RE: Duty to retreat...

RE: Duty to retreat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 6:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way. The hypothetical doesn't work for my home. The dogs would force the issue, long before s/he got near the refrigerator. Why can't I do this then: "Hey Judy, come on over I would like to talk to you." Judy comes over. "Judy, I hate your guts." Crack her over the head with a hammer. Call 911 "Judy was trespassing." Do you have any clue as to the legal definition of Self Defense is? You claim to be taking criminal justice courses and you should know the scenario you have described is flawed from the start. None of the "self defense" qualifiers are present. Edited to remove TOS violation.... Admins would you please start a thread with allowable insults

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 6:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA I'm talking about a non-threatening person who goes into your house, opens your refrigerator, sits at the table and eats. NON-THREATENING Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way. The hypothetical doesn't work for my home. The dogs would force the issue, long before s/he got near the refrigerator. Why can't I do this then: "Hey Judy, come on over I would like to talk to you." Judy comes over. "Judy, I hate your guts." Crack her over the head with a hammer. Call 911 "Judy was trespassing." Do you have any clue as to the legal definition of Self Defense is? You claim to be taking criminal justice courses and you should know the scenario you have described is flawed from the start. None of the "self defense" qualifiers are present. Edited to remove TOS violation.... Admins would you please start a thread with allowable insults Calm down, take a deep breath. Take your meds. I'm talking about a hypothetical question.

jlf1961 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 6:59:51 PM)
Your hypothetical situation is flawed.

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 7:07:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Your hypothetical situation is flawed. It seems that people are saying that anyone who enters your house, uninvited, even though the person is non-threatening, you have the right to blow that person's head off. It's the law. So if someone knocks on my door to say "hi" and I invite this person in I could blow this person's head off. I just tell the police I never invited this person in.

jlf1961 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 7:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Your hypothetical situation is flawed. It seems that people are saying that anyone who enters your house, uninvited, even though the person is non-threatening, you have the right to blow that person's head off. It's the law. So if someone knocks on my door to say "hi" and I invite this person in I could blow this person's head off. I just tell the police I never invited this person in. You really seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Entering home uninvited is also worded has forced entry. So unless this Judy in your example is one well muscled chick, and the dude is a 90 pound nothing, the cops would see no forced entry.

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 7:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Your hypothetical situation is flawed. It seems that people are saying that anyone who enters your house, uninvited, even though the person is non-threatening, you have the right to blow that person's head off. It's the law. So if someone knocks on my door to say "hi" and I invite this person in I could blow this person's head off. I just tell the police I never invited this person in. You really seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Entering home uninvited is also worded has forced entry. So unless this Judy in your example is one well muscled chick, and the dude is a 90 pound nothing, the cops would see no forced entry. Thank you for telling me the issue at hand is I may have a reading comprehension problem. I may very well have. I did not realize that a non-threatening homeless person entering your house automatically constitutes forced entry, such as breaking a window, or busting down the door. I was thinking more in line this person just opens up the front door, which is unlocked, and goes to the refrigerator. Some of the comments people made didn't seem to matter if the door was knocked down or the window broken. "Entering the residence without authorization is the crossing of the rubicon. That in itself is all the threat needed, and all the proof required of intent to do harm. There is no need for an intruder to do anything more than that, for a resident to legally end that person, by means of a gun, or the big end of a pool cue, or with the bare hands wrapped around the throat." "Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way." Please, next time just let me know that I'm not comprehending some statements correctly. No need to ask the Moderator to let you swear at me up and down. "Edited to remove TOS violation.... Admins would you please start a thread with allowable insults"

jlf1961 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 7:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA Thank you for telling me the issue at hand is I may have a reading comprehension problem. I may very well have. I did not realize that a non-threatening homeless person entering your house automatically constitutes forced entry, such as breaking a window, or busting down the door. I was thinking more in line this person just opens up the front door, which is unlocked, and goes to the refrigerator. While it is unauthorized entry, i.e burglary, it is not justification for deadly force. Some of the comments people made didn't seem to matter if the door was knocked down or the window broken. "Entering the residence without authorization is the crossing of the rubicon. That in itself is all the threat needed, and all the proof required of intent to do harm. There is no need for an intruder to do anything more than that, for a resident to legally end that person, by means of a gun, or the big end of a pool cue, or with the bare hands wrapped around the throat." "Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way." Please, next time just let me know that I'm not comprehending some statements correctly. No need to ask the Moderator to let you swear at me up and down. "Edited to remove TOS violation.... Admins would you please start a thread with allowable insults" First, the threat or perceived threat has to be obvious by evidence available, i.e a man holding a flashlight in dim light, making the possible mistake of the light being a weapon. In most states, shooting an unarmed home invader is not going to stand as self defense. Detaining until the police arrive is the best and most intelligent move. As for my statement, you claim to be taking criminal justice courses, in that case, you should have covered the basic concepts of what constitutes self defense, at least in the state you live in. By making your hypothetical situation as you stated, you failed to even think about the legal qualifications of self defense. Cases like that have happened and ended in convictions of the killer. To begin with, the victim would have defensive wounds unless struck from behind, in which case it is clearly not self defense.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 8:03:43 PM)
FR homeowner "What are you doing in my house/" intruder " I was really hungry and your door was unlocked" Homeowner "I barely have enough for my family you have to leave or I will call the cops" intruder Stabs him with steak knive "officer I was minding my own business eating a meal and he attacked me"

