I read on the BBC that "legisaltion allows people to use "reasonable force" against intruders."

however

"...the Tories want this to be updated so only those using "grossly disproportionate force" would risk being prosecuted."

My question, should you have the right to defend your home against intruders?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should the intruder law be changed? (17 votes.)

Should the intruder laws be changed? (Choose 1)
* No - use what force you deem necessary - 88% (15)
* Yes - intruders are most vulnerable in society desperately seeking a source of income - 12% (2)

In your poll, don't you have the comments after No and Yes reversed? Or is "grossly disproportionate force" more restrictive than "reasonable force" in determining what you can do?

Or maybe I'm just mis-interpreting what your comments are saying.

As far as I'm concerned, anything short of killing them should be allowed. If you break into someone's home, you've got it coming.

However, the downside of this could be that all burglars would come armed... And the whole situation goes from bad to worse.

God I love the US, as many of the states allow you to use any force necessary to incapacitate anyone who breaks into your home while you are there, including deadly force!

Someone breaks into my house and they will find themselves with a few more holes in their body than they were born with! Given the fact that the holes will be made with 40 cal hollow-points, I don't think they will have much to worry about though, as they will most likely be well on their way to the eternal celestial dirt nap.

And yes, I know I could pull the trigger. Back when I was in college I had a maintenance guy enter my apartment early one morning, unannounced and without knocking. He had his back turned to me, so he was damn lucky in that it was well lit in my living room, and he didn't do anything stupid, as I had him in my sights and had slid my finger into the trigger guard before I realized who he was. (I don't put my finger inside the trigger gaurd if I do not intend to press the trigger, it is just ingrained as part of the training I have received.) I am sure that a bunch of you are thinking he has a case against me. Well, he threatened to press charges for me pointing a loaded gun at him, so I asked to see his work order. Turned out he didn't have one, just some lame excuse about being in the wrong apartment. I offered to call the police for him, but he declined and left.

He was fired for stealing from the apartments later that semester, so I really don't feel sorry for him.

If someone breaks into your home while you are there, the only reasonable belief that you can hold is that they are out to do you harm, or else they would have broken in when you were gone. If they are too stupid to case my house and know when I am not home, I figure that they should be made eligible for a Darwin Award, and I will be happy to help them make sure that they meet the requirements for entry.

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally kill themselves in really stupid ways. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

Back when I was in college I had a maintenance guy enter my apartment early one morning, unannounced and without knocking. He had his back turned to me, so he was damn lucky in that it was well lit in my living room, and he didn't do anything stupid, as I had him in my sights and had slid my finger into the trigger guard before I realized who he was Thank you for illustrating perfectly why that law sucks. ;)

I agree that reasonable force could be used against intruders to guarantee your own and the security of your family. Killing the guy should never be acceptable since it can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings as Darkwolf just pointed out where an innocent man might get killed. Neither should it be acceptable to cause any permanent wounds to the guy or to use excessive force (braking his legs and arms would hardly be necessary). If the guy is armed then we have a problem and I might accept shooting the guy in the leg or something. Here in Finland our law states that you can't use any more powerful means to stop a intruder than what the intruder himself is wielding. So if he comes in unarmed you will most likely get charged with invoulentary manslaughter if you shoot him. If he himself was armed with a gun you might get away with self defence. This might be considered a bit harsh and quite often the only thing you can do legally against burglars is to call the police who never arrive in time, but on the other hand you would in most cases not even get prison sentence if you knock out a burglar in your home as long as you don't cause any permanent injuries.

EDIT: Oops. Quite clearly I didn't read Darkwolf's post very well. The man described was clearly in the end not innocent. Sorry, my bad. :doh:

[ January 13, 2005, 18:10: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

Hey Morgoroth, I am totally with the Finnish governemt for that law you described. Why shoot an unarmed man?

First off, if the guy was so innocent, why didn't he let me call the police? Secondly, if he is so innocent, why didn't he knock and announce his presence when he opened the door?

A few years ago I by my mom's house after dark and noticed that her front door was open. I went up to the door and, giving up my tactical advantage, yelled into the house to see if she or her roommate were home. I received no response. At that point I had my wife call 911. However I was worried about them, so I entered the house (which the police advised against when my wife informed them I was going in). As I entered, again giving up my tactical advantage, I continued to announce my presence, as I was technically an intruder at that point. I found my mom and her roommate in the their game room playing video games with her roommate's niece and nephew with the volume up very high. They were very startled to see me, and even more worried to find out that their front door had been open. We escorted the children out of the house and allowed the police to search the house when they arrived. If there had been a bad guy (BG) in the house, he would have had an advantage on me, as I was announcing my presence the whole way, but I had to, otherwise my mother or her roommate could have shot me. If the maintenance guy would have knocked and then announced himself when he entered I would never have presented my handgun. I have lived in quite a few appartments, and not withstanding this one event, I never had maintenance enter without knocking first.

Now taking this a step further:

It is nighttime and dark, so exactly how are you supposed to determine how well an intruder is armed? Lets see, I will flip on the light switch and see!

Scenario #1: Oooops, he has a gun, and now I am dead because I didn't want to introduce more force into the situation than what he had, so I left my gun locked in the bedroom.

Scenario #2: He has a baseball bat, but I have a gun, so I say, "oops, wait a minute, let me put my gun away" and I return with a bat to fight it out with an assailant who could be bigger, stronger, and faster than I.

Scenario #3: He has a baseball bat and I have my gun, so I can't really shoot him, so I point it at him and tell him to put the bat on the ground, and he laughs, charges me, and given that most civvies can't hit a moving target under duress, I miss, and he beats me to a pulp because I was stupid and gave up my tactical advantage.

Scenario #6: He has a bat, so I try to wing him. Anyone with any tactical training will tell you that they never shoot to kill, but when under duress they shoot for center of mass as trying to wing someone makes the shot more difficult and it is too likely that the shot will miss. Anyone who says that they would, or someone should, shoot someone in the leg when they are being threatened has absolutely no business owning a gun and is showing their lack of experience or training in tactical defense. The only time you try to wing someone is if they have information you desperately need, and they are not a current threat to you or anyone else.

Scenario #5: He is unarmed! I blew it and had pulled my gun, now I can't shoot him because he is unarmed, so he just walks over and takes my gun away from me, shoots me, rapes my wife and children and then kills them.

Morgoroth, your understanding of the dynamics of a home invasion is severely deficient. If someone wishes to lock themselves in their bedroom, and hope the police get there before the BGs can do anything to them, that is their choice. But don't expect me to cower in my bedroom while some criminal has free access to the rest of my home and to my children. I demand the right to defend myself and my family, and I will not respect anyone who demands that an individual in the commission of a criminal act have more rights than the person trying to defend themselves from said criminal. I will not give up my tactical advantage by tying to determine the intent of someone who breaks into my home. The laws in the states I have chosen to live in are quite clear, and if someone is too stupid to obey them or protect himself or herself if they are putting themselves in a dangerous position, then I have little mercy for them when they pay the price. If the state I live in took away my right to defend myself in this type of case, I would move, and if all states took away this right, I will take my chances of ending up in jail if anyone every decides to break into my home while I am there, because they will be shot without hesitation or remorse.

What happened to scenario 4, Darkwolf? If anyone breaks into my house when I am there, they are getting a mace in the chest, which is perfectly reasonable. As long as I don't smash his ribs into his lungs, he should only be stunned, and long enough for me to incapacitate him further.

Oddly enough, I'm with Darkwolf on this one. If a guy comes into your house, uninvited, and you're taking the time to examine the level of danger he poses, you're going to end up in traction or worse.

I understand that after empying a bullet or two (or a knife, baseball bat, meat cleaver, whatever) into a guy, one should probably not continue to beat him once he's down (or stab, eviscerate, perforate or dissolve).

But seriously, shooting a guy in the leg? If it gets to the point where someone has to shoot, they can't be worrying about what limb they're going to hit.

You DO understand that your possessions isn't everything? And if they are, put up security cameras in your house and call the police. Good, clear, picture, and you will have that dude caught within days.

If not, too bad for you, but if you misses the shot and he have a gun as well, the chances are large that he kills you, and your family in case any of them woke up and saw anything. Much greater chance than that he would do that if you didn't engage him.

Now we know why ArtE is in prison! He beat to death an unarmed intruder in his home! ;)

He has definitely learned his lesson about using excessive force, so turn him loose man! :banana:

Just teasing ArtE, I just was in such shock that you agreed with me on this one that I had to poke a little fun!

Sorry about the disappearance of #4 and out of order of #5 & 6, I realized that one scenario fit in better between the existing one, and didn't do a good job editing my cut and paste. :o

Caleb,

Again, if he wanted to be in the house to rob it, he would have broken in when no one was home. If you want to take your chances and just pretend to be asleep and hope he will go away that is your choice.

Personally, I will take my chances on my terms. It comes down to whom you are used to depending on, yourself, or someone else. I would agree though, if you don't have what it takes to know that you can not only take, but also make the shot count, it is better to be passive and just let the BG do whatever he is going to and hope all he wants are your belongings. I read a story a couple of years ago about an older couple that woke up to the noise of a burglar going through the wife’s jewelry box. The old man pulled a revolver he had hidden next to the bed, told his wife to call 911, and told the burglar to go to the living room. The burglar said no. The old man told burglar that he wasn't going to shot him in front of his wife, so the burglar took the gun away from the old man and shot both of them. The old man lived, his wife didn't, so he has to live with that :( . So you are right in a case like that, they should have pretended to be asleep, and they would have been fine.

Of course if you choose that route, IMO, it makes you responsible for the next person who he commits a crime against, because you had a chance to stop him, but you elected to let him go.

[ January 13, 2005, 20:48: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Forgot to add one thing: Why the hollowpoint? They reduce the chances of him live after the shot greatly.

Now, I know you want the death penalty for everything, Darkwolf, but be a bit sensible for once.

Wait, wait, wait--you're demanding that Darkwolf refrain from using force (up to and including gunshots) to stop a criminal who has broken into his home from doing whatever it is the criminal plans to do (if the criminal is only interested in robbery, why break in when people are home?)...and you want him to be sensible?

Irony is a beautiful thing.

I have a friend that is a police officer. He plainly states, that if someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun, it is in your best interest to shoot to kill. It's even better if the intruder happens to be facing in your direction when you shoot him. You can simply say, "Officer, he saw me on the other side of the room, and I saw hiim reach into his pocket. I had to assume he was going to draw a gun on me so I shot him." Dead men tell no tales.

I also agree that it is completely unreasonable to announce yourself, or give any manner of warning to an intruder. Anyone who breaks into your home obviously has evil intent. Kill the bastard.

Caleb,

The use of a hollow-point has nothing to do with killing; it has to do with incapacitation. If you shoot a person with a round nose, truncated round nose, flat point, wad cutter, or any other conventional bullet, the amount of shock applied to the person’s nervous system is not sufficient to incapacitate them. You have to understand the physics and physiology of a gunshot. There are 2 types of damage done by a bullet. There is a crush cavity, the area where the tissue is basically completely destroyed, usually very small, and in the case of a conventional bullet, barely larger than the diameter of the bullet. There is also a temporary stretch cavity, which is created by the shock wave of the bullet coming into contact with the issue. The damage done by this type of cavity is less dramatic in actual tissue damage, but is much greater in the amount of nerves endings that it affects. In a conventional bullet the temp cavity is not much larger than the crush cavity. It is the stretch cavity that overwhelms the nervous system and incapacitates. It is all about causing a nervous system overload, resulting in a lack of ability to function or even loss of consciousness.

It is a side effect that the hollow-point is more deadly than a conventional bullet. The moral is, don't do anything that might get you shot!

Most people have enough sense to understand that a gun can kill and people very rarely go berserk and attack someone with a gun, that would be stupid. The problem of course comes with mental cases and drug addicts. But you can't just shoot someone who steps into your house. Darkwolf has stated indivdual cases why intruders should be shot at sight so let me tell one why they should not. An old lady suffering from demence/dementia (I do not know the proper word for this mental illness in English) went out from her home one day and in her pyjamas went to her old home where she had lived about 40 years ago. She noticed that she did not have keys and it was winter and the middle of the night so she thought that she would have to brake the window to get in. Well she took a stone and managed to brake the window which naturally woke up the current residents of the house. One of them immidietly went for his rifle and shot the old lady at the window without batting and eye (and not noticing that it was actually an elderly person entering the house). The woman died and the man got sentenced for manslaughter to three years in prison. Triggerhappiness is never a good thing.

Now you might say that these kinds of cases are rare and unique but so are cases where you have people braking in to your house who won't believe the power of a gun. I would not want a law here which would state that it's just allright to shoot anyone who brakes into your property. There is actually a law here which makes it legal for stranded/lost people to brake into cabins (usually on isles in wintertime) to keep themselves alive. If the owner of the house would happen to arrive on the spot and shoot them it would hardly be right.

The point of shooting an intruder on sight is a good one since you probably won't think very clearly in the situation, but I refuse to accept it as an morally acceptable solution just because braking into someone's house is not exactly a crime that requires death sentence under any standards of the western world.

EDIT: And one more thing. I refuse to answer the poll simply because of the way the "Yes" answer is written, but I'm sure all can see what I stand for.

This story is an example of a travesty of justice. It is not clear in the story whether the home she left was a home she had been committed to or her own personal home where she lived unattended. If it is a nursing type home, then the staff of the home are responsible for her death for allowing her to leave the home. If she lived on her own, then it was the woman's relatives that are responsible for her death for not having her committed and protected.

Either way, I wouldn't lose a moments sleep acquitting him if I was on that jury, or if I had been the one who shot her. I would feel sorry for her, but I wouldn't have any guilt issues.

I am sure that there are lots of cases where people have made honest mistakes that resulted in their death. It happens with planes, automobiles and bikes all the time, but we don't make those illegal. People should have the right to defend themselves, and they should have the right to feel 100% secure in their own homes. If that causes isolated cases where the consequence of a person’s action (committed of their own volition) results in their death, I can live with it.

This story is an example of a travesty of justice. In my view it ends exactly as it should. In Finland this kind of triggerhappiness is illegal and ends up in conviction even if she would have been a burglar.

I am sure that there are lots of cases where people have made honest mistakes that resulted in their death. It happens with planes, automobiles and bikes all the time, but we don't make those illegal. Maybe not but we do. It is called invoulentary manslaughter. It just is not enough that you thought her to be a criminal. You should have known better to take a look. The shooting of a unsuspecting person (especially if you shoot in the back) is never acceptable under any circumstances.

What kind of world do you live in when you live in constant fear of people going into your houses to rape, kill and pillage? I am a pretty cynical guy but not even I fear that. Actually, it would be nice to see the statistics for how often violent people break into houses and doing bodily harm to persons. I am pretty sure it is rare even in the US. Here in Sweden I am pretty sure it is more or less non-existant, the few times it do happen it gets quite a lot of media coverage seeing as it is a small country.

Now lets turn to the US, how often does it happen that some moron shoots a member of the family or friend or whatnot in the belief that it is dangerous criminal? I reckon it happens a lot more often than dangerous criminals going into homes to rape and kill. I remember reading an article about a stepfather shooting his wife's daughter when she was up and about after having woken after a nightmare. Paranoia is always more dangerous than the realistic threat.

Good points, Joacquin. There are probably 100 other things that are more worth worrying about because they are so much more likely (like being in a car-crash or something).

Should you have the right to defend your home against intruders?Absolutely, though everyone is going to have a different opinion on this depending on their experiences. While I may not feel the need to have a gun around my house, I don't think you can judge anyone for defending themselves and especially their family from a perceived threat using whatever means they have at their disposal. My only problem would be someone who would actually enjoy or be thrilled by beating, slashing, or shooting an intruder to death and have no remorse. Sure, I'm speaking from lack of experience in break-ins and threats, but it would seem to me that the lack of remorse for causing the death of anyone, even a scumbag who deserved it, is setting someone on the path of becoming a scumbag himself.
If the state I live in took away my right to defend myself in this type of case, I would move...Fair enough...but for me, if I lived in a place where I felt I needed to have a gun to protect myself or my family, I would move. I don't own a gun, and pray that I'm never in a situation where I wish I had one. As I have not been in any such situation, I don't blame anyone who has been for wanting a gun.
I feel very safe where I live, and have a dog with keen hearing and a loud bark. If someone were try to break in during the night, we'd be woken immediately and probably so would the neighbors. My dog's bark would probably be enough to deter any jerk trying to break in.

Here I go... heh, vehemently defending Darkwolf's position. Strange days ;)

The shooting of a unsuspecting person (especially if you shoot in the back) is never acceptable under any circumstances.What if you were standing behind someone that was going to do something terrible to a loved one?

What kind of world do you live in when you live in constant fear of people going into your houses to rape, kill and pillage? I am a pretty cynical guy but not even I fear that.Do you have health insurance? If the answer is yes, then I have to ask - Are you in constant fear of becoming terminally ill or critically injured?

I can answer for myself, I do have health insurance, and no, I'm not in constant fear of going to the hospital.

Someone with a gun (I do not, big surprise) for home protection will probably tell you that its more or less, insurance.

...how often does it happen that some moron... Just a guess, but probably as often as you think it does.

There are probably 100 other things that are more worth worrying about Probably, but that really depends on the circumstance, and what part of town you live in.

Let me tell you all a true story, I live in a big college town (small city actually, but with a ton of colleges). Its a magnet for stalkers. Every year, every college gets at least one violent reported rape, which is the result of a break in (I stress reported). On two occasions, there were serial rapists. One in particular, would stalk a girl walking home from her classes, then finally kick down her door (in an apartment complex no less), rape her, then lock her up in a bathroom or closet and burn the place down.

Now try telling me that if any of those ladies was packing heat, she wouldn't be well within her rights to shoot that man dead. That unarmed man, that is.

Also, prior to the break in, I'm sure those ladies had 100 other more important things to worry about.

God I love the US, as many of the states allow you to use any force necessary to incapacitate anyone who breaks into your home while you are there, including deadly force!
As much as I love this country that is one of the things I can't stand about it. Not that I disagree with your reasons of self-denfense, but that we live in such a violent country.

My wife spent a year in Japan and she has forever raved about how safe and secure she felt there. She claims she could go anywhere, at anytime of day or night, and not worry for her personal safety. In fact, she says the people are so law abiding that they just put up card-board policemen and the people actually respect and obey whatever these artifacts are supposed to represent. Could anyone imagine that here?

It is often cited that people become law-abiding as a consequence of the "fear factor." But, if what happens in some other conutries is to be believed, then it is the result of a community of people who respect and value not only the law of the land, but each other as individuals as well. That is something that appears to be lacking here in the USA.

But yes, I agree with Darkwolf - in a violent place, one may have to rely on violent means to protect his family, himself and his property.

I think that the right to self defence is very important. If someone breaks into your house to commit a crime, then they deserve what they get.

AS for those with guns, take the moment of stealth to confirm your target, and consider lethal force as a last resort, but if that's what has to happen, then so be it.

Our Dog sometimes takes shelter in the Garage on a cold night. One night someone entered without permission, startled the dog and got bit. The moron came back the next day to complain about getting bit. While asking questions, we learned that the guy entered at 2 AM, claiming that his car broke down and needed to "borrow" some tools to fix it. He didn't bother to knock on the door because he didn't want to wake us up. At that point he was told to leave. We never heard back from the guy...

What if you were standing behind someone that was going to do something terrible to a loved one? What if I heard that someone I loved had been murdered/raped (raped might be even worse in this case) and knew the one who did it? It might spur primitive reactions in myself which could make me harm the one responsible for the act. It still does not make the deed right though.

ArteChoke, how would a gun have helped those poor women? I reckon they lived in a dorm room, and that the perpetrator was good enough in kicking down doors that he did it on the first try. Judging by the size of the normal dorm room I would say that the stalked girl now would have had 2-3 seconds to register a threat, remember where her gun was, get it, point it and shoot. I think the rapist will get to the woman first.

However, even buying these arguments and ignoring how kooky the whole thing appear from the outside the risk of shooting a family member is a lot higher than a dangerous criminal if you go around and expect the criminal and pack heat just for that occasion.

I actually like how the self defence law is set up here, it is like Morgoroth said it was in Finland. Reasonable response, if some thug tries to beat you are allowed to beat him back and perhaps even get a poke or something, if he pulls a knife you can get a sword or perhaps even a gun and if he has a gun and need not bother about shooting him in hte leg. All this keeps things from escalating, if some fuzzyminded dopehead stumbles into my garage loocking for some stuff armed with a pack of matches I cant pull out my Magnum 44 and blow his head out even if he ran towards me, what I could do is bash him in the head with a board.

I have one more question, is the US really that violent? I am now going to do something horribly stupid and on par with Godwins law and invoke Michael Moore but isnt this what the whole of Bowling for Columbine is all about. That people in the US are scared stiff by a threat which if looked upon with realistic and rational eyes is non-existent. Why are you so afraid? Have you ever thought about that?

I actually like how the self defence law is set up here, it is like Morgoroth said it was in Finland. Reasonable response, if some thug tries to beat you are allowed to beat him back and perhaps even get a poke or something, if he pulls a knife you can get a sword or perhaps even a gun and if he has a gun and need not bother about shooting him in hte leg. All this keeps things from escalating, if some fuzzyminded dopehead stumbles into my garage loocking for some stuff armed with a pack of matches I cant pull out my Magnum 44 and blow his head out even if he ran towards me, what I could do is bash him in the head with a board.So in effect, your law assumes that the victim's fighting skills are on par with the aggressor's. Interesting.

In a country where access to firearms is as easy as in the US, by default you'd have way more violent crimes than in countries where it is reasonably hard to get access to a firearm. Doing something bare-handed or with a knife still requires much more courage than when you're packing an uzi. I'm generalizing here (there are probably exceptions, i.e. areas with less crime despite the wide availability of all sorts of weaponry), but it's a logical deduction. Just check the firearm accident statistics in the US alone, e.g. kids blowing their heads off with guns their parents keep loaded in closets and so on.

The Poll question is rather misleading,
As stated, at the moment the British law allows the use of reasonable force. In wake of the Tony Martin case (Farmer who shot dead a teenage burglar) "Reasonable Force" does not include shooting someone in the back with an unlicensed shotgun. As I understand it, the Tories aren't talking about watering down the current law (Which is the implication of the "yes" vote, just asking for the definition of "reasonable force" to be updated to give people more confidence in being able to defend their homes. Though "grossly disproportionate force" isn't really that much clearer either.
To be honest, I think it's just the Conservatives trying to canvas more votes for the forthcoming election by making people think they would be prosecuted for defending their homes. There was also a police spokesman who said that it exceptionally rare that this actually occurs anyway.

Personal opinion: Every case has to be judged on it's merrits which the change in law wouldn't make a difference to. Shooting someone in the back as they try and flee is not acceptable.
How do you judge the psychological state of someone who finds an intruder in their home to work out if it constituted disproportionate or unreasonable force to the crime that might have occured?

I agree with Tal, not having guns in Britain means the chance of violent crimes ending in death are actually fairly low.

Interesting case in the paper today about a 60 year old who tried to defend his wife and home with a pair of Samurai swords. He was thrown to the floor and stabbed through the arm with a screwdriver. But if he had managed to kill one of the intruders would it have been "grossly disproportionate?" They had already attacked his wife, so I think not.

I would like, for once, know why Americans are so paranoid. I mean, they are afraid that their neighbours will rape their family, they are afraid that the Englishmen will try to take back what they once haid, they are afraid that the UN are out to get them and remove all traces of their sovereignity, and of course, the French are after them.


For once, Americans, realize that the world doesn't resolve around you nor your country.

@Morgoroth, I'm talking about using a weapon to prevent someone from being injured or killed, by an intruder. :lol: Not getting your gun to go out and track someone down.

See one is defense, the other is offense! Of course its wrong to go on a rampage.

@Joacqin: I completely agree, a gun probably wouldn't have helped those girls. My only point was, the intruder was unarmed, and fully planned on killing them, so *if* they had access to lethal force, would it be unreasonable for them to have used it? If one of these ladies did happen to get lucky and kill this guy, you think they should be prosecuted? Manslaughter? Murder?

I agree with most of what you're saying, I do think guns probably are used in more crimes and accidentlal shootings than actual home defense, but as long as people are allowed to have them, they should be allowed to actually defend themselves.

Fact is, in my humble opinion, if someone kicks down your front door, you shouldn't have to ask them, "why."

Ah but if you are a lonely woman in an area where several rapes and murders have happened lately and someone kicks in your door to your small dorm room with nowhere to run a reasonable response of force would be to bust a cap in that persons buttocks. I am advocating the use of *needed* force, the amount of force needed for a woman in that situation to defend herself would be to shoot the person. However, if the woman in question had a black belt in several martial arts and the rapist was a scrawny 60kg man then the amount of needed force would not be to shoot him in the face but to beat the crap out of him and hold him down until the police arrives.

Despite this so is the average burglar just that, a burglar he is out to get stuff with as little fuss as possible. People looking for violence most often do so outside and dont go through the trouble of finding a house and opening doors and such. I for one have no interest in shooting someone because they are trying to nab what little they could find in my home and material stuff is at least not for me worth to live with the knowledge that you have taken a life. I am insured, sure it would be a bit of hassle and I would have to pay part of it but that doesnt compare to the hassle of living with another persons life on your conscience.

Personally I would beat the crap out of anyone who I catch in my house unwanted, even if it means I'm risking jail for it. Someone is in my house who doesn't belong there, so in my opinion I have every right to incapacitate that person and hand him/her over to the authoraties.

In the Netherlands, you can go to jail for beating a burglar. I am not opposed to that law, but what stings me is that the law states that you must persuade the burglar to leave you're home. You may not hold him or force him out. WTF??? He doesn't belong in my house goddamnit!

I think that keeping a firearm in the sort of ready-to-use way that would be make it useful in a home defence situation is very unwise, especially for families that have children. I am comfortable using guns but don't want one in my home. Having said that, I think "reasonable force" is whatever it takes to stop an intruder, and if that means shooting someone who might turn out to be merely be a thief, so be it. Criminals should not be able to count on the protection of the law while they're committing a crime against the person or property of an innocent person.

What would happen if someone broke into my house is this: My dog would bite them. And then the police would take my dog away and kill her, and I would be arrested for keeping a violent dog. Because under similar laws in Canada, if you know your dog would bite an intruder, you are supposed to have her pre-emptively destroyed to protect the potential criminal. My feeling is: screw that. My girl belongs here, the intruder doesn't. So let's just hope criminals get the message from Aerie's barking and the "Beware of the Dog" signs that this would not be a good house to break into. For that matter, I think only an idiot would break into *any* house with a German Shepherd in residence.

Although the one time a man did try to break into my home while I was there - he followed me home and apparently mistook me for a small defenceless woman instead of the ex-soldier on her way home from a martial arts class that I actually was - I did indeed use "excessive force" against him, and the policeman who came laughed and gave me a high-five instead of arresting me. I think these laws against excessive force are themselves excessive, but at least the police tend to be on the side of the victim and are likely to apply the laws with a fair amount of discretion.

Some years ago here in Denmark a houseowner woke up in the middle of the night and caught a burgler redhanded. The burgler jumped the man with a knife and tried to stab him. He did not succeed, however, and the houseowner pushed the burgler back. The burgler tripped, fell and hit his head on the floor and died from his injuries later on. The houseowner was sent to prison. His sentence was.... I guess we would call it first degree manslaughter, or something similar and he was punished accordingly. Now, where is the justice in that?

If anyone comes into my house at night and tries to steal my stuff or conduct whatever business he might have in mind.... he is on his own. I would kill him instantly, IF NEED BE. I would kill his ass anyday, make no mistake about that. If he doesn´t want to die, he should stay the hell away.

Greywolf, I agree with you 100%. I may be a little bit more explicit, but overall I would say that I am pretty much on your level in this case. So I´m not going to repeat everything you said.

Here in Finland our law states that you can't use any more powerful means to stop a intruder than what the intruder himself is wielding.Now that's stupid. I'll illustrate how. First of all, how do you determine, what is more powerful? Is there a master list or is it up to the judge? In a pipe vs. knife debacle, does it favor range (pipe) or lethality (knife)? If the assailant comes in with 'only' a knife, and you shoot him with a blowgun or a sling, were you not using excessive force? Sorry for using such extreme examples, but the law seems silly to me.
So if he comes in unarmed you will most likely get charged with invoulentary manslaughter if you shoot him.How about a handicapped person, riding a wheelchair, who has got a firearm, and the person comes in unarmed, do you have the right to use that firearm? Can you shoot him (using disproportionately powerful weapon), or is he or she forced to defend themselves unarmed, with bare fists? Nevermind that the assailant could get behind the victim and push him down the stairs, you can't shoot him.
If he himself was armed with a gun you might get away with self defence.'Might???' 'Might,' I ask you?! That means that in most self defence cases, the victim who shot the assailant was prosecuted???
This might be considered a bit harsh and quite often the only thing you can do legally against burglars is to call the police who never arrive in time, but on the other hand you would in most cases not even get prison sentence if you knock out a burglar in your home as long as you don't cause any permanent injuries.How does a physically weak person knock out a well-built burglar?

The Finnish law encourages you to avoid violence. I repeat myself by stating the fact that burglars who seek to physically harm you by braking into your home are rare, very rare. Inside your house you are entitled to follow same laws as you are on the streets. You have the right for your privacy in your home but you are still not allowed to take the law into your own hands.

How about a handicapped person, riding a wheelchair, who has got a firearm, and the person comes in unarmed, do you have the right to use that firearm? Can you shoot him (using disproportionately powerful weapon), or is he or she forced to defend themselves unarmed, with bare fists? Nevermind that the assailant could get behind the victim and push him down the stairs, you can't shoot him. Someone in a wheelchair should do the same thing as any other person. a) call the police b) hide c) if the burglar finds him threaten the burglar with a gun d) if the burglar decides to attack anyway shoot. At least that's what I would do. Violence is to be avoided as long as possible and preferably all together. And about blind people who can't shoot because they can't see, perhaps they should be allowed to install a minefield on their yard to keep the burglars away? Handicap is no excuse for using an "unreasonable" amount of force.

Might???' 'Might,' I ask you?! That means that in most self defence cases, the victim who shot the assailant was prosecuted??? They all get prosecuted, yes. Some of them avoid sentence depending on the case. If it can't be proven that you were under immidate threat you will face sentence.

How does a physically weak person knock out a well-built burglar? He is not supposed to do that. He is supposed to call the police and if possible, leave the house through an emergency exit and possibly wake up the neighbours to help.

It is the same in the UK or almost. You hurt a burglar before he hurts you're in trouble. Well, you are if you phone the police after you've hurt the burglar. Most burglars just want to steal your stuff and then leave, believe it or not, most of them don't want to hurt or kill you. The best thing to do is make sure your home is secure and get a dog. I wouldn't recommend trying to tackle a burglar unless you know what you are doing and have the ability to disarm and or make a citizens arrest until the police arrive. It is probably best all round if you just leave them alone. If you are a physically weak person and a burglar wants to hurt you, then that is just tough **** ain't it. It would probably be best if the law remained the same.

Here in Poland, a burglar broke in with an axe in hand. Threatening to kill the owner, the latter drew a kitchen knife and, in an act of desperation, took one stab - unfortunately for the burglar, it was fatal. In most countries, a simple crime scene check, dusting the axe for fingerprints and checking the doors to find out they were hacked open would be enough to state that it was an involuntary death as a result of self defence within reasonable force restrictions. Here the 'catch 22' story takes off:
The defending house owner is prosecuted and arrested. Additionally, the mother of the burglar sues him and his family for murdering her son. Not only that, but she is allowed to bear witness to the cause, and she lies under an oath, stating that she was eye witness to the crime, and describes it, even though she was probably in another city, and stone drunk. Not only that, but she even exaggerates on what was already known, saying: "My son has been stabbed fifteen or sixteen times, in all areas, even when he was lying on the floor," and the judge only asked her if she was sure. She said she was, so he didn't remind her that the guy was hit just once.
This prosecution and trial was extensively criticised by the press, as well as in professional circles. Because of police's, and then the legal system's negligence (or even incompetence), the man should have been able to leave without even a single trial because of assumption of innocence - no proof of crime even existed, after all.
But in the Polish legal system? Try and prove you're not a camel, as the saying goes...
The guy is incarcerated for 25 years (the longest sentence available) and the following statement is issued (paraphrase since I cannot find the original text in Polish):
"This heinous act of violence - stabbing a man to death whilst he was in the sanctuary of his assailant's home - should be punished even more severely. How can someone invite a person over, and then proceed to murder them is beyond our ken. Especially as us, the Poles, have always been known for our hospitality. This day is indeed one of the darkest days in history."

I leave it without comment.

You have the right for your privacy in your home but you are still not allowed to take the law into your own hands.I find it strange that, when faced with someone who is obviously not playing by the rules, you're still expected to go through the motions that its not the worst case scenario.

"Don't worry Martha, he's just as afraid of you as you are of him. Don't corner him and he'll just take the television and and go back to the wild."

Greywolf? Damn, I am getting older, but my hair is still black! Well, it is when I let it grow out, I think... :hahaerr:

As far as paranoia in the US about violence, part of it is because guns are so prevalent. The problem is that in a nation the size of the US, with the number of guns there are here, making them illegal will only take guns away from the innocent, there is no way to confiscate all the guns that criminals have, and it would literally take generations for all the illegal guns to be found. So we either maintain the right to defend ourselves or are left to the mercy of criminals.

When it comes to safety of guns in homes, I would have no issue with requiring that people take a safety and competency course (a class that is provided privately, not by the Gov't, as that just makes a backdoor to make guns illegal: i.e. don't offer the class, no one can buy a gun) where they part of the class is about securing your firearms and threat evaluation. I have children and my primary handgun is locked when I am not carrying it, but it is locked in a way that I can get to it easily, and they can't (kind of like a child proof cap on a bottle of medicine). When they get old enough to bypass this safety, I will teach them about gun safety. This is the way I was raised, and my father was raised, as well a millions of other children of law enforcement officers, and they have a very low occurrence of child-gun accidents. The problem is with parents who are embarrassed to admit the have a gun, and hide it away, pretending it is not there. They shouldn't bother with it, because they never practice, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in a stressful environment, and kids find anything you hide! How many of us didn't find our presents when we were kids, or our parents "novelty" toys, or dad's Playboy, or something our parents didn't want us to find? If we did it, our kids will too! That being said, far more children die from bicycle accidents or from accidents caused by drunk drivers than from accidents with guns, but we still sell alcohol and bicycles.

Finally, yes you do have to make sure that the intruder in your home is truly and intruder. I remember when I was in college, one weekend I told my parents that I was going to stay at school and go out and party, er, I mean study instead of coming home. Well it turned out that none of my friends had decided to stay in town, so about 10:00 PM I decided to go home. Now it was (this is back in the days of 55 MPH) about a 2-hour trip home, so it was after midnight when I got home. My parents lived in a LONG ranch style home. I came in at one end, and their bedroom was all the way at the other. I was walking down the very dark hallway and watching my feet so as not to trip, when I saw another pair of feet in front of me. I looked up into the wrong end of a .357 Mag, and then got a face full of light from my dad's 4-cell Maglight. The next words I heard were "I could have shot you, don't ever sneak into the house again", in flat monotone. Scared me half to death!!! While I learned never to sneak into my parent’s house, the real moral is that you have to know that you have an intruder, and if there is any chance that it could be someone else in your home, then you have to accept the risk of identification.

Every situation is different, that is why if you decide that you are going to defending yourself in the case of a break in, you have to do it responsibly. You have to spend hours in thought of what you would do if _______ happened. How many of you with guns have ever done a walk-through in daylight to determine how you can clear your home, and then done the same walkthrough at night with the lights off? You have to plan this well, as for instance, my office has 2 doors that open into different hallways, so there is no way for 1 person to clear it. My wife has to assist or else a BG could simply keep walking around those halls and that room to avoid detection. How many slices do you have to split every room in your house into as you enter? If you don’t even know what that is, you need training. To give a basic explanation, slicing or splitting a room is a way of coming around a doorway or corner so that you are exposed to only a small part of the room at a time. You view a little bit more of it each “slice” you take. The trick is balancing how much of the room you can examine with how long it is going to take you to clear the whole room, as the BG probably knows you are there on the first slice. People used to just charge in, but most rooms have too much space for our brains and eyes to examine quickly enough, so you get overwhelmed and my not even see the BG standing in the open in the middle of the room, sounds ridiculous, but it has happened.) Did you know that you cannot yell and pull the trigger of a gun at the same time? Part of the training that I received from a Police Dept had us “discover” a bad guy and we each had to try to get him to put the gun he is holding down. When you catch him, he has the gun pointed at the ground. You come around the corner holding a toy gun, and tell them to drop the gun. The officer playing the bad guy was very good and got every person to start yelling at him. As soon as we started yelling he pointed his gun at each of us and said “bang”. All 6 of us being trained were “shot” without ever pulling the trigger of our toy gun because we started yelling. Bizarre!

If you decide that you are going to be responsible for your own safety, you have do think of these kinds of things, you simply cannot trust that you will know what to do when the BGs break in, or else you could have a tragedy. To be honest, the majority of people would be better either pretending to sleep through a home invasion, or calling the cops and announcing to the BG that you have done so and that they had better leave.

A dog is a great option if you can go that route, but many people do not live where they can keep a dog, or live lives that don’t lend themselves to being good masters, or have allergies, etc. I think it is pathetic that anyone would kill a dog that bit a burglar. Dogs are very acute to human emotions, and often know if someone intends their master harm. I think this euthanasia is a relic from the days of when the easiest way to test for rabies was to test the brain of the animal, but there are modern tests that can be completed very quickly to protect the “victim” of the bite from this and many other diseases.

So in closing, yes there are risks involved in deciding to defend yourself, and yes, not everyone should decide to do it, but until we become a species that gives up all individuality :borg: , I think that it is a decision that we should all be free to make our own choice about.

Sorry if any of this is incoherent, I am typing it with an extremely bad headache, so please understand and forgive me. :o

Geez, I agree with DW too. Stange days, indeed! Just to clarify a few points here:

First, while you can shoot someone who has illegally entered your home, you can't shoot someone who is TRYING to enter your home. The defintion of "illegally entering" a home is going inside a home where the owner would not permit you entry. Thus, family members do not "illegally enter" their home, even if they have to break down a door or break a window to get in.

Note that breaking into a home in the U.S. does not necessarily entail breaking a window, kicking down a door or picking a lock. Merely opening an unlocked door or window to a home where you were not invited is breaking and entering, even if you didn't have to "break" something to get inside. Once you get both feet in the house, you're fair game. You can't shoot someone trying to pick the lock to your front door, but you can shoot them once they enter the house.

Secondly, if the burglar decides to run away because you have a gun, you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away from your house. A burglar running away no longer poses a lethal threat to you or your family, so you can't shoot him in the back as runs down the steps of your front porch.

Thirdly, it is complete insanity that you have to use like force as nearly anything can be a lethal weapon depending on how it is used. Some are obvioius - yes a handgun or a switchblade represent items that, by their very narture, constitute lethal weapons. But what about less obvious ones? What if the burglar is armed with a pipe, a baseball bat or a hammer? For me to determine if the burglar was going to use lethal force, I would need to know how he intends to use the weapon. If he only plans on hitting me in the arm or leg, the worst I can suffer is a broken bone. But what if he intends to hit me in the head? All of the sudden that baseball bat constitutes a lethal weapon.

There are others that are even less obvious. A screwdriver or a ball point pen can be used as a piercing instrument, and thus, if used in this manner, are lethal weapons. A pillow can be used to smother a person. The point is you would actually have to possess the ability to read an intruder's thoughts to know how they intended to use whatever make-shift weapon they might have with them.

Finally, the onus is on the gun-owner to make the correct decision. The example of shooting an old lady suffering from dementia entering your home probably would get you prosecuted. In the example, it's not even clear that the woman entered the home - it merely states that she broke a window. The law states you cannot shoot unless they enter the home. If the man inside shot her because he saw her through the window, he is going to be prosecuted for manslaughter, and probably negligent use of a firearm, because if he missed he could have theoretically harmed a uninvolved passer-by.

The law bascially states that you can shoot someone who enters your home, but you better be right that the intruder had evil intent. This is determined by the "reasonable person" guideline. This states, how would a reasonable person gauge the actions of the person entering the house. If they were dressed completely in black and had a ski-mask on, chances are he/she is a burglar and was going to steal from you. You're OK to shoot them. An old lady in her pajamas probably isn't a burglar but is most likely mentally incompetent. You can't shoot in this case.

Aldeth,

I applaud your attempt to try to describe, reasonable times to use deadly force, but hope this doesn't break into the game my 7 year old plays that irritates the crap out of me, "What If?".

What if the old lady in her pj's had a gun?

What if the burglar is a martial arts expert?

AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!

It would be nice if we could get back to the "reasonable man" test. For example there was a case where an elderly couple out in a rural area were living in a barn that had been partially converted into a living space. Someone started trying to break into the barn. Thinking that they were thieves the man yelled out to the one trying to break through the front door that he had a gun and would shoot them if they didn't leave. They kept trying to break down the door, so he took a shot through it. The BGs quit working on the door, but a couple minutes later the lady heard one of them trying to get in the window. In her panic she had used her cell phone to call a neighbor to call 911 (stress can make us do stupid things, she should have just called it herself), and she announced the fact that 911 had been called to the person at the window. The window was covered with heavy blinds, so we don't know if he heard her, but when he didn’t stop, she took her .22 LR rifle and shot through the window. The BG stopped working on the window and seemed to have gone away. A few minutes later the police showed up and discovered that the BG not only had stopped trying to break into the window, he had stopped breathing do to having his skull perforated by a .22 bullet in the dead center of his forehead. No charges were pressed, though there was concern that the family of the dead man might sue. :rolleyes: There were 2 sets of tracks outside of the barn, but authorities have been unable to identify the accomplice.

Did the old couple do anything wrong...hell yes, several things. But in the end the BGs got lucky for a while, and had ample opportunity to leave without getting hurt, and they decided to press on with their endeavor, indicating to me they had much more than simple burglary in mind. One of them paid the ultimate price for his stupidity, and the other hopefully learned a lesson (yeah, right :shake: ).

Do I think the old couple should be charged with any crimes (the did illegally discharge a firearm with intent to harm)? I am really torn. We can't have this kind of behavior be encouraged, but yet the result was justifiable in my mind. To be honest I think that under my "reasonable man" test, they should pay a fine for the first shot through the door, but that is about it. After that event, the BGs knew what they were facing and should have given up. But then there are many here who would gladly testify as to my being the prime example of being unreasonable, so maybe I am just looney! :banana:

Yes, yes you are. I would also like to point out that there is difference between what the law says and what the police and the justice systems put into effect. Even under the Swedish law you have to go quite ballistic and the use of unnescessary violence so blatant that it cannot be disregarded for there to be any sentence worth its name or even charges. The more people are allowed to do or think they are allowed to do the more they do. If people know they can shoot a burglar in their house for just being there they will, without much hesitation, they may also shoot someone who sneaks around in their yard even if it happens to be illegal. Violence is an escalating spiral with the more you are allowed to use the more you use it and press the boundaries of the law. Better to have strict guidelines and judge each case by its own.

Also, again I say that I highly doubt that amount of burglaries with the intent of bodily harm is very great.

Actually DW, in that last example, they would be prosecuted - at least in MD. Like I said, you can't shoot someone for trying to get into your house. Shooting through a door or window at somebody is assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of the end result. The law doesn't award you for being a lousy shot.

I agree that the would be burglars were stupid for attempting to enter the barn again after a shot had been fired through the door. I also agree that there was a motive beyond burglary most likely at work. However, here's what I don't get - if they were trying to get inside to do harm to the eldery couple, why not just set the barn on fire? That would force them out pretty quick. You light the end on fire opposite of the exit, and then you wait for them to come out the front door.

On the other hand, if you can't light the barn on fire because you want to steal something that's inside, why not come back when they aren't home?

All I'm saying is that if an unknown stranger is in your house, especially in the middle of the night, chances are they aren't stopping by to make your acquaintence. Any "reasonable person" would have to assume that at the very least they are there to steal from you.

I do not own any firearms. I have no training in them. To have any type of firearm for me might actually be to my disadvantage because I don't know how to use them properly. That having been said, I have no problem with any person owning a gun (provided they do so responsibly), and I have no problem shooting someone who illegally entered your home regardless of whether or not they intended bodily harm.

Again, regardless of the odds, how are you going to know whether or not an intruder intends simply to steal from you or to kill you? It's not like if he's "only" planning on stealing from you it makes his actions OK. Stealing from a personal residence is committing at least two felonies: Breaking and entering, and 1st degree burglary. (The law is actually strange in MD. 1st degree burlary occurs when you steal from a personal residence. 2nd degree burglary is when you steal from something that isn't a personal residence, whether that be a warehouse, a business, or a church.)

Plus, being a gun owner probably decreases the chances of your home being burglarized, just like a dog does. I mean, if everyone on your street knows you're a police officer, and the burglar has done his homework ahead of time, chances are he knows you're a police officer too. Why would you break into someone's home if you knew he was armed, when there are other options on the street where there is at least the possibility of them not being armed. Unless the purpose of the burglary was to actually steal gun(s), why would you even attempt such a thing?

Hey, wierd true story happened to me and my girlfriend yesterday. She owns a little gift/stationery store in a tiny retail area on the edge of downtown Providence. I drop her off in the mornings, and yesterday as I was on my way out the door, a sketchy dude walked into the store and asked her *if she was alone in the store*

I watched from the sidewalk for a couple of seconds before going back in, and he left.

We are now looking into adopting a good looking German Shepard/Akita mix (his bark sounds like it can set off car alarms) from the local animal shelter to be her new bodyguard at the store. I'm hoping he's ok with me changing his name to, "Mephisto." :) It was either that, or a gun, I feel that a big dog provides a nice deterrent though, as a gun, is out of site until trouble actually starts. I'd rather the trouble doesn't start to begin with.

It appears that Florida (http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050210/NEWS01/502100328/1006) has decided that if you enter a home illegally than by definition you are there to do bodily harm and deadly force is permissable.

And I think that is completely reasonable. If you are audacious enough to enter someone's home when they are in the residence, it is logical that you are prepared for an encounter with said residents. The vast majority of burglaries occur when the occupants of the residence are not at home. It's just easier for the burglar that way. Like I said, one can only assume evil intent if they're willing to take the risk of an encounter in burglarizing a residence.

Taluntain:

As far as I'm concerned, anything short of killing them should be allowed. If you break into someone's home, you've got it coming.

However, the downside of this could be that all burglars would come armed... And the whole situation goes from bad to worse. That is exactly what i think, too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=336310&in_page_id=1770

Prosecutors could find just 11 examples over the past 15 years and only five had been convicted. This is under the existing guidelines, and will include Tony Martin (Shooting someone in the back with an unlicensed shot-gun) and a case I read about where someone tied up the burglar, threw him in a pit and set light to him.

Hardly a call for the law to be re-written.