German exchange student killed in "stand your ground" type shooting

[downzy]

You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee.

really now?

interesting, and very liberal take on defending a "losers" right to be in my house.

My honest to God thoughts at the time would be to let him get just outside the door as to spare my carpet.

Yes, really. In most states (maybe save for Florida or Texas), the law is pretty clear on this.

The burglar may be a "loser," but losers don't forfeit their right to life because you're pissed off and feeling victimized. Last time I checked the justice system is suppose to be based on justice, not some knee-jerk emotional need of revenge.

[Thin White Duke]

No, it's not an all or nothing dichotomy. There are certain situations, like the one that started this thread (and the one that Len reported a few posts ago) where the right to defend one's property isn't limitless. You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee. In most states you're not allowed to shoot an intruder in the back, giving them no chance to leave the premises. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Sure, emotions will be running high and bad decisions will be made. But not all bad decisions are the same. Being a little more proactive in the force being used isn't the same as using excessive force. Let's say you do shoot at the intruder and you take him out by the legs. Is it then justified then to shoot the intruder in the head because the homeowner is in a panic? Most prosecutors would say no, since the threat has no been neutralized.

So I don't think your generalization is the best way to look at it. It will always have to depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, the guy who shot the 17 year old German kid wouldn't be facing the charge of homicide; nor would the old guy in Minnesota be convicted of the same crime.

Dude, no one is saying there are no limits. I am well aware it's not the Far West. Shooting a person who is in the ground with a shot in his leg of course it's a crime, and preparing everything on purpose with the aim of killing. What I am trying to say it's that in 99% of the cases it's not that easy; there will always be a blurred line. You don't know the aim of the person breaking into your house, you can confuse a shadow with a gun, you can be in shock and start to shoot everywhere... I don't know man, I have no idea how I would react, maybe I would start to cry in a corner, I would pretend I'm sleeping, I would face the intruders, I have no idea how I could react to such situation. I wish I was James Bond to solve everyting smoothly but who knows?! And my point is that 99% of people are not James Bond either.

Perhaps the guy entering your house is a person with memory problems who entered your house thinking it was his, in that case even a shot to the leg would be unfair... but how could you know? Or another example, you have your kids with you when a burglar breaks into, you don't know if he is armed or not and he is not really a threat for their lives, but I would understand if the father shot him. It's just instinct. Analyzing from the outside, probably he shouldn't have done that, and maybe shooting he put his kids in a higher risk, and maybe 10 minutes later he realizes it was a mistake and regrets deeply... but I honestly can understand his reaction.

One thing is clear, if we allow force in certain situations, and we know these situations tend to be a mess, and human reactions vary from one person to another, we are accepting shitty unfair things will happen every now and then (I am not talking about this particualr case, in which law is very clear).

Edit: So my opinion, don't fucking enter other people's properties, you know it's wrong and you know the risks, just don't press your luck.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[shades]

you're in my house, and I don't know you.

not a good day for you

Edited May 6, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

No, it's not an all or nothing dichotomy. There are certain situations, like the one that started this thread (and the one that Len reported a few posts ago) where the right to defend one's property isn't limitless. You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee. In most states you're not allowed to shoot an intruder in the back, giving them no chance to leave the premises. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Sure, emotions will be running high and bad decisions will be made. But not all bad decisions are the same. Being a little more proactive in the force being used isn't the same as using excessive force. Let's say you do shoot at the intruder and you take him out by the legs. Is it then justified then to shoot the intruder in the head because the homeowner is in a panic? Most prosecutors would say no, since the threat has no been neutralized.

So I don't think your generalization is the best way to look at it. It will always have to depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, the guy who shot the 17 year old German kid wouldn't be facing the charge of homicide; nor would the old guy in Minnesota be convicted of the same crime.

