Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2017, 07:16 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(01-04-2017 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
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).

Compared to other forms of burglary it is. But look, going by your own cited numbers above (noting that raw numbers are useless for determining whether something is "rare" or "common"), only 7% of all burglaries in the US from 2003-2007 involved violence against an occupier. Now we'll go to some figures you didn't quote:

bjs.gov Wrote:*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

As I already mentioned, you are far more likely to face a violent altercation with someone known to you than you are from a stranger - more than twice as likely as it happens.

Only 12% of the time was the offender armed with a firearm. Interestingly, we can't tell from this figure alone how it would split between known offenders and strangers, but if we assume it follows the previous trend then we would expect that of known offenders, then we can split that number down further: about 8% of the time there was an armed known offender, and less than 4% of the time was the unknown offender armed. Now we can combine that with the known 25% figure of violent altercation (7% of 28%), as follows:

Going by the bjs.gov numbers you cited: In the US from 2003-2007, if you faced a home invasion, then there was a 25% chance that you would be the victim of some form of violence, a 4% chance that the intruder was both unknown to you AND carrying a firearm, and only a 1% chance that the intruder was unknown to you AND carrying a firearm AND was violent against you in some way.

Going back to the case cited in the OP - yes the intruders were armed with a knife and knuckle-buster, and yes they had a numbers advantage over the occupier. I also agree that if you were the occupier, and you felt you needed to shoot one or more of the intruders that you should aim for the chest as its the largest target area. I'm not suggesting that these particular facts are in dispute.

What I cannot believe is that his actions are justified under self-defence as a reasonable person would see it. He shot all three intruders dead, including the one that was unarmed. He was not himself the victim of any violence. If those are the facts of the case, then the home owner is the one that escalated the situation to violence.

Here are two other cases I head about: Joe Horn in 2008, and Warren Darlow in 2016. In both cases the person shot and killed intruders that were unarmed whilst on the phone to police!

In the first case above, the resident's neighbour shot and killed two people to simply "prevent them from escaping" even though the 911 operator told him not to. In the second case cited above, the home owner claimed that the intruders could easily arm themselves with his unsecured guns if they didn't bring their own... and he was not the victim of violence. He claims that he feared for his life, and that may be true, however it doesn't explain why he didn't leave out the back of the house or barricade himself someone relatively safe from the intruders while the crime was in action. However, note that he only shot one of the intruders, and the other fled and was later stopped and arrested by police along with the getaway driver.

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
02-04-2017, 09:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2017 09:32 PM by Chas.)
RE: Strange legal case
(02-04-2017 07:16 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(01-04-2017 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  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).

Compared to other forms of burglary it is. But look, going by your own cited numbers above (noting that raw numbers are useless for determining whether something is "rare" or "common"), only 7% of all burglaries in the US from 2003-2007 involved violence against an occupier. Now we'll go to some figures you didn't quote:

bjs.gov Wrote:*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

As I already mentioned, you are far more likely to face a violent altercation with someone known to you than you are from a stranger - more than twice as likely as it happens.

Try answering what I posted. It doesn't fucking matter whether it is less likely than some other scenario. Facepalm

Quote:Only 12% of the time was the offender armed with a firearm. Interestingly, we can't tell from this figure alone how it would split between known offenders and strangers, but if we assume it follows the previous trend then we would expect that of known offenders, then we can split that number down further: about 8% of the time there was an armed known offender, and less than 4% of the time was the unknown offender armed. Now we can combine that with the known 25% figure of violent altercation (7% of 28%), as follows:

Please respond to what I asked.

Quote:Going by the bjs.gov numbers you cited: In the US from 2003-2007, if you faced a home invasion, then there was a 25% chance that you would be the victim of some form of violence, a 4% chance that the intruder was both unknown to you AND carrying a firearm, and only a 1% chance that the intruder was unknown to you AND carrying a firearm AND was violent against you in some way.

Try answering what I posted. It doesn't fucking matter whether the intruder was armed at all, let alone with a firearm.

