What would you do during a Bad Guy Attack

[Janx]

He cant chase them because of the loot. You cannot use lethal force to protect items in that way. According to every state, that would almost definitely get you thrown in jail. He could use nonlethal force (pointing a gun at them even as a bargaining tool is considered using lethal force) and try and make an arrest, but that can have its own issues.

I was joking about actually chasing the robbers, BTW. But if you want to see your stuff again and the bad guys caught, shooting is your only option. The cops aren't too effective at recovering stolen loot unless the bad guys are really sloppy AND they get lucky.

My read of the 2007 castle law, doesn't seem to show the "and defense of another" clause. It sure is a wordy little SOB. if lawyers were programmers, I'd be spanking them for unreadable code if they worked for me.

Anyway, I'm not wholly sure you're seeing my point. I do not dispute your interpretation of the law. So you saying "the law says you can't do that." isn't in dispute, and therefore doesn't need repeating yet again.

I dispute the quality of the law. I think criminals have minimal rights as an enemy combatant in a war zone, and that civillians can do no wrong until their actions in combat are reviewed by the police. (you can't capture and torture the combatant, nor hunt down and kill someone you think is a criminal, that's outside your rights and intrudes on the police and CIA's duty to be thorough and follow protocols).

But at the crime event itself, you ARE fully entitled to be judge, jury and executioner because you have the full undisputed facts of the case in front of you. In a home invasion crime, the bad guy is right there, illegally in your house. There is no dispute on is this the correct suspect for the crime. There's no misremembering events or what he looked like, or bungled fingerprint evidence.

If the bad guy gets away, you'll be lucky to get him in the system again and recognized as the actual man who entered your home.

Is this a harsh penalty for criminals? Sure. But there's 7 billion people on the planet, we can afford to break a few eggs. Of all the people to discriminate against, bad guys caught in the act of committing a dangerous crime are the most perfectest candidate ever to select for population control.

Contrast that to the death penalty for convicted criminals, where their actual guilt is in question, that's a very real concern.

I have less concern of a mistake that if you shoot a guy in your house, or who you catch breaking in, or trying to rob somebody, that you have made a mistake and got the wrong guy (barring you being a lousy shot).

I also expect, as with ever police shooting, an investigation of your actions. The cops should be able to find evidence at the scene confirming there was a crime in progress.

Obviously, somebody could try to use this interpretation to commit a murder. But murder already happens, and it already gets covered up by bad guys. There's already a law for murdering somebody, and a process for uncovering it.

Another wrinkle in the system as I see it, is the concept of capturing the criminal. As I understand it, you can't detain someone (like a shoplifter). And in a home invasion, in the micro-seconds of you making contact with the enemy, you should probably confirm target and fire, rather than wait for them to react.

If you could lawfully detain a criminal, then that too is preferred (less blood on the floor to clean up). But that's a risky proposition.

 

[Umbran]

In any case, you're arguing that by the letter of the law, the grandma should be in jail. I do not disagree with that interpretation of the law.

I would disagree with the law itself.

I'm not sure I would. You see, this is why the system has people in it - to make judgement calls on the fringes.

Generally speaking, you don't want folks to chase after people to commit violence, right? So, your law shouldn't allow it. As soon as you put a loophole, you'll get folks arguing that the loophole applies to them. Some will succeed, and by precedent, the loophole grows in scope. Bad scene.

But there's cops, a DA, and eventually a jury in place to deal with the small number of cases in which the law fails to cope well with events.

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure I would. You see, this is why the system has people in it - to make judgement calls on the fringes.

Generally speaking, you don't want folks to chase after people to commit violence, right? So, your law shouldn't allow it. As soon as you put a loophole, you'll get folks arguing that the loophole applies to them. Some will succeed, and by precedent, the loophole grows in scope. Bad scene.

But there's cops, a DA, and eventually a jury in place to deal with the small number of cases in which the law fails to cope well with events.

And I'm good with that (I even mention something to that effect before my nutjob self defense law proposal).

the people in the process are the safety net to protect the people from the process.

Obviously, I lean heavier on the side of defender over that of the crime initiator.

I don't think civillians should be hunting down criminals, etc because they aren't trained to follow procedure and chain of evidence. Basically, they'll botch it and hose the proof that the bad guy is the right bad guy.

But if you have a bad guy committing a serious crime right in front of you and a gun to stop him, I don't have a problem with that. It's expedient, and is safer than hoping he doesn't hunt you down and kill you later as a witness or turn and shoot you himself.

I suspect the best reasons for not adopting this practice is abuse (someone claiming self defense to hide a murder) or risk (it is a a pretty risky thing to get involved with a crime).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Never knew that little story would cause this much discussion. I guess I've known so many little old ladies that I wouldn't mess with, that it seemed to stick in my mind. Plus, the idea that in her, the nervousness of the encounter caused her to do 4 minor flesh wounds instead of missing. She was apparently aiming for the torso each time, in 2 shot bursts, with the intention of putting the guy on the ground, and made no bones about it.

