Well.. If I'm going to use a gun to kill someone then its
going to be for a very very good reason. Just because someone breaks into my house I would not kill them unless
they threatened me or my family.

I'm not just going to shoot them and hope some court thinks I had the right to do so. If a court convicts you on murder charges then you spend the rest of your life behind bars.

For what??!! For killing a stupid thief who was never going to harm you. NOT WORTH IT!

Think about it. If someone shoots your mother/father dead and then you find out who did it. Does that mean you can go
kill him/her for killing your mother/father. Nope. You'll goto prison.

One time my uncle woke up in the middle of the night and found some guy in his living room. The guy ended up being missing from a mental health facility and didn't even know where he was.

its all good points..... Allthough..... I dont think its justified to kill anybody unless they propose an imidiate danger to you or your family.... Here in sweden we have a principle called the staircase of violence. You are only allowed to take one step over the assiliant within the law. If he threatens you.... You are allowd to threat him back. If he punches you, then you have the legal right to punch him back. But if you were to jump a couple of steps, say if he threatens you and you then kick him in the face! then you are the agressor and he is the victim. And you get convicted. Or if he broke into your home threatening you and you shoot him in the back, then you are definetly going to get convicted. And rightly so....

of course you have the right to defend yourself... But only when you actually HAVE to defend yourself... after all.... its just material things.... and will probably be replaced by your insurance company....

Hrm... There's something disturbingly wrong about that sequence. You are only allowed to kill someone if they kill you first.. Yay..

I'm of the opinion that a threat invites force in retaliation. IE, if someone threatens me (IE, by waving a knife in my direction), I'm entitled to kick their butt. The simple act of threatening me gives up their right to not be harmed. Likewise, if they are in my house uninvited, I should be able to threaten them even though they haven't threatened me. Am I supposed to just let them come in and take my stuff because they haven't threatened me yet?

its just material things

No. It's not. It's the violation of my space. Have you actually been the victim of a burglary? Yeah, the stuff's "just material things", but the invasion of your privacy/sanctuary is something that an insurance company can't give back.

As a matter of interest:

Has your home ever been burgled?
Yes
No

Note that I'm excluding muggings, car breakins, etc. here.

I'm not just going to shoot them and hope some court thinks I had the right to do so. If a court convicts you on murder charges then you spend the rest of your life behind bars.

Well, I don't know where you are from, but over here you can kill a theif and not goto jail. And not surprisingly, of the 20 years I've been alive, my house has never been broken into. (although stuff has been stolen from outside of the house so I did answer Yes on Roger's poll.)

Think about it. If someone shoots your mother/father dead and then you find out who did it. Does that mean you can go
kill him/her for killing your mother/father. Nope. You'll goto prison.

Avenging your mother/father's death would be premeditated murder, which would be a lot different than self-defense.

actually I showed some bad examples..... You are allowed to take a step further. Allthough with some restrictions I guess. If someone threatens you, you are not allowed to punch them. But say if someone starts a fight with you. Then you are of course allowed to put a stop to the fight. But you are not alloed to apply more force then what is necessary.
This is not a law, but more of a guideline. The same guidelines apply to both police and the common man.
The goal here is to prevent unecesary violence, as in this case where he shot them in the back.

Of course you are right with that the burglar also violates your privacy. But does this give you the right to take someones life?
Could you consider to withstand some of your privacy to SAVE someones life?

if so, then I think you can be able to NOT shoot the assailant and let the police do their work. They are qualified in dealing with agressors in a safe and humane way.

Alternative Head Lines….


Tony Martin 56 years old was found dead in his home after apparently surprising two teen-age burglars. The two teens (high on crack) allegedly took the baseball bat Mr. Marin was trying to use for defense and bludgeoned him to death.


Seen this before?

I have.

Might have been a good thing he had a gun.

'What ifs' are not a defence to a crime. The court cannot consider what *may* have happened under different circumstances, only what *did* happen. The fact remains that this guy shot a 16 year old kid in the back. The law says that this isn't allowed. Guilty. Even in a completely lawless society where everyone lived under the gun, shooting a kid in the back would have repercussions...and gaol would be the last of Mr. Martins worries. He should be thankful that he does live in a society with laws.

Unfortunately, d33zy is not talking out of his ass -- depending on what State he's in. For example, the penal code of Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe014.9.42

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

For the case in question, under Texas law, whatizame was (1) justified in using force (section 9.41 deals with when use of *any* force, deadly or not, is permissable for protecting property), and (2) when he reasonably believed the deadly force necessary (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the property cannot be recovered by any other means.

Other states may have similar "make my day" laws (Oklahoma and Louisiana do), but Texas law isn't exactly the norm. In most states, you can only use deadly force if you believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Otherwise, you are restricted to use of "reasonable force" -- no more than necessary to defend against the threatened harm. With the exception of Texas, et al, use of deadly force is never allowed to protect property.

Deezy is talking out of his ass! Maybe in his state you might get away with it BUT..

I bet 47 out of the 50 US states would convict you of murder if you shoot someone in the back for breaking into your house. You have to show proof they were going to harm you and if you shoot them in the back or their unarmed to begin with then you have a BIG problem!

GUILTY in most states for sure!

I'd have killed the little fuckin' gippo bastard myself, scum like that get just what they deserve.

Sorry for the outburst, It's a shame he didn't kill the other one too. It would stop him trying to sue for impotency and not being able to find a job.

I refuse to answer Rogers poll for fear of answering no, going to bed only to find my house ransacked overnight....

Duplicate post deleted.....

Not exactly true. If a burglar is in your home in the dead of night, and you shoot him, you will likely not be convicted of any crime. You have no way of knowing whether or not the intruder has a weapon or not, and since he has the temerity to break and enter an occupied home, odds are very decent that he IS armed and willing to sacrifice you and yours for your property. There's a saying around here about this very subject: "If you shoot a burgler on your front porch, be sure to drag his ass inside before you call the police".

If I were to be awakened at 3:00 AM by a noise and find a guy wearing a ski mask in my hallway, God help him, because I won't hesitate to pull the trigger. Odds are, he wouldn't hesitate to pull his on me. Oh, and before we go there, if someone commits a robbery with an empty weapon, it is still armed robbery. There are more than a few criminals that think it is a good idea to use an empty weapon, so that in case they're caught, they can say that they never intended to use the weapon, since it was empty. This does NOT work in court.

And for the record, there is at least one firearm in every room of my house. No, we don't have kids. Yes my wife knows how to shoot. Yes, I feel safer knowing that I can defend myself if the need arises.

Great now I have to go look up the cases to prove otherwise. You might get away with it BUT you might not. You might not get convicted of murder but probably manslaughter.

In texas this may be different but where I am from if you shoot an unarmed man you are going to prison.

Yes, Texas is not a very criminal friendly place. In fact my father in law apparently shot a thief in the back as he was trying to leave his (my father in law's) home. He was not accused of any crime, though it is true the man didn't die. I'm not confident of all the details either, since my wife was young at the time and all I have to go on is what she's told me.

Texas is hardly representative of the entire U.S. however: we just executed our 300th prisoner, where the next highest state is somewhere in the 80s. It'd be interesting to know what the crime rate is here vs. other places.

As far as rehabilitation vs. deterrent, prison is primarily punishment, (and therefor a deterrent) and any rehabilitation that takes place there is a bonus. I support measures to help prisoners gain good moral codes, but I am under no illusion that our prisons are an optimal place for this teaching to take place.

If you think that prisons are not a deterrant to crime, try to image what tomorrow would be like if it were a national "free crime" day where no one would be arrested for anything, be it rape, crime, stealing, etc. I'm sure there would be a chaotic crime spree because people would know they could get away with whatever they wanted. Prisons are a deterrent.

That being said, I do think that instilling proper moral values in people is the best approach to dealing with crime. I agree with Paul that this isn't being done, and I'm not sure that society has a good answer (other than the aforementioned church) how it could be. I think most of us would agree that parents should be the ones primarily responsible for instilling morals in their children, but what should we do when they fail to do their job or the moral values simply don't take? I don't really have a good answer to this, and until we do I see no choice but to rely on punishment to deter criminal behavior.

Deezy is talking out of his ass!

I'm sorry... was my quoting of the Texas Penal code somehow insufficient to show that deezy isn't talking out of his ass, though what he's saying does need a rider to clarify that such laws are state dependant?

