Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2017, 10:45 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 08:50 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglers had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent.

That's not how self-defence laws work. Not here in Australia, not in Europe, not anywhere that's civilised. Self-defence is based on a proportional response. Did oyu even read the article? They only had two weapons between three of them - so the third kid was in fact unarmed. And none of them had guns.

In most places if you did what this American did, you'd be convicted for either murder or manslaughter. You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to kill people because they broke into your home and threatened you. If you use excessive force in self defence, you are culpable.

One must remember Aractus, that the almost un restricted access to firearms in the USA even to criminals (soo much easier to buy an illegal firearm in the U.S. than in other countries with proper firearms control) means that the homeowner couldn't possibly know that these kids were not tooled up and ready to pull a gun on him, I don't blame him for shooting them. The kids paid for the crime with their lives and charges of murder for the getaway driver are a travesty of moral justice. Now, had the homeowner been killed the getaway driver should bear some responsibly for his death but the other way round hell no, that's not fair justice by a long shot and wouldn't happen in England or Europe inspite of the laws origins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 10:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 08:50 AM)Aractus Wrote:  That's not how self-defence laws work. Not here in Australia, not in Europe, not anywhere that's civilised. Self-defence is based on a proportional response. Did oyu even read the article? They only had two weapons between three of them - so the third kid was in fact unarmed. And none of them had guns.

In most places if you did what this American did, you'd be convicted for either murder or manslaughter. You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to kill people because they broke into your home and threatened you. If you use excessive force in self defence, you are culpable.

One must remember Aractus, that the almost un restricted access to firearms in the USA even to criminals (soo much easier to buy an illegal firearm in the U.S. than in other countries with proper firearms control) means that the homeowner couldn't possibly know that these kids were not tooled up and ready to pull a gun on him, I don't blame him for shooting them. The kids paid for the crime with their lives and charges of murder for the getaway driver are a travesty of moral justice. Now, had the homeowner been killed the getaway driver should bear some responsibly for his death but the other way round hell no, that's not fair justice by a long shot and wouldn't happen in England or Europe inspite of the laws origins.

There can be a huge amount of factors with the homeowner that may explain why he or she might kill an intruder which can range from poor eyesight to simply being unable to keep their cool and assess the actual threat, to them being untrained in law enforcement tactics. If the homeowner brings their gun to the public arena, then the they are responsible for accurately accessing a situation and discharging their firearm only when a real, measurable threat is present. In their own homes, they have not invited the threat inside. The more I've been thinking about it, I feel that charging an innocent, victimized homeowner for the death of an intruder is barbaric and uncivilized. They did not invite that threat into their homes, and they are responding to fear and a credible threat of harm.

For the girl that will likely go down for 3 murders, I find that unfortunate. I don't understand the justification of the law, but I know that a lot of thought and consideration went into it. Laws don't get passed on a whim. I'm of the opinion that if you're going to engage in felonious activities, you should probably first research the law and understand the scope of what you can be punished for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 11:24 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 10:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  One must remember Aractus, that the almost un restricted access to firearms in the USA even to criminals (soo much easier to buy an illegal firearm in the U.S. than in other countries with proper firearms control) means that the homeowner couldn't possibly know that these kids were not tooled up and ready to pull a gun on him, I don't blame him for shooting them. The kids paid for the crime with their lives and charges of murder for the getaway driver are a travesty of moral justice. Now, had the homeowner been killed the getaway driver should bear some responsibly for his death but the other way round hell no, that's not fair justice by a long shot and wouldn't happen in England or Europe inspite of the laws origins.

There can be a huge amount of factors with the homeowner that may explain why he or she might kill an intruder which can range from poor eyesight to simply being unable to keep their cool and assess the actual threat, to them being untrained in law enforcement tactics. If the homeowner brings their gun to the public arena, then the they are responsible for accurately accessing a situation and discharging their firearm only when a real, measurable threat is present. In their own homes, they have not invited the threat inside. The more I've been thinking about it, I feel that charging an innocent, victimized homeowner for the death of an intruder is barbaric and uncivilized. They did not invite that threat into their homes, and they are responding to fear and a credible threat of harm.

For the girl that will likely go down for 3 murders, I find that unfortunate. I don't understand the justification of the law, but I know that a lot of thought and consideration went into it. Laws don't get passed on a whim. I'm of the opinion that if you're going to engage in felonious activities, you should probably first research the law and understand the scope of what you can be punished for.

I agree with most of your post, however youngsters frequently act impetuously and make mistakes older people do not because they either feel fireproof or do not have the education to process the potential consequences, eg fatal road collisions are mostly involving young inexperienced drivers. I disagree vehemently that this particular law was well thought out because it to me is so obvious it wasn't well thought out, its a moral travesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: Strange legal case
First-degree? Manslaughter, certainly. Second-degree, maybe. Unless she called the homeowner as her buddies were breaking in, I don't see how the murders could be premeditated.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 12:18 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  First-degree? Manslaughter, certainly. Second-degree, maybe. Unless she called the homeowner as her buddies were breaking in, I don't see how the murders could be premeditated.

Premeditation can happen in an instant. It can be as simple as seeing someone who you view as a threat and deciding to kill them. That decision can occur in the span of a single second much like you may see a spider or cockroach and quickly decide to smash it.

I think the homeowner, in self defense, committed justifiable, premeditated, first degree murder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 04:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not only the USA that has this legal concept and it was pretty much universal among countries with legal systems based in English common law.

As a concept? Sure, that doesn't strike me as improbable. But would you get the book thrown at you in the UK for being the non-violent member of a B&E group who were killed in self defense?

You would have in the not-very-distant past.

Quote:Just how far, and how strongly, would that concept actually be applied? Once convicted, what would their outlook be there versus the US? I imagine that the US still takes the cake in the application of retribution for retribution's sake.

Your claim that it is retribution for retribution's sake is your opinion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-03-2017, 02:12 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglars had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent and they created reasonable fear for the victims/homeowners.

Nope. One of the kids had a knife of some sort—maybe like a lot of kids carry on them every day—and the other kid had knuckledusters. The third kid was unarmed. Conversely, the home-owner was armed with a semi-automatic rifle—considered an illegal "assault" weapon in Australia BTW.

My question would be along the lines of why exactly the home-owner deemed it necessary to kill all three intruders. Why not discharge the weapon in their general direction, and maybe kill and/or injure only one of the kids? The other two are certainly gonna hightail it outa there! Or did he just spray all three indiscriminately?

And is an unarmed kid or one "armed" with knuckledusters really gonna fight a bloke with an AR-15? I'd say it could be construed as "excessive force" by the homeowner, given the circumstances. In Australia, the homeowner could possibly be charged with involuntary manslaughter, but then we prohibit the possession of semi-automatic weapons to begin with. If this bloke had only a single-shot, then in all probability there'd be a couple of—admittedly stupid—kids alive today.

This is just another sad example of the laissez-faire attitude the Americans have towards lethal firearms in the hands of private citizens.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Strange legal case
I get what everyone here is saying, but this is very wrong to me on so many levels....

But knowing that, if I were the getaway driver, I'd just charge the homeowner and get it over with. Better than facing the murder charges of my friends when someone else pulled the trigger. I'm sure the homeowner wouldn't think twice if I stood unarmed with my back to him, he just killed 3 kids, what's one more notch on his belt. Then again, I don't think jail would agree with me, that's why I try never to do anything that could land me there.

Sad part is people don't realize how easy it is for ANYONE to land in jail. If you don't think I'm being straight with you on this, go ask a cop. You don't have to be trying to commit a felony to end up in jail, even on death row.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
31-03-2017, 03:11 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 02:12 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglars had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent and they created reasonable fear for the victims/homeowners.

Nope. One of the kids had a knife of some sort—maybe like a lot of kids carry on them every day—and the other kid had knuckledusters. The third kid was unarmed. Conversely, the home-owner was armed with a semi-automatic rifle—considered an illegal "assault" weapon in Australia BTW.

My question would be along the lines of why exactly the home-owner deemed it necessary to kill all three intruders. Why not discharge the weapon in their general direction, and maybe kill and/or injure only one of the kids? The other two are certainly gonna hightail it outa there! Or did he just spray all three indiscriminately?

And is an unarmed kid or one "armed" with knuckledusters really gonna fight a bloke with an AR-15? I'd say it could be construed as "excessive force" by the homeowner, given the circumstances. In Australia, the homeowner could possibly be charged with involuntary manslaughter, but then we prohibit the possession of semi-automatic weapons to begin with. If this bloke had only a single-shot, then in all probability there'd be a couple of—admittedly stupid—kids alive today.

This is just another sad example of the laissez-faire attitude the Americans have towards lethal firearms in the hands of private citizens.

.... Actually AR 15's are illegal in most of America. I'm pretty sure they are in Oklahoma. People usually bypass this law by buying them in a way they can only be fired in single shot, then modifying them to become automatic. There's lots of ways to bypass gun laws without expressly breaking the law (at least not in a way you can be caught), for instance you can legally buy a gun that's illegal if its been made so it can't fire, and you can legally buy the parts needed to make it fire. You can't technically use those parts on said gun, however.... no one will know unless you shoot 3 kids with it....

Other ways to bypass laws like that would be to buy the gun in Texas, or Nevada where they aren't illegal, then drive them across to your home. If you buy them at a gun fair there's no background check and no wait period either. Just cash n carry. Cause why have laws that make sense lol

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
31-03-2017, 07:27 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 10:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  One must remember Aractus, that the almost un restricted access to firearms in the USA even to criminals (soo much easier to buy an illegal firearm in the U.S. than in other countries with proper firearms control) means that the homeowner couldn't possibly know that these kids were not tooled up and ready to pull a gun on him, I don't blame him for shooting them. The kids paid for the crime with their lives and charges of murder for the getaway driver are a travesty of moral justice. Now, had the homeowner been killed the getaway driver should bear some responsibly for his death but the other way round hell no, that's not fair justice by a long shot and wouldn't happen in England or Europe inspite of the laws origins.

Ah shit, looks like I lost or never posted my original reply to this!

The problem with the argument you made is that it's factually wrong. For example, in Australia there was pretty wide access to all kinds of firearms up to the 1996 reforms. However, the legal limitations on self defence date back to the 1960's when a judge set a precedent finding a man guilty who was "defending his property" when he shot dead a trespasser/thief. Basically he was found to have used unreasonable force. Basically, had this happened in Australia before gun reform, then the home-owner's son would certainly have been charged with murder, and if the facts of the case were that he was defending his property and not his life (which I believe are the facts given the guy was unharmed), then he would certainly be convicted as well.

It's a similar situation in pretty much all of Europe AFAIK, including places where gun ownership laws are still almost as lax as American laws.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: