|
Author
|
Topic: Castle Doctrine
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 453 (573026)
08-09-2010 2:29 PM
|
|
|
I have a question regarding the Castle Doctrine for citizens in countries where it is illegal to possess a firearm in your home. For instance, the link I provided states that the Castle Doctrine stems from English Common Law. Since it is illegal for most ordinary citizens in Europe to own firearms, with limited exceptions, are you allowed to kill an intruder who is on your property and in your home? Does justifiable homicide exist, and if so, or if not, are there extenuating circumstances? Given the prevailing law in your country, do you find the laws are reasonable or unreasonable? State why you find them (un)reasonable. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
They shot a seven-year old boy in the head ... because they thought the law was on their side. But that's not a reason unless you're a psychopath. Uh, yeah, obviously that is an extreme case. I wouldn't shoot people just because they were on my property. I would use a great amount of restraint and would view it how I would a police situation. You use the tools of your trade based on the subjects actions, however, there are instances where all bets are off and any amount of force in justified.
The Castle Doctrine seems designed to appeal to people who would like one day to shoot someone, get away with it, and feel smug about it. I am not one of those people. I disagree in principle. I believe it can be misused, no doubt, but I think it protects people in their home who otherwise would have been charged with a crime for simply defending themselves. We live in a very backwards world where occasionslly people turn the victims in to the victimizers, and vice versa.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2010 9:47 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 453 (573188)
08-10-2010 10:29 AM
|
|
|
Based on everyone's great responses, it appears we have a general concensus on how the law in this regard should operate, with minor differences of opinion about gun ownership. It seems everyone believes that you should be able to protect yourself and your family with any force necessary so as to stop the attack indefinitely. Once the subject(s) are incapacitated or cease their violent behavior, any further force done to them should be considered excessive. The only other question would be to distinguish between levels of force for police and ordinary citizens. Supposing an intruder was unarmed and the homeowner was, if the intruder charged the homeowner, would they be able to justifiably shoot (stab or strike with a blunt object) the intruder? The police, because of their extra training and availability of non-lethal weapons, would ordinarily be compelled to re-engage with lesser force because it is not a deadly force situation. However, for the ordinary citizen, an intruder rushing at them cannot holster their weapon and fight off an intruder. The expectation of the intruder taking the weapon and murdering them is too great. In lieu of this, I feel that the homeowner, in the spirit of the Castle Doctrine, should be justified in firing upon the intruder, which, again, is only in direct reference with the subjects actions. The intruders actions dictate the homeowners reactions.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 453 (573195)
08-10-2010 10:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
08-10-2010 10:10 AM
|
|
Re: The case of Tony Martin
There are some crazy rulings in favor of thieves against law-abiding homeowners. I heard a rumor (not sure if it's actually true) where a man successfully sued a homeowner for falling through his skylight. Uhhhh, WTF were doing on his roof in the first place, that you'd have the audacity to sue him? The judge should be disbarred from practicing law ever again, IMHO, for such a shitty ruling... Provided, of course, it's not an urban legend.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Huntard, posted 08-10-2010 10:10 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
If you look at Hyro's link to WP, some state laws say that lethal force is automatically justified if you suspect that an intruder intends to commit a felony (which would include burglary). This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force". You're right, some states essentially have a shoot-on-sight policy. I think Texas has really loose laws in this regard. My own personal opinion requires some discretion on the part of the homeowner, but obviously far less than with someone in law enforcement.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 5:21 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 45 of 453 (573303)
08-10-2010 7:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Dogmafood
08-10-2010 6:40 PM
|
|
Well I can think of a couple but I would say the main one is that it goes against the principle that any real justice requires that the details of the case be considered. Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food? Well, to a degree you are right. But you also need to think about it in an actual context. Think of it from the homeowners perspective. The homeowner is going to have no clue as to the intentions of the intruder, particularly if they are armed, nor is he going to be provided time to figure it out. Surely the homeowner isn't going to invite the intruder to sit down and have a friggin' cup of tea with him to discuss what his victimizer's intentions are, so... yeah... I do agree that some discretion is advisable. I don't think you should be able to turn some guys head in to a canoe just because he simply poked his head through your window, but generally speaking, citizens have every conceivable right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 6:40 PM | | Dogmafood has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 7:45 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Melodrama
Is there a problem with: (a) imposing the death penalty for crimes against property Don't be so melodramatic. It isn't imposing a death sentence, it is protecting oneself, which is more a law of nature than it is an abstract, punitive concept.
(b) substituting suspicion for proof; There's not a whole lot of leeway. If you are in someone else's home because you broke in, you aren't there as the welcoming committee.
(c) uniting in one person the office of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? So by your rationale, if someone ran up to with a knife and you defended yourself, you are the judge, jury, and executioner, provided the assailant was killed in the process. You are turning the victim in to the victimizer, and the victimizer in to the victim. What a back assward concept.... er... ass backward concept. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 453 (573403)
08-11-2010 9:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Dogmafood
08-10-2010 7:45 PM
|
|
If the intruder is armed their intention is obvious although it could be a police officer. I would also think that it would be important to determine what the actual intentions are before dispatching someone. And how do you suppose to gather the intentions of your assailant? Ask them? Woman asks, "Are you here to rape me?!" Intruder replies, "No, of course not" (as he's slipping a condom on) Something tells me that someone willing to break in to your house might have no compunction with lying to you.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 7:45 PM | | Dogmafood has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 64 of 453 (573457)
08-11-2010 1:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Jack
08-11-2010 12:32 PM
|
|
You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that this is very much not the case in my country - where, of course, the Tony Martin case occurred. The fundamental question is still the same that I asked as the OP -- do you have a fundamental right to protect your home with force, if necessary?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Dr Jack, posted 08-11-2010 12:32 PM | | Dr Jack has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Melodrama
One's home is not one's person. And a lethal defense tends to leave someone dead. Yes, and better him than you.
As for laws of nature, we do not live in a state of nature. Yes, we do.
I would refer you to the Peairs case. Yoshihiro Hattori had walked up his driveway and rung the doorbell. There was in fact some leeway to suppose that he was not a prospective felon. Non-sequitur. I could point to 3 million cases, like the BTK serial killer, where killing the intruder would have been a far better option than 7 innocent people dead versus 1 very bad one dead.
No, that's just exercising the right to self-defense, so long as only necessary force was used. What is your distinction when this gives people the right to self-defense?
The person who ends up dead seems to me to be more the victim of any encounter. Who is more the victim, Hattori, the unarmed teenager gunned down for ringing the wrong doorbell, or Peairs, who suffered the admitted indignity of having his doorbell rung? The Castle Doctrine does not give someone unlimited authority to kill people on sight of their property. It covers people who otherwise is committing justifiable homicide (justifiable, being the operative word) in lieu of an impending non-justifiable homicide. Killing someone for ringing your doorbell hardly qualifies, so it's a non-sequitur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
™ Version 4.2