Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Self Defense
Topic Started: Dec 5 2004, 10:27 PM (798 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

It's not "superior force" that has been found to be beyond the law by American jurisprudence, it is unreasonably excessive force. That's up for a jury to decide and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
If I had found that someone had illegally entered my house, where my children live. I'd probably make sure that they went down and didn't get up and worry about legal crap later.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

The classic law school case on this subject is the spring gun case. (This is from memory so don't fight me on the details). Essentially, a couple owned a house that they did not live in. The house kept getting broken into so the guy set up a shot gun that would fire at chest level when the door was opened. Someone tried to break in and was shot in the chest. This was found to be unreasonable by the jury and the result was affirmed on appeal.
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 12:58 PM
The classic law school case on this subject is the spring gun case. (This is from memory so don't fight me on the details). Essentially, a couple owned a house that they did not live in. The house kept getting broken into so the guy set up a shot gun that would fire at chest level when the door was opened. Someone tried to break in and was shot in the chest. This was found to be unreasonable by the jury and the result was affirmed on appeal.

Now, that is akin to setting a 'person trap' and is not the same thing as killing someone who is attacking you or invading your house. A 'person trap' is not something that I would approve of.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Right. I think most juries would not convict a person protecting his family. Nor do I think most DAs would prosecute someone under similar circumstances.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 11:50 AM
It's not "superior force" that has been found to be beyond the law by American jurisprudence, it is unreasonably excessive force. That's up for a jury to decide and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

It isn't like I have a howitzer aimed at the front door (the recoil would probably knock it across the terrazzo tile into my living room).

Property protection laws in Texas are not especially stringent. Usually something like shooting a burglar goes before a grand jury.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I don't know what it's like in California, but everywhere else I lived, if someone is on your property without your permission, you are well within your rights to shoot them. Now, most people don't do that, but it is the law.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

The Sisko
Dec 6 2004, 01:51 PM
I don't know what it's like in California, but everywhere else I lived, if someone is on your property without your permission, you are well within your rights to shoot them. Now, most people don't do that, but it is the law.

Even if they accidentally wander on your property? That doesn't seem right to me.
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Most of the time, the person with the gun will make it known that they are in violation of their property, usually at gunpoint and ask what their business is. Like I said, it's rare if someone is actually shot, but it is your right to do so.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The Sisko
Dec 6 2004, 02:03 PM
Most of the time, the person with the gun will make it known that they are in violation of their property, usually at gunpoint and ask what their business is.  Like I said, it's rare if someone is actually shot, but it is your right to do so.

I think that
A.) there are a variety of requirements for posting warning signs about trespassing and putting up fences.

B.) being in your yard is quite a bit different than being in your fenced in signed yard and this is quite a bit different than being in your actual house.

You can't just shoot anyone that happens into your front yard. I don't believe that is true anywhere in this country and would be very interested to know if it were.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Corpus/...8/R2814009.html

28-1409
Use of force in self-protection.


(1) Subject to the provisions of this section
and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward another
person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is
immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself
against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the
present occasion.
(2) The use of such force is not justifiable under this
section to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made
by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.
(3) The use of such force is not justifiable under this
section to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of
property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor
knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim
of right to protect the property, except that this limitation
shall not apply if:
(a) The actor is a public officer acting in the
performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him
therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(b) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the
property and is making a reentry or recapture justified by
section 28-1411; or
© The actor believes that such force is necessary to
protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.
(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable
under this section unless the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm,
kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat,
nor is it justifiable if:
(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or
serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in
the same encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of
using such force with complete safety by retreating or by
surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim
of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain
from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his
dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or
is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of
work the actor knows it to be; and
(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the
performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in
his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an
arrest or preventing an escape shall not be obliged to desist
from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent
such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or
on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.
(5) Except as required by subsections (3) and (4) of
this section, a person employing protective force may estimate
the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them
to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering
possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do,
or abstaining from any lawful action.
(6) The justification afforded by this section extends
to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor
takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as
soon as he knows that he safely can do so, unless the person
confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I would use a gun in order to defend my family. If that means that I would have to serve a life-sentence in prison, then so be it. I don't condone killing of any kind, so I would be quite careful to fire at non-vital parts of an intruder.

An unmitigated right is a strong phrase. But maybe that is what is needed to ward off intruders, or better yet, to act as a deterrant.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
gvok
Dec 6 2004, 09:45 AM
Self Defense is not a right, it is a legal defense.

Oh really, then just what is this...
Quote:
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just what reason is given in the Federalist Papers for the 2nd Amend?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Fesarius
Dec 6 2004, 06:57 PM
I would use a gun in order to defend my family.  If that means that I would have to serve a life-sentence in prison, then so be it.  I don't condone killing of any kind, so I would be quite careful to fire at non-vital parts of an intruder.

An unmitigated right is a strong phrase.  But maybe that is what is needed to ward off intruders, or better yet, to act as a deterrant.

If the intruder had a deadly weapon (i.e., gun) and could still be partially effective while injured, I would shoot to kill (chest shot).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Here's a question. What if the burgler is physically more powerful then the home owner? How do you define what a justified level of force really is? If a 20 year old body builder breaks into the home of an 80 year old woman, would you really expect her to take him on hand to hand? Heck, I would bet that most of the criminals out there would be physically tough enough to make hand to hand combat a stupid thing to be legally bound to go into. I mean, criminals aren't known for being weakling creampuffs that are easily beaten up.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus