New Missouri Deadly Force law.

[madajb]

Common sense or just plain crazy?
Discuss. (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/90360BE9CF7CA0D08625730E001002EB?OpenDocument)
-ajb

[JETTAone420]

im for it..its part of the constitution isnt it? being able to protect ones self and their property. dumbass's shouldnt be breaking and entering your stuff anyways. and any fool dumb enough to break the law deserves to be shot at for thinking that way anyways. but deadly force...meh....i think that would be a case by case scenario, but then with that if u got like a big burly dude with a screwdriver as a weapon and him breaking into lets say a familys house that the owners arent strong enough to defent or dont know how then i guess by any means necessary to protect life rite? now if u had a big burly guy break into lets say another houe where the husband or who ever DOES know how to defend themselves from attack just blasts away from being trigger happy then thats when i would question it

[jwill'sMK4]

i think this law may just lower the the breaking and entering crime rate considering criminals kno that they now face the threat of being "legally blasted on" lmao

[ncttrnl]

I like it. As long as they are quick to curb abuses of the law, its a good step to protect people who are defending themselves.

I've always wondered why you have to be in danger before you shoot someone inside your home. If there is someone in my home, as far as I'm concerned, my family is in danger and that is all that matters to me. If I wanna go the extra mile and try to just scare the guy off, that should be my choice. I should not have to wait and see if they really mean to bodily harm before I am allowed to defend myself with any means at my disposal.

This is all dependent on making sure the law is used for its intended purposes though. They need to throw the book at people that try to abuse the law. I can see this getting ugly where people know the prowler and maybe have a history with them.

[Paul]

Common sense. You don't want to get shot or die, don't fucking come into my home without my permission.

[veedubber7]

I love it and wish it was federal law. I wouldn't mind slightly tougher gun control to make sure guns weren't going into the wrong hands.

[mitssn]

It's too bad that California would never pass such legislation...

[mike]

we live in a god damn blue state so not only would I get arrested, but once I spend $25K to convince a jury that I was acting in self defense of someone who broke into my house, I would then get sued by the guys family and i would have to drop another $25K on that and hope I don't lose my house.

I'm all for it. St. Louis is one of, if not the most dangerous city in the country.

That being said, I would shoot first and ask questions later.

[Ivan]

The old ladys who run this state, and the
police backing them are all anti-self defense.
No way they would pass a law
this logical.

[oc-audica]

Governor Blunt ftw =)

[creanium]

I'm all for it. St. Louis is one of, if not the most dangerous city in the country.

Most dangerous cities

City Crime rate: violent incidents
per 100,000

St. Louis, MO 2,405.5
Detroit, MI 2,357.6
Flint, MI 2,260.2
Camden, NJ 2,096.7
Memphis, TN 1,860.0
Miami Gardens, FL 1,854.3
Orlando, FL 1,807.5
Compton, CA 1,786.9
Springfield, MA 1,774.2
Little Rock, AR 1,771.8

[TOYr32]

im for it..its part of the constitution isnt it? being able to protect ones self and their property. dumbass's shouldnt be breaking and entering your stuff anyways. and any fool dumb enough to break the law deserves to be shot at for thinking that way anyways. but deadly force...meh....i think that would be a case by case scenario, but then with that if u got like a big burly dude with a screwdriver as a weapon and him breaking into lets say a familys house that the owners arent strong enough to defent or dont know how then i guess by any means necessary to protect life rite? now if u had a big burly guy break into lets say another houe where the husband or who ever DOES know how to defend themselves from attack just blasts away from being trigger happy then thats when i would question it

I think the Key words were Big Burly Dude . . . I always fall on the golden rule . . . if myself or someone else is in danger of injury, do what you have in your power to prevent. If that means blast away . . . by all means I'm gonna have a empty mag or 2 depending on the resistance of the assailant. Now this would never work in California of course . . . not in a state where a bank robber wearing bullet proof vests and blasting hundreds of rounds down the streets of LA dies and his family sues the city for not calling appropriate emergency to save his life. Instead Of having paramedics work on the robber they had them tend to injured police officers . . . well duh. One of the biggest reasons California sucks is the judges even taking cases like that.

[mike]

my brother used to keep a machete by his bed, I told him you'll get more sympathy from a jury if you cap someone once than hack them to bits................

I'm a big guy, 6'4" and 255 lbs so I'm not exactly small, but i would rather put a bullet in someone than take my chances on them having a weapon.


This I copied straight from the HSC training manual for the state of CA. Interpret it as you will.


The question of whether use of lethal force is justified in self-defense cannot
be reduced to a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions
generally given to the jury in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed
and illustrates the general rules regarding the use of lethal force in self-defense.
Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist
the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person
killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was
imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted
under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and
robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes (PC section 197).
Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense
The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant.
Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense
renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense
ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the
amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar
circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is important
to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or
criminal penalties.
The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another.
However, if such a person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the
adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues
the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any
other person being assaulted.

[paultakeda]

Frankly, the California law is sound. All the clauses are there and they prioritize all human life. Citing the few cases that garner attention in the news does not make for an accurate portrayal of the validity of the law, since such cases are by nature controversial and therefore are the center of a media frenzy.

Perhaps you have more of an issue with the way a jury and/or counsel manipulates the law.

You are judged by a jury of your peers. Who are they? Consider who goes to jury duty and who tries to get out of it. Consider that what was once considered an honorable and respectful duty to the system designed by the people for the people is now derided as a waste of time and money.

Now consider the lawyer, whose sole duty is to represent their client's interests. They will manipulate as best as possible that jury to bend to their side, and unfortunately, this will include any number of slimy, underhanded tricks.

The absolutism of the Missouri law is going to be a problem, as the law stipulates that a killing is justified provided a person enters a dwelling illegally. I find this a much bigger gray area than the former law. It broadens the gray area further because it is so narrow in vision and it uses a property marker as a justification for killing.

The point of the older law is to defend human life first, property second. A threat to your life negates the protection of the assailant's life. Simply trespassing does not. This law is property first, human life second. It is a step backwards.

[mobbin6]

x2^^^

... and I foresee a rise in the number innocent killings in that state. For example, teenage son or daughter sneaking in/out, walking in the dark, making noise, ends up dead.

[TOYr32]

x2^^^

... and I foresee a rise in the number innocent killings in that state. For example, teenage son or daughter sneaking in/out, walking in the dark, making noise, ends up dead.

That's teach you kids to not sneak out!! As always . . . Fear is the best enforcer!! j/k!!:p

[paultakeda]

Remember also that Missouri's former law appears to have required a person to retreat (duty to retreat). California has no such law. In California, you are not required to retreat from an intruder. You can stand your ground. You are simply not allowed to use excessive force. If you perceive threat to human life, you are justified in taking human life. The California law is very, very sound.

The Missouri one? Well, I don't like duty to retreat, so their old one wasn't all that great. But a new one based on property is just about as bad (actually worse, since duty to retreat at least prioritizes human life). They clear went from one extreme to the next, from where I can see.

[Paul]

California law is not sound for the simple reason that you have no right to be ON my property. If I feel threatened I should have every right to excercise any means I have to remove you from my premises, alive or dead.

The difference here is that the ownership of priotizing human life is in the hand of the person who is commiting the crime. You want to live? Don't fucking enter someone elses property. It's no different under Missouri law or California law since that option is available always as the first option to take.

Any decent human being will not shoot to kill unless threatened. I know I wouldn't. But to put the law in favor of those who commit the crime for sake of "human preservation" is rediculous. Enough protecting the bad guys from the good. Your theory is completely reverse of what it should be.

[mobbin6]

That's teach you kids to not sneak out!! As always . . . Fear is the best enforcer!! j/k!!:p

haha I don't have that problem, my parents are actually pretty cool about that stuff, as long as I'm always responsibe, which i am ;)

[mike]

Problem is if you just wound him, he can come back if he is vengeful, or he can tell his friends where you live if he is in prison, or if you mame him for life he might try to sue, these can also happen if you kill him but dead men tell no tales.

Besides, you can't get murder one if you shoot below the waist.

In the heat of battle I will take the first shot i can get, odds are hes gonna be moving so you aim for the biggest target, torso, lots of vitals in there, lungs, heart, spinal cord. you can do alot of damage, if you can picka shot, arm holding the weapon is an obivious first choice, then a leg so he can't run away

[JETTAone420]

hey mike but doesnt that go against wat u just said? if u shoot him in the arm or leg and he gets arrested...what are the odds that hes gonna want revenge...pssh

[mike]

if YOU have to, I would take the torso shot rather than aim for a leg in the dark.

If he was holding still and has a bat in broad daylight, and your a nice guy, then pick off an arm then leg.

If I'm gonna pull the trigger, I'm gonna make sure I only have to do it once and he ain't gettin up.

[ncttrnl]

Frankly, the California law is sound. All the clauses are there and they prioritize all human life. Citing the few cases that garner attention in the news does not make for an accurate portrayal of the validity of the law, since such cases are by nature controversial and therefore are the center of a media frenzy.

Perhaps you have more of an issue with the way a jury and/or counsel manipulates the law.

You are judged by a jury of your peers. Who are they? Consider who goes to jury duty and who tries to get out of it. Consider that what was once considered an honorable and respectful duty to the system designed by the people for the people is now derided as a waste of time and money.

Now consider the lawyer, whose sole duty is to represent their client's interests. They will manipulate as best as possible that jury to bend to their side, and unfortunately, this will include any number of slimy, underhanded tricks.

The absolutism of the Missouri law is going to be a problem, as the law stipulates that a killing is justified provided a person enters a dwelling illegally. I find this a much bigger gray area than the former law. It broadens the gray area further because it is so narrow in vision and it uses a property marker as a justification for killing.

The point of the older law is to defend human life first, property second. A threat to your life negates the protection of the assailant's life. Simply trespassing does not. This law is property first, human life second. It is a step backwards.

I honestly don't care whether the law is sound or not. What matters is how it is upheld. In California, criminals have as many rights as their victims. Even if you prove a man is in your house with a gun, knife, or whatever, you still have to deal with a jury of people, that are certainly not your peers, judging whether you used too much force to defend yourself.

Absolutism is unfortunately the only way to ensure that a law is acted upon as intended. That is a sad sad truth as absolutism is also generally considered to be one of the biggest barriers to true justice.

The pendulum will swing back one day and this law will be replaced. For now, this is the result of people feeling the need for stronger rights to self defense.

[mike]

People do need stronger rights to self defense. I need to be able to defend myself and family without fear of criminal or civil ramifications.

[JETTAone420]

If I'm gonna pull the trigger, I'm gonna make sure I only have to do it once and he ain't gettin up.

exactly!! do it rite the first time, so their isnt a second time!

...id ranger tap his ass lol

[fcastle]

I actually think it doesn't go far enough. I want to be able to shoot you down not just for being in my house, but if I catch you in the front yard w/my xbox 360. A thief should take these things into account when he goes to rob you.

When I come out of the restaurant and the guy has a slimjim in my door trying to pop it, he gets three to the chest.

Texas agrees w/me:

Deadly Force to Protect Property
(Texas Penal Code)
(Briggs p. 96)

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

He's moving my stuff to the door to leave, cap his ass.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

He's got my stuff and he's leaving, cap his ass and the getaway driver.

[JETTAone420]

ever read those stories on the news where a would be robber trips and breaks his ankle on somthing then turn around and sues the owners of the house he was robbing and actually wins...bs like that that needs to be changed

[paultakeda]

I honestly don't care whether the law is sound or not.[ What matters is how it is upheld. In California, criminals have as many rights as their victims. Even if you prove a man is in your house with a gun, knife, or whatever, you still have to deal with a jury of people, that are certainly not your peers, judging whether you used too much force to defend yourself.

You honestly expect that with a law that prioritizes property that a jury will suddenly get smart? If a law is sound, it is sound. Don't change the law, change the implementation of the law. ANY law is worthless if it is not upheld, therefore a newer law will be equally worthless if the problem lies in the trial system.

Absolutism is unfortunately the only way to ensure that a law is acted upon as intended. That is a sad sad truth as absolutism is also generally considered to be one of the biggest barriers to true justice.

I actually don't think this is true. I find absolutism the worst way to ensure a law is enforced. Social responsibility is the only way to truly make the letter and spirit of the law obeyed by a public, and that requires teaching that public to understand, comprehend and respect it. Seeing as that was impossible even in the 17th century, a trial by your peers was the closest one could get to it. Sadly, the definition of peer in today's trial system is what has changed in the last 250 years.

The pendulum will swing back one day and this law will be replaced. For now, this is the result of people feeling the need for stronger rights to self defense.

I would rather not spend my days feeling like property is worth more than human life in the letter of the law, regardless of where the pendulum happens to be.

The idea that extreme prejudice is just retaliation for any sort of violation of property rights just plain scares me. I don't care if the guy is running off with my Xbox, to kill him is to commit murder. That the man's life means less than a stolen Xbox cheapens life. It does not matter if the life is that of a criminal -- life should only be forfeit if that life has taken life, anything else is not worth the price. This is for our protection. Any law that immediately cheapens any human life, regardless of category, can be used to cheapen anyone's life. That's the slippery slope, and I would rather not slide.

[JETTAone420]

so your sayin its only "right" to murc a person if he/she killed someone first?

hmm..

[fcastle]

You honestly expect that with a law that prioritizes property that a jury will suddenly get smart? If a law is sound, it is sound. Don't change the law, change the implementation of the law. ANY law is worthless if it is not upheld, therefore a newer law will be equally worthless if the problem lies in the trial system.



I actually don't think this is true. I find absolutism the worst way to ensure a law is enforced. Social responsibility is the only way to truly make the letter and spirit of the law obeyed by a public, and that requires teaching that public to understand, comprehend and respect it. Seeing as that was impossible even in the 17th century, a trial by your peers was the closest one could get to it. Sadly, the definition of peer in today's trial system is what has changed in the last 250 years.



I would rather not spend my days feeling like property is worth more than human life in the letter of the law, regardless of where the pendulum happens to be.

The idea that extreme prejudice is just retaliation for any sort of violation of property rights just plain scares me. I don't care if the guy is running off with my Xbox, to kill him is to commit murder. That the man's life means less than a stolen Xbox cheapens life. It does not matter if the life is that of a criminal -- life should only be forfeit if that life has taken life, anything else is not worth the price. This is for our protection. Any law that immediately cheapens any human life, regardless of category, can be used to cheapen anyone's life. That's the slippery slope, and I would rather not slide.

I think that protecting myself, my family and what is mine is one of the ideas that this country was built on (the West anyway). I think we got away from respecting other people and what's theirs. People have no boundaries anymore. They just act out of some animal instinct that says, "you have it, I want it. I'm going to take it."

With the law on my side to defend what's mine, myself and family. I wont be in front of those idiot jurors in the first place. The crime scene will show what happened and the law will be in my favor, not the crackhead that wanted his fix.

Who knows what a person has done (or will do). I'm supposed to take it for granted that you had a big enough pair of balls to break into my home, but now you're going to think twice about hurting me or my loved ones? I can't take that chance and if I catch you on the way out even better, maybe I saved the next person some grief.

There's an old saying my Mom used to tell me when I was little. It stuck w/me as I got older and saw it come true.

If you will lie, you will cheat.
If you will cheat, you will steal.
If you will steal, you will kill.

It's kind of the slippery slope of crime, if you will. Most people don't start off as vicious killers, they end up that way. I just don't want it to be my house where the criminal decides to turn the corner in his career from burglary to murder or assault.

Basically, when the time comes each person has to decide what they are going ot do when faced w/the situation. I'm willing to take on the burden for those that wont, or can't. I'll kill for those I love and what I've worked so hard to earn. It's a heavy weight, but I think I'm up to it.

It's obvious why you would defend a loved one or yourself, but there's also more to it than just property. There's also dignity, pride, and self respect. I would not be able to look myself in the mirror w/any of the three if I let someone just take from me and made no effort to make it right. There's respect involved and we've killed for that for ages.

[jwill'sMK4]

simply put with the law the criminal knows the risk and knows he/she is not protected by the law in the event of the crime so if u that person gets shot or killed they knew that was a possibility and went for it anyway so if they get killed its their fault

jus like if u crash ur car doing 100mph its not like its a suprise that u crashed ur car there are speed limits in place for a reason and b'cuz u made the choice to speed therefore u accepted the consequences

[paultakeda]

so your sayin its only "right" to murc a person if he/she killed someone first?

hmm..

No, actually, I and the California law agree -- if the threat exists or is perceived to exist, then defending oneself and loved ones is just fine.


I think that protecting myself, my family and what is mine is one of the ideas that this country was built on (the West anyway). I think we got away from respecting other people and what's theirs. People have no boundaries anymore. They just act out of some animal instinct that says, "you have it, I want it. I'm going to take it."


Take off the rose-tinted glasses, America was a violent place where human life was very, very cheap. Human life only became a little more valuable, from what I can see, beginning after the Civil War but with legislation finally catching up in the last century. The American West is lovely to see romanticized in the movies, but the reality, though exciting and dynamic, was not the place you brought your loved ones. The Rancher versus Farmer feuds alone would guarantee the danger of your loved ones as invasion and seizure of your property was a fun little game they played with each other.


The point of the law is to protect human life, to value it over property. As the law can be used by anyone, this can mean that a criminal may exploit the law. There is a reason for that: our justice system is designed to protect the innocent, and if you cheapen human life by prioritizing property in a situation where extreme prejudice is used, then the same situation CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU.

If a burglar entered your home in Missouri and you began to shoot at him, and he ran for his car, got in it, and locked the doors. He doesn't start the car because you are shooting at him, and your bullets have broken his window and invaded his property. So he finds his gun in the glove compartment and shoots you.

Under California law, you are still guilty because you have turned on the criminal who did not carry the weapon with him into your home but was forced to defend himself in his car. The Missouri law also has you guilty, but for different reasons. The California law has you guilty because you are using excessive force and yourself threatening another human life. The Missouri law has you guilty because you invaded a man's car.

Your son is playing with your neighbor's kid when you see that the neighbor is being abusive to your child. You barge in to get your son and the neighbor attacks you with a bat and injures you.

Under California law, your neighbor is guilty of assault. Under Missouri law, your neighbor had every right to defend his property.

Because property is prioritized, human life, the very human life some of you keep bringing up as a reason that this Missouri law is good, means nothing because the letter of the law concentrates on the trespassing of property.

Does no one see the fatal flaw in such a law? Your loved ones lives are cheapened because it is your property that defines whether or not their lives are in danger. This is not about whether or not you have a right to defend your property, the California Penal Code preserves your right to defend your life, your family and your property. The old Missouri law required a duty to retreat, something we don't have here and I agree, it is something that should have been removed. But replacing it with a law that focuses on assets versus life is just a bad move, and as I said, is a step backwards to the violence in America's past.

[Paul]

It does not matter if the life is that of a criminal -- life should only be forfeit if that life has taken life, anything else is not worth the price. This is for our protection. Any law that immediately cheapens any human life, regardless of category, can be used to cheapen anyone's life. That's the slippery slope, and I would rather not slide.

So... until a criminal murders someone, they shouldn't be stopped? I am hoping that you mean has taken life or is attempting to.

Protect those who abide by the laws before those who break them. Criminals need protection from the justice system to ensure they are given a fair trial and not punished cruelly by that system. So long as that's upheld, I'm a firm believer in letting people protect themselves and their property. Like I said before, if you don't want to get shot, don't break the law and enter someone elses property without permission.

[Paul]

I'm still trying to see why it's a step backwards here. You put the protection of one's property and self above the rights of the criminal. Don't fucking steal shit and you won't get shot.

[paultakeda]

Paul, I already answered JETTAone420 with regard to your above post, so yes, am including the threat or perception of threat as a clause, just like the California Penal Code.

As to protecting one's property and self, that is covered in California law. What is not covered is excessive force. What the Missouri law promotes is that property is more valuable than life. You want to make the issue black and white but it isn't. My examples above show just what can happen if the law is defined by property rights versus human life. It is a step backwards because property rights WERE valued higher than human life in history. That the laws enacted in the last century began to value human life higher than property was progress, and what this current century is enacting is taking a step back to the 19th century.

I can say as much as you that I believe I have a right to defend myself and my property, but I do not believe in my property being the defining point in the law, as this means my own life is now worth less than my property. I am looking at the letter of the law, and you can bet that lawyers who know far more about how to use that law to their own end than I will be looking at it much closer. Do you really want the law to define justifiable homicide via property boundaries? I don't. I much prefer the California Penal Code, which does not stipulate I have to retreat and therefore allows me to defend my home, but also assures me that human life is what is of value.

[mike]

If a criminal has already taken the step to break into your house, who's to say what else he may do or is capable of. Whether or not your jewelery or laptop is worth taking his life is besides the point, What is, are you gonna gamble YOUR life on what he may or may not do when confronted with the possibility of going to jail. You gonna go up to him and ask him to put your Xbox down? You gonna call the government supported prayer line 911? You going to hope he doesn't decide to charge you or take your wife, etc hostage?

[SYNYSTAGLI]

I don't think he's debating the fact that it's wrong to cap a fool who is in your house to do damage, or steal. I think it's the fact that they want to use the house/property as a reason to be able to blast a fool..

regardless what the law says, anyone in my house thats not supposed to be in my house is gonna get hurt...I can't say shot as i don't have any firearms, but they will get hurt :D

[mike]

Yeah I feel sorry for anyone that breaks into your house Manny

Chief Wiggum: "Best part is if they are in your house, you can legally shoot them."

Homer: "WooHoo!, Hey Flanders, come here!"

Flanders: "Okaleydoakely"

Chief Wiggum: "The law doesn't work if you invite them in."

Homer: "D'oh!, Go away Flanders"

Flanders: "Okaleydoakely"

[Paul]

See that's the differing view on value of human life. I'm a law abiding citizen, the missouri Law would not effect me negatively or my family since we don't break the law. The only ones who's lives are devalued as you say are criminals which to me is anything but a step backwards. It's about time that criminals are recognized and legally stripped of protection from entering another person's home/property without authorization. The missouri law doesn't say anything about you having to shoot the person because they're on your property, it simply provides the property owner protection to use such force should they deem it necessary.

In your case Linus you wouldn't shoot the person and that's understandable and is a personal choice. I wouldn't shoot someone just simply because they were in my house. But if I can do so legally, and that threat is real criminals sure have more to think about when they break into someone's home now don't they. I don't see any rights lost here.

[paultakeda]

The proverbial "shoot first, ask questions later". The fearmongering is also rather classic.

If a criminal has already taken the step to break into your house, who's to say what else he may do or is capable of.

Who knows? Future threat isn't actionable. Context is always required. A guy walking towards you with his hand in his jacket may be reaching for his cell phone or a gun. This is non-defensible and is quite paranoid. Of course, if the context is an intruder reaching inside his jacket, then sure, fire away.

Whether or not your jewelery or laptop is worth taking his life is besides the point, What is, are you gonna gamble YOUR life on what he may or may not do when confronted with the possibility of going to jail.

Actually, it is the point. You are valuing your property over your life and his life by the letter of the law, according to Missouri. Most burglars do not want confrontation, this is why they are burglars. Robbers are a much more frightening proposition. If you surprise a burglar, the burglar will do anything to get away, and this is typically how violence can ensue. A robber will directly confront you first, and your options are then somewhat limited (just how much time will a robber give you to get your gun? they typically come up rather quickly instead of sneaking about). And again, future threat on the possibilities versus the realities of a threat are non-defensible.

You gonna go up to him and ask him to put your Xbox down? You gonna call the government supported prayer line 911? You going to hope he doesn't decide to charge you or take your wife, etc hostage?

No, I am going to pick up my wooden katana and take out his arms and legs with wide swinging motions. I will also call 911. If the man has a gun, I may not do these things as I do not own a gun and am holding a wooden stick. If he had a knife, I'd risk it. If he was unarmed (he may have a gun in his pocket, but he is still unarmed), I will try to scare him away and should he reach for something I will attack.

Nowhere does it state that valuing human life over property means I am a pansy.

[paultakeda]

In your case Linus you wouldn't shoot the person and that's understandable and is a personal choice. I wouldn't shoot someone just simply because they were in my house. But if I can do so legally, and that threat is real criminals sure have more to think about when they break into someone's home now don't they. I don't see any rights lost here.

Paul, you just defined California law. If the threat is real then defend your home. The problem is that the Missouri law defines threat as an invasion of property rather than a threat to life. I have no problem with Missouri changing their law since the old one apparently was duty-to-retreat, but the law should not be defined by property.

The example of you trying to get your child from an abusive neighbor shows how a law abiding person can get in trouble with the Missouri law. Your child is in danger, but the absolutism of the law means that if that neighbor perceives you are a threat he can take lethal action against you, even though you are unarmed and might just punch him once then grab your kid.

[JETTAone420]

haha manny aint lying...hes a big ass dude taht would pulverize someone haha1!!
...anyways when it comes down to it if theirs someone in my house that isnt supposed to be their actions will be taken. this is still a touchy subject for me since ive already been in the situation of pointing the gun at another human life and although adrenaline is kickin like a muthafucka for that split second before you squeeze the trigger i promise theirs gonna be a bunch of different things going through your mind about reprocussions but u know wat when all is said and done, id rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6. if the would be assialant has ANYTYPE of weapon im percieving it as hes got the balls to come in, hes got the balls to branish a weapon, hes got the balls to take responsiblity of what will happen.

[mike]

Actually, it is the point. You are valuing your property over your life and his life by the letter of the law, according to Missouri. Most burglars do not want confrontation, this is why they are burglars. Robbers are a much more frightening proposition. If you surprise a burglar, the burglar will do anything to get away, and this is typically how violence can ensue.





Personal property is not the issue at hand. I could give fuckall about my Xbox, my greater concern is someone who has the balls to break into MY house, and as you said "If you surprise a burglar, the burglar will do anything to get away, and this is typically how violence can ensue." So you don't know what he will do next, my guess is if you had a crystal ball, you would be very well off and could see the burglar coming WELL in advance.

But you can't see into the future, neither can I, and are you going to risk YOUR LIFE and gamble on the actions of an already irrational person? Besides, what if they have a more sinister reason for being in your house, rape your wife, murder you? The point is you don't know what this person is up to. You gonna ask him his intentions for being in your house and ask him to hangout until the cops show up? Does he have friends outside waiting? Does he have a gun? Is he high on meth?

A person walking down the street with his hand in his pocket may or may not have a gun. If he decides to shoot you, well thats shitty and life sucks, nothin you can really do about that. Can't really see that one coming. But if a guys in your house, he's already crossed that line of being somewhere he shouldn't, HE made that error in judgement, and I'll be damned if I gonna bet the saftey of myself and fiancee on a situation that could end in me dead.

[JETTAone420]

^^^what he said

/thread

[Paul]

I think your perspective is a bit skewed Linus. If your child's life is being endangered by your neighbor, you go in packing and get your kid. It's pretty clear the aggressor is the neighbor and the excercise of deadly force to protect self or others takes precidence.

[Paul]

Difference is this... You can wait to be a victim, I won't.

[paultakeda]

Personal property is not the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. The law as written defines the use of deadly force based on invasion of property. That is the problem with the law as written.

But you can't see into the future, neither can I, and are you going to risk YOUR LIFE and gamble on the actions of an already irrational person? Besides, what if they have a more sinister reason for being in your house, rape your wife, murder you? The point is you don't know what this person is up to. You gonna ask him his intentions for being in your house and ask him to hangout until the cops show up? Does he have friends outside waiting? Does he have a gun? Is he high on meth?

Therefore, you will perform your own irrational act and kill that person? Incapacitate is different from killing. I will incapacitate. If you want a ranged weapon for defense, look to tazers and tranqs. You killing an intruder because you don't know if he's there to burgle or to rape or murder is not justifiable homicide according to the law. You may think it is, and hell, I may think so, too. But I want to make damned sure that the law is designed to value human life over property.

You keep asking questions designed to instill fear and provoke an emotional response. In doing so, you fail to realize that my point is not about not being able to protect myself and my family but that the law must be designed to protect myself and my family and humanity, even if that includes the intruder, and to value that protection over the protection of property.

[paultakeda]

I think your perspective is a bit skewed Linus. If your child's life is being endangered by your neighbor, you go in packing and get your kid. It's pretty clear the aggressor is the neighbor and the excercise of deadly force to protect self or others takes precidence.

I think you are putting a lot more trust in the trial system than I would. Such precedence is not written in the Missouri law. The law specifically identifies you as an invader of one's property. What if the child's life cannot be established in trial to have been in danger, and you were portrayed as an overbearing parent who barged in on someone else's home, forcing them to injure you?

When I first commented on this, I said that the problems that will arise from this law will be much more insane than any media circus trial you've seen in California. The Missouri law and others like it were written with the best of intentions but were written to prioritize property, and because of that, you will have problems in court, guaranteed.

I don't need another example of my life being in danger because I hesitated and became a victim. That's not the issue. The issue is that the law was written poorly and allows the value of property to exceed human life.

[TOYr32]

exactly!! do it rite the first time, so their isnt a second time!

...id rather tap his ass lol

Thats it how I read it first and was like . . . huh?

[JETTAone420]

nonono...

[mike]

Linus, you are highly intelligent and well spoken and put alot of good info out here. I'm asking these questions not to instill fear into you, but to make you realize that you don't know the answers. What if there is more than one of them, belive me, I don't want to shoot anyone, but if I have to I will, I'm fairly skilled with my hands, but I was taught to never stand against a gun, and never take unessecary chances.

I don't know your back ground, where you lived or grew up, but I lived in a terrible neighborhood in Long Beach. The stores had bullet proof glass INSIDE, the cops wouldn't come around at night, and people did get shot just walking down the street. My neghborhood was full of thugs, gangs and criminals. I kept a 12GA with a 22" barrel next to my bed.

Point is, the law values property over human life yes, but these people also value property over life and don't live and think of life as you and I do, they will kill you for a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff, if they get caught, oh well, if they die, oh well, its the life.

[paultakeda]

Mike, that a criminal values property over life is irrelevant to what the law should state concerning the relative value of property over life. Laws are applied by people, and its application should be where we fail, not the law itself. To value property over life in the letter of the law is a very serious problem for me. This has nothing to do with what will happen in the dead of the night. Emotions do run high and people do get hurt. The problem is that this law was designed to assure a homeowner that they would not be held liable for defending their home. I have no issue with that intent. My issue is in the way the law is written, period.

[mike]

I will agree with you on that point, the law is poorly written.

[fcastle]

Nowhere does it state that valuing human life over property means I am a pansy.

I don't feel that is the case at all. I think it would take a lot more restraint and courage to give this person a chance to explain or flee. I personally can't take that chance.

I would be willing to fight it out, w/an unarmed suspect. Weapons, depends on the weapon. I'm not a knife fighter, but I can take a hit. It all depends on the situation, but I'm not letting you walk. Again, maybe it's foolish pride or being macho or how were raised, but you gotta pay somehow for what you've done.

[Tom (aka Godzilla)]

The Missouri law seems like an emotional overreaction. What happens when a Dad finds catches his daughter's boyfriend in her room at night, after he snuck in. Does the kid really deserve to get killed? Or the drunk guy who gets the wrong apartment? Or the person who got the wrong directions? That one has actually happened to me. A friend had just moved to a new neighborhood, and his directions didn't include street names. I followed his directions and knocked on the door...no answer. I tried the door, and it was unlocked. Remember, I thought this was my friend's house. I took a step in the entry way and quickly realized my mistake. Yes I was an intruder. No, I was not there to cause death or great bodily harm. But, under the Missouri law, that homeowner could have shot me.


The other part I don't like is it very dramatically reduces the threshold for deadly force. I like the threshold that a reasonable person perceives a likelihood of death or great bodily harm. We can do scenarios and what if's until the end of time, but you won't get anywhere.

It's wrong that California, and other states, treat people who defend themselves like criminals.

If you want a ranged weapon for defense, look to tazers and tranqs
Tazers are not acceptable in a deadly force situation. They provide temporary incapacitation in order to apply restraints. Once the shock stops, the fight is back on.

The problem is that this law was designed to assure a homeowner that they would not be held liable for defending their home. I have no issue with that intent.
100% Agree.

[JETTAone420]

of course im not gonna shoot first since i dont even have a gun..but u can best bet ima use the closet solid object to 'incapacitate' the person until i see fit. but damn tom did make a good point on scenarios that could go wrong. and see bringing that up now flips the whole law back around

[Ivan]

The real question is, would you if you could?
Arrested on murder and fighting the law to prove you were
in fear of your life and did everything you could to prevent it.
You'd be broke and homeless by the time bills come in for a good lawyer.

If I had a gun and was witnessing a murder in some parking lot I would NOT
help even though I can save a life because I would be on trial for murder.
Sad world California is.


Make it legal to defend our selfs and you'll see deaths of carrier criminals go
up and crime to down. Sounds nice, huh? :)
Avoid confrontations at all costs. That's awesome.... Hide in your room
while a drunk pcp user tears up your house and wait till the cops come in 30 minutes.

Topics like these make you want to be a lawyer, no? :D
I figure it's all about money.

[SYNYSTAGLI]

The boyfriend would be dead ;)

[veedubber7]

I would be willing to fight it out, w/an unarmed suspect.

me too, just as long as they are kimbo slice sized or below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/veedubber7/kimbo.jpg

[Tom (aka Godzilla)]

Kimbo is one ugly sumbitch.

[Rento_VW]

This is the same law that Texas is implementing in September, however, Texas' Law is this ontop of being able to shoot someone for harassment OUTSIDE of your own property. I say CA needs Texas' new law.

[mike]

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six

[veedubber7]

first one to 1ooo mike!