13 ms·

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then yo

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law Enforcement officers (I feel like people forget cops haven't always been a thing in the U.S.), people wouldn't just accept some nobody in a uniform as a person of authority. There weren't cops, so the warrant was the only way to show you had the authority of the state.

cecilpl2 7y ago
> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!
- kick 7y ago
  I don't agree with it, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
- DuskStar 7y ago
  You sure as hell should have the right to shoot someone who's armed and trying to get into your house, though.
- whiddershins 7y ago
  So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
  - oblio 7y ago
    In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
    - jack_h 7y ago
      What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times. Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
        giancarlostoro 7y ago
        Only if you miss.
        saagarjha 7y ago
- aspaceman 7y ago
  I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you the right?"
  - taxidump 7y ago
    >Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. This is not a great strategy for defence. You should defend yourself first if you are not able to get away. Or here in my state you may stand you ground and protect your life and property with deadly force. Anyone who truly feels in danger should not call the cops and wait for them to come shoot a stranger in their home...
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    The cops will arrive when they feel like it. It is well established that they have no legal obligation to respond in a timely fashion even where they in theory could do so. Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.
    - aspaceman 7y ago
      What does any of this have to do with anything I said?
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        In the context of "Back then [the castle doctrine] made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead", discussing the response time and obligation of the purported replacement seems perfectly relevant to me. In many cases, you could call the cops and then make yourself a hamburger, eat it, and finish up the dishes before they arrived.
- Asooka 7y ago
  A foundational right essential to a free society. It's your home, you have dominion over it - people can't enter uninvited and while you can't just start blasting from nothing, ultimately you have the right to protect yourself at your own home, which can end up in death.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  To expand, the castle principle is what this is called, and it is seen as much as an obvious default in the USA as a horrifyingly violent monstrosity basically everywhere else.
  - aspaceman 7y ago
    Yup agreed. It's not good. Made sense in a frontier without any cops. Doesn't make much sense anymore. Don't know why you use that historical fact as a springboard for some weird soapbox though. FYI. My opinion is you don't shoot people on your property. It's bad.
    - GiorgioG 7y ago
      When seconds count, the police are only 15 minutes away. When I was growing in a less than ideal neighborhood, someone purporting to be police rang the doorbell at around midnight on a Saturday night. My father opened the door with his .22 rifle in hand. These supposed cops were "looking for a missing child." My dad wasn't buying it and they left in a hurry, never taking their eyes off the rifle. My father called the police department afterwards and it turns out no child had been reported missing in the area. No, my father didn't shoot anyone - but you can be sure he was ready to do so if necessary. If someone rings my doorbell in the middle of the night, they're going to meet me with a gun in hand. If someone is so bold as to break into my house while my loved ones are home - I'm not going to wait for the police to show up to protect them. The rational assumption is these individuals are a threat to the safety of my family. I'd rather go to jail than see my family hurt. While rare, home invasions are a thing - this is probably the worst/most-gruesome example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_in... Victimization During Household Burglary https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Shooting the postman is illegal.
- aspaceman 7y ago
  Then in the 1700s you identified yourself as the postman so you didn't get shot. I imagine a uniform and some familiarity had a lot to do with it. For god's sake I'm not saying this is good, or this is how I want the world to work. I sure as hell don't and I'm not some conspiratorial militiaman. Historically, i.e. in early America. There were no pigs, so you defended your own property. Typically with a gun. Warrants partly exist to stop someone from doing that, which is what the parent comment is all about.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Generally speaking you never had the right to shoot people walking on your property in America. You could tell them to get lost. Home invasion is a different matter.

cecilpl2 7y ago

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

kick 7y ago
I don't agree with it, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
DuskStar 7y ago
You sure as hell should have the right to shoot someone who's armed and trying to get into your house, though.
whiddershins 7y ago
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
- oblio 7y ago
  In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
  - jack_h 7y ago
    What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times. Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
      - giancarlostoro 7y ago
        Only if you miss.
        saagarjha 7y ago
aspaceman 7y ago
I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you the right?"
- taxidump 7y ago
  >Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. This is not a great strategy for defence. You should defend yourself first if you are not able to get away. Or here in my state you may stand you ground and protect your life and property with deadly force. Anyone who truly feels in danger should not call the cops and wait for them to come shoot a stranger in their home...
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The cops will arrive when they feel like it. It is well established that they have no legal obligation to respond in a timely fashion even where they in theory could do so. Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.
  - aspaceman 7y ago
    What does any of this have to do with anything I said?
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      In the context of "Back then [the castle doctrine] made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead", discussing the response time and obligation of the purported replacement seems perfectly relevant to me. In many cases, you could call the cops and then make yourself a hamburger, eat it, and finish up the dishes before they arrived.
Asooka 7y ago
A foundational right essential to a free society. It's your home, you have dominion over it - people can't enter uninvited and while you can't just start blasting from nothing, ultimately you have the right to protect yourself at your own home, which can end up in death.
kazagistar 7y ago
To expand, the castle principle is what this is called, and it is seen as much as an obvious default in the USA as a horrifyingly violent monstrosity basically everywhere else.
- aspaceman 7y ago
  Yup agreed. It's not good. Made sense in a frontier without any cops. Doesn't make much sense anymore. Don't know why you use that historical fact as a springboard for some weird soapbox though. FYI. My opinion is you don't shoot people on your property. It's bad.
  - GiorgioG 7y ago
    When seconds count, the police are only 15 minutes away. When I was growing in a less than ideal neighborhood, someone purporting to be police rang the doorbell at around midnight on a Saturday night. My father opened the door with his .22 rifle in hand. These supposed cops were "looking for a missing child." My dad wasn't buying it and they left in a hurry, never taking their eyes off the rifle. My father called the police department afterwards and it turns out no child had been reported missing in the area. No, my father didn't shoot anyone - but you can be sure he was ready to do so if necessary. If someone rings my doorbell in the middle of the night, they're going to meet me with a gun in hand. If someone is so bold as to break into my house while my loved ones are home - I'm not going to wait for the police to show up to protect them. The rational assumption is these individuals are a threat to the safety of my family. I'd rather go to jail than see my family hurt. While rare, home invasions are a thing - this is probably the worst/most-gruesome example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_in... Victimization During Household Burglary https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Shooting the postman is illegal.

aspaceman 7y ago
Then in the 1700s you identified yourself as the postman so you didn't get shot. I imagine a uniform and some familiarity had a lot to do with it. For god's sake I'm not saying this is good, or this is how I want the world to work. I sure as hell don't and I'm not some conspiratorial militiaman. Historically, i.e. in early America. There were no pigs, so you defended your own property. Typically with a gun. Warrants partly exist to stop someone from doing that, which is what the parent comment is all about.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Generally speaking you never had the right to shoot people walking on your property in America. You could tell them to get lost. Home invasion is a different matter.