Dude, no one is aying there are no limits. I am well aware it's not the Far West. Shooting a person who is in the ground with a shot in his leg of course it's a crime, and preparing everything on purpose with the aim of killing. What I am trying to say it's that in 99% of the cases it's not that easy; there will always be a blurred line. You don't know the aim of the person breaking into your house, you can confuse a shadow with a gun, you can be in shock and start to shoot everywhere... I don't know man, I have no idea how I would react, maybe I would start to cry in a corner, I would pretend I'm sleeping, I would face the intruders, I have no idea how I could react to such situation. I wish I was James Bond to solve everyting smoothly but who knows?! And my point is that 99% of people are not James Bond either.

Perhaps the guy entering your house is a person with memory problems who entered your house thinking it was his, in that case even a shot to the leg would be unfair... but how could you know? Or another example, you have your kids with you when a burglar breaks into, you don't know if he is armed or not and he is not really a threat for their lives, but I would understand if the father shot him. It's just instinct. Analyzing from the outside, probably he shouldn't have done that, and maybe shooting he put his kids in a higher risk, and maybe 10 minutes later he realizes it was a mistake and regrets deeply... but I honestly can understand his reaction.

One thing is clear, if we allow force in certain situations, and we know these situations tend to be a mess, and human reactions vary from one person to another, we are accepting shitty unfair things will happen every now and then (I am not talking about this particualr case, in which law is very clear).

But the conversation, and the entire point of this thread as it relates to the incident that Dazey brought to our attention, is when those limits are broken. Several posters have argued that the kid got what he deserved since he was at fault for illegally entering onto someone else's property. When you say 99% of the cases are not that easy, what are you basing that on? Is this a statistic that's documented somewhere? Yes, random b&e's do happen, and how people respond will depend on their personality traits and the circumstances of the situation on hand.

But just because you don't know how you would handle yourself in those situations doesn't mean you're absolved from your actions.

How can you know if someone trying to get your through the front door is a confused stranger or a burglar? How about you fucking ask...

My Aunt and Uncle live in Florida throughout the winter, and a neighbour of theirs shot and killed an older man who was confused and thought the house he was entering was his own. Because no attempt was made by the home owner to identify whether the person was a threat or not, they were charged with manslaughter. A reasonable person would ask the person on the other side of the door who they are and what they're doing. A criminally negligent person would just shoot blindly under the assumption that the person on the other side of the door is an intruder. I think in a situation where there's kids involved who are less able to defend themselves the detectives/prosecutor would likely allow more credence to a father/mother who shoots an intruder.

And I don't disagree that allowing force in these situations leads to messy outcomes. It's why the best thing to do is not to escalate these types of situations if you don't have to. If you're able to lock your bedroom door, call the police, and keep your weapon ready incase of forced entry, that seems to make the most sense. Turning a home-invasion into a hunt for human prey deserves less leniency before the law than someone who does what they can to de-escalate the situation.

you're in my house, and I don't know you.

not a good day for you

Shades, whether you know them or not, I'm willing to bet that it's not a good day for most people who find themselves in your house.

Edited May 6, 2014 by downzy

[shades]

How can you know if someone trying to get your through the front door is a confused stranger or a burglar? How about you fucking ask...

"excuse me sir, are you a confused stranger or a burglar"

you're funny, stupid but funny

Shades, whether you know them or not, I'm willing to bet that it's not a good day for most people who find themselves in your house.

[downzy]

How can you know if someone trying to get your through the front door is a confused stranger or a burglar? How about you fucking ask...

"excuse me sir, are you a confused stranger or a burglar"

you're funny, stupid but funny

Shades, whether you know them or not, I'm willing to bet that it's not a good day for most people who find themselves in your house.

So it's dumb to inquire what someone is doing when they try to enter your home. It's dumb to avoid violent confrontation by ensuring that your aggression is justified. It's dumb to de-escalate these situations. It's stupid not to shoot confused older people because you're too big of a pussy to inquire. If that's stupid, then you've got me pegged.

In most cases of home invasion the burglar is simply looking for the path of least resistance. Most burglars will leave the premises when they become aware that either a) someone is home or b) the home owner is aware of their presence. Most home invasions rarely escalate to a violent confrontation, and when they do, it's generally a result of being confronted by the homeowner with a weapon.

[bacardimayne]

Lol, the poor things. It's like they're not allowed to enter people's homes or something! We should leave milk and cookies out for them. Make them feel at home and all that.

[shades]

, it's generally a result of being confronted by the homeowner with a weapon.

the right weapon is essential

pump with a close grouped scatter shot, wont mess your walls up too bad, and penetration to the next room unlikely

the purpose of the pump, as you stated if he hears that distinct metalic click from the silence, hopefully he will bolt for the door,

in which case it's all good.

the question was, "if" I encounter him, IN my house

questions just seem silly at that time

[Thin White Duke]

But the conversation, and the entire point of this thread as it relates to the incident that Dazey brought to our attention, is when those limits are broken. Several posters have argued that the kid got what he deserved since he was at fault for illegally entering onto someone else's property.

I was more discussing the general issue, if someone breaks into your house. In this case, it seems that man commited entrapment, which law establishes is a crime and not self-defense. Therefore there is no much to argue.

I think the kid in no case deserved to be killed, but I think he deserved a Darwin Award. Breaking into a house at night for whatever reason is not a smart idea; if you see a garage wide open late at night... hmmm.... it seems too easy... distrust the hell out of it. It's like pushing natural selection, if you know what I mean.

But no, he doesn't deserve to be killed.

When you say 99% of the cases are not that easy, what are you basing that on? Is this a statistic that's documented somewhere?

I am not talking about law or legal actual cases, I am talking about the situations per se, while it's happening, not the consequences after it. And I just made up the statistic as a way of saying that, what happens when you find someone in your living room at 3 am tends to be a messy situation, never easy to manage.

But just because you don't know how you would handle yourself in those situations doesn't mean you're absolved from your actions.

Of course not. Reactions are subjective and law is objective so even if your reaction was due to panic or whatever reason, if it was out of scale you will have to face the consequences and go to jail or whatever the law says.

However, I can understand those reactions (though not in every single case obviously). We are not prepared to face those full stress seconds or minutes. So, if you end up imprisoned for what you did, as I said, it will depend on the specific case (the one that we are discussing n this thread isn't one of them), but I would feel more "sympathy" for that person than for a serial killer or a rapist.

How can you know if someone trying to get your through the front door is a confused stranger or a burglar? How about you fucking ask...

I was thinking more of someone who has already broke ninto your house. If someone is at your door you gotta be fucking sick to think he is definitely there with bad intentions. It's common sense to wait and see if he is gonna knock the door for something or he is trying to break into. But once you are sure that person has broken into your house or that's his intention, yes, probably to ask him why he is doing that is the best idea:

- Excuse me, Mr, Intruder, I don't want to disturb you because I see you're kind of busy but I heard a noise that woke me up and, you see, I have a couple of guns upstairs in my bedroom. Might I ask why have you broken into my house? If you don't mind to answer, of course. - Oh, you're here to steal some stuff but you will not hurt us if we stay quiet... ok. Then I will go back to my bedroom and I will call the 911 while you work. Have a nice night, Mr. Intruder.

Yeah, seems logical.

And I don't disagree that allowing force in these situations leads to messy outcomes. It's why the best thing to do is not to escalate these types of situations if you don't have to. If you're able to lock your bedroom door, call the police, and keep your weapon ready incase of forced entry, that seems to make the most sense. Turning a home-invasion into a hunt for human prey deserves less leniency before the law than someone who does what they can to de-escalate the situation.

I 100% agree. But this case Dazey mentioned is not the most common one, I would say. I think in many cases the door is properly locked and all that but burglars still enter. I 100% agree that the best thing you can do is try to stay calm, call the police and make sure you're relatively "safe" but sometimes you can't control all the variants.

