Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2017, 07:59 PM
RE: Strange legal case
I don't know about you guys, but the last time I was afraid, a red Heads Up Display didn't fall down over my vision, like The Terminator. There weren't any targeting reticles pinpointng threats, or threat assessment probabilities, or casualty numbers, flashing across my view screen. Facepalm

I'm a human, in my OWN HOME, facing 3 threats, 2 of which have lethal weapons that could end my life in one lunge! I'm not in the middle of an open field with 100's of yards to make a decision that might result in my death, but in the close confines of MY OWN HOME!!!!!!!! I'm not trained as a law enforcement agent, and I shouldn't have to worry about being so, in MY OWN HOME.

Just because I wasn't there to personally witness the third perp snatch one of my steak knives, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't snag one, before I discovered him in my house. If you're a member of a hostile party, in my house, you better have your hands already tied behind your back, for me to not perceive you as a threat. Were these kids shot, in the back, running across the lawn, away from the house? No? Then I find it absolutely barbaric that you wish to send a potentially frightened out of their mind victim to jail for not acting as if he'd been trained as a crack shot, Jason Bourn level, assassin. This isn't Hollywood, and we're not all heroes.

So here's some advice.
Don't go breaking into someone's home with lethal weapons in-hand. Dodgy And don't drive people you know are going to perpetrate a crime to the crime scene.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheGulegon's post
31-03-2017, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2017 08:45 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 12:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
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.

Uh, giving people life in prison without parole for minor drug possession significantly backs up my opinion. The continued existence of the death penalty, given all it's disadvantages and no discernible benefit over life in prison, also significantly backs up my opinion.

Let's not mince words, people like the death penalty for emotional reasons. People like prisons when they're used on 'other people', especially those seen as societal undesirables. When both the US and Saudi Arabia agree on the question of state sanctioned murder, that should give you pause.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-04-2017, 03:48 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 07:27 PM)Aractus 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.

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.

I take your point regarding australian european gun ownership but what I think your forgetting and what I did not mention is the psychology of gun ownership which is different in Europe and Australia, if you went into a gunsmith in Britain and asked to purchase a shotgun good for home defence the gunsmith would possibly refuse to sell and conceivably report the matter to get your license revoked. In the States gun stores activly promote the concept of guns for home defence.
I'm not sure how my post is factually wrong when I'm referring to a situation in America and to be fair mate you countered with rules and regulations for both Australia and Europe.
Perhaps the last couple of lines were confusing, when I said its not fair justice and wouldn't happen in the UK or Europe I was referring to the getaway driver being charged with murder not the homeowner and what constitutes reasonable force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2017, 07:45 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(01-04-2017 03:48 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm not sure how my post is factually wrong when I'm referring to a situation in America and to be fair mate you countered with rules and regulations for both Australia and Europe.

The part that was factually wrong was where you said we had bigger limitations on self defence because of gun laws. The self defence limitations pre-date gun reform laws by decades, and they were tested in court cases several times before gun reform. And yes, before gun reform you could walk into an dealer's shop and buy an AR-15 for any reason including hunting or "self defence".

The whole idea though that you need a gun to defend against home invasion is absurd. Home invasion is a very rare thing, and you are far more likely to be attacked by a family member or someone you know than you are to have to have would-be burglars enter your home while you're in it.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2017, 08:07 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(01-04-2017 07:45 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(01-04-2017 03:48 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm not sure how my post is factually wrong when I'm referring to a situation in America and to be fair mate you countered with rules and regulations for both Australia and Europe.

The part that was factually wrong was where you said we had bigger limitations on self defence because of gun laws. The self defence limitations pre-date gun reform laws by decades, and they were tested in court cases several times before gun reform. And yes, before gun reform you could walk into an dealer's shop and buy an AR-15 for any reason including hunting or "self defence".

The whole idea though that you need a gun to defend against home invasion is absurd. Home invasion is a very rare thing, and you are far more likely to be attacked by a family member or someone you know than you are to have to have would-be burglars enter your home while you're in it.
Ah, gotcha fair point mate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2017, 08:36 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(01-04-2017 07:45 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(01-04-2017 03:48 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm not sure how my post is factually wrong when I'm referring to a situation in America and to be fair mate you countered with rules and regulations for both Australia and Europe.

The part that was factually wrong was where you said we had bigger limitations on self defence because of gun laws. The self defence limitations pre-date gun reform laws by decades, and they were tested in court cases several times before gun reform. And yes, before gun reform you could walk into an dealer's shop and buy an AR-15 for any reason including hunting or "self defence".

The whole idea though that you need a gun to defend against home invasion is absurd.

Except for it being the one weapon that is effective for the weak against the strong.

Quote:Home invasion is a very rare thing,

Not in the U.S.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).


Quote:and you are far more likely to be attacked by a family member or someone you know than you are to have to have would-be burglars enter your home while you're in it.

That is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter that there is something more likely.

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
02-04-2017, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2017 12:19 AM by SYZ.)
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 07:59 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I'm a human, in my OWN HOME, facing 3 threats, 2 of which have lethal weapons that could end my life in one lunge...

