The Castle Doctrine

[flcjinflorida]

I want to know what everyone thinks about the Castle Doctorine that has been put into law in Florida.

[MLeake]

... or countries, such as the UK...

... where a homeowner is expected to abandon his home if it's invaded, and allow a burglar or robber to take whatever he likes without interference.

Beats the heck out of the laws of some countries such as Kuwait and Italy, where you can only defend yourself against a pickpocket or thief using open-palm slaps, because a fist is considered an aggravated assault on your part.

This is one of those things that people don't seem to grasp: the reason so many of us worry about each restriction placed on our RTKBA, or to defend ourselves and our property, is that there are places in the world where all those "chicken little" predictions have already happened.

So I'm quite happy with Florida's Castle Doctrine, and would be quite happy to see more states adopt similar laws.

Cheers,

M

[flcjinflorida]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house, i dont have to give them a warning to leave, and I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

[MLeake]

Do you need a law in place in order for you to follow common sense?

Do you want to criminalize a person who's awakened by the sounds of a break-in, for not doing everything perfectly?

If not, then the Castle Doctrine is fine. Laws should be written to be the least restrictive that they need to be, and not vague.

Common sense says we should identify targets, and make sure they aren't simply the drunk neighbor opening the wrong door. I don't need a law to tell me that.

Cheers,

M

[Mello2u]

If the Florida Castle Doctrice is what the quote below says it is, I like it.

The following is a quote from the link below:
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

[Kreyzhorse]

There are now several states with the Castle Doctrine including my home state of Kentucky.

The Castle Doctrine allows a person to defend himself in his home when his life is in danger. It is a good law and I doubt that many on here will disagree with it.

[hoytinak]

I really like ours here in Texas...hopefully I'll never have to use it.

[OuTcAsT]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house,

Actually it is a bit more complicated than that;

It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle

The forcible entry standard must be met for the protection of the statute to be realized.

I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

Again, there is a stipulation that must be met;

who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle

Unless the statute includes your grounds/yard then it will be confined to your dwelling and vehicle. You should contact an attorney and have these details clarified so that you know exactly where the law applies. It is a small investment that may save you a lot of grief later.

The Castle laws here in TN are quite similar, and give the homeowner the advantage in a worst-case scenario.

[MLeake]

I had thought about making the same points earlier, but had to go meet somebody.

I lived in FL previously, and had read up on FL Castle Doctrine. The restrictions that OuTcAsT cites from TN are similar to some in the FL version.

Cheers,

M

[Dave P]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house, i dont have to give them a warning to leave, and I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

Maybe you could give some useful examples. If the pushy salesman steps thru my front door am I OK to just blast away, then go back to World Strangest Threads TV show? :confused:

[MLeake]

... does sound an awful lot like an anti's deliberate misrepresentation of what a Castle Doctrine allows, doesn't it, Dave P?

[skydiver3346]

It is a doctrine that should probably be on the books in each and every state, (especially nowadays). :) I live in Florida, so its fine with me.

Bottom line: You can do anything you want as far as retreating or warning a home intruder (if you want to), however, here in Florida we aren't required to do so if someone forcibly enters your residence. Think about it...(in some instances, warning an intruder could prove to be very dangerous to the home owner.

[flcjinflorida]

Trust me on the fact that I think that anyone, besides a criminal, should be allowed to carry, and I add that I think the Concealed Permit is against my Constitutional Rights.

I know that I cannot just shoot someone for the fun of it if they come on my property. I know that the law is there so that if anyone comes into my house to rob me, or hurt me, I can lawfully use my weapon up to the point of deadly force, without being punished, as long as the circumstances were there.

I want to know if people think that this Doctorine is a good idea, or if they think it should be revised in certain ways.

[shooter01]

All things considered this has to be in principle, a good thing. Defence of one's property, within reasonable circumstances, is a basic right as far as I am concerned and is in keeping with the principles of natural justice, as it is sometimes called. HAving said that of course, the Law would hopefully require that any act considered as self defense or defence of property was done as a last and not first resort.

Although in this country firearm laws are extremely strict [but at least better than in UK or South Africa etc.] our firearms legislation not only recognizes the "castle doctrine" in principle, it even recognizes that, in extenuating circumstances, a law abiding firearm owner may also use his weapon in the defence of another's life and property, but must be able to prove or demonstrate that such cause was to his mind, justified.

It's pretty gratifying to me that here, the population as a whole and the Police Service, are overwhelmingly pro - self defence and there are very few anti-firearm advocates, and this in a so called developing nation. Maybe, given the manner that excess liberalism and political correctness has permeated so many nations, it can safely be said that in theory, a nation could well become too "civilized" for its own good!

[orangello]

I like what i know of the Castle Doctrine. I am not sure if it has been put on the books here or not, but that would not change my actions very much in the event of a home invasion or carjacking situation. I would still yell at the person before shooting them, Castle or no. I do like the protection from civil liability bit.

I do have one concern: a few weeks ago in the town nearest my home, the local police executed a "no-knock" warrant on the wrong house, a house with some elderly people in it. The police have apologized profusely & sincerely (i believe), and even returned to repair a damaged door. The residents were not overly upset after their initial shock, because they wanted the suspected meth dealers next door OUT, and the raid scared the suspected dealers into vacating the neighborhood by all accounts. Overall, no great harm, nobody got hurt, so no huge problem for anybody involved.

However, i wonder if the home that was raided had been in a confirmed Castle Doctrine jurisdiction (may be, not sure about MS), could the owner have opened fire on the policemen before they established their ID/office and been protected by the Castle Doctrine as being in fear of physical harm? If so, would the resulting shooting of the home owner be a wrongful death or a murder/manslaughter?

I should say that i've never had a "no knock" warrant executed on a home i was occupying, so i do not know how quickly/clearly the officers identify themselves. This question came more to mind after hearing a report of a home invasion-style robbery in which the robbers dressed in tactical gear similar to that used by some police forces for some operations.

It would certainly suck to shoot an officer who had the wrong house number, but i'm thinking it would not suck as much as being shot by a home-invading, tacticooled-up robber.

[OuTcAsT]

However, i wonder if the home that was raided had been in a confirmed Castle Doctrine jurisdiction (may be, not sure about MS), could the owner have opened fire on the policemen before they established their ID/office and been protected by the Castle Doctrine

In most jurisdictions you would not be protected from firing at LE, While they may not announce who they are until it is too late, you can be certain that the "official" report will show that they were clearly identified.

If so, would the resulting shooting of the home owner be a wrongful death or a murder/manslaughter?

Morally, yes, it is a murder pure and simple, however when this very scenario happened here in my town (in a castle doctrine, no-retreat state) The homeowner (an older gentleman) was shot, and killed, before he could fire at the officers who had kicked in the door at the wrong house.

An officer and his commander were fired, and a small civil settlement resulted, but the murderers had no criminal charges brought against them. It was ruled a "Tragic Accident "

Some are more equal than others, that is the tragedy.

It would certainly suck to shoot an officer who had the wrong house number, but i'm thinking it would not suck as much as being shot by a home-invading, tacticooled-up robber.

It would, I am certain, "suck" just as much to be shot by a home-invading LEO who cannot read an address correctly, IMHO. Just because a projectile was paid for by tax dollars does not make it any less lethal.

This is one area of the law that should cut both ways.

[raimius]

Frankly, there is the possibility of wierd things happening (Joe Horn case anyone?). However, I like the idea of giving the surprised homeowner the benefit of the doubt. You should not need to prove that the guy hiding in the shadows with something in his hand had a deadly weapon, after he broke into your house at 3AM.

[madmag]

This just happened in my area.

Here is an incident of a home owner shooting and killing a suspect outside of this home after a forced break-in. You will see from the story that the the older gentleman actually followed the BG out into the street after they (BG's) forced entry and then later fled from his home. I found this very interesting because NC does not have the Castle Doctrine. I live just across the border in SC, and we do have the Castle Doctrine. They did rule the shooting as justified. But I do think the older gentleman stretched the limit of home defense. Glad it turned out OK for him.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/956958.html

The death highlighted issues around the rights of homeowners to protect themselves and the limits of those rights outside the home.

When a homeowner shoots an intruder, N.C. law allows prosecutors to rule it justified. But McClure drove after the robbers, plunging the case into a gray area, legal experts told the Observer

[hogdogs]

If the pushy salesman steps thru my front door
Past me or the Mrs.? Sumbuck is gonna be real lucky I am armed with only a couple hamhocks permanently attached to the ends of my arms... He is getting cold cocked and I will put the boots to him when he hits the floor.
NO ONE!!!! Repeat.... NO ONE pushes into my home with out retribution... If they are anything more than a pushy salesman... I will elevate the response accordingly!
Brent

[Dwight55]

When we look at laws, . . . we have to understand that they are "man made" and as such, . . . like their maker, . . . are prone to faults and un-intended consequences.

The castle doctrine, I believe is good.

Like any other law, . . . their could be a wierd exception, . . . but the exception should go back to personal responsibility. A drunk or pushy salesman who kicked, pushed, broke into my house against my wishes, . . . probably won't have a good day that day, . . . but he will be the one who initiated entry into my home/vehicle against my wishes and voiced demands. I think the saying goes something like "as ye sow, . . . so shall ye reap". Personal responsibility !

May God bless,
Dwight

[orangello]

Outcast, given your response, I hope that the LE agencies in Castle Doctrine states will choose very carefully when and how to use their "no knock" warrants, so as to avoid fatal mistakes.

I am not a big fan of the "no knock" warrant use, but i do realize that there are some situations that cannot be handled with a polite knock on the door and an offer of some girl scout cookies. In this local town i referred to, i would bet they will do a bit more checking before executing another "no knock" type warrant.

I do wish to restate that, from what i have read and heard, the old people accidentally raided were satisfied in the end, because the suspected meth dealers cleared out. The only group that missed out was the prosecutor; he didn't get to jail the dealers. The police still got to clean up a bad spot, and the neighbors ended up without the annoying methy neighbors.

[flcjinflorida]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but I did notice that more Republicans than Democrats are against Gun Control. I find it odd that the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and yet they haven't tried to change the Castle Doctorine.

I personally love the part of the Florida Castle Doctorine that says that if someone comes forcefully into my home, I can legally meet force with force, and that persons family is not allowed to file a civil suite against me for the person getting hurt. I think that this will encourage even more people to use their Second Ammendment right.

On a side note, I do think that the CCW permit is against my constitutional rights, because it does not say in the Constitution that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership.

[OuTcAsT]

I find it odd that the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and yet they haven't tried to change the Castle Doctorine.

The "Castle Laws" are enacted at the State level. Usually in State politics there is a bit more of the general populations view represented than on the federal level.

The feds may try and attack firearms in general, but have little stomach for trying to attack these kinds of laws.

Outcast, given your response, I hope that the LE agencies in Castle Doctrine states will choose very carefully when and how to use their "no knock" warrants, so as to avoid fatal mistakes.

Thankfully there have been no further incidents that turned out this badly however, now instead of an SRT team
making entry, they simply roll in their new APC, knock down a wall, and arrest whomever runs out.

[madmag]

I think the Castle laws are important and I am certainly glad my state has them. But the point I was trying to make with my attached news article (previous post) is that no matter if you have a Castle law, the important issue is just to follow common sense for SD situations. If you are acting in self defense and can show you had reasonable fear of bodily harm then you will probably not be found in the wrong.

Having said that, one of the best things about the Castle law is protection against civil law suits.

[blume357]

your home could be met with deadly force....

I think the CD just cleared it up a little and expanded where the burden of retreat is no longer on you.

Not sure about Florida, but here in S.C. the CD also protects you from future civil suits if your use of deadly force is covered under it.

[flcjinflorida]

Florida's Castle Doctorine is the same way. You are clear from any civil suites that might appear in a case like that.

[TEDDY]

Mass has had a castle doc. and it states you may use all force nessesary to eject an unwanted person even deadly force.it was in result from a woman that killed her boy friend who lived in the house.he beat her and her children.she retreated to the celler and had a shot gun blew him when he cam down stairs.they found her guilty because she should have left.but the judge paroled her to her children[very young]"because the bastered deserved it"[quote] the nex case after the bill was past the guy shot and killed a person he brought home who was trying to rape him.3 357s stoped that he was found guilty but on appeal the prosecutor dropped the case.
so it works.:rolleyes::eek:

[OuTcAsT]

Mass has had a castle doc. and it states you may use all force nessesary to eject an unwanted person even deadly force

Um, no it does not. The MA Castle law requires (like most other states) that there be a reasonable threat of grave injury or death before you may resort to lethal force. Merely because someone is "unwanted" does not justify the use of deadly force.

You might wish to review the laws for yourself, punctuation is provided free of charge.

[blume357]

If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."

My father's navigational / boating rule:

"The boat that is left was right."

[gun44]

I submit to the policy that self defense is a God given right, and that laws against it is morally, and naturally wrong. Also self defense is a part of the natural will to survive, which is inherent in ALL species. Most people will instinctively do whatever is required to survive, and for laws to be passed to penalize people for defending themselves is against all nature intended for us.

[KSFreeman]

I want to know what everyone thinks about the Castle Doctorine that has been put into law in Florida

It's just Florida catching up with the rest of the nation.

First, let's stop using the term "Castle Doctrine." The Florida legislature assigned a name to a bill which had a specific meaning under English Common Law and really got things scrambled up.

Castle Doctrine was an exception to the Common Law duty to retreat before deadly force could be used as a "man's home was his castle" and there was no duty to retreat.

In the United States the duty to retreat has long been the minority position of the states. Many states with fewer electoral votes eliminated the duty to retreat via legislature or judicial decision (e.g. Indiana elminated the duty to retreat with a Supreme Court decision in 1865).

In 2005 Florida, with its many electoral votes, became a majority state by reforming its duty to retreat. As it is a politically important state the media picked up on the bill and suddenly Florida became the first state in the Union to eliminate the duty to retreat.

The Florida reform does several things:

1. Assumes a presumption that someone who forces their way into your home or vehicle is up to no good. Note, your home in Florida is NOT a free fire zone. You CANNOT "automatically" shoot anyone inside your home (UPS man, Girl Scouts, inter alia).

Forcible entry is nuanced and you should seek the advice of a Florida attorney to understand when these thresholds are met.

2. Florida eliminated the duty to retreat joining a majority of the states. However, Florida was a larger state so the media noticed and suddenly, especially on the net, Florida became the first state in the Union.

3. It recodified civil immunity.

The problem is that "castle doctrine" has been transmuted into some sort of aegis that surrounds individuals and gun owners think that now there can be no Problem #2 as long as they squawk the magic words "castle doctrine" the police will let them go.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."

Actually, a live guy is a really bad witness too usually - which is why police tend to trust forensic evidence over eyewitness accounts, particularly if those accounts conflict with the forensic evidence.

As far as Castle Doctrine goes... most states already had decent laws in that regard, and the ones that didn't are unlikely to improve them. Most of the recent Castle Doctrine laws just give the homeowner a little more benefit of a doubt, and more importantly, protection from civil suit.

Prior to this, you would occasionally see "revenge suits." For example, there was a case in New York, an intruder broke into the home of a police officer. After the police officer woke up and ordered him to stop at gunpoint, the intruder attacked him with a vacuum cleaner that was nearby and was shot and killed. The intruder's family sued the police officer in civil court for defending his own home with "excessive force" and fought all the way to the appeals court.

[OldMarksman]

"A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."

Except for forensic evidence....

And just why is it that so many people expect the person to die? Too much television, perhaps? I've read that 80 to 90% of persons shot with handguns survive, and certainly a large number survive long enough to give their sides of the story.

A police officer in Phoenix put six bullets into a homeowner recently. The guy is suing the city.

A couple of officers opened up on a crook with a gun in our metropolitan area some time back (SD), and the perp lived long enough to incriminate others--and to complain about excessive force! The officers used .40 caliber semi-autos with JHP ammo and fired until the guy went down.

[OuTcAsT]

I expect to get flamed for this, and possibly rightly so...
If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."



And as a young man, I remember our local Sheriff saying "If ya shoot em outside, just drag em inside"

And many years ago either of those scenarios likely would have ended with no charges being filed, today I believe that forensics, and good investigation are probably going to determine pretty quickly whether the use of force was legitimate. Dead Men can tell their stories.

And just why is it that so many people expect the person to die? Too much television, perhaps? I've read that 80 to 90% of persons shot with handguns survive, and certainly a large number survive long enough to give their sides of the story.

Good point, and unless someone pumps a lot of lead into the other, (Jerome Ersland style) or delays calling for help,
chances are good that the guy is going to live long enough to tell his side.

[Dragon55]

Good point, and unless someone pumps a lot of lead into the other, (Jerome Ersland style) or delays calling for help,
chances are good that the guy is going to live long enough to tell his side.

Which begs the question....... Will you allow that possibility?

I'm not trying to hijack..... But in regards to castle doctrine is that a concern for any of us?

If I've put 5 rounds in a BG in my house and he had a gun and he's still breathing I'm not sure I could administer the 'coup de grace' even knowing the later issues.

[OuTcAsT]

Which begs the question....... Will you allow that possibility?


I will shoot to stop the threat, If the BG is down, and not returning fire, some level of threat may still exist.

If I've put 5 rounds in a BG in my house and he had a gun and he's still breathing I'm not sure I could administer the 'coup de grace' even knowing the later issues.

After I have fired, I intend to use cover and concealment to keep the situation under control, and myself as safe as possible, until LE arrives. If the BG decides to continue his attack, I will, again, shoot to stop the threat, if that happens to result in his demise, so be it.

As far as the 'coup de grace'? I won't do it unless I have no other better alternative.

[OldMarksman]

And as a young man, I remember our local Sheriff saying "If ya shoot em outside, just drag em inside"


Try this from The Cornered Cat:

No. No. No. Moving the body, or rearranging any other physical evidence about what happened, is called "tampering with a crime scene." And it is itself a very serious crime.

Tampering with evidence isn't just a criminal act. It is also an act which is very likely to be discovered. The science of forensics has advanced to the point where the investigators will definitely know that you have done something to the scene, and will probably know exactly what it was that you did. And the investigators will (very reasonably) assume that the reason you did it is because you outright murdered someone and were trying to hide evidence which shows that the shooting was a murder instead of an act of self-defense.

If you are ever involved in a shooting, it is vitally important that you do not lie to the police. Even one little lie, if caught, can destroy your credibility in court. Without that credibility, you will have a much harder time staying out of jail even if your actions were completely within the law.

http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am with KSFreeman on this. The law as I read it wraps up a lot of different laws I learned about years ago.

I learned the Castle Doctrine came from common law that said a person's home was their castle and they need not retreat from it.

Outside the home a person had a duty to retreat even if threatened with deadly force if they could reasonably and safely do so.

Finally, there were so-called Good Samaritan Laws which protected folks from civil suit for trying to help others who were injured.

It looks to me like these laws got wrapped up into one package and now you do not have to retreat outside the home if you have a lawful right to be there and if you use deadly force legally you are protected from civil suit.

Does that sound right?

Finally, I would pity someone morally and legally who shot and killed someone for merely entering their house especially if it were a mistake or they asked their Mother-in-law to leave and she refused. I think the law might not protect you then but stranger things have happened.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

As far as the 'coup de grace'?

Bad choice of words. If you do it in TN they will lock you up for murder. There is no such thing in SD as "finishing them off".

[OuTcAsT]

Bad choice of words. If you do it in TN they will lock you up for murder. There is no such thing in SD as "finishing them off".

I agree 100% As I said earlier;

After I have fired, I intend to use cover and concealment to keep the situation under control, and myself as safe as possible, until LE arrives. If the BG decides to continue his attack, I will, again, shoot to stop the threat, if that happens to result in his demise, so be it.


I hope I never have to use a weapon defensively, and if I do, I hope It does not result in someones death. But with that in mind, I will fire if there is a clear and present danger.


To OldMarksman, That was my point exactly.

[greensteelforge]

The use of deadly force by civilians should always be restricted to "last resort". Self defense should never be restricted when there is reasonable cause to believe a lethal threat exists. The "castle doctrine" simply makes it easier to shoot first, and avoid the risk of serious consequences. Essentially, what we are talking about here is whether or not civilians should be able to use deadly force offensively on their own property. If that's fine, then there is little to stop someone from killing a person, calling them an intruder, and never facing serious consequence. Who's going to offer a different story? Further, the Texas law has already led to at least one instance in which a man shot two unarmed men who were robbing his neighbor's home as they ran away. The shooter called 911, informed the operator of the burglary in progress next door, and that he was armed, and intended to shoot the perpetrators. After repeated instruction by the operator to remain in his home, he could be heard setting down the phone, stating that he knew his rights, followed by a door opening and two gunshots. Granted, the men were in the wrong (being Dominican immigrants didn't help their cause much either), but if we can kill over a TV set, where do we draw the line, can I put two in your chest and one in your face for trying to short-change me at the grocery store? I do agree that the law can put a person through the wringer for defending themselves, but we can't have it both ways, and I'd rather live in a state that will treat every shooting as a crime until the facts prove otherwise (this is generally the case with law enforcement, so why shouldn't it apply to you and me?).

[webhead]

In regards to the no knock police entry, I would think that if you shot a LEO in this case, you're odds of living thru it would be very low. They typically execute those warrants with body armor, tactical firepower and large numbers of trained officers.

In the situation given, the LEOs don't know they are in the wrong house so would respond with force if shot at. You take a shot at a LEO and the team is most likely to return fire without prejudice.

A key reason I think no knocks should not be allowed. Any mistakes will always pay a toll on the people in the home, a heavy toll if they think it's a gang trying to rob them and they resist. And I can't logically find any benefit for the LEOs. Is it because they can't eliminate the possibility the suspects will escape? Or perhaps they are worried evidence will be destroyed. But if they need key evidence to make a case, how did they get a no knock warrant in the first place? "Judge, we don't have enough evidence to convict this person but we do have enough to justify a warrant to enter with force and without notice."

[Coltman 77]

We need it in NC and I've been actively writing every politician involved.

And I keep writing them on a regular basis.

[thallub]

In OK there is no duty to retreat. This extends to the street in the so called stand your ground law. Additionally, in OK the prosecutor can decline to take a righteous shooting case to the grand jury. The family and friends of the deceased perp can then take up a petition for a grand jury: They will get nowhere because very few OK citizens are going to sign a petition for a grand jury hearing in a case where a home invader was killed.

[MLeake]

... according to your theory of how all cases should be treated, the Constitutional assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" might as well be thrown out the window.

The onus should always be on the prosecutor to prove a crime was committed, whether within the home or out in town.

In theory, you swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You might want to review the document and its history.

Cheers,

M

[fiddletown]

...the Constitutional assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" might as well be thrown out the window....Strictly speaking, the presumption of innocence isn't in the Constitution. It is firmly embedded in the 500 year tradition of the Common Law of England, and thus became part of our law. So firmly is it embedded in our law that it would violate the Constitutional requirement of due process were innocence not presumed in a criminal case.

The onus should always be on the prosecutor to prove a crime was committed, whether within the home or out in town. ....It works a little differently when the defendant pleads self defense.

Ordinarily, in a criminal prosecution the state must prove the elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the crime charged, and for which the defendant is on trial, is manslaughter, the state must in general prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was there; (2) the defendant shot the decedent; and (3) the defendant intended to shoot the decedent. But all of that is completely inapplicable when the defendant pleads self defense.

If the defendant claims self defense, the prosecution doesn't have to prove, at all, that the defendant was there, that he shot the decedent or that he intended to shoot the decedent, because the defendant will have admitted each of those element of the crime of manslaughter. If the defendant is claiming self defense he necessarily must admit that he (1) was there; (2) shot the decedent; and (3) intended to shoot the decedent.

The defendant's defense is he was legally justified. The allocation of the burden of proof and/or the burden of persuasion between the prosecution and defense in a self defense case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the defendant will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in the jurisdiction.

The prosecutor must now convince the jury that the defendant's homicide was not justified, i. e., that the defendant's act, which he has admitted, did not meet the legal standard for self defense with lethal force. The prosecution's burden of proof in rebuttal to the defendant's prima facie case with vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the prosecutor may have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Further, the Texas law has already led to at least one instance in which a man shot two unarmed men who were robbing his neighbor's home as they ran away. The shooter called 911, informed the operator of the burglary in progress next door, and that he was armed, and intended to shoot the perpetrators. After repeated instruction by the operator to remain in his home, he could be heard setting down the phone, stating that he knew his rights, followed by a door opening and two gunshots. Granted, the men were in the wrong (being Dominican immigrants didn't help their cause much either), but if we can kill over a TV set, where do we draw the line, can I put two in your chest and one in your face for trying to short-change me at the grocery store?

The Joe Horn incident has absolutely zero to do with Castle Doctrine, either in the traditional common law sense or the newer NRA laws. So I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that Castle Doctrine was to blame for that except that several newspapers erroneously reported it that way during the incident.

For the record, Texas law allows (and has allowed for a very long time) the use of deadly force to protect property in certain limited circumstances. However, in the case you reference, Joe Horn claimed self-defense. That is that he stepped outside and ordered the men to stop and the continued to come at him, so he shot. He was fortunate in that there happened to be a police officer there from the 911 call who witnessed the entire event, so his version of the story stood up at the grand jury hearing despite the media circus. Otherwise, given the 911 call and the slightly different story told by the forensics, he could have been looking at a serious problem, even in Texas.

As far as the two unarmed men, that is a risk of their profession and in Texas, it is a risk they will encounter if they stay in that profession long enough. They made the choice to run that risk by being there to begin with and not complying with the order to halt.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Wasn't the issue with Joe Horn that the Texas law (I think reffered to as a Castles Doctrine law) changed the fall before the shooting to allow folk to use deadly force to protect the property of others? In the 911 call Joe horn told the operator that "the law has changed Sir and you know it" or something like that? That is the justification he used to step out into his yard to confront the bad guys?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Wasn't the issue with Joe Horn that the Texas law (I think reffered to as a Castles Doctrine law) changed the fall before the shooting to allow folk to use deadly force to protect the property of others?

No, according to Sec. 9.43 of the Penal Code deadly force can be used to protect the property of third person (in certain limited circumstances) since 1973. The last time that law was amended was in September of 1993. Same for Sec. 9.42 (Using Deadly Force to Protect Property (your own)).

So none of the recent Castle Doctrine bills had any effect on this shooting.

Wasn't the issue with Joe Horn that the Texas law (I think reffered to as a Castles Doctrine law) changed the fall before the shooting to allow folk to use deadly force to protect the property of others?

Joe Horn may have thought that, I can't say - and certainly a lot of newspapers reported it like that both before and after the incident, so it would be easy to see where he might have gotten the idea. But from a legal standpoint, what Joe Horn did has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (either the common-law version or the recent NRA push at the state level).

There is a nice editorial on the subtle distinctions in the 2007 law changes affecting self-defense by SMU law professor, Frederick Moss located here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-moss_13edi.ART.State.Edition1.46561ef.html

[TEDDY]

outcast: can you tell me where I was wrong in the two cases?that there is not that statement in the mass Law.since I lived there and was quite active in GOAL.and lived for 76 yrs there.a licensed gun owner.I followed the laws
and paticapated in yearly trips to the state house.am a life member of GOAL and a gun club in Mass.
and if puntuation is your problem dont read my posts.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So none of the recent Castle Doctrine bills had any effect on this shooting.

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle." Cite: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

and then this:

Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Has the media missreported this stuff? They keep talking about the castle doctrine.

[RDak]

We've had this discussion at the Michigan Gunowners Site ("MGO") before and the general concensus was we do not have the right to shoot someone like that in Michigan.

The criminal would have to be threatening us, or someone else, with deadly force or great bodily harm.

So, in Michigan, to go further, you probably should not shoot anyone if the only thing they are doing is stealing your property.

Is it correct for me to assume, in those areas with laws like Michigan's, that if I were to stop a felon but he/she ran away, I better not shoot and just let him/her go? I say yes (i.e., I better not shoot) but I'm no lawyer.

ETA: The general concensus at MGO was we are allowed to carry a firearm to investigate possible trespass. Is this the general concensus here, for the most part? (I'm talking about a rifle or shotgun on your own property or your neighbor's property.)

[OldMarksman]

Has the media missreported this stuff? They keep talking about the castle doctrine.

Yep. Surprised?

There's code section 9.32, Deadly Force in Defense of Persons, which applies everywhere, but in different ways depending on location and circumstance. A paragraph of that applies to unlawful and forcible entry (or attempt at same) of an occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; that paragraph alone is commonly referred to as the "castle doctrine" section of the Texas code. Horn was outside--castle doctrine most obviously didn't apply.

Other paragraphs do address deadly force wherever a person has a right to be.

Bad reporting? You be the judge.

There's another code section (9.42) that applies to defense of tangible property. Many people wrongly believe that the Horn case revolved around that. Nope!

Many knowledgeable people attribute Horn's "no bill" to statements by an LEO eyewitness that he fired in self defense. Regardless, he's also lucky he wasn't shot by the arriving officers.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Has the media missreported this stuff? They keep talking about the castle doctrine.

Has the media misreported stuff on firearms/self-defense? That is like asking me if water is wet. :D

Yes, to the extent they are saying the new law had any effect on the legal outcome of this shooting, they were misreporting stuff (as the earlier link explained).

I guess it would be wrong to say it had "no effect" though since apparently Joe Horn thought that his actions would be justified/protected under the new law based on earlier misreporting of that issue (assuming of course that this statement of his was reported correctly).'

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I guess it would be wrong to say it had "no effect" though since apparently Joe Horn thought that his actions would be justified/protected under the new law based on earlier misreporting of that issue (assuming of course that this statement of his was reported correctly).'

Yes he did. You can hear it on the 911 tape. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

He is rather testy with the 911 operator as if he is saying "I know what the law is, it just changed and I can go out there and shoot those guys". This is what scares me about how all these laws get jumbled up by the media and gun forums. Better talk to a lawyer or risk Club Fed!

[csmsss]

He is rather testy with the 911 operator as if he is saying "I know what the law is, it just changed and I can go out there and shoot those guys". This is what scares me about how all these laws get jumbled up by the media and gun forums. Better talk to a lawyer or risk Club Fed!There is no evidence whatsoever that Joe Horn acted in any way other than that which was legal under Texas law. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that this is so; however in this great state, we are permitted to defend our own and others' residences and property at night. Your personal feelings notwithstanding, Joe Horn's actions fell completely within state law and nothing you can say and nothing you believe will change that.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that this is so; however in this great state, we are permitted to defend our own and others' residences and property at night.

Doesn't hurt my feelings. I don't have to live with having needlessly killed two people. BTW it happened during the day;) and Joe Horn did not use the statute that you allude to (defending property) as his defense ultimately.

Your personal feelings notwithstanding, Joe Horn's actions fell completely within state law and nothing you can say and nothing you believe will change that.

I'll let this lady from the Houston Chronicle explain:

But the best person to answer the question of whether Horn acted appropriately is Horn himself. He didn't need a grand jury to give him an answer.
He seemed to realize early on that needlessly shooting two men — regardless of their criminal behavior and illegal immigrant status, of which Horn was unaware at the time — would weigh heavily on him.

Through his attorney, Horn said he regretted shooting and that, if he had it to do over again, he would have stayed inside.

"Was it a mistake from a legal standpoint? No. But a mistake in his life? Yes," said defense lawyer Tom Lambright.
That message shouldn't get lost in all the celebrating from gun-rights advocates and armchair vigilantes who continue to proclaim Horn a hero and invite him to move next door.

This case has never been about gun rights, or self-defense. There are few people in this state who question someone's right to protect themselves with a gun if his or her life, family's life or property are threatened.

That wasn't the case with Horn.

The little old man from Pasadena gunned down two men like dogs. For a bag of loot.

He escaped indictment, but he'll carry that burden for the rest of his life.

[OldMarksman]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Joe Horn acted in any way other than that which was legal under Texas law.

Not the point. Question was whether the media references to the "castle doctrine" were appropriate.

More accurately, though, no evidence has been presented that indicates that Horn acted unlawfully, and there was testimony indicating justification. Do we know that none exists? Absent trial and acquittal or a pardon (and until Horn's demise), a later Grand Jury can always say differently and act accordingly, particularly if new evidence should come to light.

(What that means to everyone, by the way, is that the advice to not talk to the police or to the media (or to anyone, for that matter) about an encounter applies until and unless you are tried and acquitted or pardoned, or until you die. Good thing to remember.)

I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that this is so; however in this great state, we are permitted to defend our own and others' residences and property at night.

Nothing to do with the question, I'm afraid.

It would be interesting to know what the Grand Jury might have done absent the police officer's testimony that Horn had been threatened.

[Tom Servo]

I want to know what everyone thinks about the Castle Doctorine that has been put into law in Florida.
Back to the original topic. I'm happy with it. Though the right was accepted and often observed in theory, it's a good idea to have it codified in law.

It's also nice to have immunity from civil prosecution if someone shoots in self-defense. Until recently, the common knowledge was, "even if you're in the right, legally and morally, you will get sued out of house and home." The assumption was that the aggressor would become the "victim," and he (or his family) would be out for blood.

As for the Joe Horn case, I'm not sure how I feel. He may have been legally in the right according to Texas law, but morally? He chose his circumstances, and he escalated the situation himself. What started as a non-violent property crime became a double homicide. I don't see anything to do with self-defense in that situation, and therefore I find it irrelevant to the matter of "Castle Doctrine."

The idea of Castle Doctrine laws is essentially that you do not have to retreat, play dead, or suffer a certain amount of harm before using deadly force in self-defense. If you are threatened, you may act.

As an interesting aside, I drove to Florida a few months after the law passed. Within 15 miles of crossing the state line, I saw a wordier version of this, and it warmed my heart:

http://moraca.org/graphics/nfl_humor.jpg

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It would be interesting to know what the Grand Jury might have done absent the police officer's testimony that Horn had been threatened.

Agree. Mr. Horn was VERY lucky IMO. Castle Doctrine had nothing to do with it but Joe Horn appeared to think it did.

[OuTcAsT]

s for the Joe Horn case, I'm not sure how I feel. He may have been legally in the right according to Texas law, but morally? He chose his circumstances, and he escalated the situation himself. What started as a non-violent property crime became a double homicide. I don't see anything to do with self-defense in that situation, and therefore I find it irrelevant to the matter of "Castle Doctrine."


Nice to see someone actually "gets it"

Ya see Tom, there is a subset of folks around who use a sort of "circular logic" when it comes to property crimes as they relate to the Castle Laws.

It usually goes like this : If I see someone stealing the radio out of my car, I will call 911 to send LE, but then I'm gonna go confront the thief. If he threatens me in any way, I will fire...as my life was threatened, and therefore justified. They will then claim they did not shoot to protect property, but to defend themselves. :rolleyes:

You would be amazed at how many times we have debated that very point on these forums, and how many people feel that if you don't agree with that logic, you are somehow diminished, or have the mentality of a "victim".

I have said it before, and I will say it again, a firearm is life insurance not property insurance.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman
It would be interesting to know what the Grand Jury might have done absent the police officer's testimony that Horn had been threatened.

My guess is a nice set of orange PJ's and a very long prison sentence.

[Tom Servo]

You would be amazed at how many times we have debated that very point on these forums, and how many people feel that if you don't agree with that logic, you are somehow diminished, or have the mentality of a "victim".
I'd rather be labeled a "victim" than lose years of my life and the right to own firearms.

I find it highly unlikely that I will ever be in a position in which I am morally justified in taking a human life over property. Property can be replaced.

I've had to testify in a case where a citizen's arrest over an automobile break-in went wrong. Trust me, it's not a position any of us would want to be in.

[MLeake]

If I weren't carrying, and I saw somebody trying to break into my truck, I'd confront him.

I don't see any difference in the scenario if I happen to be carrying.

His reaction to being caught would determine what happened next.

Would I shoot him for breaking into the truck? No. Would I even draw on him for breaking into the truck? No. He'd only find out about the weapon if he chose to escalate things, instead of departing.

To me, the difference between that and Outcast's "circular logic" argument is that I wouldn't be attempting a citizen's arrest, just a "get away from my property" confrontation, which I'm legally allowed to do, so long as I don't use deadly force for that purpose.

If the thief decides to then launch a physical attack, he's changed the game to his own detriment.

Even then, he might not find out about the weapon; he might just hit the ground really, really hard.

