Summations Only

You're espousing the Castle Doctrine with the proviso that everybody "should" make good shooting decisions. That's like suggesting a 150 mph speed limit and hoping everybody will drive safely.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

If someone knows they can't hear warnings being shouted at them, they're the one who needs to factor that into their behavior, not total strangers. In this particular case people who cannot hear warnings being shouted at them should realize that it makes home invasion robbery a much more dangerous crime for them to engage in, and they should probably refrain. No, it's less likely that they're there by mistake, because the mentally handicapped are twice as likely as the non-handicapped to commit crimes. Especially if they had to break in, which is what we're talking about - breaking and entering, not people just teleporting into your living room.

Yes, abundantly. Having an unwanted stranger in your home, at night when people are asleep, is inherently dangerous. Obviously that's a dangerous situation long before you know anything at all about the intruder. That's why it's illegal to tresspass in people's homes; because doing so puts the legal occupants at risk. The "escalation" is an unknown stranger in your home, when he's not supposed to be there, of unknown intent and capacity. That's an inherently risky situation that a home resident has the right to use force to bring to a safe and immediate end. They're in danger because an unknown person is in the process of committing a crime inside your home, an action that inherently exposes the legal occupants to risk. With that fat thing at the top of your neck. You know, the one that exercises judgement? You know that's not true, Oni. You must be aware that being homeless increases your risk of being the victim of a crime nearly a hundred-fold, at least, according to relevant statistics. Being homeless doesn't make you safe, it puts you at risk.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Kill? Depends. Shoot? I don't think so. Yes. Kill? Depends. But shoot, yes.Also, its doesn't have to be my own life... I can defend family members too. One reason why its improtant to identify your target. Well I think he does. I live in Illinois.

quote:

---

Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

​

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

​

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

​

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

---

It looks like from that first part that the person doesn't even have to have "gained entry" yet... It all depends on what they're doing. I think that it could go either way. It could be justified, it could be my "misconduct". My job is also to protect myself, my family, and my property. I refuse to have to rely on the police. It all depends on the situation, I guess.xkcd: Dirty HarryEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Who should bear the physical risk of their criminal act if not them? Why should it be the legal resident of the home? So? None of that obviates the physical risk to the legal resident of the home raised by an unknown illegal trespasser of unknown intention and capability. But I'm not. They're in mine, objectively, and they're engaged in an act of criminal tresspass, and possibly breaking and entering, and in doing so they've put me and other residents at risk. That justifies the use of force to remove them from the premises, and as they're the one engaged in criminal activity and I'm not, they're the one who should bear the physical risk of that activity, not me.People who know they can't receive or understand spoken warnings and commands should be the ones who modify their behavior, and probably shouldn't engage in risky criminality as a result. Being drunk doesn't excuse culpability, which is why we prosecute drunk drivers for manslaughter, not say "well, of course he couldn't help but plow right into that school bus - he was drunk!"People who want to break into other people's homes could probably reduce the risk they pose to themselves and to others if they didn't do it while drunk. If they won't respond to commands then no, I'm not in control. If they simply won't leave the premises when asked, then they're putting me and other residents at risk, and it's not fair to ask us to shoulder the burden of that risk - we're not the ones breaking the law. That's how force is justified to remove them. It's not the death penalty because it's not a punishment meted out in retribution for a crime that has already occurred. It's the use of force to bring a risky situation to a quick and safe end, for the protection of the legal residents of a home. The standard you advocate puts all the risk of criminality and law-breaking on those who aren't breaking the law.That's insane. It's literally crazy-talk. It's antithetical to the very notion of civilization.

Or 65 mph, like it is.I see the opposite as suggesting that the speed limit should be lowered to 30 mph because cars are so uncontrollable and dangerous.... and there might be deaf retards out there.

Who would argue otherwise? Certainly I'm not saying that it is not a dangerous situation, walking to the subway in Spanish Harlem at 3am is a dangerous situation. But I don't need a gun to do that. Waking up to a dangerous situation doesn't immediately mean shots have to be fired. I don't think that's the reason at all. Me sneaking in to your house to take your microwave doesn't place you in any danger. Now, you may perceive it as such but, you'd be wrong. That is why I continue to say that our ability to determine the threat in cases where we are taken by surprise is not very accurate. Yes, agreed. But in CS's scenario he did bring it to an immediate end. He has a loaded gun drawn on an intruder who has stopped moving. Mission accomplished. Call the cops and have them do their job. Yes, and that has scientifically been proven to be worthless unless you are trained, experienced and have the knowledge fit for intuitive judgment. Even then, in many cases, it has failed.Case in point: Amadou Diallo

quote:

---

In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a now-captured serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. At the same time, lead officer McMellon tripped over the curb, causing him to fire a round from his pistol into the pavement and fall. (Note: this specific incident of what is known as a "sympathetic squeeze"[citation needed] has resulted in nationwide changes to police training policy to place the trigger finger on the frame of the pistol, not the trigger guard.)

​

Seeing the suspect holding a small square object, hearing a shot, and seeing the officer in front fall, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had.

​

On March 25, a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed-race jury in Albany acquitted the officers of all charges.

---

And these were four, not one single frightened homeowner, FOUR trained and experienced offices who's fat thing at the top of their neck failed them and an innocent life was lost. Diallo's mistake was being an immigrant who didn't speak english that well.My point here isn't to say the offices were at fault or not, but just to show you that the fat thing at the top of our necks isn't all that great at assessing intense situations, and that factors like personal prejudices may cause us to react needlessly with hast. It is a fact that homeless people can't be home invaded.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well, the speed limit is 30 mph where that's appropriate - e.g. on city streets. The parallel would be if the Castle Doctrine was also restricted according to appropriate conditions - e.g. darkness.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Not necessarily.Being burgled causes a lot of trauma to the people living in the house.

quote:

---

A BURGLARY victim has told how the cruel ransacking of his home turned his family's lives upside down.

​

Former soldier Matthew Perry, 29, suffered a stroke in June this year which he says is down to stress following the February 2 burglary.sauce

---

quote:

---

A HEROIN addict who raided the home of a 92-year-old widow, forcing her to move out after 70 years, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

​

Edna Leach was so traumatised by the burglary by Devon Harrison she was unable to return to the house, where she had lived since 1936, Wolverhampton Crown Court heard.

​

Judge Sybil Thomas told Harrison the widow was "knocked sideways" by the burglary - a crime she felt had "taken her soul away." sauce

---

quote:

---

Having your home robbed is admittedly less traumatic than, say, dodging bullets from an AK-47. But the psychological aftermath of a break-in can be surprisingly intense.

​

"The majority of victims say they will never have the same feeling of security and inviolability that they had in the past," reports Billie Corder, Ed.D., a psychiatrist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

​

In interviews with 68 burglary victims, Corder found that half described the experience as feeling "like a violation or rape." The rape metaphor, used even by some men, may sound melodramatic. But for the study's middle-class subjects, most previously untouched by crime, the fact that a stranger violated the sanctity of their abode was unnerving.sauce

---

quote:

---

Bridget Smith’s 8-year-old son was so traumatized by a burglary at their Snyder County home last April that he’s been in counseling ever since.

​

He doesn’t feel safe in our home, she said during the plea hearing Monday of one of the three men sentenced for breaking into homes in Northumberland and Snyder counties last year and stealing about $200,000 worth of possessions.sauce

---

There's plenty more where that came from.

Answering questions with questions? Me no likey...Should someone die for trespassing? At the risk of sounding like Straggler here, can I just get a straight answer... If the intentions are unknown and their capabilities are unknown, then it logically follows that the physical risk is unknown too. Draw your gun, stop the intruder in their tracks and call the cops...why not that? Why shoot? Should someone die for trespassing?Also, how are you at risk with a trespasser? I didn't say they broke into your house, I said they wandered in because they were drunk and thought they were home.In that scenario no one is at risk, there's just been an innocent mistake. However, you are technically right, they have trespassed.So... Should someone die for trespassing? But your agrument is that it IS. You're the one claiming that a person in your house has committed a crime and placed you at risk, you then proceed to fire at them which made YOU the judge, jury and executioner. Semantics...You see someone in your house and YOU determined they were breaking and entering, are committing a crime, are placing your life at risk, that EVEN when the stop moving you are still at risk, then, with no further justification, YOU determined that it's time to gun them down.A quick and safe end is, stopping the intuder from advancing on you, locking yourself in your room and calling the cops. That's a quick end where no one gets hurt.And, if they manage to get into your room, remember, you still have your Red Rider and you can still shoot then. What you're advocating is taking the law into your own hands, letting untrained and inexperienced civilians be judge, jury and executioner. That is insanity, that is crazy-talk, and that is antithetical to the very notion of civilization.- Oni

Well in my state its restricted by "willful or wanton misconduct"

I meant initial danger, like for your life. If I'm in there for your TV your life isn't at risk.But yeah I agree that breaking into someone's home can have lasting effects on them. My friend, a female, doesn't walk to her car alone because she was once carjacked. I love it when you tease. - Oni

I'm not saying they do. But legal residents of homes have the right to use force to make someone leave when they're not supposed to be there, and it's not fair to expect residents and not criminals to bear the burden of that risk. Of course it does. For one thing you've put me in immediate danger of losing my microwave. For another you're engaged in a criminal felony right there in my goddamn house, which certainly puts me and other residents at risk.That gives me a right to use force to bring that risky situation to a close, in the way that is maximally safe and rapid for me. It's a lot less safe for you, but that's appropriate, since it's your actions and not mine that have put us all in this risky situation.And moreover I think it's a better society in general if people who would like to steal other people's microwaves from right inside their homes are led to understand that significant, even fatal, physical consequences may possibly result from doing so. Again I simply can't understand your bizarre position that people should have the right to offload the physical risk of their lawbreaking onto people who are breaking no laws at all. But CS doesn't want him to "stop moving." That's not what he told him to do. What he told him to do was start moving towards the door and off the premises, and the intruder has refused to do that. CS doesn't have "control" of the situation at all; if he was in control the intruder would follow directions. What do you think the cops are going to do when they show up, order the intruder to leave, and the intruder refuses to reveal his intentions, demonstrate he's not a threat, or respond to orders in any way?They're going to use force to bring the situation to a close. But CS can do that now, instead of waiting for the police to show up to do something he can do himself. Tactically it's always the superior option to bring a risky situation to a close faster rather than slower. In fact in many millions of cases gun owners have exercised appropriate judgement about when to fire their weapons, and how to bring situations to a rapid close when they find themselves put at risk by someone's proximate lawbreaking. The cases where individual, untrained judgement was adequate to the task far, far, far outnumber the cases where someone's judgement was insufficient.I can't even see how there could be a question about that. People using untrained judgement and nonetheless coming to the right conclusion happen so frequently that it would be impossible to count the instances. Every time someone doesn't immediately fire a gun at somebody they think might be doing something risky, that's a victory for untrained judgement. So what? Human judgement has to be perfect or it's useless? That makes no sense. Homeless people are home invaded all the time, don't be stupid. Part of the reason that the homeless are so astronomically more likely to be the victims of crime is because they have no way to secure their belongings or their own person as they sleep.

Sure it is. You've put it at risk by engaging in a felony right there in my living room. You've put everyone who lives here at risk, and it's not fair that we're the ones who should bear the physical burden of that risk. Why do you think she's the one being unreasonable? Isn't it, in fact, highly reasonable of her to be more careful, now that she knows that you think she should bear the physical risk and danger when someone she doesn't even know commits a crime in her vicinity?Maybe people are affected by robbery to the extent that they are because I'm right and you're wrong; because they've learned, intimately, that someone breaking the law right in their car or home puts them at significant and immediate physical danger.

That must be one amazing microwave! Fair enough. I don't, but then again, I have a shitty microwave. Well yeah, I agree. If you are in danger of death or great physical harm, then deadly force is justified. If they have violent intent, shot the fucker. But first, please, for the sake of the retards, determine that it is their intent to cause death or great physical pain. Agreed, but once you have established that you and your peoples are protected, the next step is to allow cops to do their job. Otherwise, in all seriousness, if you unjustly shot someone you could be at fault. And that would suck 'cause you were intially the victim.- Oni