8 ms·

You can end up being the one punished in all kinds of scenarios where you're the wronged party initially. If you are too vigorous in defending your property, y

You can end up being the one punished in all kinds of scenarios where you're the wronged party initially. If you are too vigorous in defending your property, you can be charged with assault, which I'm guessing is what happened.

magduf 8y ago
Perhaps, but the very nature of carjacking is that it's a violent crime against you, not just your car. Yes, the end object for the criminal is stealing your car, but many carjackings have resulted in severe injuries or death for the victims, which is why it's actually legal in South Africa to have flamethrowers mounted on your car to protect yourself from them (!). These crimes should be treated as attempted murders, and I have a hard time imagining how someone can be "too vigorous" in defending their very life from someone who is actively trying to murder them.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  I think in general, once you're no longer in danger anything you do to the attacker becomes assault instead of self-defense.
  - Animats 8y ago
    Depends strongly on the jurisdiction. Some states are "duty to retreat" states. Some are "stand your ground" states.[1] Big ongoing controversy over this, because it affects when it's legal to shoot somebody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
    - dllthomas 8y ago
      IIUC - and I'd be interested to be corrected if I don't - the difference between "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" is all around what happens while you still (reasonably?) perceive a threat to be present. If you're confident that you are safe, and you (say) shoot someone in retribution, you're guilty even in a stand-your-ground state. At least theoretically - what can actually be shown at trial is possibly another question.
      - Animats 8y ago
        This is much discussed on gun sites. If you shot someone trying to steal your car, in some states you would probably not even be charged, while in others you'd go to prison. An intro for Texas.[1] [1] http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-law-using-deadly-force/ http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-l...
        dllthomas 8y ago
        That's still a question of defense of property, though, right? You may be able to shoot someone to stop them from stealing your car. You can't ever shoot someone because they tried to steal your car. The circumstances in which a self-defense justification extends to property presumably also differs per-state, but it's not the same question as "stand your ground". It's maybe worth noting that "defense of others" is often also a thing.
        magduf 8y ago
        I think some people like you here are not understanding what "carjacking" is. This isn't simple car theft; it's a violent crime where attackers frequently use weapons to force people out of their car and take it. Victims are frequently killed or injured in the process. It isn't like someone breaking into your car when you're not in it. Carjacking is a really scary crime.
        dllthomas 8y ago
        The discussion, since about 5 posts up, has been about what is and is not a part of "stand your ground" - carjacking is only vaguely, incidentally relevant anymore. Yes, in a carjacking, the victim likely has reason to fear for their life. At some point, that ceases to be true. Actions taken after that point (... in those circumstances where actions can be taken by the victim after that point) are what was under discussion. (I did read Animats' "If you shot someone trying to steal your car [...]" as referring to more general auto-theft - if it was meant to refer specifically to car-jacking then amend my earlier comment to "That's still at least a question of defense of property [...]")
  - vokep 8y ago
    Okay, but the presence of an attacker implies you are in danger (from the attacker) and thus are justified to assault them until they leave or are no longer willing/capable of assaulting you back. If you can't safely defend yourself then, why not just become a criminal yourself? You already might become one sooner or later due to circumstance, so just turn to the dark side and start jacking cars! (This is sarcastic, do not turn to the dark side and start jacking cars!)
- fwip 8y ago
  I don't think taking somebody's property is an attempted murder, nor is mugging.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Yes, it certainly is when the criminal is using a deadly weapon to commit the crime.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    You sound like someone who's never had a gun pointed at your face.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      If cooperating with the aggressor leaves you alive, and not as an accident, it wasn't attempted murder. It might be violent, immoral, terrifying, and any number of other things, but if the intent wasn't that you end up dead (even if there was a serious risk of that happening), it's not attempted murder.
      - zepto 8y ago
        In other words, if you don’t get shot, it wasn’t attempted murder.
      - CapitalistCartr 8y ago
        You're using 20-20 hindsight. That if you lead with is a big if.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You're using 20-20 hindsight. No, I’m not. Obviously, the victim won't often be able to tell with any certainty (except with some idea after the fact) whether it was attempted murder. That the difference may be hard to perceive from a particular viewer's perspective doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.
- presscast 8y ago
  > I have a hard time imagining how someone can be "too vigorous" in defending their very life from someone who is actively trying to murder them. You're assuming the person's life was in danger continuously throughout the incident.
  - magduf 8y ago
    If an attacker is using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, that seems to indicate that the victim's life really is in danger continuously, as long as the attacker is armed.
    - presscast 8y ago
      Not necessarily. AFAIK the common case where your logic falls apart is when an attacker takes flight. At that point, it's really hard to argue (under the law of every country I've ever lived in, including the US) that your life is in danger.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        If they run away while still holding the weapon in a ready position, you could reasonably argue that, and there were cases when people did, and convinced the jury. And I think it's reasonable - why should you try to guess whether it's retreat or merely changing position? And even if it's retreat, it doesn't mean that they won't shoot back as they do so (indeed, "fighting retreat" is a military term). The whole point of firearms is that they can do harm at a considerable range, after all. If the attacker wants to make their intention to stop being a threat clear, they can drop the weapon. If they don't, I'd rather err on the side of not second-guessing the victim.
        presscast 8y ago
        Yes, this is why I'm saying it's the "common" failure case, rather than the absolute failure case. To illustrate, there are very few cases in US law where you can shoot someone in the back.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  I would imagine this quote had something to do with that: > pro-tip: never take the public defender.
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  Never conflate "what is legal" with "what is moral" or "what is rational". Doing so will make so sorely disappointed.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    You absolutely will, because very few people's personal moralities align with our societal ethics. Laws _generally_ align with what we have found to be ethical, but they lag behind and there are plenty of cases where they've diverged.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Also, pro-tip, outside of the US it's also not always legal to claim self-defense for any levels of violence. In a lot of countries (including Canada) the correct response in a situation like this is to -leave-, abandon the car to the carjacker and call the police from safety. Possessions aren't worth your life.
  - craftinator 8y ago
    This line of reasoning is insane to me. For the most part, police act as a deterrent against crime, not as an actual barrier. Police tactics are geared toward making them more of a deterrent, making their presence felt by everyone around as much as possible. So calling the police because you've just been robbed is not likely to achieve anything (I've had two cars stolen, and in both cases the police never achieved anything). If police aren't a deterrent from car theft (as carjacking is a pretty common crime), then we are encouraging that behavior by doing nothing and calling the cops. Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. There would be almost no repeat offenders (I have been shot at, and it is terrifying).
    - ams6110 8y ago
      The police are almost never around to intervene in a crime in progress. They show up in the aftermath and investigate what happened, gather evidence, and eventually may refer a suspect to the prosecutor for charges.
      - craftinator 8y ago
        Agreed. Their main value is as a deterrent presence, a chilling effect on criminal conduct. They do gather evidence, etc, but the vast majority of their work is driving around and being seen.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I mean, the other line of reasoning is insane to me. If you can safely escape a situation why should you risk escalating and possibly getting shot yourself? Report the item as stolen and move on with your life.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Perhaps, but the very nature of carjacking is that it's a violent crime against you, not just your car. It is possible to use excessive force in response to a threat that would justify some force in self-defense, which supports prosecution for assault or similar crimes. > These crimes should be treated as attempted murders The generally are not factually attempted murders, and if we just decide to willy-nilly ignore the actual elements of crimes in deciding how acts should be prosecuted, then, well, it's hardly possible to stand firm that the case you are complaining about shouldn't be prosecuted as assault. Or genocide. Or conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Whatever.

magduf 8y ago

Perhaps, but the very nature of carjacking is that it's a violent crime against you, not just your car. Yes, the end object for the criminal is stealing your car, but many carjackings have resulted in severe injuries or death for the victims, which is why it's actually legal in South Africa to have flamethrowers mounted on your car to protect yourself from them (!). These crimes should be treated as attempted murders, and I have a hard time imagining how someone can be "too vigorous" in defending their very life from someone who is actively trying to murder them.

jlarocco 8y ago
I think in general, once you're no longer in danger anything you do to the attacker becomes assault instead of self-defense.
- Animats 8y ago
  Depends strongly on the jurisdiction. Some states are "duty to retreat" states. Some are "stand your ground" states.[1] Big ongoing controversy over this, because it affects when it's legal to shoot somebody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    IIUC - and I'd be interested to be corrected if I don't - the difference between "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" is all around what happens while you still (reasonably?) perceive a threat to be present. If you're confident that you are safe, and you (say) shoot someone in retribution, you're guilty even in a stand-your-ground state. At least theoretically - what can actually be shown at trial is possibly another question.
    - Animats 8y ago
      This is much discussed on gun sites. If you shot someone trying to steal your car, in some states you would probably not even be charged, while in others you'd go to prison. An intro for Texas.[1] [1] http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-law-using-deadly-force/ http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-l...
      - dllthomas 8y ago
        That's still a question of defense of property, though, right? You may be able to shoot someone to stop them from stealing your car. You can't ever shoot someone because they tried to steal your car. The circumstances in which a self-defense justification extends to property presumably also differs per-state, but it's not the same question as "stand your ground". It's maybe worth noting that "defense of others" is often also a thing.
        magduf 8y ago
        I think some people like you here are not understanding what "carjacking" is. This isn't simple car theft; it's a violent crime where attackers frequently use weapons to force people out of their car and take it. Victims are frequently killed or injured in the process. It isn't like someone breaking into your car when you're not in it. Carjacking is a really scary crime.
        dllthomas 8y ago
        The discussion, since about 5 posts up, has been about what is and is not a part of "stand your ground" - carjacking is only vaguely, incidentally relevant anymore. Yes, in a carjacking, the victim likely has reason to fear for their life. At some point, that ceases to be true. Actions taken after that point (... in those circumstances where actions can be taken by the victim after that point) are what was under discussion. (I did read Animats' "If you shot someone trying to steal your car [...]" as referring to more general auto-theft - if it was meant to refer specifically to car-jacking then amend my earlier comment to "That's still at least a question of defense of property [...]")
- vokep 8y ago
  Okay, but the presence of an attacker implies you are in danger (from the attacker) and thus are justified to assault them until they leave or are no longer willing/capable of assaulting you back. If you can't safely defend yourself then, why not just become a criminal yourself? You already might become one sooner or later due to circumstance, so just turn to the dark side and start jacking cars! (This is sarcastic, do not turn to the dark side and start jacking cars!)
fwip 8y ago
I don't think taking somebody's property is an attempted murder, nor is mugging.
- magduf 8y ago
  Yes, it certainly is when the criminal is using a deadly weapon to commit the crime.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  You sound like someone who's never had a gun pointed at your face.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    If cooperating with the aggressor leaves you alive, and not as an accident, it wasn't attempted murder. It might be violent, immoral, terrifying, and any number of other things, but if the intent wasn't that you end up dead (even if there was a serious risk of that happening), it's not attempted murder.
    - zepto 8y ago
      In other words, if you don’t get shot, it wasn’t attempted murder.
    - CapitalistCartr 8y ago
      You're using 20-20 hindsight. That if you lead with is a big if.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You're using 20-20 hindsight. No, I’m not. Obviously, the victim won't often be able to tell with any certainty (except with some idea after the fact) whether it was attempted murder. That the difference may be hard to perceive from a particular viewer's perspective doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.
presscast 8y ago
> I have a hard time imagining how someone can be "too vigorous" in defending their very life from someone who is actively trying to murder them. You're assuming the person's life was in danger continuously throughout the incident.
- magduf 8y ago
  If an attacker is using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, that seems to indicate that the victim's life really is in danger continuously, as long as the attacker is armed.
  - presscast 8y ago
    Not necessarily. AFAIK the common case where your logic falls apart is when an attacker takes flight. At that point, it's really hard to argue (under the law of every country I've ever lived in, including the US) that your life is in danger.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      If they run away while still holding the weapon in a ready position, you could reasonably argue that, and there were cases when people did, and convinced the jury. And I think it's reasonable - why should you try to guess whether it's retreat or merely changing position? And even if it's retreat, it doesn't mean that they won't shoot back as they do so (indeed, "fighting retreat" is a military term). The whole point of firearms is that they can do harm at a considerable range, after all. If the attacker wants to make their intention to stop being a threat clear, they can drop the weapon. If they don't, I'd rather err on the side of not second-guessing the victim.
      - presscast 8y ago
        Yes, this is why I'm saying it's the "common" failure case, rather than the absolute failure case. To illustrate, there are very few cases in US law where you can shoot someone in the back.
stronglikedan 8y ago
I would imagine this quote had something to do with that: > pro-tip: never take the public defender.
sbuttgereit 8y ago
Never conflate "what is legal" with "what is moral" or "what is rational". Doing so will make so sorely disappointed.
- munk-a 8y ago
  You absolutely will, because very few people's personal moralities align with our societal ethics. Laws _generally_ align with what we have found to be ethical, but they lag behind and there are plenty of cases where they've diverged.
munk-a 8y ago
Also, pro-tip, outside of the US it's also not always legal to claim self-defense for any levels of violence. In a lot of countries (including Canada) the correct response in a situation like this is to -leave-, abandon the car to the carjacker and call the police from safety. Possessions aren't worth your life.
- craftinator 8y ago
  This line of reasoning is insane to me. For the most part, police act as a deterrent against crime, not as an actual barrier. Police tactics are geared toward making them more of a deterrent, making their presence felt by everyone around as much as possible. So calling the police because you've just been robbed is not likely to achieve anything (I've had two cars stolen, and in both cases the police never achieved anything). If police aren't a deterrent from car theft (as carjacking is a pretty common crime), then we are encouraging that behavior by doing nothing and calling the cops. Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. There would be almost no repeat offenders (I have been shot at, and it is terrifying).
  - ams6110 8y ago
    The police are almost never around to intervene in a crime in progress. They show up in the aftermath and investigate what happened, gather evidence, and eventually may refer a suspect to the prosecutor for charges.
    - craftinator 8y ago
      Agreed. Their main value is as a deterrent presence, a chilling effect on criminal conduct. They do gather evidence, etc, but the vast majority of their work is driving around and being seen.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I mean, the other line of reasoning is insane to me. If you can safely escape a situation why should you risk escalating and possibly getting shot yourself? Report the item as stolen and move on with your life.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Perhaps, but the very nature of carjacking is that it's a violent crime against you, not just your car. It is possible to use excessive force in response to a threat that would justify some force in self-defense, which supports prosecution for assault or similar crimes. > These crimes should be treated as attempted murders The generally are not factually attempted murders, and if we just decide to willy-nilly ignore the actual elements of crimes in deciding how acts should be prosecuted, then, well, it's hardly possible to stand firm that the case you are complaining about shouldn't be prosecuted as assault. Or genocide. Or conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Whatever.