Poll: Poll: Shall we allow deadly force on a burgular?

[firedfns13]

Castle Law is a bad thing people.
You kill someone, you SHOULD be charged. You should be tried. You should also be found not guilty for reasons of self-defence.

But no way in hell should you not be charged.

Consider, under Castle Law, you're allowed to kill anybody who's on your property for the very act of them being on your property. All you have to do is claim they weren't invited.

Can somebody tell me how anybody knows if the person you killed was invited or not? After all, it's your word against the dead guy's wor.. oh wait.. he won't be saying anything will he?

So there's no charge, meaning no investigation, meaning get away with murder so long as you can get your intended victim on to your property before you kill them.

Castle law is scary crap.

Pretty sure castle law only applies to inside a persons home. I also think that you have to identify yourself and try to escape said person first, only killing them if they follow you/corner you. At least that's what I read on wikipedia about it in the 'States

 

[Julianking93]

Some asshole starts fucking with me, you bet your ass I'll beat the shit out of him and most likely kill him with my bare hands.

 

[quiet_samurai]

It's fine to defend yourself, but using deadly force is excessive. If they can no longer fight back or are attempting to flee, then killing them is completely unnecessary.

But shouldn't he be charged with man-slaughter instead of murder?

Agreed. However, it could be seen as 2nd degree murder though.

OT: In some state's its perfectly legal to shoot a tresspasser of any kind, even if you are not being threatened. But in others the use of deadly force is strictly prohibited (which is rather silly if you ask me). I think if your life or health is in danger then it's perfectly fine, but I don't think you have the right to kill someone if they are taking your DVD player. Not saying I wouldn't knock the shit out of someone though.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Actually I didn't if you look at it from the context of the post I quoted. Quite simply, burglary is a hell of a lot different than murder. It takes a lot more to kill another human being than it does to break into a place and swipe whatever is shiney. The assumption that a burglar will do you harm if you don't slaughter him is a complete non sequitur.

I'm not picking on you in particular, CT, but your point was the most recent I'd like to debate. So how do you propose to figure out the burglar's intentions? If he is a violent criminal, chances are that you'll find out when he points the gun at you. Now your only chance to protect yourself and your family is gone because he's got the drop on you. I would not stake my chances of survival on the chance he's not armed.

Even if he was armed, would presenting a firearm of your own just increase the chances he would actually use his firearm? He is there to steal, not to kill. Remember that burglars generally do not like killing. Even if a burglar does have the stones for it (and this is by no means common, as killing is far different than stealing), they would prefer not too because they run the risk of spending the rest of their lives in jail. So I think that, if the burglar is armed, you are only increasing the chances of your own death by confronting him with a weapon of your own. If you are unarmed and he waves a gun in your face, you can back off and he will more than likely flee. In any case, the instant he realizes you are there then his own behaviour will be dictated by your own. Threaten to kill him, and he will fight for his life.

Creeping up and opening fire on a trespasser, without warning or being aware of whether or not he is armed, can't be right in my eyes.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Even if he was armed, would presenting a firearm of your own just increase the chances he would actually use his firearm? He is there to steal, not to kill. Remember that burglars generally do not like killing. Even if a burglar does have the stones for it (and this is by no means common, as killing is far different than stealing), they would prefer not too because they run the risk of spending the rest of their lives in jail. So I think that, if the burglar is armed, you are only increasing the chances of your own death by confronting him with a weapon of your own. If you are unarmed and he waves a gun in your face, you can back off and he will more than likely flee. In any case, the instant he realizes you are there then his own behaviour will be dictated by your own. Threaten to kill him, and he will fight for his life.

Creeping up and opening fire on a trespasser, without warning or being aware of whether or not he is armed, can't be right in my eyes.

I would not just present my firearm, I would shoot the bastard. My point remains, are you willing to risk the possibility of the rape and slaughter of you and your loved ones on the statistic that this criminal probably doesn't want to hurt you?

Nope. If I had loved ones in the house I would defend them. That doesn't mean I would have to kill this person, there are alternatives.

Also, I don't think a 14 year old kid trying to escape, while unarmed, was going to do much damage to this guys loved ones.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

Gotta agree, it's one of the bigger jokes of our legal system. That and the tribunals that prosecute noone but cost the taxpayer millions -.-

That stupid "Golden Handshake" thing is the worst though what is really sad is that there is actually a proper word for that...

