9 ms·

> 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?

> 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
        Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.
        giancarlostoro 7y ago
        As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
    - meowface 7y ago
      I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to stop the pain, too. In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
  - meowface 7y ago
    It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are. Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet. If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
    - oblio 7y ago
      > If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational. Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
      - forgetfulusr 7y ago
        This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
      - MiracleUser 7y ago
  - pandaman 7y ago
    You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        > you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - pandaman 7y ago
  - ct520 7y ago
    you must not have kids.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
    - oblio 7y ago
      Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
      - mattr47 7y ago
        If it is in my home then, yes, it will be shot on sight.
      - CapricornNoble 7y ago
        Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?
        BoiledCabbage 7y ago
        His point that you keep missing is that malicious intentions doesn't equal death. Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?
        celticmusic 7y ago
        yeah... I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  drunk person confused wandered in house via open door unexpectedly? Is New York a state where you are allowed to shoot someone for just being on your property or do they have show some hostile behavior. You should probably find out the relevant law before you tell someone he was standing in my kitchen unexpectedly and I shot them, it's self-defense because it might not pass the test.
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.

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
        Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.
        giancarlostoro 7y ago
        As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to stop the pain, too. In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
- meowface 7y ago
  It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are. Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet. If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
  - oblio 7y ago
    > If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational. Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
    - forgetfulusr 7y ago
      This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
    - MiracleUser 7y ago
- pandaman 7y ago
  You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      > you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - pandaman 7y ago
- ct520 7y ago
  you must not have kids.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
  - oblio 7y ago
    Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
    - mattr47 7y ago
      If it is in my home then, yes, it will be shot on sight.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?
      - BoiledCabbage 7y ago
        His point that you keep missing is that malicious intentions doesn't equal death. Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?
        celticmusic 7y ago
        yeah... I dislike the term 'bleeding heart liberal', but I think it applies here. There's a difference between 'love thy fellow man' and 'worry about the health of an intruder in your home at 3am'.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
drunk person confused wandered in house via open door unexpectedly? Is New York a state where you are allowed to shoot someone for just being on your property or do they have show some hostile behavior. You should probably find out the relevant law before you tell someone he was standing in my kitchen unexpectedly and I shot them, it's self-defense because it might not pass the test.

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.