That's how it should work, that's almost never how it actually works.
You're lucky if you get your stuff back after an arrest, regardless if it was wrongful (and recognized as such before anything happens) or acquitted. Plus cops hardly have the right to just arrest you for shutting the door on their face, anyways. But yes, if a cop decides to go all swat on you, I am absolutely OK with use of deadly force to protect yourself. If the cop is going to place me under arrest for nothing, in my own house, in my own personal time, on a mistake that was corrected courteously at first, fuck that.
We fought wars against that.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Bowen, my problem is how do you know the cop is arresting you for nothing? Self defense that is based on a lay person's understanding of the law is a terrible proposition for society. The whole point of a government is to have an entity charged with the execution and administration of law. Relieving you of having to make those kinds of guesses. If a cop is incorrectly at your home then the right thing to do isn't to kill the officer, it is to handle it in civil and criminal court, where lawyers can do their job and protect your rights. This system is far more pliable than your system where its okay to kill an officer of the law when you subjectively think the cop is incorrectly arresting you for no reason.
At the end of the day, law enforcement is left up to humans who are, if anything else, fallible. Officers make bad arrests, innocently or not, more often than I would prefer but that is unavoidable. What is avoidable is people taking the law into their own hands killing each other over perceived wrongs or errors on the police officer's part. Far better to have such discrepancies dealt with in a neutral setting, like a court, than in the heat of an arrest at a person's home.
That's how it should work, that's almost never how it actually works.
You're lucky if you get your stuff back after an arrest, regardless if it was wrongful (and recognized as such before anything happens) or acquitted. Plus cops hardly have the right to just arrest you for shutting the door on their face, anyways. But yes, if a cop decides to go all swat on you, I am absolutely OK with use of deadly force to protect yourself. If the cop is going to place me under arrest for nothing, in my own house, in my own personal time, on a mistake that was corrected courteously at first, fuck that.
We fought wars against that.
I'm not sure how to respond to this position as it's a very radical position to take on home / self defense and even Castle Law.
From a purely practical standpoint, using violence / force to resist police action as a private citizen is stupid and will almost never end well. Regardless of how justified or proper you believe that action to be, it's likely to be the most unproductive and detrimental chose of action in virtually any circumstances.
From a legal standpoint, it's been affirmed multiple times that Castle Law does not provide a general statutory defense against police action, even if that police action is unlawful or in error. The doctrine is similar to how claims that an arrest is unlawful provides no defense against charges of assault / battery of an officer. At best, the individual case would be handled on a case-by-case basis by the justice system.
I'm not sure about every state, I would be very surprised if any individual state has a greatly differing opinion when it comes to assault / battery / use of deadly force against a police officer.
EDIT - I kind of want to point out that my philosophy is demonstrated through the law. A person wrongly convicted of a crime who escapes from prison will still potentially face charges for escaping from prison even if they are acquitted of their original crime.
zagdrob on
+1
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
One thing I wish every state would do is provide free one-on-one parent coaching with a social worker or parent support specialist for the first 3 years of a child's life. A weekly appointment, as well as having additional parenting classes or parent support groups. All free of charge. They don't have to be mandatory, just there if you want it. I think this one small act up front would end up saving billions 15-20 years down the road. I know a few states do something kind of like this. If I could pick one thing to do to affect crime, it would be this.
We do this to an extent in my area; it's called Birth & Beyond:
The Birth & Beyond Home Visitation Program is for pregnant women and families with new babies (0 to 3 months old) who live in Sacramento County and who do not have an open case with Child Protective Services. Home visitation services may be offered until the child is five years old. The family is assigned a home visitor who will put parents in touch with supportive services for the family such as parenting classes to help nurture children's development. Birth & Beyond also helps these families get connected with the community, access prenatal care, obtain health coverage for children, and to meet the many other needs and challenges parents have in raising their children.
It's pretty effective, and I would love to see it expanded.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Let's not hand wave away people who do shit for fun and to cause terror, though, El Jeffe. They typically start small.
What, like gang members? That usually has to do with folks raised in a shitty environment who adopt a gang as a makeshift family, because their own family is terrible or served as horrible role models. All this stuff has a source. What you're describing is basically sadism, which I don't think is terribly common.
More like serial killers, or, other mentally disturbed individuals.
True antisocial personalitys about about 1% of the population
thats a fraction of a fraction of criminality.
1% of the population, though I've seen estimates as high as 40-50% of the prison population.
Thing is, most people with APD are able to cope just fine, and even genuinely not caring whether other people live or die does not preclude making rational decisions about committing crimes. You can be an emotionless robot and still believe that obeying the law is the in your best self-interest.
Anyway, not caring whether or not you hurt someone is markedly different from actively seeking to hurt someone, which is what bowen was describing. I'm not convinced that the number of people who are legitimate sadists is large enough to base public policy on it. Most blue-collar criminals, if you said, "Would you rather keep stealing, or would you rather have a steady $30k/year job?" will probably pick the job.
That's not been my experience with criminals. The ones I've known have all had problems, from the mundane just being very very thick, through more external social problems such as growing up very disadvantaged, to people with serious substance abuse or impulse control issues.
I have met a fair few criminals, and I wouldn't say any of them could have held down a steady job, although a small minority would have wanted to try.
I only know a little about APD, but as far as I know it involves a significant affective component - people with it are often aggressive and irrational, rather than unemotional and rational.
These things matter in this discussion, because they are one of the main reasons why deterrence isn't very effective. Criminals are some of the least rational actors of our society.
I think the context got a little lost here, but I was trying to respond to bowen's assertion that there is a substantial number of criminals who commit crime because they just enjoy hurting people. I also maintain that most criminals would prefer the job, even if they're not able to hold a job. The reason this came up to begin with is that I was trying to address the underlying causes of crime and the things that lead people to commit crime to begin with, including a lot of the things you mention, to which bowen replied, "Well, a lot of folks just enjoy hurting people." I don't agree that a significant number of criminals are basically The Joker.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Bowen, my problem is how do you know the cop is arresting you for nothing? Self defense that is based on a lay person's understanding of the law is a terrible proposition for society. The whole point of a government is to have an entity charged with the execution and administration of law. Relieving you of having to make those kinds of guesses. If a cop is incorrectly at your home then the right thing to do isn't to kill the officer, it is to handle it in civil and criminal court, where lawyers can do their job and protect your rights. This system is far more pliable than your system where its okay to kill an officer of the law when you subjectively think the cop is incorrectly arresting you for no reason.
At the end of the day, law enforcement is left up to humans who are, if anything else, fallible. Officers make bad arrests, innocently or not, more often than I would prefer but that is unavoidable. What is avoidable is people taking the law into their own hands killing each other over perceived wrongs or errors on the police officer's part. Far better to have such discrepancies dealt with in a neutral setting, like a court, than in the heat of an arrest at a person's home.
You also don't know the circumstances of that arrest. Maybe he was directly ordered by a superior. Or someone got the house number wrong on the paperwork. You could be killing an aofficer who's done nothing wrong but doing his job.
+4
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Experience has shown me, that shooting at the police coming into your house, even though they may be morally and legally in the wrong is just a terrible idea, better to sue later for civil rights violations than to have your family sue for wrongful death. If there is concern that the police are going to try to break into your house, it is possible to make it very difficult to forceably enter a house. A manager I used to work with got busted for coccaine distribution and it took the police 30 minutes to enter his house. They could not knock down the door. They had to break a window come in and unlock it. Apparently when your high though, 30 minutes isn't enough time.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Yeah, even if there are demonstrable instances where a civilian had a moral right to shoot a cop in self-defense, that is a terrible policy with crazy potential for harm, and it would cause a lot more damage than it would prevent. Just submit, go quietly, then sue the fuck out of them.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Bowen, my problem is how do you know the cop is arresting you for nothing? Self defense that is based on a lay person's understanding of the law is a terrible proposition for society. The whole point of a government is to have an entity charged with the execution and administration of law. Relieving you of having to make those kinds of guesses. If a cop is incorrectly at your home then the right thing to do isn't to kill the officer, it is to handle it in civil and criminal court, where lawyers can do their job and protect your rights. This system is far more pliable than your system where its okay to kill an officer of the law when you subjectively think the cop is incorrectly arresting you for no reason.
At the end of the day, law enforcement is left up to humans who are, if anything else, fallible. Officers make bad arrests, innocently or not, more often than I would prefer but that is unavoidable. What is avoidable is people taking the law into their own hands killing each other over perceived wrongs or errors on the police officer's part. Far better to have such discrepancies dealt with in a neutral setting, like a court, than in the heat of an arrest at a person's home.
You also don't know the circumstances of that arrest. Maybe he was directly ordered by a superior. Or someone got the house number wrong on the paperwork. You could be killing an aofficer who's done nothing wrong but doing his job.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence)
Yeah, even if there are demonstrable instances where a civilian had a moral right to shoot a cop in self-defense, that is a terrible policy with crazy potential for harm, and it would cause a lot more damage than it would prevent. Just submit, go quietly, then sue the fuck out of them.
There needs to be consideration of how the police entered the home. No-knock entries, attempts to disorient, or confuse the citizen should provide some defense against killings of officers. If the police go out of their way to reduce the ability of a person to understand a situation, it should come as no surprise that said person reacts instinctively in defense.
There are usually much easier ways to capture a person, like waiting for them to go get cigarettes.
As far as defending yourself against police, that's not unheard of in the era of the no-knock warrant. I recall a case from Minnesota some years ago where a Hmong family heard what they thought were intruders breaking into their home, and the father, Vang Khang, got out his shotgun and blasted at the guys he heard coming up the stairs toward the room where the family sleeps.
Nobody ultimately was hurt, because the SWAT team was wearing armor, and although they'd been sent to the wrong place by dispatch (they'd been given an erroneous address for a gang they were raiding on drug charges), they didn't respond by attacking Mr. Khang as they might have done. It was, however, a very dangerous and upsetting situation for the police to create for a family who had done nothing wrong.
Similar cases have resulted in dogs being shot as "standard procedure" to protect the police, and it's not hard to imagine family members being treated in a similar way. One of the reasons I really dislike no-knock warrants as a concept. I think they should be strictly reserved for cases where they absolutely know that the person the warrant is being served against will respond with lethal force to avoid capture.
Yeah, even if there are demonstrable instances where a civilian had a moral right to shoot a cop in self-defense, that is a terrible policy with crazy potential for harm, and it would cause a lot more damage than it would prevent. Just submit, go quietly, then sue the fuck out of them.
Now where's that forumer when you need him...
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yeah, even if there are demonstrable instances where a civilian had a moral right to shoot a cop in self-defense, that is a terrible policy with crazy potential for harm, and it would cause a lot more damage than it would prevent. Just submit, go quietly, then sue the fuck out of them.
Of course, this requires confidence that the state will make you whole, or be forced to in court, rather than tell you to go fuck yourself sideways.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yeah, any policy that tends to encourage the use of force against the police is not a good policy. . .
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I am also skeptical, at best, about no-knock warrants. I understand their utility in certain situations, but when combined with the propensity for cops to fuck up, they seem pretty much tailor-made to guarantee people are going to get shot.
Anyway, when I was talking about self-defense against a cop, I was specifically referring to cases where the person knew they were shooting a cop. Not cases where some dipshit plain-clothesman is coming at you with a gun for no ostensible reason.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I do not think that self defense has a thing to do with law enforcement. Nothing at all. Self defense, and defense of property, are about defending yourself against harms being imposed on you by others. It isn't about restitution or retribution at all. It is about avoiding harm. But as you say, this privilege is limited. In my opinion, the limit needs to be that you may only protect yourself against harms imposed on you by someone who has no right to so harm you. So you can defend yourself against some random person on the street who tries to put handcuffs on you, but not against a police officer who does the same in his capacity as a police officer. You can defend your property against a thief, but cannot defend your property against someone who has the right to take it (i.e., because you sold it to them or because it is being lawfully repossessed). This is not about law enforcement, it is about drawing the line on when self defense may be employed.
You keep citing Locke like it is dispositive of the issue, but I have already explained where I disagree with Locke. I hold property to be part of the owner for these purposes, and nothing that you have said addresses this. We can agree to disagree and that is fine, but if we continue, it should be in a way that is more productive.
You keep trying to claim self-defense is about avoiding harm. But you ignore that this is what law enforcement and the courts do.
Self-defense only covers reasonably proportionate responses to prevent a violation of your rights (harm as you'd put it) that can't be resolved by the state at a future date. If your life is in danger (or potentially in danger) there's no way for you to be compensated for that harm so you can use lethal force. You can be compensated for your property* so you're not allowed to violate someone else's rights (or do irreparable harm in your terminology) because failing to do so would inconvenience you. You are attempting to illegitimately usurp the state's power to arbitrate and enforce restitution and to enact retribution in that case. Instead you are merely committing murder.
*Property as part of your self is both irrelevant - because its the inability to compensate, not "part of self" that matters here - and ludicrous prima facie.
I think I have been very clear here that I think that the use of force in defense of property is only appropriate in the types of sudden attacks on your property that a court is not likely to resolve, like someone who is about to just destroy your antique vase or blow up your house or run away with almost no chance of being caught (i.e., the purse snatcher). To be honest (and I have said this a number of times), in most cases I am not comfortable with the use of guns in this situation anyway. I really think the prime example is tackling the purse snatcher, and having him be injured or killed as a result. If the case is really outrageous though, like the man who is literally about to depress the plunger to blow up your house, I think that whatever means are necessary (up to and including deadly force) would be reasonable. I would say that the standard should be something like a reasonable belief that force is reasonably necessary to prevent a grievous, irreparable harm to your property. There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
The Michael Dunn/Jordan Davis case is another interesting overreach for self defense in Florida, I think. Dunn had been out drinking with his girlfriend, and had an argument with four teenagers at a gas station about loud music. (Why not just deal with it for the next few minutes, I say.) According to Dunn he felt threatened, thought there was a gun in their car, heard threats. So he pulls out his own gun, fires several times into the car.
At his girlfriend's urging, they flee the scene, go home, and order a pizza, unaware that Dunn had just fatally shot a teenager.
Justified shooting?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The Michael Dunn/Jordan Davis case is another interesting overreach for self defense in Florida, I think. Dunn had been out drinking with his girlfriend, and had an argument with four teenagers at a gas station about loud music. (Why not just deal with it for the next few minutes, I say.) According to Dunn he felt threatened, thought there was a gun in their car, heard threats. So he pulls out his own gun, fires several times into the car.
At his girlfriend's urging, they flee the scene, go home, and order a pizza, unaware that Dunn had just fatally shot a teenager.
Justified shooting?
I don't think anyone will try to justify this one. At least I hope not.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Pretty sure that throwing a brick at somebody's head is not far removed from shooting them, in terms of likelihood of fatality. People are fairly fragile. You would be surprised at what can kill or maim a person. You can die from falling off a swing and bumping your head.
Also pretty sure that "about to destroy an antique vase" and "about to blow up your house with a pile of dynamite like Snidely Goddamn Whiplash" should not be in the same conversation.
Anyway, this justification of "self defense of property" is an implicit encouragement to escalate non-violent situations into violent ones. You're taking theft and elevating it to somewhere between assault and homicide. The whole point of self-defense laws is to eliminate danger, either eliminate the chance of harm, or at least shift it to an innocent party. It discourages violence by establishing that if you try to hurt someone, they can hurt you back. It is a deterrent of violence. Every implementation of self-defense of property that's been voiced in here has been tailored to increase the likelihood of injury or death. You are endorsing policy that will lead to more peo-
"I literally don't care about the well-being of anyone who's a criminal!"
NO. Shut up, Geth. You are endorsing a policy that will lead to more people being seriously hurt, or killed. That is bad public policy. It results in an increase in social harm. Endorsing an escalation of force endangers both the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens," if you want to categorize people in that way. It encourages people to hurt or kill the "criminals," and it also encourages criminals to kill the law-abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. It's just bad mojo all around.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
In the interest of being consistent, I am okay with a homeowner shooting a cop, or, a bank official who try to break into their home and remove them.
If a homeowner shuts the door on your face and you decide to break in to kick them out, uh, maybe you should call the cops before you do that. Or better yet, double check the paperwork. If you're a cop that fucks up, well, fuck you.
In the 'bank official' scenario, there is a legitimate case where you feared for your life and own safety. A random person breaking down your door...even if they claim to be an agent of the bank? You really can't be expected in those circumstances to give them the benefit of the doubt. But with a cop, I dunno.
If they do a no-knock / SWAT breach on the wrong house, and you shoot / kill a cop before you realize it's the police? And somehow don't get blown away? I don't think anyone is getting convicted in that situation. They will probably get a settlement.
But if the cop identifies himself as a police officer, and you don't have a damn good reason to think it's someone impersonating a police officer (which is why impersonating an officer is such a serious offense) than I don't think shooting the officer is justified under almost any circumstances. Even if the cop is at the wrong address, you have avenues for recourse that don't involve shooting and killing the officer.
Basically, the reason you are allowed to shoot an unlawful intruder is because you could reasonably believe, by their unlawful presence alone, that they pose an imminent threat. You don't get to make the same assumption with a cop, because the assumption should be that's they are acting lawfully or as an agent of the state, and even if they are mistaken they will still act within procedure / protocol. Barring some exceptional circumstance where they act so far outside the bounds of their professional conduct - start torturing / raping someone, for example, that should always be the public's assumption.
Yeah I think after the "You have the wrong house, please leave" you should get the ability to defend yourself. You don't get the ability to just blast a cop if he knocks on your door and identifies himself.
With respect to the cop - defend yourself from what?
A cop comes to your house at 619 instead of 916. You tell him it's the wrong house, but he pushes the door open and arrests you anyway - it happens. You comply, go for a ride to the station, and the situation is remedied shortly after. Either when you talk to a supervisor, your lawyer shows up, or when you go to court. No harm, no foul, nothing about that situation provides any justification for force. It's a mistake and an inconvenience, but shit happens and nobody got hurt.
Same scenario, but the cop takes a bunch of your stuff as evidence. Same thing - you file an appeal, the warrant is reviewed, you get your stuff back. If it even takes that.
If the cop arresting you causes you to lose your job, or injures you (even if you were resisting arrest) you would have a legitimate suit against the department because you can demonstrate real damages that are a result of their mistake. That's how our society has decided those situations can be remedied.
That's how it should work. The cop isn't taking anything from you of such value that it can't be replaced or remedied. There is a clear avenue of relief (the lack of which is the core argument for force to prevent theft of property). Short of the cop going way off the reservation and starting to beat / torture or rape an occupant of the house, or a strong prior history of harassment / a restraining order (like harassing an ex spouse), I don't think there is any situation where you could legally justify using force to prevent police officers from doing their job, even if they are making a clear and apparent mistake.
Prefacing this by saying "this is not a situation where using force would be helpful," but I think it needs to be said. Because, yea, you comply, go for the ride, and it is remedied "shortly after." Except when it's not shortly after, and you spend a five day weekend in jail, resulting in your being fired for not showing up to work and having your car sold by the tow company because you can't pay the impound fees. Because, really, that happens too.
Pretty sure that throwing a brick at somebody's head is not far removed from shooting them, in terms of likelihood of fatality. People are fairly fragile. You would be surprised at what can kill or maim a person. You can die from falling off a swing and bumping your head.
Also pretty sure that "about to destroy an antique vase" and "about to blow up your house with a pile of dynamite like Snidely Goddamn Whiplash" should not be in the same conversation.
Anyway, this justification of "self defense of property" is an implicit encouragement to escalate non-violent situations into violent ones. You're taking theft and elevating it to somewhere between assault and homicide. The whole point of self-defense laws is to eliminate danger, either eliminate the chance of harm, or at least shift it to an innocent party. It discourages violence by establishing that if you try to hurt someone, they can hurt you back. It is a deterrent of violence. Every implementation of self-defense of property that's been voiced in here has been tailored to increase the likelihood of injury or death. You are endorsing policy that will lead to more peo-
"I literally don't care about the well-being of anyone who's a criminal!"
NO. Shut up, Geth. You are endorsing a policy that will lead to more people being seriously hurt, or killed. That is bad public policy. It results in an increase in social harm. Endorsing an escalation of force endangers both the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens," if you want to categorize people in that way. It encourages people to hurt or kill the "criminals," and it also encourages criminals to kill the law-abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. It's just bad mojo all around.
Shadowfire, I wont lie, that is all possible and obviously can and does happen. However, if the police screw up the warrant, you have a good claim for a 4th amendment civil case in federal or state court (Depending on the authority and depending on the state constitution.) Is suing in civil court a perfect solution? Nope. Are you likely to get restitution anytime soon? Depends on how much pushback the authority wants to give. However, it is generally a better proposition, in terms of you living and in terms of you getting ultimately repaid. When the cops screw up they have to pay, particularly when their mistakes are a direct result of a violation of your rights.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
Well, in events where the victim is armed, the odds of serious injury or death are something like 4-5x higher than if they are unarmed.
So, it's a fair assumption that any situation where a weapon is introduced, especially when the criminal is disengaging and there has been no harm, you as Yeh victim significant increase, not reduce, the odds of your own serious injury or death.
Yet another reason that extending self defense to include property is at odds with preventing harm to an innocent victim. We went over this quite a bit in the 2nd Amendment thread.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
Pretty sure that throwing a brick at somebody's head is not far removed from shooting them, in terms of likelihood of fatality. People are fairly fragile. You would be surprised at what can kill or maim a person. You can die from falling off a swing and bumping your head.
Also pretty sure that "about to destroy an antique vase" and "about to blow up your house with a pile of dynamite like Snidely Goddamn Whiplash" should not be in the same conversation.
Anyway, this justification of "self defense of property" is an implicit encouragement to escalate non-violent situations into violent ones. You're taking theft and elevating it to somewhere between assault and homicide. The whole point of self-defense laws is to eliminate danger, either eliminate the chance of harm, or at least shift it to an innocent party. It discourages violence by establishing that if you try to hurt someone, they can hurt you back. It is a deterrent of violence. Every implementation of self-defense of property that's been voiced in here has been tailored to increase the likelihood of injury or death. You are endorsing policy that will lead to more peo-
"I literally don't care about the well-being of anyone who's a criminal!"
NO. Shut up, Geth. You are endorsing a policy that will lead to more people being seriously hurt, or killed. That is bad public policy. It results in an increase in social harm. Endorsing an escalation of force endangers both the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens," if you want to categorize people in that way. It encourages people to hurt or kill the "criminals," and it also encourages criminals to kill the law-abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. It's just bad mojo all around.
I disagree that self defense is intended as a deterrent to criminal behavior (as much as the pro gun crowd likes to think so). It is a policy about a person protecting themself from harm, and any decisions about the scope of self defense should keep that goal (and not secondary effects like detterence) in mind. If the goal was detterence and protection of innocents was secondary then I would not even endorse self defense because it is the role of the police, not private citizens, to deter crime.
As I have said many times, I don't think that there is much disagreement here other than what the "self" constitutes.
Pretty sure that throwing a brick at somebody's head is not far removed from shooting them, in terms of likelihood of fatality. People are fairly fragile. You would be surprised at what can kill or maim a person. You can die from falling off a swing and bumping your head.
Also pretty sure that "about to destroy an antique vase" and "about to blow up your house with a pile of dynamite like Snidely Goddamn Whiplash" should not be in the same conversation.
Anyway, this justification of "self defense of property" is an implicit encouragement to escalate non-violent situations into violent ones. You're taking theft and elevating it to somewhere between assault and homicide. The whole point of self-defense laws is to eliminate danger, either eliminate the chance of harm, or at least shift it to an innocent party. It discourages violence by establishing that if you try to hurt someone, they can hurt you back. It is a deterrent of violence. Every implementation of self-defense of property that's been voiced in here has been tailored to increase the likelihood of injury or death. You are endorsing policy that will lead to more peo-
"I literally don't care about the well-being of anyone who's a criminal!"
NO. Shut up, Geth. You are endorsing a policy that will lead to more people being seriously hurt, or killed. That is bad public policy. It results in an increase in social harm. Endorsing an escalation of force endangers both the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens," if you want to categorize people in that way. It encourages people to hurt or kill the "criminals," and it also encourages criminals to kill the law-abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. It's just bad mojo all around.
I disagree that self defense is intended as a deterrent to criminal behavior (as much as the pro gun crowd likes to think so). It is a policy about a person protecting themself from harm, and any decisions about the scope of self defense should keep that goal (and not secondary effects like detterence) in mind. If the goal was detterence and protection of innocents was secondary then I would not even endorse self defense because it is the role of the police, not private citizens, to deter crime.
As I have said many times, I don't think that there is much disagreement here other than what the "self" constitutes.
To me there appear to be a big disagreement about the likely consequences of your ideas.
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
Someone breaks into my house at night with my family and kids in the house, it won't matter what direction they are facing. I would consider it irresponsible to give them warning and risk getting killed.
The Michael Dunn/Jordan Davis case is another interesting overreach for self defense in Florida, I think. Dunn had been out drinking with his girlfriend, and had an argument with four teenagers at a gas station about loud music. (Why not just deal with it for the next few minutes, I say.) According to Dunn he felt threatened, thought there was a gun in their car, heard threats. So he pulls out his own gun, fires several times into the car.
At his girlfriend's urging, they flee the scene, go home, and order a pizza, unaware that Dunn had just fatally shot a teenager.
Justified shooting?
I don't think anyone will try to justify this one. At least I hope not.
Fleeing the scene is the real dealbreaker to me there. The drinking might be as well, I'd have to know how much he'd had.
But here's the fun part: even if I think the state has a pretty great case for manslaughter there (I'd need to see more but sounds like it), or second-degree murder (meh), they charged first degree murder. Huh?
Charge for the moon, and plead out among the stars, I guess.
But it's precisely that kind of prosecutorial attitude that makes me want fairly strong protection for those that are actually defending themselves.
It's likely the prosecutor charged first degree murder because such a charge also includes the lesser chargers. IE Charge maximally and if you can't prove that you can still go for the lower charges without having to amend the case. But then again, prosecutors make their bones by winning big on heavy charges so... hey....there's that.
It's likely the prosecutor charged first degree murder because such a charge also includes the lesser chargers. IE Charge maximally and if you can't prove that you can still go for the lower charges without having to amend the case. But then again, prosecutors make their bones by winning big on heavy charges so... hey....there's that.
I'd love to hear the actual legal reasoning for the charge. I'd love to hear how you even get to probable cause for that charge. But of course, I know better, no such is required. Not really. Why not just charge him with terrorism too? Maybe it sticks, and certainly ups the stakes at the plea bargaining table. *grump*
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
Whoa there, pump your brakes son. Let's leave the Chiefs out of this.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What, the Super Bowl?
*BA doom tish!*
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, my biggest qualm isn't the idea of crimes being different for social classes, criminality, or anything else.
My problem is that its going to leave a lot of people dead, and its far more likely going to be the victims seeking to get their stuff back.
Oh, and the joke about pre-emptive self defense earlier.
In the case of a house invasion, I'm going balls to the wall. I have kids and a wife to think about. But it isn't due to a Rambo mentality, its due to the fact that there is no egress that won't put my family in harms way. I gives a fuck about my possessions: That's what renters insurance is for. I want to either scare em off, knock em down, or give my wife and kids the time it takes for emergency services to arrive. I have no illusions in that worst case scenario that it could cost me my life.
In situations where you are not immediately in danger because the person is fleeing with your shit, you are making the decision to put your own life at risk for... what, exactly?
Fleeing the scene is the real dealbreaker to me there. The drinking might be as well, I'd have to know how much he'd had.
But here's the fun part: even if I think the state has a pretty great case for manslaughter there (I'd need to see more but sounds like it), or second-degree murder (meh), they charged first degree murder. Huh?
Charge for the moon, and plead out among the stars, I guess.
But it's precisely that kind of prosecutorial attitude that makes me want fairly strong protection for those that are actually defending themselves.
Well, the elements I'd want for second degree would be:
1. Some actual, reasonable threat to Dunn's life. The teens in question were in their car at the time, listening to music, and did not get out to engage with Dunn. The gun he believed he saw, by his account at least, never materialized.
2. Some provocation for Dunn's aggressive action. As it is, he kind of walked up to a situation, decided to feel threatened by it, and killed somebody.
Second degree should be a slam dunk, I'd say, as feeling threatened but not actually being threatened seems to be unambiguous. First degree...maybe more iffy, as premeditation should be minimal for a chance confrontation at a gas station. If it ended in acquittal or mistrial instead of conviction, though, that would be terrible.
At the moment, they've just thrown out their second judge, last I checked.
Posts
You're lucky if you get your stuff back after an arrest, regardless if it was wrongful (and recognized as such before anything happens) or acquitted. Plus cops hardly have the right to just arrest you for shutting the door on their face, anyways. But yes, if a cop decides to go all swat on you, I am absolutely OK with use of deadly force to protect yourself. If the cop is going to place me under arrest for nothing, in my own house, in my own personal time, on a mistake that was corrected courteously at first, fuck that.
We fought wars against that.
At the end of the day, law enforcement is left up to humans who are, if anything else, fallible. Officers make bad arrests, innocently or not, more often than I would prefer but that is unavoidable. What is avoidable is people taking the law into their own hands killing each other over perceived wrongs or errors on the police officer's part. Far better to have such discrepancies dealt with in a neutral setting, like a court, than in the heat of an arrest at a person's home.
I'm not sure how to respond to this position as it's a very radical position to take on home / self defense and even Castle Law.
From a purely practical standpoint, using violence / force to resist police action as a private citizen is stupid and will almost never end well. Regardless of how justified or proper you believe that action to be, it's likely to be the most unproductive and detrimental chose of action in virtually any circumstances.
From a legal standpoint, it's been affirmed multiple times that Castle Law does not provide a general statutory defense against police action, even if that police action is unlawful or in error. The doctrine is similar to how claims that an arrest is unlawful provides no defense against charges of assault / battery of an officer. At best, the individual case would be handled on a case-by-case basis by the justice system.
I'm not sure about every state, I would be very surprised if any individual state has a greatly differing opinion when it comes to assault / battery / use of deadly force against a police officer.
EDIT - I kind of want to point out that my philosophy is demonstrated through the law. A person wrongly convicted of a crime who escapes from prison will still potentially face charges for escaping from prison even if they are acquitted of their original crime.
We do this to an extent in my area; it's called Birth & Beyond:
It's pretty effective, and I would love to see it expanded.
I think the context got a little lost here, but I was trying to respond to bowen's assertion that there is a substantial number of criminals who commit crime because they just enjoy hurting people. I also maintain that most criminals would prefer the job, even if they're not able to hold a job. The reason this came up to begin with is that I was trying to address the underlying causes of crime and the things that lead people to commit crime to begin with, including a lot of the things you mention, to which bowen replied, "Well, a lot of folks just enjoy hurting people." I don't agree that a significant number of criminals are basically The Joker.
You also don't know the circumstances of that arrest. Maybe he was directly ordered by a superior. Or someone got the house number wrong on the paperwork. You could be killing an aofficer who's done nothing wrong but doing his job.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence)
There needs to be consideration of how the police entered the home. No-knock entries, attempts to disorient, or confuse the citizen should provide some defense against killings of officers. If the police go out of their way to reduce the ability of a person to understand a situation, it should come as no surprise that said person reacts instinctively in defense.
There are usually much easier ways to capture a person, like waiting for them to go get cigarettes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/36059839.html
Nobody ultimately was hurt, because the SWAT team was wearing armor, and although they'd been sent to the wrong place by dispatch (they'd been given an erroneous address for a gang they were raiding on drug charges), they didn't respond by attacking Mr. Khang as they might have done. It was, however, a very dangerous and upsetting situation for the police to create for a family who had done nothing wrong.
Similar cases have resulted in dogs being shot as "standard procedure" to protect the police, and it's not hard to imagine family members being treated in a similar way. One of the reasons I really dislike no-knock warrants as a concept. I think they should be strictly reserved for cases where they absolutely know that the person the warrant is being served against will respond with lethal force to avoid capture.
Now where's that forumer when you need him...
Of course, this requires confidence that the state will make you whole, or be forced to in court, rather than tell you to go fuck yourself sideways.
Anyway, when I was talking about self-defense against a cop, I was specifically referring to cases where the person knew they were shooting a cop. Not cases where some dipshit plain-clothesman is coming at you with a gun for no ostensible reason.
I think I have been very clear here that I think that the use of force in defense of property is only appropriate in the types of sudden attacks on your property that a court is not likely to resolve, like someone who is about to just destroy your antique vase or blow up your house or run away with almost no chance of being caught (i.e., the purse snatcher). To be honest (and I have said this a number of times), in most cases I am not comfortable with the use of guns in this situation anyway. I really think the prime example is tackling the purse snatcher, and having him be injured or killed as a result. If the case is really outrageous though, like the man who is literally about to depress the plunger to blow up your house, I think that whatever means are necessary (up to and including deadly force) would be reasonable. I would say that the standard should be something like a reasonable belief that force is reasonably necessary to prevent a grievous, irreparable harm to your property. There is probably almost no situation where shooting someone in the back is going to be appropriate, but throwing a brick at them, tripping them, tackling them, etc. may well be appropriate in many situations, even though they definitely carry a serious risk of harming the thief.
At his girlfriend's urging, they flee the scene, go home, and order a pizza, unaware that Dunn had just fatally shot a teenager.
Justified shooting?
I don't think anyone will try to justify this one. At least I hope not.
Also pretty sure that "about to destroy an antique vase" and "about to blow up your house with a pile of dynamite like Snidely Goddamn Whiplash" should not be in the same conversation.
Anyway, this justification of "self defense of property" is an implicit encouragement to escalate non-violent situations into violent ones. You're taking theft and elevating it to somewhere between assault and homicide. The whole point of self-defense laws is to eliminate danger, either eliminate the chance of harm, or at least shift it to an innocent party. It discourages violence by establishing that if you try to hurt someone, they can hurt you back. It is a deterrent of violence. Every implementation of self-defense of property that's been voiced in here has been tailored to increase the likelihood of injury or death. You are endorsing policy that will lead to more peo-
"I literally don't care about the well-being of anyone who's a criminal!"
NO. Shut up, Geth. You are endorsing a policy that will lead to more people being seriously hurt, or killed. That is bad public policy. It results in an increase in social harm. Endorsing an escalation of force endangers both the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens," if you want to categorize people in that way. It encourages people to hurt or kill the "criminals," and it also encourages criminals to kill the law-abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. It's just bad mojo all around.
Prefacing this by saying "this is not a situation where using force would be helpful," but I think it needs to be said. Because, yea, you comply, go for the ride, and it is remedied "shortly after." Except when it's not shortly after, and you spend a five day weekend in jail, resulting in your being fired for not showing up to work and having your car sold by the tow company because you can't pay the impound fees. Because, really, that happens too.
"But they started it!"
I don't recommend getting into close contact with a criminal when they're committing a crime. That's a death sentence, especially if they're armed with a knife or gun.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/04/man_takes_shotgun_from_would-b.html
Not everyone can be an action hero. What odds do you give Space against your average burglar?
So, it's a fair assumption that any situation where a weapon is introduced, especially when the criminal is disengaging and there has been no harm, you as Yeh victim significant increase, not reduce, the odds of your own serious injury or death.
Yet another reason that extending self defense to include property is at odds with preventing harm to an innocent victim. We went over this quite a bit in the 2nd Amendment thread.
Good odds. He is a kung-fu man, after all.
I disagree that self defense is intended as a deterrent to criminal behavior (as much as the pro gun crowd likes to think so). It is a policy about a person protecting themself from harm, and any decisions about the scope of self defense should keep that goal (and not secondary effects like detterence) in mind. If the goal was detterence and protection of innocents was secondary then I would not even endorse self defense because it is the role of the police, not private citizens, to deter crime.
As I have said many times, I don't think that there is much disagreement here other than what the "self" constitutes.
To me there appear to be a big disagreement about the likely consequences of your ideas.
Someone breaks into my house at night with my family and kids in the house, it won't matter what direction they are facing. I would consider it irresponsible to give them warning and risk getting killed.
Fleeing the scene is the real dealbreaker to me there. The drinking might be as well, I'd have to know how much he'd had.
But here's the fun part: even if I think the state has a pretty great case for manslaughter there (I'd need to see more but sounds like it), or second-degree murder (meh), they charged first degree murder. Huh?
Charge for the moon, and plead out among the stars, I guess.
But it's precisely that kind of prosecutorial attitude that makes me want fairly strong protection for those that are actually defending themselves.
I'd love to hear the actual legal reasoning for the charge. I'd love to hear how you even get to probable cause for that charge. But of course, I know better, no such is required. Not really. Why not just charge him with terrorism too? Maybe it sticks, and certainly ups the stakes at the plea bargaining table. *grump*
Yes, and occasionally the Chiefs win a football game.
If bets were being made, I'd never bet on the bystander. That's why things like that are news.
*BA doom tish!*
My problem is that its going to leave a lot of people dead, and its far more likely going to be the victims seeking to get their stuff back.
Oh, and the joke about pre-emptive self defense earlier.
In the case of a house invasion, I'm going balls to the wall. I have kids and a wife to think about. But it isn't due to a Rambo mentality, its due to the fact that there is no egress that won't put my family in harms way. I gives a fuck about my possessions: That's what renters insurance is for. I want to either scare em off, knock em down, or give my wife and kids the time it takes for emergency services to arrive. I have no illusions in that worst case scenario that it could cost me my life.
In situations where you are not immediately in danger because the person is fleeing with your shit, you are making the decision to put your own life at risk for... what, exactly?
1. Some actual, reasonable threat to Dunn's life. The teens in question were in their car at the time, listening to music, and did not get out to engage with Dunn. The gun he believed he saw, by his account at least, never materialized.
2. Some provocation for Dunn's aggressive action. As it is, he kind of walked up to a situation, decided to feel threatened by it, and killed somebody.
Second degree should be a slam dunk, I'd say, as feeling threatened but not actually being threatened seems to be unambiguous. First degree...maybe more iffy, as premeditation should be minimal for a chance confrontation at a gas station. If it ended in acquittal or mistrial instead of conviction, though, that would be terrible.
At the moment, they've just thrown out their second judge, last I checked.