
First, this is not a criminal issue, but a civil one. But lets get to that later.
You are confusing "rights" with what the law is with respect to self defense and defense of the home. Most states make it clear that you can only use deadly force when encountered with deadly force, but most states also have an exception for the use of deadly force against someone inside your home. The nuances of these cases carry the day. Some homeowners chase fleeing criminals into their yards and kill them. Others involve someone the homeowner knew was not armed and was an invitee into the house (like the boyfriend of a child or someone having an affair with their spouse). These factors change the victim of robbery into someone plotting a murder himself or herself.
These are not rights being dealt with. Its a legal defense to homicide or attempted homicide by the home owner.
In this case, I find it unlikely any state would charge the homeowner for homicide. And it sounds like they did not.
Now, back to criminal v. civil. this is a civil suit where the family of the dead robbers are suing. Anyone can sue, the issue will they win. And in this case, not likely. Its not rights, its criminal defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