At the risk of sounding really inflammatory, though, I think society took a turn for the worse when lawmakers decided that property rights didn't really mean the right to defend property. While I will comply with the law, and while I would really prefer not to ever shoot anybody, I do think that I should have the legal right to use deadly force against thieves and burglars.

It would cut down on such crime in a big way.

[OldMarksman]

At the risk of sounding really inflammatory, though, I think society took a turn for the worse when lawmakers decided that property rights didn't really mean the right to defend property.
People do generally have the right to defend property, short of using deadly force. That prohibition goes back for many centuries (a long, time ago, lawmakers in our states adopted legal doctrine that had been set forth by learned judges a long, long, long time ago). There have been exceptions in a few jurisdictions and during a few interludes involving territorial provisional law. Anti-gunners would also describe the "castle doctrine" as giving the right to use deadly force to protect property, but I really don't think that has ever been the intent. In most states the "castle doctrine" is codified in laws covering defense of persons.

While I will comply with the law, and while I would really prefer not to ever shoot anybody, I do think that I should have the legal right to use deadly force against thieves and burglars.There are important distinctions among theft, burglary, and robbery in most jurisdictions. One has to know the law.

If I weren't carrying, and I saw somebody trying to break into my truck, I'd confront him. I don't see any difference in the scenario if I happen to be carrying. His reaction to being caught would determine what happened next. Not for me. It's not so much a legal or ethical thing. I just don't like the idea of being ambushed, shot in a crossfire, or stabbed or slashed and ending up dead or maimed. Not worth the risk for me.

On TV and in the movies (someone recently added, "the ones you watch on the screen and the ones you play in your mind"), the protagonist always prevails. It doesn't always turn out that way in real life.

[fiddletown]

People do generally have the right to defend property, short of using deadly force. That prohibition goes back for many centuries (a long, time ago, lawmakers in our states adopted legal doctrine that had been set forth by learned judges a long, long, long time ago)....From the 1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289) --

http://books.google.com/books?id=jAU9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=blackstone+force+in+defense+of+property+by+force&source=bl&ots=RPrCLnV33h&sig=sjNCz1mYMhx-G5eWA9FGk3rWAKE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Force may be used in self defense, in which "...if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force..." with the caveat that, "...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention, for then the defender would himself become an aggressor..."

However, note that under what Blackstone refers to as reprisal, once property is taken, it may be recovered or retained only if, "...it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace....." Blackstone notes, "...the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property ; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society..."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If I weren't carrying, and I saw somebody trying to break into my truck, I'd confront him. I don't see any difference in the scenario if I happen to be carrying.
His reaction to being caught would determine what happened next.

I just watched a video reenactment that Joe Horn did for the Pasadena Police back in 2007. He saw the guys from his window and had he yelled at them they probably would have run away. He was at that time in no physical danger, but I think he wanted them caught rather than just scaring them off.

That is the difference about confrontation. You see someboady doing something bad and you are armed and holler at them that the police are on the way and they will probably beat feet. If they come at you then you have justification to blast them.

Joe Horn was acting like a cop and wanted to capture those guys rather than just stop the burglary. That is the difference.

[Tom Servo]

There's a big difference between the situation Mleake's discussing and what Joe Horn did. One is self-defense, the other is naked vigilantism.

If I see someone breaking into my car, I can yell, "hey! Don't scratch the bling!" If he then threatens me, then yes, I have a right to defend myself.

On the other hand, if I see someone running away with my hubcaps, I do not have the right to resort to deadly force to recover aforementioned bling. While I've been deprived of precious bling, I am not being threatened.

It's one thing to be presented with trouble. It's an altogether different thing to go looking for it, which is what Mr. Horn did. At no point was Mr. Horn deprived of the ability to walk away or avoid danger.

[OuTcAsT]

I am confused, first this; (emphasis mine)

It's one thing to be presented with trouble. It's an altogether different thing to go looking for it, which is what Mr. Horn did. At no point was Mr. Horn deprived of the ability to walk away or avoid danger.

Then this;

If I see someone breaking into my car, I can yell, "hey! Don't scratch the bling!" If he then threatens me, then yes, I have a right to defend myself.


Right there you have the "circular logic" to which I referred earlier. If you escalate the situation by the act of intervening in the burglary, and are then confronted, and "defend " Yourself, You have just used lethal force to protect your ride, you cannot have it both ways. If you fire, you have done so to defend "bling" Not yourself. If you are interested in defending "yourself" you would not confront. (period)

That is the difference about confrontation. You see someboady doing something bad and you are armed and holler at them that the police are on the way and they will probably beat feet. If they come at you then you have justification to blast them.


Again, the same "logic". Had you called 911, taken a defensive position inside your home, and waited, you would have done the most you could do, if not;

Joe Horn was acting like a cop and wanted to capture those guys rather than just stop the burglary. That is the difference.


Exactly!

Would I shoot him for breaking into the truck? No. Would I even draw on him for breaking into the truck? No. He'd only find out about the weapon if he chose to escalate things, instead of departing.


How bizarre, as you stated earlier;

If I weren't carrying, and I saw somebody trying to break into my truck, I'd confront him.

I don't see any difference in the scenario if I happen to be carrying.

His reaction to being caught would determine what happened next.

Where did the "weapon" come from ?

And if his reaction dictates what happens next, what do you do if he/they are armed?

Still feel comfortable in "confronting him/them? (you have no way to tell how many there are)

I'd rather be labeled a "victim" than lose years of my life and the right to own firearms.

I find it highly unlikely that I will ever be in a position in which I am morally justified in taking a human life over property. Property can be replaced.


+1 Sir.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Again, the same "logic". Had you called 911, taken a defensive position inside your home, and waited, you would have done the most you could do,

Quite right, I meant to say "hollered at them from a position of safety and called 911" which might include distance as well as being in my own home. Therefore, if they came after me it would be without the escalation/provocation you spoke of. They would just want to hurt me.

[Tom Servo]

Right there you have the "circular logic" to which I referred earlier. If you escalate the situation by the act of intervening in the burglary, and are then confronted, and "defend " Yourself, You have just used lethal force to protect your ride, you cannot have it both ways. If you fire, you have done so to defend "bling" Not yourself. If you are interested in defending "yourself" you would not confront. (period)
I will defend unto the death the honor of my spinning hubcaps, sir.

Kidding. Kidding!

You put me in a bit of a corner, or perhaps I did, with that analogy. There are differences in situation, though.

Horn was a vigilante (hopefully not a naked one) who injected himself in a situation that wasn't any of his business. He did so with the intention of dishing out "justice," an act which led to the perfectly avoidable deaths of two other people.

It occurs to me that it wasn't even about property at all.

In my case, I'd pictured walking to my precious Charlene in a parking lot and finding someone defacing her. It's natural to say, "hey, what gives?" That's no justification for the guy to get violent. If things get hinky, I have (and should likely take) the option of walking away.

The person violating my car also has the option of doing so. Were he to decide to add assault to his list of crimes, and I could not walk away, then my personal safety would be in danger. Force may be justified.

Have I used force to defend my property? No. Though property was involved, I would be responding to a threat on life or limb.

The fact that a property crime was present at the beginning of the altercation is the only real similarity between this situation and Mr. Horn's.

Now, if I'd simply started shooting when I first saw the transgression upon my whip, I'd be guilty of whatever the Man saw fit to charge me with.

...and on that note, I'm all out of hip slang for the night:)

[MLeake]

There are graduations of response in between the extremes of "go in with weapon drawn and/or blazing" and "call 911 and sit in the house while your property disappears before your eyes." Verbal challenges, and non-lethal physical force are potential options, and perfectly legal in many situations.

If I see somebody attempting to break into my vehicle, or perhaps take a horse from the pasture, I am fully within my rights to physically separate him from my property. I may not be justified in using a weapon, but I will not break any laws if I lay hands on him, assuming he has not desisted in his criminal behavior. In many states, I'd be fully legally justified in physically ejecting him from my property, or separating him from my vehicle, using less than lethal means.

Odds are, in such a case, I will lay hands on him, immediately after placing the 911 call, or while somebody else places the 911 call.

Note: In a case involving the livestock, I'm out in the sticks, and don't expect the timeliest of police responses due to distance from town. The horses range in current market value from $5k to six figures; even without considering the potential seriousness of the loss, I wouldn't let anybody take one of the inexpensive, untrained ones. (I can't picture my significant other allowing that, either.) For that matter, I wouldn't let somebody take our dog, and she's got one bad hip and one cockeyed ear, and has no market value whatever. (The dog really is my significant other's baby... I'd choose to fight Chuck Liddell over having to tell her that I let somebody take the dog without trying to stop them.)

So, like I said, confrontation would be in the cards, but not deadly force - at least, not by design. Regular physical force would be a legally available option, and one that I'm actually pretty good at applying - wrestling, kenpo, and a whole lot of aikido training afford a lot of options for non-lethal response in my case, and I'm not a small guy.

Outcast, as far as where would the weapon come from, not sure why you are confused. I usually CCW. However, in the days before I CCW'ed, I would have confronted a burglar on my property or breaking into my vehicle. These days, the fact that I normally CCW would not change my philosophy on that. However, I would not make the person aware of the weapon unless he made it necessary by actually threatening me. (Stating that I have a weapon could be construed as "the threat of deadly force," which may not be legally justified based on the initial circumstance.)

If the guy decides not to leave, and reaches for a weapon, or has friends come out of hiding - creating discrepancy of force, then SD law does come into play on my behalf.

If you don't see the difference, which Tom Servo did a good job of explaining, then we are simply going to disagree on the matter.

[OuTcAsT]

Outcast, as far as where would the weapon come from, not sure why you are confused.

Because of the contradictory statements;

If I weren't carrying, and I saw somebody trying to break into my truck, I'd confront him.


But a moment later;

His reaction to being caught would determine what happened next.

Would I shoot him for breaking into the truck? No. Would I even draw on him for breaking into the truck? No. He'd only find out about the weapon if he chose to escalate things, instead of departing.


Clearer now?

If I see somebody attempting to break into my vehicle, or perhaps take a horse from the pasture, I am fully within my rights to physically separate him from my property. I may not be justified in using a weapon, but I will not break any laws if I lay hands on him, assuming he has not desisted in his criminal behavior. In many states, I'd be fully legally justified in physically ejecting him from my property, or separating him from my vehicle, using less than lethal means.


No doubt, you are correct. I however, own nothing that I would take such a risk for, I don't attach myself to inanimate objects, I have insurance that will replace those things, as for animals, same thing, they are just property and, replaceable ( though I recognize that some folk attach sentimental value to some pets)

If the guy decides not to leave, and reaches for a weapon, or has friends come out of hiding - creating discrepancy of force, then SD law does come into play on my behalf.

My point being, If you are not there, then the discrepancy does not exist.

then we are simply going to disagree on the matter.

Fair enough, just different philosophies on the matter.

The person violating my car also has the option of doing so. Were he to decide to add assault to his list of crimes, and I could not walk away, then my personal safety would be in danger. Force may be justified.

Have I used force to defend my property?

Yup, because;

If things get hinky, I have (and should likely take) the option of walking away.

IMO anything else is;

a vigilante He did so with the intention of dishing out "justice,"

[MLeake]

Defense of one's property when the theft is in commission is not vigilanteism. Going after the thief after the fact would be vigilanteism. You may want to look up your definitions.

Meanwhile, you seem to have a problem with conditional statements and verb tenses.

I was, very clearly I think since others seem to have grasped the point, stating that in the days when I didn't CCW, I would have confronted a thief, and that my current habit of CCW wouldn't change my overall behavior in that regard.

Having a gun won't cause me to do things that I wouldn't have done if I didn't have a gun, but it also won't stop me from doing things I would have done if I didn't have a gun.

So, to make things perfectly clear since you appear to be deliberately obstinate in your interpretations:

Now, when I do CCW, I would still confront the thief, but without initially drawing a weapon. The weapon would still be on me, in its usual, concealed position, but it would not be drawn unless the thief's subsequent actions made it both necessary and legally justified.

Are we clear?

As far as "If I am not there, then the discrepancy doesn't exist," I have every right to be on my property. I have every right to be in the vicinity of my property. I have every right to confront anybody who is actively trying to take my property. In most places, I have every right to use non-lethal force in the defense of said property.

Would I pursue a guy who had just hot-wired and driven off in my truck? No, that's what the cops and OnStar are for, and besides the pursuit would effectively be vigilanteism and unlawful in most states. Would I try to stop the guy if I caught him in the act? Definitely. Would attempting to stop him at that point be vigilanteism or unlawful in most states? No.

So, we have a philosophical difference on whether we would exercise our legal rights, and on whether it is ever justified to risk violence in defense of material things. We also have a philosophical difference on the relative worth of pets. Just realize there are a LOT of people who will react very, very badly to anything untoward being done to one of their animals; I am pretty sure most of my friends and almost all of my family fall into that category.

Then again, I've pulled a dog from a burning house - which I suspect you wouldn't advise somebody doing just to protect "property".

[OldMarksman]

...in the days when I didn't CCW, I would have confronted a thief, and ... my current habit of CCW wouldn't change my overall behavior in that regard.

Having a gun won't cause me to do things that I wouldn't have done if I didn't have a gun, but it also won't stop me from doing things I would have done if I didn't have a gun.

Now, when I do CCW, I would still confront the thief, but without initially drawing a weapon. The weapon would still be on me, in its usual, concealed position, but it would not be drawn unless the thief's subsequent actions made it both necessary and legally justified.

This has drifted pretty far from the original question, but it is a worthwhile discussion.

It might be worth running a simple risk and opportunity analysis here.

First, the opportunities. The best one could hope for is to prevent the theft of the item, which might well be recovered anyway. On top of that, one might gain some sense of accomplishment, and maybe do something that would result in keeping the perp off the streets for a short time.

Risks? Well, there's the chance of being killed or maimed by the perp or his accomplices, or shot by a well meaning citizen with a gun and perhaps a lot of adrenalin and/or testosterone, engaged and possibly bruised up a bit by a policeman who has been summoned by others.

And while one may be supremely confident that his use of deadly force, should it happen, would be completely justified by the "subsequent actions" of the thief, what unfolds may not fit that neat picture, at least in the eyes of others. Forensic evidence, the thief's story, eyewitness or earwitness accounts based on what others thought transpired, etc. may portray a picture of mutual combat or a shooting that was not in fact necessary, and therefore not justified, because it had been avoidable. In every case I have been directly or indirectly familiar with, those for whom legal and regulatory compliance issues have gone bad were supremely confident from the outset that they would be able to explain their actions to the satisfaction of all. It sometimes just doesn't work out that way.

Sure, one may well ultimately prevail, but at what cost? Lawyers, investigators, and expert witnesses don't work for nothing, and should things end up in trial court or maybe in an appeal or two, hold on! Compare that potential cost with the maximum possible upside. "#DIV/0!" won't come up, but it won't be much better. Also, I'm not sure that everyone appreciates just how long the whole thing might drag on. I personally do not relish the idea of getting hurt or making case law at my expense if I can avoid it.

In most SD training, the best advice is to stay in a position of safety unless it is otherwise necessary to ensure the safety of others. I think that advice applies well here.

[MLeake]

Your analysis is accurate, and good.

On a related note, safety can be taken to an extreme. As a former squadron CO of mine once said, "Safety is NOT our first priority. If it were, we would never fly, we'd just leave the aircraft in the barn. Mission accomplishment is our number one priority, and we will achieve that through professionalism and dedication to duty. Safety will be a byproduct of professionalism."

I've had to make decisions on just how low I could let the fuel burn down, before heading back to shore from an overwater SAR. This involved such questions as "Are there any closer airfields than the one I had planned? If a nearer field is available, what is the weather supposed to be there? Is there at least one instrument approach I can shoot, if the weather is not Visual Meteorological Conditions? How much longer can I hang out here, if I shut down an engine?" I frequently have had to make decisions based on weather, or equipment status, or crew fatigue and distraction levels, vs importance of the mission.

Some missions, you burn down to the minimum before heading for a field. Some missions, you may consider continuing after an engine or electrical problem. Others, you go home, or you land at the nearest suitable field.

IE, a lot of my life has been tied up with risk analysis. More often than not, I've been in a position where some risk is the norm.

This doesn't mean that I don't do risk analysis, it just means that I have no expectation of absolute safety, or anything near it; I do have the ability, from many years of practice, to quickly assess a situation and decide how my personal capabilities match up.

Caveat: For training evolutions, minor supply runs, etc, the acceptable level of risk is significantly lower. Again, the benefits are not always the same, and so the risks they justify are not the same.

However, one thing to bear in mind when doing any risk/benefit analysis is that not all people place the same value on things.

You may not place much benefit on protecting livestock or a family pet, for instance, and you don't have to. I do, and it's pretty hard-wired. I'd feel much worse about letting harm come to my dog, for instance, than I would feel about kicking the crap out of some stranger who tried to abuse her.

I'd also feel pretty stupid just watching somebody take my truck. Could it be recovered? Sure. Would it be likely to be returned in good condition? Less likely. How much money would I lose, after any insurance payment was considered? Not sure.

Would I be extremely annoyed with myself for having done nothing when I had the option to take action? Yes.

That said, while it's most likely I'd confront somebody trying to take property, it's guaranteed I'd confront somebody who was trying to steal or harm one of my animals.

There is a certain value to be attached to the ability to live with oneself.

[csmsss]

All this talk of vigilantism is absurd on its face. It's also a total non sequitur. As a citizen, we each have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to intervene if we observe a crime being committed, and to do everything possible to end it and ARREST the person(s) committing the crime(s) under the common law principle of citizen's arrest. The power of arrest is NOT the exclusive monopoly of law enforcement agencies, though it appears that several posters above are assiduously misleading others into thinking that is the case.

Joe Horn is a hero - pure and simple. He protected his neighbor's property, and his own life. The deaths of the criminals in that case, though some may find tragic (I do not), are due to their own misconduct.

[OuTcAsT]

Are we clear?

Crystal!

As I said before, you have every right to confront whomever you desire, and to whatever level you feel necessary, I just don't happen to agree, no harm, no foul.

Then again, I've pulled a dog from a burning house - which I suspect you wouldn't advise somebody doing just to protect "property"

You are correct, I grew up on a cattle and pig farm, animals hold no sentimental value for me, a dog is simply a dog. (If I could get him out I would, but if not, would lose no sleep over it.

I think OldMarksman summed my position up nicely;

In most SD training, the best advice is to stay in a position of safety unless it is otherwise necessary to ensure the safety of others. I think that advice applies well here.

[Tom Servo]

The power of arrest is NOT the exclusive monopoly of law enforcement agencies, though it appears that several posters above are assiduously misleading others into thinking that is the case.
Technically, you are correct. But civilians do not have some of the powers granted to law enforcement, nor do we have an army of lawyers standing by to protect us from the possible liability issues that may arise.

Joe Horn is a hero - pure and simple. He protected his neighbor's property, and his own life. The deaths of the criminals in that case, though some may find tragic (I do not), are due to their own misconduct.
This could be construed to say that the criminals in some way deserved to die. Sorry, but there is absolutely no way I can agree.

[fiddletown]

...As a citizen, we each have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to intervene if we observe a crime being committed, and to do everything possible to end it and ARREST the person(s) committing the crime(s) under the common law principle of citizen's arrest....An absolute right? Not by any means.

At common law, the power of a private citizen to effect a lawful arrest was limited to a felony being committed in his presence, or when a felony has in fact been committed whether or not in his presence and the arrester has reasonable ground (probable cause) to believe the person he arrests has committed it; or a misdemeanor is being committed in the presence or view of the arrester which amounts to a breach of the peace.

The power of arrest has been further circumscribed by statute or case law in various U. S. jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, for example, while a private citizen may arrests someone for a felony, if the accused is acquitted, he can sue the arrester for false arrest. Utah prohibits the use of lethal force to effect a citizens arrest.

So any right to intervene is not by any means absolute, and one would be well advised to be thoroughly familiar with the applicable law wherever he may be.

[OldMarksman]

I'd feel much worse about letting harm come to my dog, for instance, than I would feel about kicking the crap out of some stranger who tried to abuse her.On that we agree.

I'd also feel pretty stupid just watching somebody take my truck. However, it may well be the smart thing to do. Would I feel frustrated, irritated, annoyed, and angry? Yes indeed. But I would choose to not do anything stupid. Let 'em take it, I'll stay out of harm's way, away from civil liability, and out of the reach of the long arm of the law. It's a truck, for heaven's sake!

And if push should come to shoot---you say it was self defense and justified, they say it was to defend property and unlawful. Not worth it, IMHO.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Joe Horn is a hero - pure and simple.

I've served with heroes in the military. Joe Horn is not in their universe. He is in no way whatsoever a hero. He was a guy who got mad and wanted to play cop and needlessly killed two men and now desperately regrets he did it. I think calling him a hero demands some relooking at one's values. Burglarly does not merit the death penalty.

So any right to intervene is not by any means absolute, and one would be well advised to be thoroughly familiar with the applicable law wherever he may be.

This is from a lawyer csmsss. I would listen to that advice. Joe Horn was lucky that a cop testified for him (that cop's presence further showing the stupidity of Horn firing) or Joe Horn would be in jail right now. Might want to remember that before you attempt a "citizens arrest".

[MLeake]

... burglary doesn't merit the death penalty, and I'm not surprised Horn is unhappy with the outcome and would do things differently next time.

However, burglary isn't what got those two the death penalty; their decision to close on Horn in a threatening manner is what did that. As you noted, the police officer confirmed Horn's description of events.

So, while I'm not happy they got shot, I also wouldn't have voted to indict nor convict Horn.

What almost got Horn in trouble with that whole scenario, though, was that he was defending his neighbor's property, not his own. As I understand it, that was the critical legal issue that would have come into play in Texas, if there hadn't been a witness to corroborate that the two burglars actually attempted to engage Horn.

If the burglarly had been on Horn's property to begin with, in Texas, I don't think indictment would have even been in question.

Again, not endorsing Horn's approach, for a number of reasons I don't have time to go into at the moment, but from a Texas legal scenario I think the only chink in his armor was the fact that the property he initially sought to defend wasn't his own.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, burglary isn't what got those two the death penalty;

No, it was Horn deciding to play cop and going out there to confront them when he didn't need to. Also, he shot those guys in the back and probably surprised them when he stepped outside. Maybe at that point he was justified in SD but what got him to the point that he needed to defend himself is the problem.

If the burglarly had been on Horn's property to begin with, in Texas, I don't think indictment would have even been in question.

And we wouldn't be talking about it. However, they were not burglarizing his property and they would have been caught by police responding to the scene.

Maybe in Texas Horn does not have a "legal" problem but in my mind AND his own mind he has a real moral problem that will hound him for a long time.

The real truth is that Horn got into that situation because he was mad that two guys were burgularizing a house next door and the police coming was not enough for him so he foolishly injected himself into the situation and killed two men who should be locked up now.

I agree with Mas Ayoob that the Joe Horn affair is not a good example for the rest of us to learn.

[Tom Servo]

I'd feel much worse about letting harm come to my dog, for instance, than I would feel about kicking the crap out of some stranger who tried to abuse her.
Yep. Fortunately, animal cruelty is a felony where I live, and though I wouldn't use deadly force, I'd certainly be...uncharitable with someone who harmed my dogs.

I think we can all agree (well, most of us) that Horn made a number of bad decisions. In another locale, he could have been charged with murder. Telling the dispatcher at length about how he wasn't going to let it pass? Legal suicide almost anywhere else.

What's more, Horn's actions weren't covered by Florida's notion of castle doctrine. There are many provisions in the various castle doctrine laws that recognize our rights to protect ourselves from harm, but nothing that allows us to play junior law-enforcement.

[OuTcAsT]

No, it was Horn deciding to play cop and going out there to confront them when he didn't need to.

Spot on !

Maybe in Texas Horn does not have a "legal" problem but in my mind AND his own mind he has a real moral problem that will hound him for a long time.

Again, we agree.

All this talk of vigilantism is absurd on its face. It's also a total non sequitur. As a citizen, we each have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to intervene if we observe a crime being committed, and to do everything possible to end it and ARREST the person(s) committing the crime(s) under the common law principle of citizen's arrest. The power of arrest is NOT the exclusive monopoly of law enforcement agencies, though it appears that several posters above are assiduously misleading others into thinking that is the case.

No, It is, in Fact, not the case in all but the most strict circumstances and, you would do well to heed this advice;



Originally Posted by fiddletown
So any right to intervene is not by any means absolute, and one would be well advised to be thoroughly familiar with the applicable law wherever he may be.
This is from a lawyer csmsss. I would listen to that advice. Joe Horn was lucky that a cop testified for him (that cop's presence further showing the stupidity of Horn firing) or Joe Horn would be in jai right nowl. Might want to remember that before you attempt a "citizens arrest".

[Al Norris]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence? I should never confront the BG about his unlawful actions?

There must no longer be any civic duties that the citizen is responsible for. No wonder they no longer teach civics in school anymore!

N.B. The above was entirely sarcastic in nature with a bit of well placed irony thrown in for good measure.

[Tom Servo]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence?
No, no, no...you're still getting it all wrong!

Even the act of calling 911 could lead to a confrontation between the perpetrators and the police, and someone could get hurt! Won't someone think of the children?

I do think there's a balance to be found here. Still, I'm the sort to err on the side of caution, if that is a viable alternative. I'm not going to sit inside and dial 911 if someone's lighting my house on fire.

Likewise, I have a right to verbally confront someone who's defiling my property. Yelling, "hey, stop!" is not escalation. Waving a gun and yelling, "hey, stop!" may be, depending on circumstances.

Every situation is unique, and it's unlikely any of us will be there to coach someone when they're in the soup.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There must no longer be any civic duties that the citizen is responsible for.

Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty. That is rather than just looking the other way and saying "None of my business".

Going out to try and "capture" two bad guys with a shotgun while the police are on the way (and in one case already there) might be an unnecessary escalation.

I like to holler, so why not holler at the guys that the cops are coming and you are armed. Most probably they will run away. Again situation dependent but the question is kind of like shooting in SD. Do you shoot to stop or shoot to kill?

Are we trying to stop the property crime or capture the bad guy? If the guy runs away is that enough civic duty or do we need to do the Dudley DoRight thing and subdue the BG at the risk of having to shoot him? Can we fulfill our civic duty to report and help stop property crime without shooting?

[OldMarksman]

Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty. That is rather than just looking the other way and saying "None of my business". Yes indeed.

Going out to try and "capture" two bad guys with a shotgun while the police are on the way (and in one case already there) might be an unnecessary escalation.Not to mention mighty unwise. I'm reminded of the Texas airline mechanic who went outside with his shotgun at night not too long ago to investigate a noise. He was jumped by two perps, shot and stabbed, and had to have his arm amputated.

I'm not trained as a law enforcement officer; I'm not indemnified; I am not sworn to uphold the law; and my authority to effect an arrest, subdue a perp, and display a weapon, among other things, are far more limited.

The arriving LEO can do all of those things and take the perps into custody even for probable cause for a crime not serious enough to make a citizen's arrest lawful. He has the training; the approved procedures; the indemnification; the authority; the tools, including less than lethal weapons, radio, etc., with which to do it; and he has the duty. He's also part of a larger force.

Will he "confront" a thief, and base his next actions on the thief's "subsequent actions"? Not where I live, unless the perp somehow presents a serious immediate danger. No, you'll see two of 'em show up, and they'll be in constant contact with others as they close in on the guy.

Might we learn something from that about what might be the wisest thing to do?

[Al Norris]

The thread has wandered from the original theme. Nonetheless, it is still related, as "Castle Doctrine" is intertwined with the "No Duty to Retreat" laws.

We seem to be focusing more on the latter than the former, so...
No, no, no...you're still getting it all wrong!
Not at all, Tom. First, didn't you notice the sarcasm tags? Secondly, since this was my first post in this thread, I hardly think I can "still" get anything, right or wrong.

But bare with me, a moment. I will explain more fully.
Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty.
A civic duty. Singular. There are others.

As you implied, it is the citizens duty to stop the crime. Whether or not the Bad Guy is arrested (captured?) is not the imperative, here.

We have some, here, who cry the meme, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away," in order to emphasize the point of owning defensive firearms.

We have others who have shown in scenario after scenario, that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of defensive posturing. This is a good reminder, as there are other tactics and tricks that should be in our bags of self-defense.

Combining the two are necessary for well rounded personal defense. That should be a given. But here, we began talking about what happens outside the domicile, and some of you would rather not take any risks. You espouse the idea of retreating to the supposed safety of your house and calling the police... Let them handle it. Afterall, isn't that what we pay them for?

In doing this, we have just shirked our duty and responsibility to our society. We have given the criminal all he needs to complete his current activity and empowered him to commit more crime. Afterall, we didn't do anything to curtail his activity, did we?

Oh.... we called the police. :barf:

Civic Duty requires that you take a risk and get involved. How you do that is up to you, but perhaps refreshing your history of the Father of Civic Responsibility might help: Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. I don't know what they teach today, but Cincinnatus was the role model my civics teacher used.

A modern example can be found in my posts, here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209501) (see posts #32 and #33 of that thread). So, I have drawn my line in the sand, and defended that line.

To the scumbags of the world, I say: You. Will. Not. Cross!

[Tom Servo]

First, didn't you notice the sarcasm tags? Secondly, since this was my first post in this thread, I hardly think I can "still" get anything, right or wrong.
Sorry, I was being snarky too. Should've probably used an emoticon. We're largely in agreement.

[OldMarksman]

But here, we began talking about what happens outside the domicile, and some of you would rather not take any risks. You espouse the idea of retreating to the supposed safety of your house and calling the police... Let them handle it.

Take any risks? We take risks whether we don't even call or whether shoot at them. It's a matter of likelihood and of the severity of potential consequences. I, for one, find the risks of severe injury, criminal charges, and civil suits totally unacceptable. I don't want to lose property, but that consequence is far more acceptable to me. I'll reluctantly accept that risk to mitigate the other, more serious ones.

Afterall, isn't that what we pay them [the police] for?It's not that. We train, equip, authorize, and indemnify them. And they'll bring the necessary number of people.

In doing this, we have just shirked our duty and responsibility to our society. We have given the criminal all he needs to complete his current activity and empowered him to commit more crime. Afterall, we didn't do anything to curtail his activity, did we?

I'm not sure what you would recommend that I do. Unlike what happens on television, I cannot arrest them for simple theft, I cannot even point a gun at them (much less shoot them), and where I live I do have a duty to retreat. Probably would not go very well for me if I tried to play cop.

As far as physical risks go, those who have been involved in auto thefts and thefts from autos this summer in and around my neighborhood have ranged from youngsters in groups to adult, hardened criminals operating in threes and fours. Not for me to try to bluff alone.

No, it's not that I'm unwilling to take any risks, it's just that I will select which risks to willfully assume as wisely as possible.

As Tom Servo said, it's going to depend on the circumstances. If someone is trying to set either my house on fire or my neighbors' occupied house, I will not depend on first responders from 911. Nor will I likely confront anyone and see what he does next.

[RDak]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence? I should never confront the BG about his unlawful actions?

No, no Al, I'm not saying that.

I have confronted people like that with a long gun before but I didn't shoot. (I didn't have to, they ran away. But I didn't shoot.)

Where I live, I cannot shoot unless they threaten me or someone else with deadly, or severe, physical force.

That's all I was saying.

In every instance, the police never made mention of the long gun. No mention at all. I was surprised by their lack of interest in my gun but it was never mentioned. They just asked me for details as to what had happened at the neighbors' homes.

I told them I had the long gun and they never asked anything more about it other than one time asking if it was a rifle or shotgun. Nothing else was ever said about it.

But I didn't shoot. I just told the police they ran away after confronted.

ETA: One time I was with the neighbor and we both went out back to see what was going on. But the other time I was by myself and on the neighbor's property when I chased off the probable burglar.

The police NEVER made any negative mention of the long gun in either instance.

I posted this question at the MGO site and they advised me to not even do this any longer. I have decided to heed their advice because I don't want to get into trouble if the wrong policeman gets involved if you get what I mean.

Sorry to the guys at MGO, but if I see a neighbor in "deep, deep trouble", I'll still help with my firearm.

I don't know, maybe I'm just an old guy who grew up in a different time?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but if I see a neighbor in "deep, deep trouble", I'll still help with my firearm.

Good on you then. But that is a bit different from shooting them over a bag of your neighbor's loot.

[OuTcAsT]

As you implied, it is the citizens duty to stop the crime.

OK, but what type of crime ?

You have used a particular word in several phrases:

We have some, here, who cry the meme, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away," in order to emphasize the point of owning defensive firearms.


We have others who have shown in scenario after scenario, that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of defensive posturing

This is a good reminder, as there are other tactics and tricks that should be in our bags of self-defense.


Combining the two are necessary for well rounded personal defense.

See the theme here? There is a difference between using a weapon defensively and, fighting crime offensively.

So again, I ask, What crime it is the citizens duty to stop, and to what end ?

Most of us own firearms to protect ourselves and, our families from BGs, or in other words as defensive tools.

Will I use it to stop myself, or my family from being killed ? absolutely!

If I am walking down the street and see a woman getting attacked/raped ? If necessary, absolutely!

If I see Al Norris being beaten or robbed to the point I fear he may be killed ? Absolutely!

If I happen to live next door to Al Norris and see someone carting away his flat screen TV ? Nope. Gonna call 911 and be observant, and a good witness.

I don't think (most) anyone here disputes that we have some obligation to help those in need, but not over property.

Unless I catch someone in the act of committing a crime that is going to cause great injury or death to me, or someone else, then my first responsibility is to myself, and my family, I will call 911, and be vigilant, but not a vigilante.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OuTcAsT, I agree with you!:eek:

I really think the demarcation as it pertains to violent intervention as a civic duty lie between property crime and violent life-threatening crime. Killing over personal property seems to be a poor justification of lethal force morally and in many states legally. However, intervening to save another's life might pass muster. Doing absolutely nothing ('ala Kitty Genovese) in either case would constitute bad citizenship.

[MLeake]

From some of your posts, I gather some of those who argue that deadly force to protect property is never morally justified are former active duty military.

Did you ever get assigned sentry duty? If so, did you let your superiors know that you had moral qualms about shooting at somebody just because they intended to destroy government property?

If it's not morally wrong for government or military agencies to authorize the use of deadly force to protect non-human assets, then why is it morally wrong for private citizens to do so?

If it is always morally wrong to use force to protect non-human assets, how many of you have pointed this out to your representatives with regard to the conduct of DOD and Federal agencies?

[EK and KK in FM]

Hypothetically.

What if EVERY citizen was mandated to CCW? (Except convicted felons. Note I said CITIZEN.)

Would there be MORE crime or LESS crime?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

From some of your posts, I gather some of those who argue that deadly force to protect property is never morally justified are former active duty military.

I have been retired a while now but IIRC most guard duty went the way of Kitchen Police and is now performed by contractors. Nevertheless, keep in mind what is being guarded with deadly force. Weapons(like crew served ones and rocket launchers), explosive ammunition, nukes, etc. Things that bad guys could use to kill lots of people. Not a couple of shotguns and some stereo equipment or the family silver. Not quite the same thing. Plus a lot of the so-called sentrys back in my day weren't even armed with live ammunition.

[MLeake]

... Try approaching any aircraft on the flight-line without authorization, no weapons necessary, and see how Air Force security responds. You'll be spread-eagled on your face, with a rifle at your back; the SP's will shoot if you don't comply with commands.

Actually, I've had a flight engineer end up spread-eagled on his face just for crossing the solid red line between our hangar and our own aircraft; for some obscure reason, the Air Force set up the red line so that the dashed, ok to cross area did not line up with the hangar doors.

Gate security is contracted these days. Flight-line security is not. Some other security functions are not.

[MLeake]

... after re-reading your argument with regard to private citizens, I have to ask this:

So the number of people BG's could kill with a couple of stolen shotguns doesn't meet your minimum threshold?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So the number of people BG's could kill with a couple of stolen shotguns doesn't meet your minimum threshold?

As stated before you are comparing apples and oranges. Protecting national military assets from sabotage by terrorists is not the same as your car stereo that is probably insured. You can do better than this.:rolleyes:

[MLeake]

Since you are the one who brought personal firearms into the equation. Or are you saying that firearms are the lethal equivalent of home stereos with regard to use after a theft?

On a serious note, though - yes, many of those goods are insured. However, unless you've ever been burglarized, you may not realize exactly how much you will lose after depreciation has been factored in. Most policies don't offer "replacement value." You can easily lose thousands of dollars after a fairly minor burglary.

Continuing on a serious note, in theory, we have a right to our property. If we are not allowed to defend our property, then in practice we don't have a real right to our own property.

Furthermore, the argument that "insurance" will cover losses conveniently neglects the fact that TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Insurance pays you, minus depreciation of course, but then insurance raises rates not only on you, but also on your neighbors - since obviously there's a crime problem in the neighborhood. The net effect is that law-abiding folk in general end up losing real assets (goods, then money toward higher premiums), despite any benefits of insurance.

So, by deciding that it's immoral to use force against those who would steal property, you are effectively saying that we should all be willing to pay some money out there in order to, for all practical purposes, enable the thieves.

Before you decide that's a ridiculous statement, what would you call it when society tells would-be criminals "We will stigmatize and prosecute any homeowner who uses force against you, if you try to steal his property - just don't threaten the homeowner, and you can take what you want" ?

Because, ultimately, that's exactly what you are saying. Steal, and you run the risk of being arrested, if and whenever the cops get around to making you their priority; but you won't be shot or harmed, unless the property's actual owner wants to go to jail and give your family all his net worth.

For me, I'll obey the law of my area. But where that law allows me to use deadly force in defense of property (and in my area it does, in certain circumstances), I have no moral or ethical qualms about its use. In fact, I have more of an ethical qualm with telling thieves that I think their right to exist is more important than a homeowner's right to a feeling of security in their own home.

[MLeake]

... with regard to protecting national assets from terrorists...

... your premise is that military security would only use deadly force against an Al-Qaida type organization, that is trying to obtain weapons or destroy weapons in preparation for a campaign.

Do you think deadly force would not be used against, say, ELF (Earth Liberation Front) if they decided to sneak onto McChord AFB and try to burn or blow up a cargo plane? After all, they wouldn't be trying to take explosives, or hijack a suicide plane. They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, such as laboratories at UW...

I'm pretty sure deadly force would be used if surrender were not immediate.

So, do you see a problem with that? If so, what happened to your moral argument?

[OuTcAsT]

In fact, I have more of an ethical qualm with telling thieves that I think their right to exist is more important than a homeowner's right to a feeling of security in their own home.

And there is the key phrase !

If someone breaks into my car while it's sitting in my driveway, I may yell to them, from a place of safety, that I have called 911, then I will assume a defensive posture inside my home, and wait for the LEOs to either catch them, or make a report.

However, if they cross the line by trying to enter my home forcibly, this is where the "Castle laws" take effect, and I will be secure in my own home, count on it.

As stated before you are comparing apples and oranges. Protecting national military assets from sabotage by terrorists is not the same as your car stereo

Spot-on !

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Or are you saying that firearms are the lethal equivalent of home stereos with regard to use after a theft?

Yes if the stereo contains any Ludacris CDs.:rolleyes:

Most policies don't offer "replacement value." You can easily lose thousands of dollars after a fairly minor burglary.

I used to sell insurance so you must have a bad agent. I recommend you get another.

Sorry MLeake your arguments are Reductio ad absurdum especially the Earth Liberation Front LOL. They should be shot for being strange:rolleyes:
BTW that enabling argument is comical. Thieves don't think they will be caught or killed or they wouldn't try to do the deed in the first place. Joe Horn did not stop burglaries in Pasadena TX I'm sure.

If you feel it morally correct to kill another human being to prevent them from stealing replaceable property and it is legal to do so in your area then blast away. I wonder if you will feel jusitified after you've done it. Does Joe Horn feel that way now?

I think your argument places a higher value on personal property than human life and there is your moral issue.

Of course, as always it is easy to say this stuff on the internet however as Joe Horn discovered not so easy to live with. But that's not my problem.

[OuTcAsT]

Do you think deadly force would not be used against, say, ELF (Earth Liberation Front) if they decided to sneak onto McChord AFB and try to burn or blow up a cargo plane? After all, they wouldn't be trying to take explosives, or hijack a suicide plane. They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, such as laboratories at UW...

I'm pretty sure deadly force would be used if surrender were not immediate.

So, do you see a problem with that? If so, what happened to your moral argument?

Again, huge difference. First, how are the security forces going to know that;

They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, ???

Second, you are talking about a break-in of a military installation, They have the ultimate castle laws when it comes to someone invading their "Home"

no moral quandary.

[MLeake]

You are confusing legal with moral.

Your argument is that, in the ELF on a military base example, the military has "the ultimate castle doctrine" in their favor.

All that means is they have the legal authority to use force in that scenario.

This doesn't speak at all to whether doing so would be morally correct.

So, what is your moral take on that scenario?

TG, the argument isn't at all reductio ad absurdum. ELF has been active in the SEA-TAC area for years. Their crimes almost always involve sabotage of tech equipment and facilities, or consumption-heavy vehicles. The odds of them trying to sabotage a federal installation are actually fairly high.

That's the outfit that burned down a UW biology lab back in 2000-2001 timeframe; the lab was involved with bioengineering trees, for more efficient forestry.

Point being, ELF specializes in large-scale property damage, but not anti-human direct violence.

[MLeake]

... if my enabling argument is so comical, then why have crime rates dropped in areas that:

1) have passed shall-issue CCW legislation, and

2) have passed Castle Doctrine variants?

BTW, the tactical of writing off an opponent's argument as "comical" is ubiquitous in L/D and Team Debate, but is not typically all that successful. Being disrespectful only works if you offer a decent counter-argument, and even then it doesn't win you any points with a competent judge.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

... if my enabling argument is so comical, then why have crime rates dropped in areas that:

I would talk to Glenn Meyer about such. Very questionable that what you allege is supported by facts. If you are talking about John Lott then there are a lot of problems with his work that even progun people question.

Being disrespectful only works if you offer a decent counter-argument, and even then it doesn't win you any points with a competent judge.

No disrespect just calling it like it is. I didn't do debate club in school so I wouldn't know about the judge stuff. Where do we go on TFL to see our debate style point score?:confused:

TG, the argument isn't at all reductio ad absurdum.

I think they are absurd. You jump back and forth between a tree-hugger group, stereos and sabotage. Where your argument is weak is that you are just using the broad term property and them extending it absurdly from a car stereo to national military critical assets and thus equating petty theft with terroristic sabotage. That is absurd.

Back to the ELF, if they were burning/blowing up buildings that people occupied then absolutely it would be moral to fire 'em up. But that would not be to protect property.

[MLeake]

Back to ELF, they tend to hit after hours, and avoid casualties. Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?

The argument about "critical national assets" was deliberately set up with an unarmed and unmanned cargo plane, that was being destroyed and not hijacked, IE it couldn't be used to harm others.

The point being, when it comes down to it, all that would be lost is property. Granted, that property might be worth as much as $218M if it's a new C-17, but a destroyed plane can't be used for a 9/11 scenario.

If you think killing somebody over a $218M piece of gear is moral, but killing over a $3k entertainment system isn't, then your morality is determined by dollar amounts. In which case, the question becomes what is the trigger point in terms of unit cost?

If you don't think killing over material goods is ever moral, then you should believe that deadly force should not be used against non-homicidal saboteurs; if you think that's immoral, then you should also think that laws allowing deadly force in defense of government property, barring circumstances that would create a high likelihood of casualties from the act, should in theory be revised to prevent such a possibility.

If you disagree with that, then your argument basically becomes, "If a piece of property is really, really expensive and also belongs to the public, then the use of deadly force to defend it is ok; but it's immoral for private citizens to use deadly force to defend their private property."

In which case, the question becomes why should the government have more rights than the governed, and why is public property moral to defend with lethal force when private property is not?

[OuTcAsT]

Outcast
You are confusing legal with moral.


I Sir, am quite aware of the difference between the two, I am also keenly aware that they are, in some instances, joined at the hip.

Your argument is that, in the ELF on a military base example, the military has "the ultimate castle doctrine" in their favor.

All that means is they have the legal authority to use force in that scenario.


That statement would be correct, but did you comprehend what I said?

My home is my castle, and if someone forcibly enters it, the laws in my State give me the "legal authority" to use deadly force at my discretion, if the situation warrants such.

Under that circumstance, If I use deadly force, I will feel morally justified as well.

A military installation is analogous to a "home", as the personnel there have the right to expect, and a duty to provide, security for that installation. They also have the "legal authority" to protect it with any means necessary.

If someone forcibly enters that installation, the security detail, (much like a homeowner) has no way to determine what someones motives are, and (with even more latitude, but much the same as a homeowner) may use deadly force at their discretion.

If they use such force, they would be both legally, and morally justified IMO.

[MLeake]

... ok, so now move the C-17 to a civil field, but give it a USAF security detail.

They aren't on a base. It isn't their field. They are authorized guests on public property.

Now they have the legal right to use force, but they aren't on a base.

Is their defense of government property, through the possible use of deadly force, moral or is it not?

Actually, as I think of this, you've argued in the past that defense of property within the home is immoral - IE it would be immoral to use force on a thief who is fleeing with your property, or it would be immoral to stop somebody from breaking into a vehicle in the driveway. Using your latest argument, if the entire base and airfield are "home", then by extension wouldn't "home" extend in a private individual's case throughout the property lines, and not just inside the house?

[OuTcAsT]

Back to ELF, they tend to hit after hours, and avoid casualties. Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?

I don't think that the intruders are likely to be shot unless they fail to cooperate with orders, remember this ? ;

... Try approaching any aircraft on the flight-line without authorization, no weapons necessary, and see how Air Force security responds. You'll be spread-eagled on your face, with a rifle at your back; the SP's will shoot if you don't comply with commands.

Actually, I've had a flight engineer end up spread-eagled on his face just for crossing the solid red line between our hangar and our own aircraft; for some obscure reason, the Air Force set up the red line so that the dashed, ok to cross area did not line up with the hangar doors.


You imply that they do not "shoot first and question later" But detain the subject(s) and would only fire if orders are not complied with, Tell ya what; Walk in my front door if you are not supposed to be there and see if you don't get a similar response.

[MLeake]

... you keep using "the front door" now.

However, this is outdoors, and involves a vehicle or an out-structure. Previously, you'd have indicated that confrontations in defense of such were immoral, because they risked a violent escalation.

The only thing that has changed is that now it's a security detail, and the property defended is public property instead of private property.

Your "surrender" argument is disingenuous; you had previously argued not against shooting on sight, but against confronting the thief at all. After all, per your earlier arguments, verbally or physically confronting the thief could result in his choosing to escalate things to a point where deadly force came into play.

When it was suggested that such escalation would require a conscious choice by the BG, you pooh-poohed the idea and said that the property owner was morally responsible for setting the stage.

Yet in the defense of aircraft case, you think the security detail should confront, and if the BG doesn't surrender, you are ok with the use of deadly force from the resultant escalation.

Again, you are effectively arguing for what is legal, vs what is moral, because the scenarios are otherwise the same: confrontation in defense of vehicle or unoccupied outbuilding.

[MLeake]

... take the military out of it.

Make the equipment a $40M corporate jet, on a public airport. Should security be allowed to use deadly force to defend the jet, if there's nobody aboard it, and the BG's are trying to damage the jet on the spot, as opposed to break in and start it up?

Please explain why you think it should or should not be allowed.

[OuTcAsT]

Actually, as I think of this, you've argued in the past that defense of property within the home is immoral - IE it would be immoral to use force on a thief who is fleeing with your property,

If he is fleeing, I have no legal authority to use deadly force to stop him so, yes, you have quoted my position correctly.

or it would be immoral to stop somebody from breaking into a vehicle in the driveway.


Correct.

Using your latest argument, if the entire base and airfield are "home", then by extension wouldn't "home" extend in a private individual's case throughout the property lines, and not just inside the house?

In some jurisdictions the castle laws do extend over your entire property, but again, it all comes back to discretion, I choose to draw the line to the confines of my dwelling.

Your argument about the military contingency is again still comparing apples to oranges, Federal security forces have a duty to act, the morality of their actions depends largely on the circumstances. (Much like a homeowner)

[MLeake]

... don't be disingenuous.

I'm not talking about the morality of the security team personnel following their orders, in a lawful manner.

I'm talking about the rules and laws that allow such orders to be given. If you don't think defense of unoccupied, non-domicile property is moral (assuming escalation to deadly force is a possibility), then you should be opposed to the laws and rules that allow government entities to use such force.

Do you or do you not think the security detail (or for that matter, the flight crew, if they returned to their aircraft to catch saboteurs in the attempt, and assuming the crew were armed) should have the obligation and authority to use deadly force in such a scenario?

And if you do think they should, then explain why defense of a vehicle on my property would be somehow less "moral".

[OuTcAsT]

Your "surrender" argument is disingenuous;

Indeed? The problem is that I am trying to keep the discussion within the realm of the "Castle Laws" and you continue to interject these military, or public confrontations.

I have made myself clear on my opinions of both my moral and legal standpoints on the subject, and see no reason to keep following you down your rabbit holes.

Let me make it very plain; A firearm is Life insurance, not property insurance.

Are we clear?

[MLeake]

... what you are saying is you can't think of a good reason why it's moral for government entities to use deadly force in defense of property, but not moral for private individuals to do the same, so you're taking your ball and going home.

It's not a rabbit hole, it's a pretty straightforward argument.

The government allows and in fact obligates personnel to be prepared to use deadly force in defense of property. This is not dependent on the property being a domicile, or even occupied. This is also not dependent on the property being "critical gear."

Unless you think security wouldn't be prepared to fire on saboteurs who were setting fire to primary training aircraft...

In which case, if firearms are LIFE insurance, not PROPERTY insurance, then you should be writing your congressfolk and state legislators about the possible use of deadly force by federal, military, and LEO to defend property. After all, you don't think it's moral, right?

[OuTcAsT]

I'm talking about the rules and laws that allow such orders to be given. If you don't think defense of unoccupied, non-domicile property is moral (assuming escalation to deadly force is a possibility), then you should be opposed to the laws and rules that allow government entities to use such force.


Let me ask you this, since I gather you are either active or former service; If your MOS puts you on one of these security details, and (Lets assume you don't feel shooting to protect property is morally justifiable)
and,you are required by orders, or the circumstances, to fire, will you disregard the order? Or if you are in a command position, would you give that order if security were your standing orders?

... don't be disingenuous.

I have not been, now please answer the question, will you do your duty or not?

[OuTcAsT]

In which case, if firearms are LIFE insurance, not PROPERTY insurance, then you should be writing your congressfolk and state legislators about the possible use of deadly force by federal, military, and LEO to defend property. After all, you don't think it's moral, right?

I see no reason, as I can tell the difference between the Apple and the Orange.

[MLeake]

... is defense of public PROPERTY, vs defense of private PROPERTY.

It's not Apple and Orange. If it is, then explain why it is. You can't just say, "it's not the same, obviously."

Well, you can, but it's intellectually lazy, at best.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?

Does the Security Detail have police arrest powers on government property? Yeees, so if the ELF resists arrest violently force may be used to effect the arrest.

... take the military out of it.

That is a good idea since you do not seem to understand that cargo aircraft are vital to national defense and do not seem to know a lot about the military.

However, I am chuckling as you dance from thing to thing trying to qualify your scenarios to absurdity.

The question is not the simple defense of public vs private property. May I morally use deadly force to stop a terrorist from stealing a nuke (public property) and also a teenage punk from stealing my Surefire flashlight from my car (private property) is an absurd comparison.

You are comparing a life threatening theft to one that threatens no one's life. Can you not see the difference?

You sound like Joe Horn. I am mad because they are stealing something from me (or in his case another person he didn't really even know) that I could replace so I want to use deadly force against them. That is not a moral decision. It is an emotional one.

The government allows and in fact obligates personnel to be prepared to use deadly force in defense of property.

Just as an aside since we've established you don't know a lot about the military, security personnel cannot use deadly force willy nilly to defend military property. An MP may not shoot you if you shoplift at the PX. He might however, if you try to enter a restricted area (defined by law) that is posted with warnings not to enter. Your comparisons are fraught with problems thus.

[Tom Servo]

You sound like Joe Horn. (...) we've establsihed you don't know a lot about the military
I agree with much of what you've said, but we're really just sniping at each other here.

The original post has been answered, and good points have been raised about the circumstances under which force is justified. At some point, we've lost track of things, though.

One interesting question has been raised in the last couple of pages, however. Although simple protection of property is not a justification for lethal force, there are circumstances under which it is justified in defense of government property. Is there a moral or constitutional authority granted to those guarding such assets that is not available to civilians, and if so, from where is it derived?

Might make a good thread of its own.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but we're really just sniping at each other here.

You're right. You ever seen the game where the gophers pop up and you just keep knocking them down? Gets tiring after awhile.

Is there a moral or constitutional authority granted to those guarding such assets that is not available to civilians, and if so, from where is it derived?

For military installations it is derived from statute and Rules of Engagement policy by DoD.

[MLeake]

... guess you're right, I must not know much about the military.

Other than just finishing up my 20, and now being a deploying contractor, I've had no exposure whatever. :rolleyes:

So yes, I understand that airlift is critical. Then again, I asked the same question, using a primary trainer aircraft. Think T-34, T-6, or T-37. Those aren't "critical assets" by any stretch, yet they would also be defended by armed security, with fatal results to a saboteur who didn't surrender.

And I'm not jumping around all over the place. The theme has remained the same - government agencies are authorized to use deadly force in defense of property. What makes that inherently morally acceptable, if it is unacceptable to use deadly force to protect private property?

You have flung insults, and behaved in a snarky manner, and made fun of my scenarios. What you have not done is answered my basic question, which has remained the same throughout the different examples I've offered. Why is it morally acceptable for the government to use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property, if it is morally unacceptable for a private individual to do the same thing?

Either answer that question, or admit that you don't have a good answer for it.

And TG, just like I told OutCast, when you talk about the authority to do things granted by law and ROE, you are talking about legal vs moral authority. The argument you've used vs individuals is a moral argument. Please stick to the moral argument. Legal and moral aren't always all that closely related.

[Dragon55]

Why is it morally acceptable for the government to use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property, if it is morally unacceptable for a private individual to do the same thing?

I've read the last 2 pages of this snipe fest and would enjoy the next volley.

[Dragon55]

This reminds me of that old joke about the scruffy looking guy offering a lady $20 for ____________ and she acts very indignant until he sets a suitcase with a $1,000,000 in it on the bar and makes the same offer.... which she then delightfully accepts.
So he sez .. of course... "Young lady so it's not a matter of what you are but merely what your price is."

So... what is the price of a thief or saboteur or arsonists' life??

[CARGUY2244]

Ever seen posted property? "Tresspassers will be shot". Crystal clear. I always liked clarity.

[OuTcAsT]

Either answer that question, or admit that you don't have a good answer for it.


I will challenge you to do the same, if you can. You just stated;

... guess you're right, I must not know much about the military.

Other than just finishing up my 20, and now being a deploying contractor

So, you must have some knowledge of the COC,ROE, what constitutes a direct order, and the oath you and many of the rest of us have taken. Since you dodged the question the first time, let me ask again;

Let me ask you this, since I gather you are either active or former service;(Now confirmed) If your MOS puts you on one of these security details, and (Lets assume you don't feel shooting to protect property is morally justifiable)
you are required by orders, or the circumstances, to fire, will you disregard the order? Or if you are in a command position, would you give that order if security were your standing orders?

Now please answer the question, will you do your duty or not? (or again dodge or obfuscate the simple, direct question?)

If you have the credentials you claim, and I'm sure you do, then regardless of your personal feelings, you will follow standing orders. Why? because you too know the difference between the Apple and the Orange.

And TG, just like I told OutCast, when you talk about the authority to do things granted by law and ROE, you are talking about legal vs moral authority.

Please MLeake dont make such a "disingenuous" request, as you know full well that the two have no bearing on each other.

[MLeake]

You are the one dodging the question.

I've stated, repeatedly, that we are talking about YOUR interpretation of whether the POLICY is moral, not about the morality of a soldier, sailor, or airman following the policy.

BTW, since I'm the one defending the idea of confronting persons over crimes against one's own property, it should be obvious to anybody that I won't have a moral issue with the aforementioned soldiers, sailors, and airmen following their lawful orders. And no, I would not have refused such orders.

So, once again - and you still haven't answered the question, just made some snide and insipid remark about apples and oranges - we aren't talking about legality. Even if you want to discuss law, legality does not create morality, although the reverse can sometimes be true - our morality usually biases the sorts of laws we pass. But, what is legal is not always moral.

So, if you believe that the potential use of deadly force as a result of confrontations over property crimes is IMMORAL, when the confrontation is made by a private citizen protecting his property, then how can you think the POLICY of using deadly force to confront perpetrators of property crimes is MORAL when the confrontation is made by government personnel?

To reiterate, this is NOT about the morality of the security personnel. It's about the morality of the POLICY that allows the engagement, over non-national-security critical assets.

Please answer, for once.

[OuTcAsT]

I have, numerous times. While I do not feel that shooting someone over my personal property is justifiable morally (by ME) I have no problem with assets of the DoD being protected by lethal force, nor would I refuse a direct order to do so. Why? Because my 36" plasma TV has no effect on national security, the encroachment of UA's on a military installation does. Should I use smaller words ? or type more slowly?

just made some snide and insipid remark about apples and oranges

Sorry but that is what it boils down to, it ain't rocket surgery.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So yes, I understand that airlift is critical. Then again, I asked the same question, [this time] using a primary trainer aircraft.

And I'm not jumping around all over the place.

ROFL! No you're not jumping around :rolleyes: you just keep changing the property example each time you are refuted. If I answer the trainer question what will be next; shoplifting in the PX?

yet they would also be defended by armed security, with fatal results to a saboteur who didn't surrender.

That is called resisting arrest not using deadly force to defend property.

government agencies are authorized to use deadly force in defense of property

No, they are not authorized to use deadly force in defense of all government property. Were you really on active duty? Can you not understand that the government thru law can do things morally that civilians cannot? They can imprison people, you cannot, they can execute people, you cannot, they can declare war, you cannot, they can seize property, you cannot etc. There is no moral equivilence that you are asserting between lawful use of deadly force by the government and that of private citizens. Therefore the apples and oranges OuTcAsT keeps calling you on.

Why is it morally acceptable for the government to use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property, if it is morally unacceptable for a private individual to do the same thing?

The government doesn't use deadly force to defend unoccupied, non-defense-critical property. Period. So the question is moot. The government may only use deadly force to defend certain property and if you were really on active duty you would know that. As I stated before MPs who shoot folk for shoplifting will probably be court martialed.

Legal and moral aren't always all that closely related.

But more often than not they are. ;)

[Tom Servo]

Because my 36" plasma TV has no effect on national security, the encroachment of UA's on a military installation does.
It might, depending on what was watched on it ;)

To rephrase the question: if a piece of property is deemed as having an effect on national security, then it's OK to kill over it? How do we decide what qualifies and what doesn't? Who has the ultimate moral authority to make such distinctions?

I won't pretend to have answers; they're rhetorical questions. They're good food for thought, but I think they merit a separate thread of their own.

To sum up: Castle Doctrine good. Joe Horn maybe not so good. Apples and oranges, both tasty. Defending the honor of a 36" Plasma TV to the gravest extreme (no matter how amazing Halo looks on it), questionable.

Getting all hot and bothered, and not in a good way, on a Saturday night? Meh.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

To rephrase the question: if a piece of property is deemed as having an effect on national security, then it's OK to kill over it? How do we decide what qualifies and what doesn't? Who has the ultimate moral authority to make such distinctions?

The gubmint. See DoD Directive 5210.56 http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/521056.htm

Now back to some football!

[OuTcAsT]

There is no moral equivalence that you are asserting between lawful use of deadly force between government and private citizens. Therefore the apples and oranges OuTcAsT keeps calling you on.

Precisely, I could not find enough three letter words to state my point any more unambiguously. ;)

[Tom Servo]

Now back to some football!
New York Red Bulls won!

Giving up hope that this will go back on the rails. I tried.

[Dragon55]

Tennessee has a very similar Castle Law. However......

I couldn't take a life just for trying to steal my truck from my garage (even though I spent 8 hours today removing dead paint and waxing).

I could take a life if someone showed up in my house uninvited at 3:00 AM.

I'm not sure until it happened what I would do if someone was trying to blow up my stable with lots of horses in it.

[Al Norris]

Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.