Comment Re:Oh common.. (Score 1) 391
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door.
Why does this remind me of a child saying "well I'm just going to swing my arms and walk around, and if you happen to get hit, it's your fault" ?
Because you are trying to make an ad-hominem attack.
By confronting the person, *you* are escalating the situation by changing it from a simple break-and-enter to an armed standoff, and then potentially to a homocide (or even multiple). Chances are extremely high that if you do nothing, they will take your TV or whatever and leave, especially if they realise the house is occupied. It's just like being mugged - your best chances of survival are giving the mugger your money and avoiding escalating the situation.
Even if you look at it that way, what I am arguing is that the homeowner is allowed to escalate in those circumstances. What you are describing is called the "Duty to Retreat." Thankfully, I live in a jurisdiction where I am not bound to retreat and am allowed to "stand my ground" in my own home. I can't speak for where you live, but these types of laws are not limited to the U.S.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
As a joke, obviously, since actually doing this would have anyone in serious, serious trouble if/when it was discovered, and even more so for someone with actual knowledge of the law.
I spoke with her again, and confirmed this wasn't a joke, although I did misunderstand the example. The professor was describing a situation in which a homeowner was threatened and beat the burglar unconscious with a cricket bat. Without evidence that the intruder was threatening, it would be simply the intruder's word against the homeowners that it was self-defense. By planting some evidence, the homeowner would be further in the clear, and that police forensics would not be able to prove that the knife was not wielded by the burglar.
If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life and kill an attacker, then you won't be going to gaol, even if you're charged with all sorts of things at the beginning. Not in Australia, not in the UK, not in Canada, not anywhere else. In fact, if you can find any examples of this actually transpiring, I'd be quite interested, because I certainly can't recall it ever happening.
One example that immediately came to mind was Bernie Goetz, although he did two things which nailed him: he kept attacking after there was no threat and he had an unlicensed firearm. After doing a bit of searching, I came upon the case of Tony Martin, Munir Hussain and others. In Farmer's case, he shot burglars who were fleeing, and Hussain kept beating the burglar after he was subdued. Anyway, in the cases I have found, one big reason that the homeowners were convicted was that there were witnesses or people were shot in the back. This reminds me of the three reasons for shooting intruders in the chest:
- Aim for the larger target.
- More likely to stop a threat.
- It is better for you if the burglar is killed rather than wounded. They can't testify against you and they can't sue you for their injuries
On the other hand, if you sneak up behind an intruder and stab them in the back, then try to put a knife in their hand and pretend they attacked you first, when you get found out you'll likely be up for premeditated murder, as you should be. Similarly, if you're a large man and you do something like beat a 14 year old burglar into (and beyond) unconsciousness, you're probably going to be up on assault charges.
That is misrepresenting what I said. Say I hear someone breaking in, then I arm myself, call the police and confront the intruder. If he runs away, I won't shoot him in the back. But if he comes toward me - with or without harmful intent - I'd fire. My goal in the situation would be to make sure no more of my stuff is stolen, and if possible, detain the burglar until the police arrive.
I should also point out that the nature of the crime in other countries seems to be different and has a much lower propensity to violence.
Yes. Because in other countries people aren't so keen to escalate it into a gunfight like people such as yourself are in America.
Please back up the statement that an armed populace leads to an increase in violence during robberies. I haven't found anything to that effect.
Other major factors in the US and less significant in other countries are the larger poverty gap, lack of decent social services and massive difficulty re-entering society if you have ever been convicted of a crime.
I would say the social issues are the sole cause of more violence in the U.S.
The assumption that someone who breaks into your house is likely there to hurt you (either pro-actively or reactively) has little basis in fact, and escalating the situation by acting on that assumption will almost always make things worse.
I'll tackle this in two parts. Firstly, I know that most burglars do not mean to harm the homeowner, and in fact, most burglars aren't seriously armed. But I subscribe to the philosophy that "it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it," and I'm also a fan of the castle doctrine. Secondly, I can't find statistics regarding how well homeowners fare when they are armed versus when they are not. In addition, one is less likely to make the situation worse if they are trained, and it is my opinion that gun owners should take appropriate training classes. If you go to your local shooting range in the U.S., you will probably find advertisements for self-defense classes and you can take a training course that will teach you how to handle a gun in such a situation.
