I'm A Law Abiding Citizen. Why Is My Life So Worthless?

[aniwahya]

There is simply not much you can do against an aggressor who is taller, heavier and who is equally or better trained than you without a weapon. If someone who has the physical stature of a pro wrestler or pro linebacker decides they want to hurt you, not only is your window of opportunity for seizing the other hand is not as big as a lot of inexperienced people think it is.

The other thing is, I think that the intent to disable is being mistaken for the intent to kill. Take an attacker who has an already high pain tolerance add drugs, alcohol and/or adrenaline and it takes an awesome amount of force to disable them. Especially if they are a large person (more meat to soak up damage).

- Knocking them unconscious is risky. For one, the most likely means of rendering someone unconscious where they are the aggressor is by means of blunt force trauma to the head. There is no guarantee when you hit someone, or cause them to be hit, in the head that you won't kill them. The next best method is likely to be cut off their oxygen. With someone who is able to easily over power you, your best bet is to cut off the oxygen to their brain, this is much riskier for you and you may not have the opportunity (or training) to do this. Trying to manually choke an attacker out, especially without a garrote, is more involved than it looks, and you run the risk of either cutting off their air, too long or not long enough.
The other big problem with trying to render someone unconscious is you have no idea how long they will be out. They will rarely give you a second change to "try again".

- Using a ranged weapon is the safest way to defend yourself, but if they are already too close for that to be an open, you may have just on moment to strike. If you only have one chance to get a blow in, and you choose a non-vital target, the aggressor is unlikely to even notice you have been hit until after you are dead. I was in a fight where someone picked up a knife. After I subdued them (improvised lion's kill, improvised because my other hand was keeping them from driving a 10" knife into my head) someone started screaming, which prompted me to notice that the kitchen was covered in fresh blood. Someone else actually noticed that one of my fingers was half sawed off before I did. You don't have to accept my word on how people can withstand injuries/damage/pain that you would think would stop them. Go watch some UFC tournaments, consider it research.

I don't want to kill anyone. However in the course of defending myself I kill an aggressor who has attacked me, or has invaded my home I will feel zero remorse in taking their life.

Also I hope some of you can appreciate the irony in that I am a law abiding citizen now, but if you take away my legal right to arm and defend myself, I will arm and defend myself illegally. I suspect I am not the only one to feel that way, and much like prohibition, instead of reducing the number of armed criminals you will only strengthen their number by forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals, depending on criminals who supply illegal weapons to defend themselves.

*Note I have had a great many violent altercations and have not yet needed to kill someone, despite my having the means to do so. Just because I want to be able to legally defend myself doesn't make me a crazed killer.*

[Rapscallion]

A question for you:

It is obvious I am home, lights on, car in drive, visibility through the windows. A large man is breaking into my house via the window of the bedroom of my 1 year old son. The cops are 30 minutes away. I am still having difficulty after a surgery, no way I can overpower this man. I do not know what he is armed with. He is between me and my son, there is a reasonable chance he could grab me and my son if I tried to rush in and grab my baby. It is snowing outside and the temperature is below freezing, both my son and I are in pajamas. We could likely freeze to death outside before help came even if we did manage to escape the house.

So I use a weapon, and the man dies. Since there is no castle doctrine in my area, my action was illegal.

How many years do you feel I should spend in jail for this act?

Let's turn it around.

I am woken up in the middle of the night by a noise. I live alone. According to castle doctrine, I have a gun. I grab it and go downstairs, avoiding the creaky floorboard. My stairs end at the door, which I notice is open. I accidentally left it open/unlocked before going to bed. A shadowy figure is in my dark front room, rifling through my belongings. He comes at me.

Is he going for me? Is he going for the door to try and escape? I don't know, so I open fire. A chav lies dead, bleeding on my new carpet.

According to castle doctrine, that's fine. Is the legal punishment for theft now accepted as being execution by someone not necessarily trained for the job?