But you know, Alabama law has moved considerably closer to Texas law since that incident. When it happened was probably the most likely time such an incident might have been prosecuted. It would never be prosecuted now, unless the police turned up some kind of evidence that indicated there was more to it than it first seemed (e.g. a set up, perhaps). They will always investigate, of course. Now, if she hit him solid and did serious injury, she still probably woudn't be charged.

 

[apoptosis]

But if you have a bad guy committing a serious crime right in front of you and a gun to stop him, I don't have a problem with that. It's expedient, and is safer than hoping he doesn't hunt you down and kill you later as a witness or turn and shoot you himself.

I don't disagree with much of what you said. This though for me depends on what you mean by serious crime.

If they are committing a crime that can directly harm or threaten the life and safety of an individual then I agree with you.

But..

For instance, if you think someone is stealing something [committing larceny not robbery which involves force or intimidation] (that does not directly impact safety and health of an individual...ie oxygen tank, medicine etc..cannot actually think of that many items) then I have a problem with shooting them.

So for me it depends on whether the crime is going to directly endanger someone, which ties it back to the grandma and the purse scenario.

 

[apoptosis]

Never knew that little story would cause this much discussion.

Don't really feel like finishing this strategic summary so the internet is a nice sanctuary.

 

[Janx]

For instance, if you think someone is stealing something [committing larceny not robbery which involves force or intimidation] (that does not directly impact safety and health of an individual...ie oxygen tank, medicine etc..cannot actually think of that many items) then I have a problem with shooting them.

So for me it depends on whether the crime is going to directly endanger someone, which ties it back to the grandma and the purse scenario.

I think I'd lean to include stealing as well. Maybe not candy from a store. But somebody breaking into a house, at that point, I don't know what they're here to steal or if they are aggressive. It's not in my interests to take the time to find out. it is actually safer to shoot them than confront them.

As to judging the impact of the theft, if they get away (because you ran away and called the cops), that too may not be apparent. If somebody steals your computer, and you use it to work from home (like I do), that would set you back farther than thinking "oh, it's just a computer".

What if you don't have insurance? Or just the plain fact that you have a deadline and waiting for insurance to replace it would miss the deadline and cost you income to pay rent.

Point is, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Folks doing crime know the risks of getting shot. If all they needed was food (like Jean Val Jean) it's easier shoplifting from the grocery store than breaking into somebody's house to steal their TV and credit cards.

Which nowadays, identity theft is yet another risk of not aggressively dealing with an intruder.

Luckily, despite all this big talk about the people needing to be ready to shoot bad guys, the crime rate ain't that high. It's not likely to happen to most Americans. But folks should be prepared. And be prepared to vote in favor of defenders rights.

One extra note, the probable reason the grandma chased the perp is because she just got shot up with a load of adrenaline when the perp struck and the Fight option of the Fight or Flight automatic response kicked in. She basically went full Hulk mode and went for the kill. That's kind of the point of adrenaline. You can't pansy out halfway in a fight or the threat will turn on you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I understand it, you can't detain someone (like a shoplifter).

Stores detain shoplifters all the time. However, they need to be VERY careful about making sure they've got the right person, because unlawful detention is a subclass of kidnapping.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Please understand that this is VERY tongue in cheek:

We have a saying in the sticks where I live. "Up in Chicago and over in St. Louis they keep complaining about all these "self defense" crimes, shoot. There ain't no crime if they can't prove it didn't happen. And you know, it's amazing what a catfish will eat."

IOW there is no proof of a crime if there isn't a body after the fact. I.e.
Me: "Someone tried to break in my house, but I scared them away with my shotgun. You should warn the neighbors, officer."
Officer: "Okay, y'all have a nice evening. Hey, John, APB on some guy (description) trying to B&E, fled after home owner used a personal security system."
Officer John: "Roger that Chief. Should I actually put out the APB or should we assume they are sleeping in a pond somewhere?"
Officer: "Put out the APB, that way the State Police won't show up snooping around in our business again."

And it actually happens that way, sometimes. When you only have one or two officers for an area that would cover half the area of a major city, with the addition of all sorts of places to hide (woods, caves, ravines, etc) it makes the job of the police easier if you just off them yourself and dump the evidence. On the upside violent crime is WAY down in this area compared to the national average. (.08% per capita or something like that to include assault.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We have a saying in the sticks where I live. "Up in Chicago and over in St. Louis they keep complaining about all these "self defense" crimes, shoot. There ain't no crime if they can't prove it didn't happen. And you know, it's amazing what a catfish will eat."

Are you familiar with the lyrics of the song "Amos Moses?"

Well the sheriff caught wind that Amos was up in the swamp
Trading alligator skins
So he snuck in the swamp gonna get the boy
But he never came out
Well I wonder where the Louisiana sheriff went to
Well you can sure get lost in the Louisiana bayou

Gators...gotta love 'em. And if it isn't gators, Alligator Snapping Turtles and others will do a number on a body quite well.

And Hell- travel outside of the USA, and there's all kinds of watery critters with big appetites. Catfish, especially: in rivers in Asia, Europe and South America, there are species that reach 9+ feet in length. With biiiiiiiiig mouths.