Quote:Going back to the case cited in the OP - yes the intruders were armed with a knife and knuckle-buster, and yes they had a numbers advantage over the occupier. I also agree that if you were the occupier, and you felt you needed to shoot one or more of the intruders that you should aim for the chest as its the largest target area. I'm not suggesting that these particular facts are in dispute.

What I cannot believe is that his actions are justified under self-defence as a reasonable person would see it. He shot all three intruders dead, including the one that was unarmed. He was not himself the victim of any violence. If those are the facts of the case, then the home owner is the one that escalated the situation to violence.

You're entitled to your opinion. The law does not agree with you.

Quote:Here are two other cases I head about: Joe Horn in 2008, and Warren Darlow in 2016. In both cases the person shot and killed intruders that were unarmed whilst on the phone to police!

In the first case above, the resident's neighbour shot and killed two people to simply "prevent them from escaping" even though the 911 operator told him not to. In the second case cited above, the home owner claimed that the intruders could easily arm themselves with his unsecured guns if they didn't bring their own... and he was not the victim of violence. He claims that he feared for his life, and that may be true, however it doesn't explain why he didn't leave out the back of the house or barricade himself someone relatively safe from the intruders while the crime was in action. However, note that he only shot one of the intruders, and the other fled and was later stopped and arrested by police along with the getaway driver.

Oh, goody - anecdotes. Dodgy

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
03-04-2017, 12:09 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(02-04-2017 09:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please respond to what I asked.

You didn't ask anything.

And, no, the law does agree with me. The fact that some inhumane backwards country in North-America has foreign laws that don't, doesn't change that.

Or do you think that the USA's laws are supreme?

I find it baffling that anyone in this thread would defend the householder. Even if he has the legal right to shoot any trespasser as a vengeful vigilante, it doesn't alter the fact that it's morally wrong and he had other options besides killing children that are in the process of committing a crime.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2017, 12:41 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(03-04-2017 12:09 AM)Aractus Wrote:  I find it baffling that anyone in this thread would defend the householder. Even if he has the legal right to shoot any trespasser as a vengeful vigilante, it doesn't alter the fact that it's morally wrong and he had other options besides killing children that are in the process of committing a crime.
Did the shooter have time to access the situation and determine that the intruders were "children?" Was he in fear for his life and that of his father who was also present? How does one determine the age of a masked, knife wielding person of adult height? In a matter of a few seconds how does one determine that a knife and a brass knuckle are the only weapons among the three?

The shooter had the right to assume (1)they are adults, (2)all three are armed with deadly weapons and (3)their objective is murder.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes f stop's post
03-04-2017, 07:24 AM
RE: Strange legal case
When I have traveled overseas, the one piece of advice that always sticks with me is when the tour guide warns us to protect our valuables. We should conceal them on our bodies, against our skin, and under layers of clothing because it'll make it harder for the pick pockets to get to them. But not to worry! The pick pockets in Europe will take your wallet, but they're very unlikely to blow your head off for it.

This is not true in the US. They will blow your head off.

It seems that the Australians and the Americans (based on our small sample size) have a totally different outlook on self-defense. Australians and Europeans seem to think it’s barbaric that a homeowner can shoot a burglar. The Americans think it’s barbaric that the homeowner should be charged with murder for defending their lives. Seems to me that neither country has an inherently better or superior system of laws, just laws that are tailored for the population that lives there.

I pulled a few stats from the website, NationMaster, which I thought painted an interesting picture to the types of crime that citizens experience in these two countries.

Guns (per 100 people) Australia = 15 and US = 88.8
Intentional Homicide (per 100,000 people) Australia = 229 and US = 12,996
Burglaries (per 100,000 people) Australia = 1530.2 and US = 714.4
Murder committed by youth (per 1M people) Australia = 4.65 and US = 29.48

According to these numbers, Australia has more burglaries but far fewer people with guns, and far fewer people who actually commit intentional homicide. If your home is burglarized in Australia, you might instinctively assume that the burglar is probably not carrying a gun and probably not out to murder you. In the US, your assumption may very well be that they are carrying a gun and may very well murder you to get away.

In the US, you may reasonably have higher fear of harm being done to you by a young burglar than you would in Australia.

