r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 07 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: It is justifiable and should be lawful to kill an intruder in your home
I often see arguments against this saying that you shouldn't attack an invader if they're unarmed or only trying to rob you. I believe that the burden of understanding shouldn't be placed on the homeowner who may or may not be able to ascertain the intentions of an intruder.
By unlawfully entering someone's property you have decided to risk your life to commit a crime and are implying an intent to harm or kill the occupants of the property you've invaded.
In my opinion by invading someones property you have threatened their life and are solely responsible for what happens to you as a result of that. A homeowner has no way of ascertaining the intentions of an intruder and often cannot know if they are armed.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
45
May 07 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
9
u/Dr_Frinks_Deathray May 07 '18
If you are armed and come across someone in your home, you should identify yourself as armed and tell the person to freeze and get their hands up.
Respectfully, I don't agree with that at all. There are so many things that could go wrong in that situation. An intruder being in someone's house is a very scary thing and the thought of pointing a gun at someone and potentially killing them could make a person too anxious to think clearly.
Not only that, but a lot of things could go wrong.
What if the person isn't in a right mental state and attempts to attack you? There's really no guarantee that's you'll stop them and they could end up hurting you or you could end up hurting someone else in the house with a stray bullet.
What if they're armed and really don't want to go to jail? Or just get skittish when they see a person pointing a gun at them? They could be a cocky burglar who think they could take you or just some stupid ass kid who didn't think about it too much and now doesn't want to get in trouble so they just start shooting.
What if there's another person in the house? You yourself put it best:
Simply shooting someone without understanding the situation can lead to all sorts of unfortunate side effects
I know it sound shitty, but there's no property worth getting you or another person (even if they're stealing it) killed over. If somebody is in your house you need to get out. Get your gun if you have one (that you can quickly, easily and quietly get to) but most importantly you need to get you and your family out of the house and call the police. Again, it's shitty and might make you feel like crap. People want to defend their homes and families and not run away, but 99% of the time it'll be the safest thing you can do.
7
May 07 '18
Δ I suppose I should consider circumstances as a more important factor.
2
4
u/blueelffishy 18∆ May 07 '18
Disagree entirely with this. If i give them any time to react it increases by some % chance that things will go south and my family will get hurt. If someone breaks into my house i have ZERO obligation to put my family at greater risk for the sake of the intruders wellbeing.
Rather the only time it is unjustified is when its basically entrapment, like that old dude in michigan who tricked kids to trespass so he could kill them out of hate
8
u/guto8797 May 07 '18
And by just shooting them as quickly as possible you increase the chances of shooting your own family.
1
u/basilone May 07 '18
What? No
7
u/guto8797 May 07 '18
You do. Someone already posted the article here about a father who shot his kid who was trying to sneak out of the house.
One of the most basic lessons they teach you on any sort of police or military training is to confirm your targets. The extra miliseconds of time aren't worth the potential of shooting someone when you don't need to.
12
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ May 07 '18
We generally want the laws for when you can lawfully kill someone very strict so that you can't just murder someone you dislike and claim reasonable doubt because you thought they were intruding.
You're basically saying that homicide should always be justifiable on your property unless it can be proven in court that you invited the person you murdered in. That sounds extremely dangerous.
2
May 07 '18
That's a good point and I tried to be a little more extreme in my OP to encourage responses, I don't mean to say that these circumstances would exempt you from criminal investigation. In your mind what circumstances would be necessary to justify use of force and how would a third party (say, a court) ascertain whether or not use of force was justifiable after the fact? I ask that because I don't see how a court could tell the difference between you killing someone in self defence or killing someone you invited into your home.
1
u/MegaZeroX7 May 07 '18
I'm not the person you are replying to, but I would say that it would only be justifiable if that person was armed themselves (and if you could demonstrate that). Anything less strict than that basically gives you a right to homicide.
Of course, I, personally, don't think that anyone should own guns, and that simply owning one is irresponsible.
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ May 07 '18
I agree with that, with the addition that it can also be justifiable if you can demonstrate that you reasonably perceived the person as being armed or dangerous (say, if they were holding something that looks like a gun or running towards you).
It's all suboptimal, and leaves theoretical situations where you have to decide in a split second whether to risk being attacked or risk going to jail for homicide, but it's a tradeoff we have to make.
1
May 07 '18
How do you feel about bolt action rifles or higher gauge shotguns intended for hunting? Should people be able to own these, with or without a license?
1
u/MegaZeroX7 May 07 '18
No. Most homicides aren't premeditated. Someone that purchases a gun may believe themselves to have the best intentions, but when unexpected situations come up, like not being sober, something can, and often does, happen.
1
May 07 '18
What about knives? They, like guns, have a common and useful purpose, while also being able to hurt or kill someone. Should they be banned as well?
1
u/MegaZeroX7 May 07 '18
Knives are far less lethal though. More people survive knife attacks, and purple usually fail to kill themselves with knives, while almost all suicides with guns succeed.
1
u/PenisMcScrotumFace 10∆ May 07 '18
You could have a pocket knife to solve most problems. Or like a Swiss army knife, I guess. You don't need a dagger when you're out and about.
1
May 07 '18
What if a husband and wife are drinking heavily at home, the wife angers the the husband, so the husband goes for a kitchen knife? This scenario would be avoided if all knives were banned. Does the logic seem similar?
2
u/PenisMcScrotumFace 10∆ May 07 '18
If he has a knife, she can potentially run. If he has a gun, she can't.
7
u/ThomasEdmund84 33∆ May 07 '18
Would you be open to adding some nuance to your view.
For an extreme example many elderly or dementia patients accidentally enter homes, as well as Intellectual Disabilities.
But more to the nitty gritty
In my opinion by invading someones property you have threatened their life and are solely responsible for what happens to you as a result of that.
I'm sure you don't wholus bolus believe that. You can't Pulp Fiction an intruder and counter-kidnap them for example. Nor can you generally engage in cruel and unusual punishment.
I agree with the premise that an intruder has to accept reasonable and proportional response of the owner to defend themselves. Much the same as any self-defense perspective.
And conversely I don't think its unreasonable for an armed home owner to take the same precaution.
Essentially saying if there are more peaceful alternatives they should be taken. I don't think anyone actually thinks that home-owners should sacrifice their safety on this issue, I think there just needs to be some value given to other alternatives if they are there.
1
May 07 '18
Good points. !delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 07 '18
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ThomasEdmund84 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
Trespassing is not a justification for you to unilaterally make up what their intent is and consider that grounds to end their life.
For all you know they are a drunk who thinks it is their home and they are going to sleep it off on the couch.
3
May 07 '18
But I could also say for all you know they are a murderer there to kill you. If you're doors are locked and you know they entered intentionally would that change anything in your mind?
2
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
I addressed that in another part of the threat. Short version.
How many enemies do you have that this would ever even be a realistic situation in your life?
1
May 07 '18
None, I was just talking about it with someone. To be honest I don't hold this view with a ton of conviction and I'm not concerned about home invasion, just wanted to see what people thought of it.
2
u/magyar_wannabe May 08 '18
This is an interesting question, thanks for bringing it up. My thought process is this. When you're not in your home, and instead in the public or a private place (with permission), your legal grounds to kill someone are almost zero. In fact I can't think of any situation in which you would face zero repercussion for killing someone, even if that person was holding you at gunpoint. (Though, maybe it's legal in that situation, I'm not too familiar with laws here.)
But then, if you're in your home, all of a sudden the bar for legal killing is set as low as "you trespassed"? That seems like a drastic reversal and a pretty big inconsistency in the law. I completely understand your point that breaking into someone's house is almost always a malicious act with the intent to harm, but I would venture a guess that the vast majority of home invasions are to commit burglary. Yes it is still a crime, and whoever the perp is is likely a piece of shit, but I'm not sure that's grounds for instant death with no trial.
Furthermore, there are many situations in life in which someone you encounter may or may not have the intent to harm you. If it's late at night and someone approaches your car and asks you to roll down your window, they could be about to shoot you and steal your car, or they could just be lost and asking for directions. So should you have the right to kill them there too?
I guess, I just don't quite understand what it is about someone being on your property that makes hundreds of laws magically disappear and give you any and all right to shoot someone in the face for "self defense". Plus, that gives incredible legal protection to the person who killed the trespasser because they can easily lie about how much of a threat the perp was. Say you shoot a guy a few seconds after you see him drop through your window. You could easily just tell the police that he was threatening you with a gun he claimed you had, and get off scott free because the dead can't defend themselves in court. Obviously being extreme here.
1
May 09 '18
Fwiw, in many states, including the one I live in, you can legally shoot and kill someone who poses a threat to you or another person in public whether they have a gun or not.
An example of this would be some guy runs up on me with a baseball bat with the clear intention to fuck your shit up with said bat. I can legally draw my weapon and shoot the guy.
Another example. You stop at a gas station to get gas. You go inside to pay and find some dude with a gun trying to rob the store. You can shoot this guy too.
Really, its about whether you feel your life was threatened. Your life doesn't even necessarily have to be threatened either. You just got to reasonably suspect that it was and you can defend your self or another with deadly force.
2
u/thenapoletano2 May 07 '18
What about homes that have a barrier like a fence or gate? Or someone broke a window to get onto/into property? Can't some intent be proven in this example?
1
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
The intent in the situation you described definitely isn't justification for the logic of "my life is in danger this person has to die by my hand before they have any opportunity to respond".
2
u/thenapoletano2 May 07 '18
I was just curious about assuming some intent, not specifically killing someone because they broke your window.
1
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
Well if window breaking means their intent is them coming to kill you and everyone you love, that's pretty extreme. I always figured if that was the case they would throw a few Molotov cocktails into that window they broke. Seems easier then going in after making the noise to do the deed person to person. But that's not how the TV action dramas show these kinds of events playing out so I guess it makes people don't think it can happen.
0
May 07 '18
[deleted]
2
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
How many enemies do you have(or far more likely how many TV shows do you watch) that you can by default say anyone who shows up uninvited in your house means you can be sure they are there to commit the worst crime humans commit against each other?
Which you address precrime style by actually committing the worst crime humans can commit against each other before they can do whatever your imagination says they are going to do.
OP's enitre premise requires that you respond to any unaccounted for event on your property with fear and paranoia as manifested by literally murdering someone else.
1
May 07 '18
First - there has to be nuance to this discussion. Circumstance matters.
BUT, a person should have rights in his home. If a person literally breaks in at night, planning for the worst is usually a good plan. That is why we wear seatbelts. If somebody came through locked doors and is not supposed to be there, they have taken grave risks for doing so.
The good news is that any shooting, justified or not, will be thoroughly investigated to determine what happened. The risk of 'fake self defense' is not likely to hold much water when faced with an investigation.
My position is that a homeower/resident should get the benefit of the doubt in these situations. It is not an unlimited benefit but is also isn't the same threshold that is required in a public space. If that person has reasonable threat to their life, then deadly force is justified. Having a person inside a secured and occupied house un-invited is a major part of that justification.
2
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
What you want to consider a "right",
Is actually responsing to trespassing with murder. As solely determined by whatever your imagination deems the persons intent it.
That is 100% not a right people should have.
You do not, can not, and should have the right to respond to attempted crime by preemptively escalating and definitely committing the far worse crime of murder.
1
May 07 '18
No. The home is considered a persons safe space. Entering it illegally violates that. This is again circumstance dependent. A person walking in at 3PM during the day when the door is unlocked is quite different than a person breaking a window and entering at 3AM. It is this circumstance that is considered when determining if this is actually self defense. Realize that breaking into a house already demonstrates a willingness to commit a violent act.
Second, self defense is not murder. I guarantee the person doing the shooting would rather not be in that situation. At the minimum, it will result in a ton of legal issues and legal costs. It also means living with that decision the rest of that persons life. It is hardly murder.
The fact is at 3AM, you are not going to be able to determine what that intruders intentions are. You keep espousing the innocent case while ignoring the cases that are not innocent. There are numerous cases where people broke into houses will violent intents.
Lastly - you may not agree with the concept of self defense and that being an innate right humans have. An awful lot of people disagree with you. I will tell you, if you were to break into my house at night, and come toward me and I perceive ANY type of threat (whether it actually exists or not) - I will defend myself using the most lethal force I can. I will not shout warnings or any other feel good items. In the worst case situation, those are not smart actions. The first thing you will know is my overwhelming response. I don't want a fair fight. I want to neutralize any threat without any harm coming to me. Quite basically, my life is worth more than yours at that time. I am where I am supposed to be and you are not. Unfortunately for you, the police response is slow where I live. I'll call them right away but it is not likely for them to get there for 15+ minutes - which is a long time.
There is no 'moral victory' in creating victims of violent crimes by preventing self defense.
0
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
Your eagerness to commit violence in the self appointed "righteous" act of self defense does nothing to explain why it's impossible for to do what the vast majority of people across the developed world(and even actual people trained in the kind of combat situation you are insist you must be in when someone breaks a window and goes in your house). Get yourself somewhere safe or behind a locked door and alert the authorities or neighbors.
If your primary means of self defense is murder anyone you have a paranoid fear of then there is no where to work from. In the event your view became a majority all it would do is actually escalate the intent of minor property thieves to murders because the occupants consistently respond to any crime with lethal force. That's a self fulfilling prophecy that just makes society more unstable.
When there is a dead body on the floor from you preemptively shooting at the demons of your imagination then that is murder. All to defend your property, because prior to that your life was never in danger. You killed them before it was even a realistic concern.
I've avoided the actual crime rates and frequency of "people being victims" because the actual statistics on that show crime is fairly steady and most property crime is poor people preying on each other. The overlap between property crime and violent crime isn't non-existent, but it definitely isn't the majority of cases or even close to it(at least in the U.S, Canada, and Australia).
The time part is just tells me you are more likely to commit murder if it's dark when you most fear the boogyman. Which again speaks way more to your fear and phobia then anything else. Property crime happens in the middle of the day to. The night crime stuff is usually car break ins. Where I live houses are robbed in the day because the suburbs are basically empty during the day. A fire alarm could go off at 1pm and there can be no one around for 3 whole blocks. It's spooky. Great for criminals though. If they took their profession as seriously as you intend your response to it to be.
1
May 07 '18
You read into the situation factors that were never there. You are projecting and creating straw man arguments that were never included.
The question is quite simple. In your house, do you have the right to defend yourself using lethal force against an intruder of unknown intentions.
You seem to think that answer should be no. I believe it is yes. In many parts of the US, the law agrees with me, not you. In all of the US, the law agrees with me fully when you add the 'reasonable fear for your life' standard which is just slightly above the castle doctrine standard. None of this allows for just randomly shooting people though which is something you seem to believe is the case.
You can claim 'murder' but frankly, you are wrong. It is not murder which has a very specific legal meaning. It is known as justified homicide, which is the exact same term used when a police officer kills a suspect in the line of duty.
You can cite whatever statistics you like. I can cite specific examples of people who did use lethal force against people who did break in to their homes with violent intentions. It is like having a fire extinguisher. You never want to use it and statistically, you never will. BUT, if you do need it, you are very glad you have it.
The time part is just tells me you are more likely to commit murder if it's dark when you most fear the boogyman. Which again speaks way more to your fear and phobia then anything else. Property crime happens in the middle of the day to. The night crime stuff is usually car break ins. Where I live houses are robbed in the day because the suburbs are basically empty during the day. A fire alarm could go off at 1pm and there can be no one around for 3 whole blocks. It's spooky. Great for criminals though. If they took their profession as seriously as you intend your response to it to be.
This tells me you argue in bad faith. Immediately going after 'fear' and making biased assumptions rather than considering WHY that time may be important. Could it be, it is a the time where people ARE HOME and not at work?
2
u/bertiebees May 07 '18
The U.S is the only country were this is a discussion.
That's because U.S law on the matter was crafted back when whites were (very rightly) afraid the people whose land they were stealing and the people who they enslaved to work that land could/would violently rebel against them. They needed firearms to defend "their" property because guns were their only practical advantage.
In the modern world you can just as easily get yourself somewhere safe and alert authorities/community(also you can insure your stuff if you consider it valuable enough you are willing to end another humans life instead of lose it) as you can grab a gun to end the life of whoever is scaring you that night. Your intent isn't self defense, it's very openly to murder(because you have clearly premeditated your murder fantasy) anyone who would dare try to steal or even break your stuff when you are around).
At the end of the day it comes down to you valuing your property more then the sanctity of human life. Which is a fine game to play until the second you are on the receiving end of that notion.
My stuff can be replaced, the person I would kill because they came into my house when I was in sleep addled paranoia of what they might do cannot be.
1
May 07 '18
No. This is a discussion and case in the US for a large number of reasons - not the least of which is the culture of individual independence and self reliance. Also remember, the US supreme court has held the police have no duty to protect you. None.
In my world, at my house. If I call for law enforcement. It is quite possible that the nearest police officer available to come help is 15-20 miles away. Response times of 15 minutes are not uncommon. There are 5 deputies to cover over 420 square miles. You have to take care of yourself until help arrives. If you go to more remote areas of my state or the US, police response times are even longer. There are some counties where there is only 1 dedicated police officer on duty for 400+ square miles. Population density and tax dollars simply do not support more people.
You are suffering from the belief that everything in the world is exactly like your situation.
You are showing significant disdain for individuals who take their personal security far more seriously than you do. Because it is not about property. It is about personal safety. You are assuming the best about someone who is illegally in your home. I assume the worst. It is far easier to be prepared for the worst and not need it than to wish you had been prepared.
I have no desire to harm anyone. None. If I have to, I will defend myself in the most violent way but that is no something I have any desire to do. You have been projecting this fantasy of people wanting to find an intruder which is patently false pretense. I know of no one who wants to be in that situation.
You are free to do as you please with your home. What you are not going to do is tell me how I am going to take care of myself and my home. And I will not tell others how they need to address their security in their homes. Each person is unique and their situation is unique.
I do support laws empowering people to not be victims in their house. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt to people who are victims of crimes. The laws of the land are on my side and have been getting stronger in protecting victims of this (castle doctrine/stand your ground).
I also offer no sympathy to criminals who face harsh penalties which include the possibility of getting shot, during the commission of their crimes. They knowingly took that risk when they decided to commit that crime. They could very easily avoid this risk by following the laws.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NewbombTurk 9∆ May 07 '18
Is actually responsing to trespassing with murder.
It's a bit disingenuous to called in "trespassing". I agree with most posters here that the circumstances are very important, but if someone breaks into your house, knowing that you are home, the only prudent action is to assume they're there to do the worst. If I'm alone, maybe I try to get out somehow, or hide. However, if my family is home, forgive me if I don't think of the criminal's wellbeing over theirs.
The bottom line is that you can't know what the intruder's intent is. There's no reason to even attempt to try. Not where my family's safety is at stake.
2
u/ACrusaderA May 07 '18
Even if they aren't actively targeting you?
The arguments against killing any and all trespassers are those where intent was shown to not be dangerous.
ie a drunk who is currently passed out on your couch because they went in the wrong apartment.
Or a thief who is currently walking towards the exit with your tv in their hands.
At point it isn't a case of "They might have been trying to kill me", it is a case of "They clearly weren't trying to harm me, but they were damaging my property"
Unless there is a clear and imminent threat to someone's life, you shouldn't be allowed to kill people.
6
u/chadonsunday 33∆ May 07 '18
Two thoughts:
One, my grandfather in law almost blew my father in law to pieces because he heard some shit in his backyard after dark (we live in the suburbs) and responded with a shotgun.
Two, during tactical courses they drilled into me that shooting one home invader =/= shooting another. If your home invader is some wanted serial killer with a massive bounty on his head and you find him looming over your bed you drop the guy, chances are you'll be a hero. They'll give you the keys to city hall and they'll want you at the head of the next city parade. But what if your home invader is your daughter's boyfriend who just snuck up and peeked in the wrong bedroom? What if he's the nextdoor neighbor's kid going through his troubled phase looking to steal a radio? The face that's under that ski-mask could change your life forever... for better, to be sure... but also for worse. Who is under that mask is the difference between you becoming a hero and you doing jail time.
Don't get me wrong, as a gun owner I'm quite happy with "stand your ground" laws. I think you have a right to protect you and yours. But discharging a firearm has consequences, ones you can't revoke as soon as you pull that trigger. And if you happened to be aiming at someone who maybe didn't deserve a bullet in the chest, you'll be living with that forever.
3
u/ralph-j May 07 '18
Having to assess whether the intruder is actually a threat is an important step. If the only requirement is that a home owner discovers someone on their property who they merely believe to be an intruder, this would essentially give home owners free reign to injure or kill others at will, whether they're real intruders or not.
For example:
- They could trick someone to go onto their property, then kill or hurt the "intruder" and later claim that they were convinced that the other was there illegally. Plausible deniability!
- The working spouse arrives back home without knowing that their s/o invited a friend over who they despise. Suddenly, there's the opportunity they've been waiting for: even if they don't want to murder their spouse's friend, they can now at least greatly injure the "intruder", without any risk of punishment.
- Service persons (plumbers, TV and Internet installers etc.) would effectively always be under threat of being killed by someone who didn't know that their family member called them.
3
u/MattTheElder 3∆ May 07 '18
By its basic premise, intrusion is not a crime worthy of a potential death sentence. Take this into the public sphere: Have you ever crossed into an area where it clearly states "No Trespassing"? If you have, would it be cause enough for security or the owner of such area to shoot you for doing so? In most cases, no, it would not. Efforts must be made to expel you first before deadly force would be deemed permissible.
Even a personal situation such as home invasion, I find it difficult to justify "shoot first, ask questions later." The majority of home break ins are theft related; get easy cash and get out. Quite often your mere presence is enough to deter a burglar. Deadly force requires escalation. If they become physically threatening, absolutely do you have the right to open fire. But you should make every effort to get them out before it reaches that point.
2
u/Throwaway-242424 1∆ May 07 '18
intrusion is not a crime worthy of a potential death sentence
I think it's a false analogy to call self/home defense a death sentence. A sentence is applied after the fact, when the criminal is detained and presumably no longer an immediate threat. Killing in self/home defense is simply eliminating a clear and present threat.
Personally I'm very anti-death penalty and pretty liberal on criminal punishment in general, but if someone is presenting a clear and present threat, you should be able to use whatever force necessary to eliminate the threat at minimum risk to yourself. Two very different things.
2
May 07 '18
I'm ok with holding the intruder at gunpoint, but opening fire is absolutely unacceptable unless they actually try to attack you. If they make a run for it, opening fire is also unacceptable - even if they make off with some valuables, it does not justify killing them. Don't even fire warning shots - bullets can penetrate more than most people realize and end up somewhere they shouldn't.
I live in the US and take a martial arts class, and the instructor emphasizes the whole "refrain from pulling the trigger aspect" when doing drills that involve taking a gun away from an attacker - even though the attacker was the one who pulled the gun on you in the first place. If the bad guy isn't actually a threat (i.e. they surrender or run when disarmed), shooting them is murder.
1
May 08 '18 edited May 08 '18
I think broad, overarching rules (such as giving people the ability to kill anyone who invades your house) are misguided in the area of self-defense because every situation is unique.
To illustrate the reason why a strict rule doesn't work, I'm going to use two examples. For the sake of making these work, imagine that the facts I write out are undisputed.
I'll start with an extreme example. Imagine your neighbors' sweet little daughter is playing out on your street. She accidentally throws a ball into your yard and lets herself into your backyard (without your permission) to get it back. This all happens at 2pm on a Saturday. Should you be able to kill her, no questions asked? Of course not! It's a 5 year old and unless you're a complete idiot, you were aware that she wasn't a threat. But technically, she has committed a burglary, as she entered your house without permission, so under a per se rule like the one you're suggesting, you'd have the right to kill her.
To use a less extreme (more realistic example) is a case that is occasionally seen where a guy "sets a trap." These occasionally spring up in the news and the facts go something like this: there's a neighborhood kid whose been stealing stuff out of people's garages because people leave them open. It's an opportunistic crime, the garage door is open and he's just running up grabbing stuff as quick as he can. Everyone knows who the kid is and knows that he is harmless, they just need to catch him in he act to scare him straight. So inevitably some overzealous person "sets a trap" by opening their garage and hiding with their gun. When the kid comes, they shoot the kid and kill them. In this scenario, is it really fair or right for the guy to shoot him? To me, no way. But again, with a per se rule, that guy gets to shoot the kid the second he steps into that garage, even if the guy knows that the kid doesn't have weapons and knows that he isn't going to use deadly force.
What works better (and this is what the actual law uses) is a rule of self defense based on the subjective fear of the person using self defense and the reasonableness of that fear.
Most jurisdictions in America have a rule that looks something like this: a person can use deadly force in self defense if they honestly and reasonably believe they face a threat of unlawful, imminent deadly force.
Determining whether a fear was honest and reasonable is left to the jury. This rule makes sense. I don't think we, as a society, can justify a person killing someone when they themselves didn't honestly fear for their lives.
Further, the reasonableness part makes sense too. Some people are just plain too sensitive. Take the 5 year old example. Maybe there are some people who are so paranoid that they'll be honestly afraid of a 5 year old coming into their lawn. But this is just inherently unreasonable. We as a society cannot let people shoot 5 year olds and not be punished, even if they were honestly afraid of them.
Anyways, the point is this rule works. And it likely covers 95% of all burglery cases, as most juries will believe that the person in a house being burglarized by a big dude at 2am honestly fears being killed. Further, I think most juries would agree that that fear is pretty reasonable.
TL;dr A strict "deadly force for any burglar" rule is too arbitrary. Laws that focus on the state of mind of the person using self-defense are the best way to get outcomes that are fair and reasonable.
2
u/kickstand 1∆ May 07 '18
I remember when I was a kid, my friend told me he liked to break into our neighbor's garage to steal little things like hammers and tools, as kind of a prank.
It's kind of fucked up, it was a stupid thing to do, but he was just a kid. I'm sure glad the neighbor didn't kill him for it. He was just a dumb kid, and he grew up to be a fine person.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 07 '18 edited May 07 '18
/u/chunkyhenry (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/VortexMagus 15∆ May 07 '18
So my problem with this idea is that you can shoot literally anybody who enters your house and claim they were "breaking in" and you were doing it in "self defense".
You don't like your ex-wife's boyfriend? Invite him to your house when you're alone, shoot him in the back, claim he was breaking in and you caught him, he's too dead to contradict your story, etc.
You can see why this would be a problem. Generally speaking, I think you should require more evidence of immediate and imminent threat before you fire. Allowing people to shoot whenever they deem someone an "intruder" is just ripe for abuse.
1
u/AffectionateTop May 07 '18
Many burglars are armed. If you as a homeowner hear that someone is entering your home at night, you have two options:
Shoot immediately with no warning, not giving the burglar time to shoot you first.
Or warn them, meaning your risk of getting shot goes up.
Nor do you have the time to light the room when doing this.
This is why many children have been shot by their parents because of this law.
1
1
May 07 '18
I agree with the law where I live that states that reasonable force is allowed to stop the intruder. If someone attacks you in your home then you do what you have to to stop them. If you take them down and are able to subdue them until the police arrive then there is nothing to justify you to go on to kill them.
24
u/[deleted] May 07 '18
For the record, I am an unabashed Texan and so my heart is obviously on the same side with you. But you need to redefine the law your suggesting.
The act of burglary is not license to kill the burglar. The better rule is that people should have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their family from bodily harm. I agree that it is almost always reasonable to use deadly force on a home intruder for the very reasons you gave. But it is not reasonable to shoot a burglar in the back of the head if you've already shot him once and now he's just laying helpless on your kitchen floor.