LorraineCA -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 9:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA Thank you for telling me the issue at hand is I may have a reading comprehension problem. I may very well have. I did not realize that a non-threatening homeless person entering your house automatically constitutes forced entry, such as breaking a window, or busting down the door. I was thinking more in line this person just opens up the front door, which is unlocked, and goes to the refrigerator. While it is unauthorized entry, i.e burglary, it is not justification for deadly force. Some of the comments people made didn't seem to matter if the door was knocked down or the window broken. "Entering the residence without authorization is the crossing of the rubicon. That in itself is all the threat needed, and all the proof required of intent to do harm. There is no need for an intruder to do anything more than that, for a resident to legally end that person, by means of a gun, or the big end of a pool cue, or with the bare hands wrapped around the throat." "Once the person enters the home without authorization, any determination as to "threatening" is strictly at the discretion of the lawful resident. That decision is not subject to second-guessing by the courts, and is immune from civil action by the family of the deceased, if it goes that way." Please, next time just let me know that I'm not comprehending some statements correctly. No need to ask the Moderator to let you swear at me up and down. "Edited to remove TOS violation.... Admins would you please start a thread with allowable insults" First, the threat or perceived threat has to be obvious by evidence available, i.e a man holding a flashlight in dim light, making the possible mistake of the light being a weapon. In most states, shooting an unarmed home invader is not going to stand as self defense. Detaining until the police arrive is the best and most intelligent move. As for my statement, you claim to be taking criminal justice courses, in that case, you should have covered the basic concepts of what constitutes self defense, at least in the state you live in. By making your hypothetical situation as you stated, you failed to even think about the legal qualifications of self defense. Cases like that have happened and ended in convictions of the killer. To begin with, the victim would have defensive wounds unless struck from behind, in which case it is clearly not self defense. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 9:55:39 PM)
Consider this.... when you plead "self defense" you are saying, "Yes, I killed him". No longer is the burden of proof on the D.A. to prove you committed a crime but on you to prove it was justified. Often, if it fits the legal definition of "justified" it never comes to trial or never proceeds beyond arraignment.

lovmuffin -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 10:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Consider this.... when you plead "self defense" you are saying, "Yes, I killed him". No longer is the burden of proof on the D.A. to prove you committed a crime but on you to prove it was justified. Often, if it fits the legal definition of "justified" it never comes to trial or never proceeds beyond arraignment. I think you're only half right. Wouldn't the state have to prove you were not justified ?

TheHeretic -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 10:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LorraineCA Why can't I do this hypothetical scene? "Hey Judy, come on over I would like to talk to you." Judy comes over. "Judy, I hate your guts." Crack her over the head with a hammer. Call 911 "Judy was trespassing." Well, let's see. First off, you are inviting Judy over, so we don't have an unauthorized entry. This one is called murder. That was easy. You might want to be aware that we have some damn fine acid tongues around these parts, so suggesting people need to take their meds for questioning you may result in you being told to go rinse the sand out of your vagina, and find the big girl panties. Moving on then. Let's say the wife took the dogs to work with her that day, and I come home to find some stranger in my house. I don't know if he broke in, or if the wife left the front door standing open and he strolled in. Either way, there is an unauthorized intruder in my house. Here is the twist the former ADA in your little class is putting on it - the assumption that you don't feel threatened by the intruder. What I have said, and I guess the comprehension still wasn't there when you snipped it (the quote-text feature is helpful for clarity when you do that) and re-posted it, is that whether or not you feel threatened is entirely up to you. Determining if you felt that, the law can and will focus on, because if you decide that this is a threat, and that your safety is in jeopardy, or the safety of others in your home, you can take it all the way up to death of that person to stop the threat. If you decide to kill the person because you figure you have an excuse, or because you are angry that the homeless guy finished off the Hershey's syrup, then you can't. You can't shoot them in the back as they are running away. If I find an intruder in my home, my starting point is that they ARE a threat. We may de-escalate very quickly from there, based on what I'm seeing and then hearing, but outside of the Dalai Lama types, that's going to be the standard human reaction. If I come to a place where I don't see a threat, only then do the rules your teacher laid out come into play. On the other hand, if I immediately and instinctively kill that person in response to that initial perceived threat, I have a defense under the castle doctrine. If it turns out to be some poor harmless developmentally disabled guy who was lost and hungry, I get to have trouble sleeping for years to come, but I'll be spending those awful night in my own bed, and somebody can start a thread here to snark about me. Feel free to ask your instructor.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/11/2014 11:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Consider this.... when you plead "self defense" you are saying, "Yes, I killed him". No longer is the burden of proof on the D.A. to prove you committed a crime but on you to prove it was justified. Often, if it fits the legal definition of "justified" it never comes to trial or never proceeds beyond arraignment. I think you're only half right. Wouldn't the state have to prove you were not justified ? Actually, I'm pretty sure it's a daunting task. The defendant has to prove that they felt threatened. It's an affirmative defense so, you (the defendant) must "prove" that you felt threatened. Since no one except you knows what thought was going through your mind, it comes down to a matter of the jury believing your story. While evidence of your story may be available, it's a circumstantial case unless there are witnesses. The reason why most affirmative defenses don't work (and defense attorneys are loathe to allow their clients to use them) is because almost all of them require the defendant to take the stand. There's your witness but how safe is that for the defendant? Lawyers twist shit all the time and they're usually pretty good at debate and thinking on their feet. Also remember that prosecutors get promotions (more money) based upon amount and percentages of convictions. The prosecution then, has to either prove that you didn't feel threatened. Proving a negative is almost always impossible. When you add that to the aforementioned lack of evidence of what was going on in the defendant's head ... Usually (although they won't admit it), what the prosecution is reduced to is jury nullification; "Well, yes. He might have felt threatened but even if he did he could have de-escalated by ...". Then, they go on to explain how even though the statute fits and you were within the bounds of the law, they should convict you, anyway. That's what makes the defendant, taking the stand such a big deal. The idea of a "duty to retreat" puts law-abiding citizens into the "second class citizen" category. It allows lawless pieces of barely human flotsam to ply their trade with impunity; unless and until they're caught. Where we ever got to the place where people who are obviously in the very act of harming society are being coddled by that same society is beyond me. I don't own firearms anymore and I probably won't (even though I've seen a couple of bears up here in the mountains, already). However, if I find someone in my house that doesn't belong there, I don't care how they got in. They're leaving one way or another. There's a bit of a soliloquy in the film "Wyatt Earp" (delivered by Gene Hackman, who plays Wyatt's father) that goes something like this: "Wyatt, there's real evil in this world; men that understand nothing about fair play. When you find yourself in a fight with such a man, hit first and hit to kill" I couldn't agree more.

lovmuffin -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 8:01:38 AM)
I like the Wyatt. Earp analogy. I'm surprised though that you don't own a firearm.

MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 9:07:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I like the Wyatt. Earp analogy. I'm surprised though that you don't own a firearm. For consideration: Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life. How many believe that the fifth amendment right to not be compelled to give evidence against one's self should be maintained yet never have call to use it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 9:50:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I like the Wyatt. Earp analogy. I'm surprised though that you don't own a firearm. A very difficult personal choice I made, a little over a decade ago. I just got to a point where, after a lot of soul-searching, I was no longer prepared to take a life, if the situation called for it. A person who owns/carries a weapon under those circumstances is begging to become a statistic. I have enough troubles. I don't need to borrow any. LOL As you've seen, I strongly support the rights of almost all people to own and carry firearms. I believe that the second amendment's original purpose was to guarantee the other nine would never disappear.

Politesub53 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 12:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Your hypothetical situation is flawed. No more flawed than killing someone for throwing popcorn.

GotSteel -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 4:59:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Consider this.... when you plead "self defense" you are saying, "Yes, I killed him". No longer is the burden of proof on the D.A. to prove you committed a crime but on you to prove it was justified. Not under stand your ground, now the D.A. has to prove what was going on in your head to convict which is what's making the imaginary danger defense so successful.

MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/12/2014 8:02:57 PM)
quote: "Stand your ground" governs[citation needed] U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S.[7] (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[8][9] However, the Supreme Court decision did not create case law impugning a state's authority to either adopt or invalidate stand-your-ground law. "reasonable grounds" => if it can be questioned you have to prove it

truckinslave -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/23/2014 10:42:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic selective editing is your bullshit response? Well, no. Here is the post to which I responded: unfortunately by all these "terms" are not set out, but left to interpretation by the gun owners "feelings" at the time and subject to bullshit claims when they fuck up Mental health issues are being ignored as always anger, paranoia, self righteousness that says your life is more valuable than anyone appearing to be looking to hurt you. That's within easy walking distance of totally unintelligible, but I thought I quoted the relevant part. I don't think it matters what precedes "...your life is more valuable than anyone appearing to be looking to hurt you. " Anger, paranoia, self-righteousness, common sense, the entire body of American law, and my 1911A1 all say that my life is more valuable than (that of) anyone appearing to be looking to hurt me.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625