The laws in the two countries seem to reflect the culture of the people living in there. Neither would be "barbaric" unless some lawmaker tried to apply the other country's law to their country before the culture had adapted to new norms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
04-04-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: Strange legal case
I just watched a program on a similar case like this, which happened somewhere in the US.

In that instance, 2 guys had broken into somebodys home. The home owner shot in self defense, after they tried to stab him, and he killed one of the intruders. That went to court, and the home owner was let off with "self defense".

However, the justice system still requires somebody be held accountable, and charged the surviving intruder with murder. Very messed up.

I believe in the US, if you are "present" during a murder you can be charged for it as well. For instance, if you're in a group of people, and one of those people out right murders somebody, the whole group can be held accountable.

It's mental.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 07:32 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 07:10 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I just watched a program on a similar case like this, which happened somewhere in the US.

In that instance, 2 guys had broken into somebodys home. The home owner shot in self defense, after they tried to stab him, and he killed one of the intruders. That went to court, and the home owner was let off with "self defense".

However, the justice system still requires somebody be held accountable, and charged the surviving intruder with murder. Very messed up.

I believe in the US, if you are "present" during a murder you can be charged for it as well. For instance, if you're in a group of people, and one of those people out right murders somebody, the whole group can be held accountable.

It's mental.

That's not my understanding of the law. I'm really just a layperson when it comes to law (and just about everything else), but I don't think someone must be charged in the case of every murder. I don't hear about cases of being being indicted on justifiable homicide. I also don't hear about cases where someone's presence alone renders them indictable for the murder. If that was the case, when a gunman walks into a school to shoot people, and then shoots and kills himself, survivors would be guilty of murder. US law doesn't demand someone/anyone must be held accountable.

The surviving intruder in your case sounds like he or she has committed felony murder because they actively participated in the commission of a felony. This thread has mostly been focused on charging the getaway driver with felony murder, but you're presenting a scenario in which the intruder actively carried out the felony. In the case you presented, the death of the intruder occurred because of events that resulted from the commission of a felony. Had they not committed the felony, the intruder wouldn't have died.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
04-04-2017, 07:46 AM
RE: Strange legal case
I'm not saying somebody has to be held accountable, but in those two examples the state decided to do this.

I'm just confused as to how one man can be charged and let off with a murder, and THEN they try to send the other guy away for the same crime? Doesn't really make sense for me.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 07:46 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I'm not saying somebody has to be held accountable, but in those two examples the state decided to do this.

I'm just confused as to how one man can be charged and let off with a murder, and THEN they try to send the other guy away for the same crime? Doesn't really make sense for me.

Without knowing the specifics of the case, if the crime occurred in the actual home of the homeowner and also the intruders attacked with a knife, I can't can't imagine how the homeowner could have been charged. Maybe there is another factor in this case that you're overlooking.

The intruder who survived should be the only person that was charged. The outcome of all events connected with the commission of a felony fall squarely on the shoulders of the person or people committing the felony.

Even in the case where a shooter goes into a crowded mall and starts shooting, if someone slips and falls in their attempt to flee, and ends up cracking their skull open on the floor and dying, the shooter is accountable. The shooter would also be accountable if another person in the mall, totally unconnected to the shooter, accidentally kills a by-stander (perhaps in the effort to kill the shooter).

In the United States, if you decide to carry out a felony, be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
04-04-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 08:02 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Without knowing the specifics of the case, if the crime occurred in the actual home of the homeowner and also the intruders attacked with a knife, I can't can't imagine how the homeowner could have been charged. Maybe there is another factor in this case that you're overlooking.

The intruder who survived should be the only person that was charged. The outcome of all events connected with the commission of a felony fall squarely on the shoulders of the person or people committing the felony.

In the United States, if you decide to carry out a felony, be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison.

Thats what I mean though, I'm aware the home owner wouldn't get charged, so he was let off with Self Defence, and rightly so. But why would Intruder 2 be charged with Murder of Intruder 1, if somebody has already said "yes I did this"? Surely it'd be armed robbery or something of that nature?

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: