Burglar killed, homeowner may be charged.

[haxartus]

But it is, you don't getwe are talking about THE LAW

If the law had defined a death sentence for a home invasion, then you might say that. It certainly doesn't. The people who wrote it don't value material possessions over human life.
The Castle law simply gives you more rights in the questionable home invasion situation, but it's really easy to abuse it and this makes it basically a license to kill people on your own property.
People in the US tend to abuse laws from what I've seen. You have an amendment that says that you have the right to carry firearms, and now everyone and their grandmother is carrying a firearm. It's not mandatory, it's optional.

[Tankabull]

Lemme guess? The South Park rule of "They are coming right at us!".

There is no way to determine correctly in a court of law what is considered a "threat". What one person finds threatening, another will find completely reasonable. Is the person who gets threatened easily any less deserving of justice than the person who doesn't? There cannot be a definition of what is "threatening" when people themselves are so volatile and individual themselves. A fully trained marine with black ops experience is hardly going to be threatened by an unarmed 13 yr old burglar, but an 85 yr old pensioner might be. But you cannot differentiate like that, the law becomes too confusing.
Thus, the law how it stands at the moment ("Killing someone is wrong and you will be punished regardless of circumstances, be it manslaughter, murder or such") is the best we are going to get really in my personal point of view.

This is such a retarded statement... You break into my house.. Your posing a threat... You go dead.. Yes, I'm sure there are those one in a million occurrences where violence did not need to be the answer. But honestly, why wouldn't you turn to violence? By breaking into your home, they have forfeited every single human right, and right to life that they had. As said before, fuck the belongings... We have loved ones that live with us. Every single one of them is more important to me then the life of a POS that decided to violate the sanctity of my home.

[PizzaSHARK]

Yes, and no. My wife is a nurse and has also worked in A&E and I enquired about this. She states that bones ar eusually clean, but static. If you incapacitate the leg, and keep it stable, the pain subsides a lot (as opposed to trying to walk on it/move it). Also, there isn't much in the way of blood loss, or shock with broken bones due to it not being visible (unless stuff is poking out thats different ofc ).
But with a stab wound, the muscle goes into spasm, its incredibly painful, you can't really think beyond the actual pain itself. You can't really move your muscle due to it being severed, and its just agonising spasms constantly, with blood pumping out everywhere. The sheer amount of it makes you honestly s**t yourself, and you think "Ima gonna die?". Last thing on your mind honestly is trying to do anything beyond claw at it and try and stop blood coming out.

And if the perp's on crack, PCP, or any other number of illicit substances? How would that affect their reaction? What about the surge of adrenaline from being in a life-threatening situation?

[Doctor Amadeus]

If the law had defined a death sentence for a home invasion, then you might say that. It certainly doesn't. The people who wrote it don't value material possessions over human life.
The Castle law simply gives you more rights in the questionable home invasion situation, but it's really easy to abuse and this makes it basically a license to kill.

It's really easy to abuse anything, and the language of the law is important, but there is a fine line between you taking what measures YOU feel required when someone breaks into your home and is there, vs chasing them down the street shooting and then executing them.



I am not saying the latter is ok, or there shouldn't be punishment for that. But someone is in your home it isn't ON YOU to have taken the responsibility for the choices of some drugged out idiot, who can't be bothered to find an alternative to violating your home.


Again you don't have a value for peoples personal rights, you seem to cling to ideals that make you feel good inside, or some nonsense notion you read from someone who has never really been a victim.

Some people NEED their stuff, they don't have insurance and all this extra shit to replace the things they need or want in their HOME, and they shouldn't be expected to, they shouldn't have to play guessing games, it is SURVIVAL, if you can't understand that than you obviously don't understand the real world.

It is real simple and fundamental, don't want to get shot and killed, then don't break into someones home, but if you make that choice YOU are in the wrong, and if you DIE it is on you what damage it does to your family.





And as far as GUNS are concerned yeah, from the sounds of it maybe YOU can't handle a gun, or those who legislate the choice for you. In this country however, I am glad we have them and fight to protect the right. A person having their home broken into can make the valid choice of how to handle it IN THEIR HOME.

[nickster]

sounds like holland !

[rol3x]

Again YOUR stuff, you don't seem to be thinking about anybody but criminals, you have NO grasp of innocent peoples fundamental rights, You sound bit more like you justify breaking and entering because maybe from your end it isn't a big deal.

But it is, you don't get that your attitude is similar to those that condone or belittle rape. The guy breaking into your home has made a choice, it doesn't matter what you feel the value of his life should be over YOUR stuff, we are talking about THE LAW, and the fact you can't get beyond your bias for minimizing this criminal behavior in my book makes you a kin to it.


Human life does have value, but so does the life hood and security of victims, you don't seem to give a damn about that, and as for unrealistic ideas about life you are bound with them.

I feel this gets back to the whole problem of sensibility, its a big claim that someone has no interest in the rights of the Innocent because they would rather not kill someone without certainty of their intent, its poor form to be so aggressive and attack someones character all because they are less inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. I accept you have the right to defend yourself in your home, I also respect the robbers right to live, all it comes down to is how you balance your right to defend your property and their right to live.

Ill boil this whole thread down if I can, please tell me if im off base.
one side thinks an intruder forgoes all thier rights apon the criminal act, the other believes they still have those rights even after a criminal act. There will be no agreement, no consensus so why bother?

[PizzaSHARK]

I feel this gets back to the whole problem of sensibility, its a big claim that someone has no interest in the rights of the Innocent because they would rather not kill someone without certainty of their intent, its poor form to be so aggressive and attack someones character all because they are less inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. I accept you have the right to defend yourself in your home, I also respect the robbers right to live, all it comes down to is how you balance your right to defend your property and their right to live.

Ill boil this whole thread down if I can, please tell me if im off base.
one side thinks an intruder forgoes all thier rights apon the criminal act, the other believes they still have those rights even after a criminal act. There will be no agreement, no consensus so why bother?

I will always give a warning before firing, but I can understand people who would shoot without warning. I feel that the shitbag's forfeited his rights by breaking the law.

[haxartus]

Again you don't have a value for peoples personal rights, you seem to cling to ideals that make you feel good inside, or some nonsense notion you read from someone who has never really been a victim.

My apartment have been robbed about 10 years ago when I wasn't at home, and back then a stolen TV was significant to me. I simply reported it to the police, installed a better security system and the TV got returned after a few months when the police found it. It wasn't a pleasant experience and got me very angry, but then I thought about it and decided it's stupid.
I have a perfect understanding for the value of personal rights. I also have the ability to isolate myself from a situation and see the bigger picture. Something that none of you is able to do correctly due to emotions.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I feel this gets back to the whole problem of sensibility, its a big claim that someone has no interest in the rights of the Innocent because they would rather not kill someone without certainty of their intent, its poor form to be so aggressive and attack someones character all because they are less inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. I accept you have the right to defend yourself in your home, I also respect the robbers right to live, all it comes down to is how you balance your right to defend your property and their right to live.

Ill boil this whole thread down if I can, please tell me if im off base.
one side thinks an intruder forgoes all thier rights apon the criminal act, the other believes they still have those rights even after a criminal act. There will be no agreement, no consensus so why bother?

No, you are wrong this isn't a gray area, it is black and white and just that simple, although maybe for you it is complicated, but if YOU break into someones home, then YOU should be totally accountable for what happens. And as far as I am concerned you either respect and understand that fundamental right, or you decided to be so open minded your brain has fallen out and no common sense remains.


It isn't up to the VICTIMS to be responsible for some asshole criminal decides to do. No hyperbole is going to change that.

[Deleted]

There is a similar story in Portugal.
This burgler robbed a store 2 times, threatening the owner inside, on the 3rd time he tried the owner had a shotgun and incapacitated him shotting his knees, the burgler now can't walk and sued the store owner.

Its quite hilarious actually.

[TheyCallMeTarzan]

In Denmark, where I live, I am not allowed to harm intruders if myself or others are not directly threatened. Not even if they trespass on my property.
If they are armed or dangerous I am allowed to defend myself with necessary force, but no more than that. I can't take the first swing with a baseball bat without getting charged. Usually "self defence" is a wide term in a case like this, and of course the police is biased to the real victim's (in this case me) advantage. But if I killed someone like this, I would be tried for some kind of murder.

[Deleted]

Oh, there is an interesting law in the UK that I am aware, you can't harm the intruder as long as he stays on the ground floor in case its a home. If he comes upstairs its all fair game.

Meaning, they can raid your fridge, your living room, but bedrooms are of limits

[Doctor Amadeus]

My apartment have been robbed about 10 years ago when I wasn't at home, and back then a stolen TV was significant to me. I simply reported it to the police, installed a better security system and the TV got returned after a few months when the police found it. It wasn't a pleasant experience and got me very angry, but then I thought about it and decided it's stupid.
I have a perfect understanding for the value of personal rights. I also have the ability to isolate myself from a situation and see the bigger picture. Something that none of you is able to do correctly due to emotions.

No. NO that isn't remotely the same thing as we are talking about, You need to reread what you posted YOU WEREN'T HOME, and I AM NOT suggesting you Magnum P.I and go track down who did it and run a Clint Eastwood on his ass, I am talking about YOU BEING HOME during a HOME INVASION, f your bigger picture.


Nobody should EVER be required to think of the BIGGER picture (maybe i should have put that water bottle in the recycling bin)when they are afraid for their lives or life hood. Sorry but you are living in la la land.

[haxartus]

Nobody should EVER be required to think of the BIGGER picture (maybe i should have put that water bottle in the recycling bin)when they are afraid for their lives or life hood. Sorry but you are living in la la land.

No, I'm living in the real world. Quite successfully I'd say. I don't live in constant paranoia that there are people constantly wanting to kill me and I don't get in such situations.
The bigger picture is quite significant and only the small minded people avoid it. The Castle law creates deaths. Much more deaths than it saves. That is the big picture.

[tennesseej]

The website that these news articles are from is ridiculous. They are taking news stories, and just reporting them in a sensationalized manner (more so than most modern news sources). They aren't even reporting the news, just taking the bare details of a situation and causing a bunch of people to get angry about it and start a flame war. In the gaming community we call this Trolling, this website is essentially Trolling real news articles.

[sleepy67]

Oh, there is an interesting law in the UK that I am aware, you can't harm the intruder as long as he stays on the ground floor in case its a home. If he comes upstairs its all fair game.

Meaning, they can raid your fridge, your living room, but bedrooms are of limits

bollocks

There is no such law, anyone can use reasonable force to prevent a crime or to apprehend someone committing a crime anywhere in England/Wales.

[Fyersing]

As far as I am concerned the Constitution of the United States is a contract that you are bound by upon birth in or naturalization to the U.S.; you do not get to breech contract and then collect benefits, if you do not abide the laws then the laws need not abide you.

[rol3x]

No, you are wrong this isn't a gray area, it is black and white and just that simple, although maybe for you it is complicated, but if YOU break into someones home, then YOU should be totally accountable for what happens. And as far as I am concerned you either respect and understand that fundamental right, or you decided to be so open minded your brain has fallen out and no common sense remains.


It isn't up to the VICTIMS to be responsible for some asshole criminal decides to do. No hyperbole is going to change that.

I dont see where I was hyperbolic in that post care to elaborate? I explained the two perspectives as I see them, do you agree in my sumation of the thread?

[Tonyman64]

I wish I had gotten to this thread sooner. Though it seems that, as usual, it has devolved into one side responding emotionally and the other side attempting a calmer approach. Though I don't think that you should have no right to defend yourself against a burglar, I do believe killing them is probably going to far. Though this depends largely on the situation. To those people saying, screw the bigger picture, you've really already lost your argument. If that's what you have to resort to, take a break and go Google some actual support.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, I'm living in the real world. Quite successfully I'd say. I don't live in constant paranoia that there are people constantly wanting to kill me and I don't get in such situations.

Well congratulations on you living successfully in life, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and you inability to actually relate to the real world, it isn't paranoia, and someone protecting their lives or their property isn't insane, SOME people actually WORK for a living, they don't just rent in a building they don't OWN, and as far as I am concerned like rape, or any other personal assault or crime, if Someone breaks into your home, then as the castle law stats, you are with in your rights to shoot and kill them, Not think about weather you should replace the drapes in one of the bedrooms.


A person home, can be like their body it can be a very deeply personal relationship they have, they may not have EVERYTHING in the world but what they own they want, they earned it, they worked for it, it is IN THEIR HOME they should be free will to protect it just like their life.