Proportionate Force for Defending your Property

In most US states, lethal force can be used INSIDE the home and in many cases outside the home. In one case a few years ago, a neighbor saw two burglars trying to break into the home next to him, he ordered them to stop, when they didn't he shot both of them with a twelve gauge shotgun. Killed one and I believe paralyzed the other. The jury unanimously said he was not guilty. I like this attitude, if more criminals were treated this way there would be a heck of a lot less crime....

 

Well I live in WV and we have a castle law which states that I have the right to use any force I feel is justified in defense of my home, my family, my property or myself. Basicly I shoot you in the front yard if I have "reason to believe" you mean me harm. Now all that does is offer me a defense in court because whether or not I'm arrested is up a) the cop and/or b) prosecuter...

I also have no duty to retreat in public either federally or by my state laws.

 

Well Draven you'd never get convicted by me. If you tell someone to get the hell off your property and they don't???? Use whatever force you need to assist their removal....

 

For some reason the only thing that comes to mind is the closing scene of Pulp Fiction when Samuel L. Jackson is talking to the hold-up guy...

 

Its not the conviction thats a pain, its putting bond money which you never get back... I'm going through this now for hitting a guy in the head with a hammer when he pulled a knife on me, after breaking into my house, after being kicked out of it.

 

After reading this thread I can't help but be glad that the USA is finished as the super power.

Long live our Chinese over lords with their (by comparison) well thought out and proportionate laws!

 

Ok, No 1, Your crazy!

Your right, you can't just walk up and hit a guy on the back of the head with a crow bar for being NEAR your bike.

As for pub fights......if your in a pub fight, which can rarely be deemed as self defence you would be wrong to expect the law to take a kind view of anyone involved.

 

breaking into your house, or threatening yours or your families life? Shoot him to the ground. The right to self defense is a basic human right. Fear for your life:shoot him til he stops, notice I didn't say til he's dead, but til he stops attacking you. Duh.

 

Nevermind, sorry, didn't see you were in a non free country. Hope he doesn't have a weapon and pray he doesn't kill and maim you and your family, and use any improvised weapon you can. And reeally hope he doesn't have a gun. Sucks to be there. Castle doctrine is my favorite law I'm under.

 

Nice to live in a free state in a free country, ain't it?

 

You'll still be investigated and/or arrested and all things are argued in court. Its not just a simple case of.. "well I thought he was a burglar so I shot him".
They'll ask, where in the house was he? outside? was he running out of the house? was he armed? did he take anything?

"He was walking near my house, I didnt know who he was, he mightve been a burglar so I shot him"

"He was in my house taking items and he was in the kitchen, he mightve had something in his hand and was looking at me so I shot him"

Which of the above is easier to claim "reasonable / justified / necessary force" ?

If I found someone breaking into my house I would probably beat the living snot out of him / her. By many people I would gain a nod and wink. But in court I would need to justify myself. To see what I did to that person was justified and necessary.

Unfortunatly the Law doesnt work where if its Crime A, its punishment B. Crime B = punishment D and so on and so forth.

The best way (in a legal) sense is that you detain the intruder without too much harm caused on both parties, regardless if one of you is armed or not.....Although not realistic in a sense that adrenaline is pumping and the thoughts of your wife/husband/child safety and you see an intruder nicking stuff. Once again I would probably end up dealing some blunt force trauma. But its very hard to prove in court why its necessary...as a martial artist and therefore trained in self defence situations, it may hinder your defence, that you of all people should be able to restrain your fears/anger and easily overpower a intruder and just sit on him.

We can sit here and discuss the "what ifs and buts" in the end, youre going to court for defending your property/person to send that person to jail (and thats if it gets that far)

 

Proportional force is a really stupid idea.

In my admittedly hot-headed 20-year old mind, the only time you should hold back on someone who is attacking or robbing you is when they're no longer a threat of any kind. For example if you've just rendered a burglar unconscious, yes, it's wrong to keep pounding on him until he's permanently brain damaged.

But other than that, I don't believe in proportional force. If someone has broken in and is helping themselves to my possessions...Even if the guy isn't actually a danger to me, why should I hide in a corner and let him do it??

 

LOL

 

Prportionate force and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances as someones sees it, is decided on by examining all of the details of the case. One of the major factors in this is your perception of the situation. This will be the start point to decide if the action you took was reasonable and proprtionate to the threat or level of harm you perceived.

In short you will get into far more trouble for what you say than what you do.

 

Haven't read anything except the original post - cba reading any more.

I find someone trying to saw my bicycle chain I'll give him a kicking. As long as I don't put him in hospital he's hardly gonna go to the police. That'd be "dobbin sumday in maaaaaaan!"

 

Microlamia you just described what a proportionate response is.
Basically it is your perception of events - so if you perceive the burglar to be a real threat to you or your family and more importantly feared that he would just continue to attack you if you let him go, potentially doing harm to you, your family and your property then a proportionate response would be to hurt the guy until he passes out then restrain him. As long as the 'reasonable man' (i.e. a majority on a jury of 12) would have the same response then you are okay.

Like the antiquated assalt laws in the Uk it is all about perception: what did YOU feel? Did you act in fear of injury to yourself or others had you not taken action? I think that most juries would assume that the average burglar is not pleasant to be around when cornered.

 

Regarding proportionate response ... a fellow that I used to work with woke up to someone coming in his bedroom window. He keeps a pistol in his bedside table (since he lived in a rather run-down part of town) which he took and shot the intruder in the knee. He called police, who took the fellow off. What followed then was a grand jury declined to prosecute him as he was totally justified, but the fellow he shot filed several lawsuits against him for shooting him. At one point, the judge took my friend into his chambers and told him point blank that if he felt it was necessary to shoot someone in the future, aim at their chest and shoot until you're empty.

That's proportionate response in Texas.

 

There are clearly differences in the law between Texas and the UK. I can only speak for the situation in the UK. Obviously this highlights the need to know what the law is for where you are.

I have made a mental note though never to break into a house in Texas!

 

There was a case a while back where a farmer was prosecuted for shooting some lads who had broken into his house. The reason he was prosecuted was because he was waiting for them (they had broken into his home before) and because he shot one while he ran off. Had it not been premeditated defence and had he not shot the guy running off he'd have probably gotten away with it.

 

I remember the case, and have actually heard e guy talk at a charity event since. Trouble was he had been burgled so many times that he set traps for them -removed stair boards and covered them back over etc. He also had his shotgun within easy reach and loaded, which is illegal in the uk (any firearms must be kept empty and locked away in a secure cabinet). The jury took the view that whilst they had sympathy with his plight he had planned his revenge in a premeditated fashion, and that he should not have kept a shotgun loaded by his bed ready for use. The traps on the stairway were probably the icing on the cake that made it impossible not to push for a conviction.

This is a different argument though because as well as the perceived disproportionality of his response it was also premeditated which is another legal concept altogether. In other words he was not just defending his home he actually intended to kill or at least cause serious harm to the intruders. There is also one minor point of detail missing in that I seem to recall that he left a window open in order to 'invite them in' to his trap.