I don't actually hold any real opinions on this, but I see all these scenarios being thrown around. The law cannot operate on scenarios - it has to work on generalities and principles. The courts have to use those to decide on scenarios presented through the medium of evidence and witnesses.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

I am woken up in the middle of the night by a noise. I live alone. According to castle doctrine, I have a gun. I grab it and go downstairs, avoiding the creaky floorboard. My stairs end at the door, which I notice is open. I accidentally left it open/unlocked before going to bed. A shadowy figure is in my dark front room, rifling through my belongings. He comes at me.

Is he going for me? Is he going for the door to try and escape? I don't know, so I open fire. A chav lies dead, bleeding on my new carpet.

And? Sorry about the carpet, but gee, he knew the risks and willingly engaged in the act. He put you in a positions where you had a reasonable belief that your life was threatened. He made the choice, he took the consequences. So mote it be.

According to castle doctrine, that's fine. Is the legal punishment for theft now accepted as being execution by someone not necessarily trained for the job?

He wasn't executed for theft. He was killed because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. Whether his act was malicious or just stupid, it was his choice. He was adequately warned by the existence of Castle Doctrine law.

Frankly, it's no different than when the kid ignored the 'warning, train tracks' sign when painting graffiti and got killed by a train. Oh well, Darwin wins, and the real tragedy is that the conductor has to feel guilty because he is not a murderer, just someone forced into a bad situation.

The punishment isn't about 'making someone feel better', it's about telling the rest of society 'your first instinct is NOT to kill someone - if it comes to that, sure, do it. But not as a first response'... and that's what we are trying to say.

Point acknowledged, repeatedly. Castle Doctrine DOES NOT change the fact that one's first instinct should not be to kill. Only if you have a reason to believe you are defending yourself and/or those living in your home from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. does castle doctrine come into play.

We've acknowledged your point. Kindly return the favor and actually look at what castle doctrine means.

I do not believe in 'duty to retreat'. All my experience has taught me that if yo try to back away, that just signals that you are weak and they keep coming. I was bullied right up to the day I stepped up and punched the bitch in the face.

1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted. Pacifists would see my duty as to attempt to flee and if that fails to lie there quietly and try not to piss him off enough that he kills me. However, I have a moral obligation to myself to fight back with all of my being and that outweighs any ill-conceived 'duty to retreat' 'protect the criminal' BS that gives you the artificial feeling of security.

you'd be in deep doo-doo if that person just happened to be the ex who lost their keys, and wanted to see their son.

Which begs the question, why was the ex breaking in instead of ringing the doorbell?

I don't want to kill anyone. However in the course of defending myself I kill an aggressor who has attacked me, or has invaded my home I will feel zero remorse in taking their life.

Also I hope some of you can appreciate the irony in that I am a law abiding citizen now, but if you take away my legal right to arm and defend myself, I will arm and defend myself illegally.

Ditto. So what purpose does making me a criminal serve other than making you feel better?

Removing castle doctrine only makes the criminals safer.

[aniwahya]

Actually if it was an EX you should be more afraid they are breaking in to hurt you, not less.

I sleep with large knives and a sword, and have done so for the last 9 years. Guess how many accidental stabbings happened in my household (living with 2 peeps, and third having keys, various other people staying for short to long periods of time) in those 9 years? Not one single time.
Never accidentally shot a family member nor nailed them with a throwing knife either, and even with PTSD and fast reflexes.
Come to think of it I have never hurt, nor killed a family pet and those buggers TRY to scare me when I'm sleeping.

I truly have not seen one case where someone was killed because the homeowner thought they were an invader, then they turned out to be a loved one, that I didn't think was premeditated murder.

[Pedersen]

The examples you use don't feel like they could happen in real life, even though you say they have. That kind of thing just doesn't happen here.

What I'm saying I don't understand is the "I need to be able to kill them" mentality. I never consider lethal force to be my first defense. If it comes to that, if the attacker pulls out a knife, then yes, I will do my best to prevent them from using that knife, even if it means doing something that could possibly kill them. Same with a gun.

Sorry, the_std, but that is not what you stated, as I've quoted above. You stated "that kind of thing just doesn't happen here." It does. And I've shown it. If you wish to change your statements, that's fine, but I'm going to call you on them when I see them.

The only thing I'm really arguing for is that guns not be used as a first line of defence, nor that knives become a regular item on a person for 'self-defence'.

Actually, I'm not arguing that any line of defense should be the first line of defense. I happen to believe in the idea of "get the hell away from the attacker". My primary issue, and one that I have yet to see a valid answer to, is this: Why is a criminal's life worth more?

The criminal chooses to break the law. In the situations where I have to defend myself and/or my family, I need every advantage I can get my hands on. Especially since, as a criminal, the attacker could have any number of weapons. Meanwhile, with the laws that are being asked for by an increasingly frightened population, I am being disarmed. People are playing the lottery with my life.

So, my original (unanswered) question still stands: Why is my life worth so little that we will protect the criminal from me having the possibility of defending myself?

To add to that: Why is the criminal's life worth so much that if I am forced to defend myself (and either injure or kill him in the process) that we will reward the criminal or his family?

These things do not make sense to me, and I am trying very very hard to understand them.

The 'responsibility' line is all well and good... when you can make everyone responsible.

We can never do that, unfortunately. But this winds up opening another can of worms that's very closely related: Why is it the case that, when a small segment of society is a problem, we will punish the whole of society for that problem? Another example from my own past: In high school, I had a teacher that wasn't worth her weight in dung. This teacher, to make matters worse, was a study hall teacher for me. Myself (and several other students) were on a rotating schedule that had us out of that particular room, and pursuing some other studies, one day/week. One week, the class that was there was loud, disrespectful, etc. I returned the next day. Now, one day each year the art students put on a show. The day I returned was the day of the show. This was also my only opportunity to see their exhibits, and some of them were quite good. I wanted to go. However, since the other students had been problematic the day before, the entire class was to be punished by not being allowed to go.

Fortunately, I chose to ignore the edict and walk out of the class. However, this illustrates my question: Something which I have not done, which I had no part of, occurred, and I was to be punished for it. Again, makes no sense to me.

As for the twin gas chamber scenario... while all that is well and good, the law doesn't get that option, and it's the law we are referring to (aren't we????)

Actually, that example was specifically to illustrate a point: That some lives are more valuable than others. The statement had been made that all lives were intrinsically valuable. I was proving that even though all have value, that value is not the same.

But, as per a story a mate of mine told me last night.

1 person (granted, tall and muscley) is surrounded by 15 youths (14-18yo etc). He calls to his mates (a bit too far away, and have to run to him) for help. He pulls out his retractable baton and opens it ... and all 15 kids bolt... (yeah...I know... it's probably illegal for most people, but if we're going to change the laws....)

Or, all 15 of them open their own retractable batons, and what was going to be a fairly bad beating now becomes a short term coma with permanent partial paralysis, along with damage to eyesight and hearing.

Part of using a weapon is knowing when to use it.

Oh, and btw, I'm not trying to change the law. Not for me, anyway. I'm trying to prevent the law being changed in a way that could leave me in serious trouble in such an incident.

The punishment isn't about 'making someone feel better', it's about telling the rest of society 'your first instinct is NOT to kill someone - if it comes to that, sure, do it. But not as a first response'... and that's what we are trying to say.

That, and only that.

I happen to agree with that.

I do not demand to be able to kill on sight. I do not demand to be able to lash out without provocation. I do demand the ability to defend myself. And the laws that are being demanded seem determined to remove that right.

And I do not understand that in the least.

Oh, another little fun story to share with all of you (note, any of my stories where I say an event happened "in school" or "in high school" is an actual occurrence. There's probably even documentation of it somewhere if I really wanted to dig it up): In school, I chose the "run away" route when being attacked after school. The attacker got my bookbag, though, which had most of my textbooks in it. I got reprimanded by both my parents and the school since those books would have to be replaced if they were not recovered. I got lucky, and found my backpack in school, so no loss. A year or so later, I had an attacker steal my pack again. I was not going to get in trouble again, so I gave chase. I caught up to him, and started hitting the hand that was holding my backpack. As it turns out, I was holding a pencil in that hand (and had completely forgotten I was doing so, as I was unloading stuff into my locker when this occurred). I stabbed him with it, and the end broke off in his arm.

Again, I got in trouble. This time for not having a teacher recover my backpack for me and for stabbing my attacker with a pencil.

With some sort of actual precedent or law set in stone, I could have gotten more consistent responses about what to do and what not to do. Instead, I got another lesson in self-reliance.

[protege]

I do not demand to be able to kill on sight. I do not demand to be able to lash out without provocation. I do demand the ability to defend myself. And the laws that are being demanded seem determined to remove that right.

I don't lash out without provocation either. However, I *will* fight back if I'm cornered, and I will use any and every method to not only defend myself (including those I care about) but neutralize the threat.

That's why I went after the bastard who was trying to break into my grandmother's house...even though she wasn't home. What if I was at school, and she *was* home? Given her seriously weakened condition, she'd have been an easy target I went after the bastard to send a message--that we were *not* going to be victims.

I should mention that anyone who breaks into a rural house is a moron. Sorry, but *many* people on farms or isolated areas *are* armed, and they *will* shoot first and answer questions later.... so to break into a place like that is just suicidal.

[Rapscallion]

And? Sorry about the carpet, but gee, he knew the risks and willingly engaged in the act. He put you in a positions where you had a reasonable belief that your life was threatened. He made the choice, he took the consequences. So mote it be.

I have to admit that in a case where a chav is involved, I'd be more gutted about the carpet than anything else.

He wasn't executed for theft. He was killed because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. Whether his act was malicious or just stupid, it was his choice. He was adequately warned by the existence of Castle Doctrine law.

Interesting change of emphasis from executed to killed. Execution is legal, killing isn't always. It would be legally sanctioned under castle doctrine, and therefore execution.

The fact is that it's theft in the scenario presented. I cannot accept that theft should be punished by death. The UK's stance is that you can take reasonable actions to defend yourself, which is generally decided on by a court of law should such a circumstance come before them.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

But just because it starts with theft, doesn't mean that as a result of being confronted, the theif may turn violent in order to get away with it, and as a result of that, it'd be a lot more understandable to use more extreme of a force.

[Zyanya]

I cannot accept that theft should be punished by death.

As I already stated, he was not 'executed' for theft.

He was 'executed' because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. The theft was merely his motive for undertaking the action that got him 'executed'.

It is also theft in these cases -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

How exactly are you supposed to know that the guy is going for the door and isn't someone like Perry Edward Smith?

You don't, and it since it was his choice to put you in that situation, no tears should be shed for him by society at large.

You shouldn't have to take the chance that he isn't going to harm you. It is wrong for someone to gamble with your life and say you should take that chance instead of hurting someone that willingly and knowingly is already demonstrating a disregard for both the law and your wellbeing and is acting in a manner threatening to you.

[ebonyknight]

Canadians don't usually "get it" because we aren't worked into a lather of fear every time we turn on the TV.

We don't necessarily have lower crime rates (especially in certain cities), we just have a less skewed understanding of crime statistics.

QFT!!!!

As I understand it, Canadians are not inundated with sensational news stories about the "triple homicide that occurred last night in our area" or the "perils of di-hydrogen monoxide permeating the environment". Kudos to anyone who gets the significance of the latter.

From what I understand, their news reports tend to focus on relating the events of the day (good, boring and bad), while we only get the bad. I even understand that most don't find the need to lock their doors, while we have steel bars and steel gates welded to our door frames.

Unfortunately, the media has effectively created an atmosphere of paranoia that makes the hijacking of our country, so easy.

[ebonyknight]

wow... getting pretty hot in this room..... I thought this was an intellectual debate....


Pretty much all western law countries allow for a person to defend their home and children from attackers.

What is illegal, is opening up the door, and blasting away at the person with a shotgun...with no warning.

The question comes down to how much force is used, and in what manner.

Given the few bits of legislation I just read (direct links to the various states' sections for castle doctrines), you'd be in deep doo-doo if that person just happened to be the ex who lost their keys, and wanted to see their son. If the lights are off, and you can't identify the person, and just shoot... that's an issue... and it's the issue we are talking about.

I think that's the problem. That's what YOU'RE talking about. Not the others. The problem is that in this country, the laws are there, but the lawyers and criminals are distorting "justice". I can't believe how many asinine lawsuits I have seen where a criminal was injured in the commission of a crime and sued the homeowner and FRIKIN WINS!!!!

The problem is that people don't feel that there is justice anymore and where there is no justice there is no peace. People in this country (unlike the UK, which has turned into 1984) have never been the type to sit down and take it. This country was founded on dissatisfaction with the ruling government and doing something about it.

Other countries don't have that experience. We choose to not be victims, it's in our mentality and history. If the gubment, won't do it, we'll do it ourselves.

There are plenty of cases (Washington DC being the largest gun control lab in this country) of people not being able to defend themselves and getting killed.

I saw a story about 3 weeks ago about a woman who was had been held at knife point by her ex. She called 911 a number of times over 2 hours, wondering where the police were. The last call was recorded and after she hung up, the 911 operator said "I really just don’t give a shit what happens to you.”. Fortunately, she was okay. Think anything will change?

You like to talk about the tragic accidents. We don't want to be the victim and talk about the tragic propensities for criminals to do wrong. Accidents happen, they are a part of life. Crime and murder doesn't have to be.

[Rapscallion]

As I already stated, he was not 'executed' for theft.

He was 'executed' because he WILLINGLY put someone else in a position where they had to fear for the safety of themselves and their families. The theft was merely his motive for undertaking the action that got him 'executed'.

It is also theft in these cases -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

How exactly are you supposed to know that the guy is going for the door and isn't someone like Perry Edward Smith?

You don't, and it since it was his choice to put you in that situation, no tears should be shed for him by society at large.

You shouldn't have to take the chance that he isn't going to harm you. It is wrong for someone to gamble with your life and say you should take that chance instead of hurting someone that willingly and knowingly is already demonstrating a disregard for both the law and your wellbeing and is acting in a manner threatening to you.

Another scenario, in that case, since they are being used in so many cases to justify death for the offence of theft.

Chav walks into your house, you surprise him, he didn't think anyone was home, you are armed, he's walking backwards out, saying he'll go, but you shoot.

"Honest, officer, he was coming for me."

Legal murder.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

How often do you really think that will happen where someone will shoot someone who gave up, said they'd leave, and were actually leaving? I'd bet most, if not nearly all will let him go.

[protege]

I wouldn't let the guy go either. However, I wouldn't shoot him either. What I'd do, is detain him until the cops come...and then press charges on breaking and entering.

[Zyanya]

Another scenario, in that case, since they are being used in so many cases to justify death for the offence of theft.

Chav walks into your house, you surprise him, he didn't think anyone was home, you are armed, he's walking backwards out, saying he'll go, but you shoot.

"Honest, officer, he was coming for me."

Legal murder.

Rapscallion

Doesn't fit the criteria necessary for castle doctrine to apply.

As has been (repeatedly) pointed out, only if you have a reason to believe you are defending yourself and/or those living in your home from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. does castle doctrine come into play.

By the standards of castle doctrine, the case you cited would have been plain old ordinary murder, no legal about it.