Use of deadly force

[apdst]

I agree. If someone is in my house, I dont know them and I cannot tell if they are armed or not, shoot them. How bout if they are standing on my front porch looking mean?

If he's on your porch, waste his butt.

 

[apdst]

:mrgreen: you definitely have a right to defend your property, even if it's a 20 dollar watch your Father left you in his Will. The sentimental value is worth far more than $20.

A watch he hid in his ass in a POW camp?

Couldn't resist...sorry...lol!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I am interested in this conceptual right, expressed by so many posters here, to use deadly force upon someone who is considered to be committing simple trespass (i.e. walking onto your property without permission).

I don't think anyone is asserting the right to use lethal force in response to simple trespass. There exists in most of the United States the right to use lethal force in defense against someone who has broken into your home, and against someone on your property who is behaving in a threatening fashion. Legally, the right to use lethal force is conditional upon threat to life or property, whether that threat is explicit or implicit. Ethically, even my standards require some level of threat, though admittedly that level is much lower than most peoples'.

The use of the sort of deadly force promised by so many posters here in response to simple trespass (unaccompanied by violence or the threat of violence,) would earn you a life sentence in the British courts.

My impression of the British legal system is that it takes an incredibly dim view of any kind of self-defense and rather expects its citizens to allow themselves to be beaten to death while waiting for law enforcement.

 

[joko104]

Only when no other option is available.

That is no answer at all since there is always the option of dying and therefore your answer, of course, is never, but then you are intensely anti-gun so it fits.

 

[Jango]

If someone was attacking my wife, I'd more than likely respond with deadly force. But if it was me or anyone else, I'd use whatever force necessary to diffuse the situation.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That is no answer at all since there is always the option of dying and therefore your answer, of course, is never, but then you are intensely anti-gun so it fits.

I haven't seen any evidence that CanadaJohn is rabidly anti-gun.

 

[CanadaJohn]

That is no answer at all since there is always the option of dying and therefore your answer, of course, is never, but then you are intensely anti-gun so it fits.

Well, that's a load of crap - obviously, options imply you intend to move forward after the event so dying isn't an option unless you're suicidal and I'm not giving out advice on that subject just now. Secondly, can you quote one post of mine where I've ever been "intensely anti-gun" or even mildly anti-gun? In fact, I have no problem with other people owning guns, collecting guns, using guns, etc. It's good for the economy and keeps people entertained and occupied, both good things. I've indicated I've never owned a gun nor have I ever wanted or felt a need to own a gun, but that's just me. I try never to impose my personal needs/beliefs on other people, in guns or in any other personal life choices.

As the old saying goes, " better to stay quiet and let people wonder about your intelligence than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

 

[CRUE CAB]

I am interested in this conceptual right, expressed by so many posters here, to use deadly force upon someone who is considered to be committing simple trespass (i.e. walking onto your property without permission).

Under English Common Law you can't be prosecuted for straight-forward trespass per se, but the land owner can take civil proceedings against you for damages. The onus would be on them to prove your actions resulted in their financial loss. The penalties would depend upon the extent of that loss.

The law of Criminal Trespass under the Organised Crime and Police a Act 2005 mainly concerns trespassing on Crown Property. The penalty for that is a fine up to £5000 or six months imprisonment This law was brought about to help with cases such as protesters entering MoD property and causing extensive and deliberate damage.

The use of the sort of deadly force promised by so many posters here in response to simple trespass (unaccompanied by violence or the threat of violence,) would earn you a life sentence in the British courts.

What I am wondering is the precise legal position with regard to simple trespass. Someone walks into your front garden - you shoot him dead (which is the assertion you are making,) what do the police say when they arrive?

Firstly, we dont care how they do it in Britain.
And we are not talking about someone trespassing, but coming on to your property looking to steal and or do harm.

 

[SMTA]

That is no answer at all since there is always the option of dying and therefore your answer, of course, is never, but then you are intensely anti-gun so it fits.

CJ is not anti gun.

You need to back off, and read his posts again.

 

[rhinefire]

In Texas we can shoot people even as they are running away. Ah, ya gotta luv it.

 

[polgara]

CJ is not anti gun.

You need to back off, and read his posts again.

Greetings, SMTA! :2wave:

:agree: CJ has made that very clear many times!

 

[SMTA]

Greetings, SMTA! :2wave:

:agree: CJ has made that very clear many times!

Hi PG.

Yes he has!

 

[The Baron]

I'm not a gun owner and never used a gun before, so pardon me if this sounds stupid, but using a gun to stop a crime does not necessarily mean using deadly force. It's an argument made against police on a regular basis, and they usually are able to defend against it, but with a private citizen I'm not sure. Since we're not talking about legal rights here, I'd say it would haunt me forever if I killed someone and simply wounding them or scaring them would have sufficed.

It's like I taught my daughters...when it's 3:00 a.m. and some drug-craved pervert is banging on your door you have to decide if this situation merits pulling out your gun. Once the gun comes out there are no further decisions to be made. You're about to kill someone.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It's like I taught my daughters...when it's 3:00 a.m. and some drug-craved pervert is banging on your door you have to decide if this situation merits pulling out your gun. Once the gun comes out there are no further decisions to be made. You're about to kill someone.

That's fair - it may be one of the reasons I don't have a gun and don't want one - I'd have trouble taking that stance if the time came - fortunately, I've never had any experiences even remotely close to ones where I'd ever need to use a gun for self-defense and I hope to keep it that way - unfortunately, there are lots of other people who haven't been so lucky and I fully support their desire and need to own and potentially use a gun in such situations.

 

[Leo]

I don't think anyone is asserting the right to use lethal force in response to simple trespass.

Most people in this thread are not - but there are those who are implying precisely that.

In Washington State as someone walks onto my property they are trespassing and I have the legal right to shoot them.

You come on my property you get a warning, 10 seconds later you are getting shot. And I mean property, not just house.

If he's on your porch, waste his butt.

But to return to sensible discourse -

There exists in most of the United States the right to use lethal force in defense against someone who has broken into your home, and against someone on your property who is behaving in a threatening fashion. Legally, the right to use lethal force is conditional upon threat to life or property, whether that threat is explicit or implicit. Ethically, even my standards require some level of threat, though admittedly that level is much lower than most peoples'.

The right to use lethal force to prevent death or life-threatening injury exists in most jurisdictions around the world, including the UK. As you point out, it is conditional upon the level of threat. But simple trespass may not legally be met with lethal force in the UK, or western Europe, and I suspect the law is not very different in the United States. So, presumably, all this tough talk about shooting dead anyone found on one's property is just talk - unless people are so ignorant of the law, they are willing to risk prison for a very long time.

My impression of the British legal system is that it takes an incredibly dim view of any kind of self-defense and rather expects its citizens to allow themselves to be beaten to death while waiting for law enforcement.

Then, with the greatest respect, might I suggest you learn a little more about the British legal system.

The level of force allowed in a case of self-defence is required to be proportional to the threat - I do not regard that as an incredibly dim view of any kind of self-defence, or the requirement to allow oneself to be beaten to death. I realise that you are using rhetorical exaggeration to make a point, but let's keep our feet on the ground. :lol:

 

[mak2]

I think this is the problem with SYG and how a small, but significant, minority of gun owners intereperted the Zimmerman trail wehter he plead it or not. I never hear the resonalble person qualifier anymore.

 

[American]

I agree...there's a lot of John Wayne wannabe's on this site though.

Who for instance?

 

[longview]

In Texas we can shoot people even as they are running away. Ah, ya gotta luv it.

Only at night!!

 

[mak2]

That really is a problem, even it Texas.

Only at night!!

 

[The Baron]

That's fair - it may be one of the reasons I don't have a gun and don't want one - I'd have trouble taking that stance if the time came - fortunately, I've never had any experiences even remotely close to ones where I'd ever need to use a gun for self-defense and I hope to keep it that way - unfortunately, there are lots of other people who haven't been so lucky and I fully support their desire and need to own and potentially use a gun in such situations.

I hear ya, for me this was easy.

1. I grew up with it. It's part of our culture.

2. I was attacked once by three guys. They shattered my nose, broke my back, cracked a bunch of ribs...I looked like one big bruise. So I know that "bad things" is just something that happens to other people.

 

[longview]

That really is a problem, even it Texas.

My understanding of the current law, is that if someone is stealing your stuff at night,
their direction does not matter.
We can see from the Zimmerman trial, using deadly force should never be taken lightly.

 

[mak2]

If you are shooting at someone running off with your lawnchair or flowerpot, you are taking it lightly.

My understanding of the current law, is that if someone is stealing your stuff at night,
their direction does not matter.
We can see from the Zimmerman trial, using deadly force should never be taken lightly.

 

[cpgrad08]

:mrgreen: They don't have to be intending harm to you? What if they just got lost, or are a 9 year old child. Washington state seems kinda harsh.

Over thinking it aren't we. Just because I can doesn't mean I will.

 

[BretJ]

I'm not a gun owner and never used a gun before, so pardon me if this sounds stupid, but using a gun to stop a crime does not necessarily mean using deadly force. It's an argument made against police on a regular basis, and they usually are able to defend against it, but with a private citizen I'm not sure. Since we're not talking about legal rights here, I'd say it would haunt me forever if I killed someone and simply wounding them or scaring them would have sufficed.

Here is the issue. If you draw a weapon to protect yourself, it is on the assumption you are willing to use it. Otherwise, it is an empty threat and just as likely to get you injured/murdered. It is the threat of being shot/killed which should stop a criminal from attempting to hurt you. If they see a weapon, and continue to approach you, you have to assume their intent is not to simply shake your hand and thank you for showing them the error of their ways. Their is no such thing as shooting to wound. That is Hollywood fiction unless you happen to have the luxury of sniping a stationary target.

 

[Goshin]

I am interested in this conceptual right, expressed by so many posters here, to use deadly force upon someone who is considered to be committing simple trespass (i.e. walking onto your property without permission).

Under English Common Law you can't be prosecuted for straight-forward trespass per se, but the land owner can take civil proceedings against you for damages. The onus would be on them to prove your actions resulted in their financial loss. The penalties would depend upon the extent of that loss.

The law of Criminal Trespass under the Organised Crime and Police a Act 2005 mainly concerns trespassing on Crown Property. The penalty for that is a fine up to £5000 or six months imprisonment This law was brought about to help with cases such as protesters entering MoD property and causing extensive and deliberate damage.

The use of the sort of deadly force promised by so many posters here in response to simple trespass (unaccompanied by violence or the threat of violence,) would earn you a life sentence in the British courts.

What I am wondering is the precise legal position with regard to simple trespass. Someone walks into your front garden - you shoot him dead (which is the assertion you are making,) what do the police say when they arrive?

Generally speaking, you can't shoot someone JUST for simple trespass. There MIGHT be a state in the union that allows that, but I doubt it. Generally speaking they have to be doing something rather more than just cutting across your lawn to be shootable.

Most states do not allow deadly force in situations where there is no threat other than to property... but many are very permissive with what is considered a threat to persons. Typically breaking into a home, or attempting to, is considered adequate evidence of hostile intent in many states, if the residence is currently occupied. I consider this a reasonable assumption, given that (with residents inside) the odds of conflict between intruder and residents is extremely high... and given the consequences can be severe if you wrongly assume he just wants your telly and it turns out he wants something more personal, I have no problem with shooting any intruder into an occupied home.

You only have to clean up after ONE case where home intruders decided to have some "fun".... things like raping little children to death in front of their parents, that sort of "fun".... to start taking this **** VERY VERY seriously.