Maybe in his state you might get away with it BUT...

But nothing. If that's the law in his state, then that's the law in his state, and he's not talking out his ass. The only part where he's wrong is believing that the law in his state is the same in the rest of the states. In some parts of the US, you do have the right to shoot a burglar in the back and kill him. QED.

Edit: As I'm digging, I found some criminology course lecture slides from the Northwest Missouri State University regarding use of deadly force: one, two, and three. The source is a bit dated, but I haven't been able to find anything with more up to date info.

Hooofah, I knew I liked living in Louisiana for a reason.

Somewhat tangential on living vs. not living in a country of vigilante justice, I recommend Peter Ustinov's Krumnagel.



A BIT OF SPOILER




The thing begins like this: an American cop sees a guy bursting out of a jewelry shop. Thinking 'robery' he shoots him. Turns out the guy was catching the bus after buying engagement rings. The cop is publicly reprimanded, but privatelly the boss lets him know he did the right thing. A bit later, on a trip to England, the cop essentially repeats the performance and gets a life sentence.... It gets even better

And for the record, there is at least one firearm in every room of my house

Congratulations.

You have greatly increased the chance of your being shot.

tanstaafl.

We'll see.

Let's not forget that where I'm from, guns are a way of life. Knowing how and when to use them, proper safety and storage, etc. I just don't buy into the crap that owning a gun makes you more likely to get shot. Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. I have known too many people that have been killed by an armed robber when they were unarmed. I also happen to live in an area that just simply does not get burglarized. Mainly due to the fact that everyone around here owns guns. If someone's looking for trouble, they go into the city, not out here.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I happen to believe that an armed society is a safer one, since it makes the risk of perpetrating a crime simply not worth the rewards.

I also happen to live in an area that just simply does not get burglarized.

So you're armed for what reason?

Seriously, if you're house is not apt to be burglarized, then the only guns going to be in your house are yours. Statistically, you've just increased your chances of being shot, if what you say is accurate. If you had no guns in your house and no burglar comes in, there would be virtually no chance you'd be shot, as there would be no gun to shoot.

I bet the reason his area has low crime is because everyone is armed. The statistics are bullshit. Factor out all the suicides, accidents caused by children, and stupid people handling guns unsafely, and then factor in all the lives that have been saved by people using firearms, and I'd say the chances of a responsible adult accidentally shooting themselves is very, very low and are far less than the chances of being shot by an intruder while unarmed.

From http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE%20I:.


FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10

I can honestly say I wouldn't feel comfortable having a gun in my house. Not to say that I don't think people should (my dad kept one loaded in our house where I grew up and he taught me to shoot as soon as I could hold one) but it would definitly be more dangerous to me than anything else. I couldn't shoot an animal at my leasure, much less a human being under pressure. Perhaps if someone came in and was physically threatening my family I could find the courage, but in this case I'd likely not be of much help anyway.

Fortunatly I live in an area I consider very safe, and burglary isn't something I worry about. I don't know what I'd do if I lived someplace in which I wasn't so comfortable.

From http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE%20I

Oh yeah, now there is an impartial source

I am not saying guns should be outlawed (not gonna open that can o worms), but no rational person can argue against having a gun around increasing the chances of being shot. It is just simple math, owning a pencil increases the chance of getting stabbed by a pencil as well.

-Mike

Not if there are other people out there who are trying to stab you with their pencils. Having your own pencil to stab with in self-defense can be a deterrent to potential stabbers. I would venture to say that possessing a pencil would increase your chances of being poked accidentally, eventhough that is a remote scenario for people who handle their pencils safely.

Go tell a cat that he'll be safer if he's declawed, because then he won't accidentally scratch himself.

Factor out all the suicides, accidents caused by children, and stupid people handling guns unsafely ... and I'd say the chances of a responsible adult accidentally shooting themselves is very, very low

Yep. I totally agree.

If you factor out all the hijackings, accidents caused by lack of maintenance, and stupid pilots handling airplanes unsafely then the chances of a responsible pilot accidentally crashing a plane is very, very low.

Who'd'a guessed?

And you wouldn't advocate the banning of airplanes, now would you?