[Guest Len B'stard]

- Excuse me, Mr, Intruder, I don't want to disturb you because I see you're kind of busy but I heard a noise that woke me up and, you see, I have a couple of guns upstairs in my bedroom. Might I ask why have you broken into my house? If you don't mind to answer, of course. - Oh, you're here to steal some stuff but you will not hurt us if we stay quiet... ok. Then I will go back to my bedroom and I will call the 911 while you work. Have a nice night, Mr. Intruder.

That would just be eerie and disturbing If I was a burglar i would fucking leave after hearing that speech, with my sack empty and everything like fuck this, what kinda fuckin' Panic Room nightmare have i just walked into Dunno why but i read that in ED-209 voice!

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Tater Totts]

- Excuse me, Mr, Intruder, I don't want to disturb you because I see you're kind of busy but I heard a noise that woke me up and, you see, I have a couple of guns upstairs in my bedroom. Might I ask why have you broken into my house? If you don't mind to answer, of course. - Oh, you're here to steal some stuff but you will not hurt us if we stay quiet... ok. Then I will go back to my bedroom and I will call the 911 while you work. Have a nice night, Mr. Intruder.

That would just be eerie and disturbing If I was a burglar i would fucking leave after hearing that speech, with my sack empty and everything like fuck this, what kinda fuckin' Panic Room nightmare have i just walked into Dunno why but i read that in ED-209 voice!

You have 15 seconds to comply!

[downzy]

- Excuse me, Mr, Intruder, I don't want to disturb you because I see you're kind of busy but I heard a noise that woke me up and, you see, I have a couple of guns upstairs in my bedroom. Might I ask why have you broken into my house? If you don't mind to answer, of course. - Oh, you're here to steal some stuff but you will not hurt us if we stay quiet... ok. Then I will go back to my bedroom and I will call the 911 while you work. Have a nice night, Mr. Intruder.

Yeah, seems logical.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I recommend what people do and say if there home is actually being broken into [/sarcasm]. My suggestion of inquiring was directed towards your scenario about a confused old man or someone with memory issues attempting to enter a home they think is theres (you know, the one you brought up). No one in the right mind would approach an intruder who has already entered one's home with that kind of approach. I don't mind getting into discussions and debates, but let's not put words or suggestions into other peoples mouths.

[Thin White Duke]

- Excuse me, Mr, Intruder, I don't want to disturb you because I see you're kind of busy but I heard a noise that woke me up and, you see, I have a couple of guns upstairs in my bedroom. Might I ask why have you broken into my house? If you don't mind to answer, of course. - Oh, you're here to steal some stuff but you will not hurt us if we stay quiet... ok. Then I will go back to my bedroom and I will call the 911 while you work. Have a nice night, Mr. Intruder.

Yeah, seems logical.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I recommend what people do and say if there home is actually being broken into [/sarcasm]. My suggestion of inquiring was directed towards your scenario about a confused old man or someone with memory issues attempting to enter a home they think is theres (you know, the one you brought up). No one in the right mind would approach an intruder who has already entered one's home with that kind of approach. I don't mind getting into discussions and debates, but let's not put words or suggestions into other peoples mouths.

Right now you are making absolutely no sense. How are you gonna know if it's a confused person with memory issues the one who broke into your house or a burglar? If you already know or suspect it's a confused person, there is no need even in asking, because you're not gonna shoot him if you believe he's harmless, but if you don't know who the person who broke into your house is neither his intentions, it's beyond stupid to bother in asking him what he is doing. The animal isntinct of self-preservation will tell you that better ask at another time. That's the thing. And that's why the "how about you fucking ask" argument is ridiculous.

If then the police come and it results it was a misunderstanding, awesome news for everybody.

[Dazey]

This is a funny one for me. This case itself is premeditated murder clear as day but I am in favour of being able to defend your property with any force necessary. If I woke up to find an intruder in my house and my wife and kids were there I'd shoot first and ask questions later. My logic is that I don't want to wait to find out the guy's intentions because by then it could well be too late.

[bran]

This is a funny one for me. This case itself is premeditated murder clear as day but I am in favour of being able to defend your property with any force necessary. If I woke up to find an intruder in my house and my wife and kids were there I'd shoot first and ask questions later. My logic is that I don't want to wait to find out the guy's intentions because by then it could well be too late.

it is the way i look at it as well. to me it is all about consequences and personal responsibility. i could go into my car take it on some back road and drive 100 miles per hour. several things could happen. i could drive 100 mph on this road, go home and nothing happen. i could go 100 mph on this road, their could be a cop sitting on the side of the road, who catches me and i get into trouble. i could also at 100 mph hit a pot hole spin out of control, hit a tree and be severely hurt or killed. should the ultimate punishment of me acting this way be death? no but it is a possible outcome.

when you break into someones home, you inherit the risk that you may be shot and killed, by a scared homeowner who is out to protect himself and his family. of course death is not a 100% potential outcome. the robber could flee, the robber could steal all kinds of my stuff never to be caught. the robber could be shot, hit with a bat and only wounded, and the cops will take him to jail. or my shots land in a spot that kills the robber. none of this happens if you do not break into someone's home, it really is that simple. the sympathy and rationalizing that goes on for the criminal is asinine really, that they are somehow the victims and someone forced them to break in and rob you.

Edited May 6, 2014 by bran

[Guest Len B'stard]

Ahh, y'know half of you lot'd shit your pants and run out the backdoor anyway, givin' it all that about shooting and what have you, do me a favour

[ColdHeartBreaker]

This whole thread reminds me of the Oscar Pistorius trial.

[Johnny Drama]

This is a funny one for me. This case itself is premeditated murder clear as day but I am in favour of being able to defend your property with any force necessary. If I woke up to find an intruder in my house and my wife and kids were there I'd shoot first and ask questions later. My logic is that I don't want to wait to find out the guy's intentions because by then it could well be too late.

Always right.

[Rovim]

Fair game if you ask me. "Bait" or not, there's no excuse to break into a person's home.

Fair game? that kid got a death sentence for being a thief (he was probably tempted, and he was just a kid) How is that acceptable?

[The Glow Inc.]

Yeah it kinda makes you wonder who the real menace to society is : the thief or the guy who would go out of his way to bait someone so he could kill that person later.

[Guest Len B'stard]

The moral of this story is if you wanna go do a burglary in America, make sure you kill all the residents first

Edited May 7, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Rovim]

I wonder how many more people will die in the states just because it's still legal to own a firearm over there.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Rovim

[Guest Len B'stard]

This is a funny one for me. This case itself is premeditated murder clear as day but I am in favour of being able to defend your property with any force necessary. If I woke up to find an intruder in my house and my wife and kids were there I'd shoot first and ask questions later. My logic is that I don't want to wait to find out the guy's intentions because by then it could well be too late.

Always right.

No he's not, he's fat...so he's gotta be wrong about something

You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee.

really now?

interesting, and very liberal take on defending a "losers" right to be in my house.

My honest to God thoughts at the time would be to let him get just outside the door as to spare my carpet.

Take a minute to yourself and think about what you wrote there. So you would shoot a burglar that has already escaped your house and posses no threat of any kind to you anymore, and you want to kill him?

That's a mindset of a murderer you've got there, be the act legal or not. Are you OK with that?

I'd hazard a guess that he's prettttyyyy fuckin' comfy with it actually

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

That's what you get when you give people the right to bear arms.

We can discuss this forever but it's one of the most fucked up 'rights' there is.

[Guest NGOG]

Waiting for an opportunity to fatally shoot somebody - because your know a certain event is inevitable - is sociopathic behaviour. The shooter had an implicit desire to kill.

Somebody with more of a rationale would have asked the robber to put his hands behind his head, and get on the ground (while he phoned 911). If the robber declined that request, or pulled a weapon himself, kneecap him.

Edited May 8, 2014 by NGOG