I guess it depends on how one defines a "lethal" weapon. Two of the three kids didn't carry lethal weapons. One had knuckledusters, and one had his bare hands—neither of which I'd define as lethal weapons, although YMMV.

As a matter of US law, lethal weapons are defined as guns, swords, knives, and pistols, and/or when used as such within striking distance from the person assaulted. The use of a lethal weapon may support a finding of second-degree murder, however, its use is not of itself sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction in the absence of deliberation or premeditation.

Apparently then, you're quite happy for a homeowner to kill an unarmed burglar? Seriously? And bear in mind that one of the burglars was shot in the driveway of the house, presumably whilst escaping, rather than the "close confines" you allege. How does that make him a lethal threat worthy of killing?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 07:59 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I don't know about you guys, but the last time I was afraid, a red Heads Up Display didn't fall down over my vision, like The Terminator. There weren't any targeting reticles pinpointng threats, or threat assessment probabilities, or casualty numbers, flashing across my view screen. Facepalm

I'm a human, in my OWN HOME, facing 3 threats, 2 of which have lethal weapons that could end my life in one lunge! I'm not in the middle of an open field with 100's of yards to make a decision that might result in my death, but in the close confines of MY OWN HOME!!!!!!!! I'm not trained as a law enforcement agent, and I shouldn't have to worry about being so, in MY OWN HOME.

Just because I wasn't there to personally witness the third perp snatch one of my steak knives, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't snag one, before I discovered him in my house. If you're a member of a hostile party, in my house, you better have your hands already tied behind your back, for me to not perceive you as a threat. Were these kids shot, in the back, running across the lawn, away from the house? No? Then I find it absolutely barbaric that you wish to send a potentially frightened out of their mind victim to jail for not acting as if he'd been trained as a crack shot, Jason Bourn level, assassin. This isn't Hollywood, and we're not all heroes.

So here's some advice.
Don't go breaking into someone's home with lethal weapons in-hand. Dodgy And don't drive people you know are going to perpetrate a crime to the crime scene.

I think this is a really good point. It's easy, in the cold light of day and far removed from the incident, to question how the kid with the AR15 reacted. But, we were not there. He's in his early 20s, confronted by 3 intruders in his own home, he can see at least 1 has a knife and one has something on his knuckles, there is no way of knowing if they are armed with more ... what do you do?

Do you wait and see and hope for the best? Point a gun at them and hope you can control the situation and summon the cops? I guess that is an option and maybe one that will work out. Do you order them out of the house and call the police once they are clear? I suppose that is an option, too. Do you fire and not take any chances of one of them pulling an unseen gun? Clearly this kid went with number 3.

There was a case a year or so ago where 2 teens, a boy and a girl, broke into a house of some lunatic who was waiting for them. He shot the boy right away and the girl hid. He waited a very long time for the girl to move and when she finally went for a window, he shot her trying to get out of his house. He was convicted of murder, and I think correctly. But, that was a different situation - I think.

I don't know. The whole thing is horrific but the fault of it is really on the 4 people who decided "hey, let's drive to someone's house and one of us will wait outside and the other 3 will rob them". That decision had some consequences. I'm not a fan of guns, or shooting people, but I think I'd have a hard time convicting the shooter at least not on the facts that I've read.

Regarding the woman in the car, I think it's a little fucked up that she's being tried for the murder of her accomplices as that goes beyond the original intention of felony murder, but that's the price you pay for engaging in dangerous criminal behavior. I know they didn't think anyone was home, but they also went into that house with weapons. So, let's say they surprised the kid in the house and he wasn't armed with a gun? What happens then? Do they say "oh, so sorry to have broken into your home" and leave? I doubt it. If he didn't have a gun, he could have been stabbed, beaten, etc. She knew, or should have known, when she drove them to the house that there was always the chance of violence or they wouldn't have been armed. So, tough to feel too sorry for her.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BnW's post
02-04-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(02-04-2017 12:15 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Apparently then, you're quite happy for a homeowner to kill an unarmed burglar? Seriously?

Yes, under some circumstances.
How about 6'2" 18-year-old breaks into the house of an old and handicapped person?
Or a home where there is only a girl of 14?

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
02-04-2017, 07:09 PM
RE: Strange legal case
I'm not a lawyer.

There is the "castle" doctrine, summed up in "a man's home is his castle."

In cases of self defense the law requires you to retreat as far as possible. Once you have crossed the threshold of your own house you have retreated as far as the law requires. The only additional requirement is that you "perceive" that you are in danger of losing your life, or of injury, or perhaps of loss of your possessions. This extends to other members of your family and to your guests. Whether your perception is justified is up to the jury. "yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I was not keeping count of my shots but each time I pulled the trigger I was scared shitless!"

There was another case in the last year or so. Three men entered a home. Not finding any money they decided to rape the homeowners granddaughter. Grandpa then told the invaders that there was a hidden safe with money in it. At gunpoint grandpa opened the safe. There was no money in it but there was a loaded gun. Grandpa opened fire killing two of the intruders and wounding a third. Grandpa was shot three times. He survived. The third intruder fled but was captured. Police charged #3 with the murder of his accomplices. I'm OK with that.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like f stop's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: