Create a free account to remove all ad content.

Author Topic:  Homeowner shoots Burglar  (Read 917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fuertey

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Posts: 874
  • Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: Fuertey
  • Steam: Fuertey
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2016, 05:32:07 PM »
Let me just throw this in, because saying it's ok to kill someone because they're in your home sets a very dangerous precedent.

What if you have a serious dislike to someone and want to cause them harm? What's to stop you from inviting them into your home, shooting them dead. And then claiming they broke into your home and threatened you?

The only person who could grass you up, is dead.

Under no circumstances should it be ok to murder (that's what it is) someone just because they are in your home. Especially if they are in the process of leaving it. Police and 911 exist for a reason.

crazytater94

  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2649
  • Mastering TM since 2011
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: crazytater94
  • PSN: crazytater94 (Inactive)
  • Steam: crazytater94
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2016, 05:35:36 PM »
Violence will not be the cause of human extinction.

The cause of it will be stupidity. Take the nuclear missile situations with the US and Russia. One person can decide that they don't like the other because of their thoughts/beliefs/looks/etc and bam! nukes fly, which starts a huge war and billions of people die. All because a stupid person decided that they didn't like the other.
That's violence cough..

Yes, I know its violence, but the cause of it is stupidity.

Think of it like the question "does the bullet kill the person, or the one who pulled the trigger"

PWRBTTN

  • Legendary Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • Professional Expert, Comrade
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: PWRBTTN
  • Steam: PWRBTTN
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2016, 05:36:54 PM »
Let me just throw this in, because saying it's ok to kill someone because they're in your home sets a very dangerous precedent.

What if you have a serious dislike to someone and want to cause them harm? What's to stop you from inviting them into your home, shooting them dead. And then claiming they broke into your home and threatened you?

The only person who could grass you up, is dead.

Under no circumstances should it be ok to murder (that's what it is) someone just because they are in your home. Especially if they are in the process of leaving it. Police and 911 exist for a reason.
Of course. I totally agree that it's not right. In fact, you're right that the scenario you presented is possible. Though, that is what I was saying that, yes, the homeowner should be held accountable. Most, obviously, don't consider that to be a big deal.
/snail       /snail    /snail         /snail /snail      /snail   /snail                /snail        

crazytater94

  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2649
  • Mastering TM since 2011
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: crazytater94
  • PSN: crazytater94 (Inactive)
  • Steam: crazytater94
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2016, 05:39:33 PM »
The case will probably come down to if the guy was in the house, or out of the house, and if he had a weapon.

If they are outside of your house, it becomes illegal, because technically he's not an intruder if he is only on your yard. If he had a weapon, self defense could be claimed no problem. Without a weapon and in your house, it could go either way

PWRBTTN

  • Legendary Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • Professional Expert, Comrade
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: PWRBTTN
  • Steam: PWRBTTN
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2016, 05:48:24 PM »
If they are outside of your house, it becomes illegal, because technically he's not an intruder if he is only on your yard.
They could still claim the burglar had trespassed on their property.

The case will probably come down to if the guy was in the house, or out of the house, and if he had a weapon.
It will be a bit more complicated than that. The homeowner's child(ren). The homeowner's gender. The burglar's gender. No doubt the race of the burglar and homeowner will also be a factor. The American judicial system can be just about as biased as they want within the guidelines of the almighty constitution. I've seen this firsthand in my own personal experiences with them.
/snail       /snail    /snail         /snail /snail      /snail   /snail                /snail        

.ok

  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2212
    • View Profile
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2016, 05:53:55 PM »
The case will probably come down to if the guy was in the house, or out of the house, and if he had a weapon.

If they are outside of your house, it becomes illegal, because technically he's not an intruder if he is only on your yard. If he had a weapon, self defense could be claimed no problem. Without a weapon and in your house, it could go either way
most situations if theyre in the house,id personally say that,especially at night if the person was inside to where if you killed them,id think that the home owner wouldnt really get in trouble.yes it would be wrong,but if you think about it this way:if its 3 4am in pitch dark to where you could barely make out anything,to where you see a intruder in the house,for most people they wouldnt be able to tell if the said intruder had a weapon or not,but a mere second is all it takes for the intruder,if they have a gun or a weapon,to be able to do something or shoot the homeowner,which is all it takes.
yes i see it being the right thing to do would to be to give a warning to the person that they have a gun and theyll shoot them if they dont leave,which i could see being reasonable,but if say you do give them the warning and they dont leave,and/or to where youre face to face then yes,id say that if after a warning,then i would prob shoot them,being they havent taken my warning seriously,and being its pitch dark, i wouldnt know if they had something with them,but again,that 2 or 3 seconds is all thats needed for the intruder to possible shoot or kill you.but again if they say they dont have a weapon or they stop what theyre doing to where they try leaving then yes i would say to not shoot them....otherwise its fair game




Clerical

  • Tester
  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3227
  • Pixel Artist And Tester
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: TM Clerical
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2016, 07:07:57 PM »
This seems like it should be here


And as far as where the burgler was, it does not matter to much if its in the house or not, if its in you're property you can shoot them as long as your in a state whee it has a stand you're ground law.

Pixel artist, Map Creator, TotalMiner Tester

Craig

  • Developer
  • Extreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6655
  • Dig Deep
    • View Profile
    • Twitter
  • Steam: tota1miner
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2016, 07:15:53 PM »
I agree with dryym. They aren't dangerous unless you make them.
I'm not sure that's entirely true:

.@rcallimachi 30,000 Americans die from gun violence every year. In 2015, toddlers w guns killed more Americans than terrorists #perspective

Nefty

  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: GoatOnTheM00n
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2016, 07:24:48 PM »
She had already called the authorities before arriving at her house. On arriving at her house, after having already called the authorities, she saw he was already leaving the house via a window, and he was 'as far as we know' no threat to her person, but she made a bad decision, she decided to confront him, resulting in his death. She could have shot him with her mobile phone camera, not a gun. I tend to agree with Fuertey, a manslaughter charge seems appropriate given the facts we have. There appears to have been no rational reason to kill him.

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some countries, any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or workplace) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

In many jurisdictions in the United States, a person has a duty to retreat, to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. The castle doctrine negates the duty to retreat when the victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.

Justifiable homicide[2] inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide. With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.


Castle Laws. My state (Ohio) and I believe Florida where this happened have castle laws implemented.

Basically for anyone who doesnt understand, Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground laws say that if you are on land that you own, inside a house that you own, or car that you own, you have a right to protect yourself from someone who is trespassing on your property up to and including deadly force.

A manslaughter charge? Hell no.

Everyone here is who standing against the homeowner here suffers from hindsight bias. In hindsight, sure, maybe the intruder wasnt any threat to you. But in the moment the owner doesnt know that. All he knows is that there is a possible threat to you and your life mere feet away. Sure i dont agree with shooting, but i can understand why. And he sure as hell shouldnt be charged for killing a burglar trespassing with intent to commit a crime on your property, that is ridiculous.

Nefty

  • Supreme Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Xbox: GoatOnTheM00n
Re: Homeowner shoots Burglar
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2016, 07:25:20 PM »
I'm not sure that's entirely true:

.@rcallimachi 30,000 Americans die from gun violence every year. In 2015, toddlers w guns killed more Americans than terrorists #perspective

Babies dont blow up airports in Brussels, terrorists do. #perspective