 

[Vuljatar]

They're scum? SCUM? Excuse me, mister perfect, but no, they are not scum, they're trying to get by in some cases. Yes, some cases are pointless grabbing and nabbing to get object money, but others aren't So, scum? No, i think not

Yes, they are scum. They can "just get by" without attacking and burglarizing me, thank you very much.

I would not just present my firearm, I would shoot the bastard. My point remains, are you willing to risk the possibility of the rape and slaughter of you and your loved ones on the statistic that this criminal probably doesn't want to hurt you?

Nope. If I had loved ones in the house I would defend them. That doesn't mean I would have to kill this person, there are alternatives.

When you are defending yourself, your loved ones, and your property, you aren't thinking "I need to kill this guy", you are thinking "I need to stop this guy." It is your responsibility to stop the threat in whatever way is safest and quickest, and if the scumbag ends up dead, it's too fucking bad for him--it's his own fault.

 

[darkless]

If the occupants of a house are legally allowed to kill a person burglarizing (That does not look like a real word) them, then burglars will just start killing occupants first then steal, sure the crime rate might go down but the number of deaths in burglary's would rise doesn't seem like a equal trade off to me.

 

[El Camarado]

Quite frankly, I don't understand the idea of killing someone because they are commiting a crime, I'd much rather see criminals in prison. Really, unless they are threatening you, you shouldn't really be able to kill them.

 

[Pendragon9]

First of all, what is the burgler doing in your house? He doesn't own it or even belong there. He's going to try and steal something you worked for, or worse yet, sexually assault you and your family or even try to kill you! I say you have the right to defend yourself. And the more lethal force the burgler has, the more you answer with.

How can anyone defend this? The people who try sicken me. Are you saying this burgler deserves more life than me? How dare you.

 

[Vuljatar]

Quite frankly, I don't understand the idea of killing someone because they are commiting a crime, I'd much rather see criminals in prison. Really, unless they are threatening you, you shouldn't really be able to kill them.

Someone uninvited inside your home is threatening you.

 

[El Camarado]

Quite frankly, I don't understand the idea of killing someone because they are commiting a crime, I'd much rather see criminals in prison. Really, unless they are threatening you, you shouldn't really be able to kill them.

Someone uninvited inside your home is threatening you.

Well, contrary to what most people seem to think, a burgular would probably be more interested in burglary, that is why they are called burgular. If they are threatening you than you should be able to use lethal force, I am not arguing against that. Oh, and you are not inside my home right now...

 

[CobaltBomber]

Voted option 2, but I'd like to add others being threatened as well. Otherwise I'd just try to overpower them, or hit them with a shovel, or whatever.

 

[darkless]

Well, contrary to what most people seem to think, a burgular would probably be more interested in burglary, that is why they are called burgular. If they are threatening you than you should be able to use lethal force, I am not arguing against that. Oh, and you are not inside my home right now...

I brought it up to cuddly_tomato, and I'll bring it up to you-why should I have to wait for the burglar to specifically threaten me once he's in my home? If he has time to threaten me, he has time to shoot me. Why should I give him ANY chance to harm me? On the statistic that he "probably" doesn't want to hurt me? Would you bet your wife being raped and killed on that? I won't.

It's as simple as this you walk down your stairs in the middle of the night weapon in hand you see a man and just fill him full of holes or beat him to death you are a MURDERER, you walked down those steps with the intent to kill, not to injure, not to incapacitate, but to kill and this makes you a killer.

Now on the other hand you walk down those steps and see a man taking your stuff and knee cap the son of a ***** that's an entirely different thing in one you are defending yourself in the other you are murdering someone.

 

[El Camarado]

Well, contrary to what most people seem to think, a burgular would probably be more interested in burglary, that is why they are called burgular. If they are threatening you than you should be able to use lethal force, I am not arguing against that. Oh, and you are not inside my home right now...

I brought it up to cuddly_tomato, and I'll bring it up to you-why should I have to wait for the burglar to specifically threaten me once he's in my home? If he has time to threaten me, he has time to shoot me. Why should I give him ANY chance to harm me? On the statistic that he "probably" doesn't want to hurt me? Would you bet your wife being raped and killed on that? I won't.

Well, that is understandable, but that is extremely paranoid. Also, if the burgular draws his gun or is pointing a gun at you, than you should be able to shoot him, as that would be a threat.