Right to defend yourself?

[sickpuppy]

Love Louisiana laws. It is an interesting read, but basically states that if you feel you are in imminent danger, KILL THE SUCKER. You are also justified to kill in the behalf of someone else if they are in imminent danger even if you are not. You can kill them if they are trying to break in. They do not have to be in your house or automobile just trying to get in.

Since I live in the New Orleans metro area in Jefferson Parish and the crime before Katrina was extremely bad and now post Katrina it is on the rise again. I find it prudent to keep a weapon close at hand. The big problem here and I guess most places now, is the criminals out gun the police.

Dan


§20. Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1.

22. Defense of others
It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

 

[palecricket1]

whoa this thread's growing faster than a batch of
KV-1116! I actually have a break in scenerio all planned out. If I'm in my room, grab an empty carboy from the closet. Anyone who's ever dropped one on their foot before knows how much one of those suckers hurts. If I'm in the bathroom, grab the lysol. Living room, go for the fireplace poker. Kitchen, butcher's knife. Now in the basement I've got quite an arsenal with everything from hammers, screwdrivers, and other awls to solvents and reagents that'll send any theif crying to his mommy if so much as a drop gets on him. I'm a psychotic little dude and I'll rend the flesh off your bones if you piss me off enough. I'd have no problem stabbing a guy in the heat of the moment, though I'd probably freak out when I calmed down and got to thinking about what I just did.
But what really pisses me off is the fact that according to New York law, if you have a black belt you're techincally not supposed to use your training on an attacker, which is totatly bogus and it probably means I'd get into quite some trouble if I actually did get jumped. Yet I've heard of a few cases where attackers have actually sued their to-be victims after they went Bruce Lee on their sorry hides. Crazy world, ain't it?

 

[WRATHWILDE]

Are Black belts a matter of public record? Nope, never had any martial arts training officer, the roundhouse kick I delivered to his head surprised me just as much as it did him.

Wrathwilde

 

[NeadMead]

The use of lethal force is not something that I take likely. Just before leaving work today, 29MAR06, a coworker asked me this same question. Every person has the God given right to protect themselves and their families. Just for breaking in lethal force is not justified, but I will announce my being armed with a loaded pistol and I will use it if necessary. I pray each day that I will never have to fire my pistol at another human being, but if I have to, I will. I was trained by a US Marine (my Dad) when I was a kid. In 1992, the US Army furthered that training. Both had instilled the motto of shoot to kill. Warning shots will never work. If the pressance of an armed home owner is not enough of a deterrent to the intruder, then odds are, he or she is hostile and one should shoot for centre mass. However, listening to the advice of a great lawman in this nation(Massad Ayyoub), never state in atrial that you were shooting to kill. It plays into the hands of the prosecutor (if you are tried for murder) or the plantiff in a lawsuit against you. Let the jury know that you were afraid for your life and the lives of your family. say that you were shooting to live. or at the least shooting to stop them. If the man was leaving g=her residence, I understand her fear but she should have taken more care to find out his intentions. Most criminals when shot by a home owner will flee. Do not get me wrong her fear for her children and herself was prevalent, she was not wrong, especially after being attacked twice. The judgement was. That is the shameful situation this country has gotten into. My Dad worked a county jail and a state prison in Texas. the inmates have far too many rights and the guards have little in the way they can protect themselves and each other. Amnesty International and Civil Liberties Union care more about the criminals than the victims. If they had their way we would all be imprisoned for being victims of crime. I know in MI, where I got a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), If you reasonably feel your life or the lives of your family are in immenent danger lethal force is justified. MI law also had (last I knew of) "home castle" laws yet they urge you to give the intruder a chance to leave. if the intruder does you must under law let them go. if not, what happens to them is their fault. the people on that jury for her were obviously picked by the plantiffs attorney for being gun grabbers who feel that only law enforcement should use such force. Wait until one of their relatves face the possibilty of being raped or killed. Lets see what they think then.

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

PS May God grant you and your families safe homes. Especially yours Miriam. I hope that the violence ends in the Middle East soon.

 

[Crimson]

Reading all these stories, I am just glad I live in the Netherlands.
No gun problems here, and altough I care a great deal about my house as my castle, there is nothing in there worth dying for, I'd rather flee then fight. There is nothing to gain in fighting when there are other options. A scumbag low enough to break into my house is not worth enough to risk myself any bodily harm.

cu
Mark

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

I guess I find a bit of humor in the fact that the law expects that someone that has absolutely no training, when confronted with an intruder in their home or trying to break into their home, will be calm and rational enough to make a totally rational, logical decision. I won't pretend to be a macho tough guy. If things like that happen, like being threatened at a bar by some drunk, the adrenaline kicks in and I shake like a leaf. I don't go beserk, but concern for the other guy's safety is NOT a priority in my thought process.

Does the law REALLY expect us to determine how badly we might be hurt based on the weapons the intruder is displaying or how big he is and then decide what would be reasonable? Obviously it does in some states. But I would tend to be like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribean, where he wins the sword fight by "cheating". You win, you survive, you are unharmed... What else matters... (not a question but a statement of fact)

What amazes me is how the laws can still reflect a sentiment that is so opposite what the general public feels. I haven't heard anyone argue, here or elsewhere, that ANYONE has ANY right to break into your home to steal things or harm you. And yet our laws tend to still reflect that they do have that right. It seems like "three strikes and you're out" and a few other laws recently have reversed the trend by making it tougher on the criminals. What else do we need to do?

 

[Dan McFeeley]

I guess I find a bit of humor in the fact that the law expects that someone that has absolutely no training, when confronted with an intruder in their home or trying to break into their home, will be calm and rational enough to make a totally rational, logical decision. I won't pretend to be a macho tough guy. If things like that happen, like being threatened at a bar by some drunk, the adrenaline kicks in and I shake like a leaf. I don't go beserk, but concern for the other guy's safety is NOT a priority in my thought process.

This is a good response -- yup, the average Joe has no training, but when there's a threat to life, limb, and family, you're supposed to respond rationally.

Well, rationality doesn't take effect in a crisis situation. You respond by instinct.

Few of us are macho tough guys (or women) cerainly not! Yet, when thrust in a crisis situation, we have to make good decisions.

When it comes to stuff like this, the decisions of the legal system are a posteriori. That's how the legal system works.

The bottom line is -- first, protect you and yours. Don't be stupid. Don't be vindictive. Revenge is the mindset of the playground bully -- it's the same maturity level. Protect you and yours, and then get out of there!

The general intent of the law in the USA tries to recognize this, but of course, the law is the law. It has its shortcomings.

I've participated in self defense seminars for our hospital, and as well meaning at they are, they can't teach much. Self defense works best with long practice, and well honed instincts. A lot of the techniques taught in these one day seminars don't work. In one of them, two people were supposed to put me in a kneeling position in what was a submission hold. I did what I was told, and when the instructor said go ahead I deliberately straightened up, gently with consideration to my partners, and in doing so tumbled them to the mat (keep in mind I am *not* a macho guy in any way shape or form).

Instinct is the key, and you have to use what works. Learn, but then work from street instinct. That's what I liked about Oskaar's posts on this thread -- he did what worked, protected himself, and stayed legal.

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

Dan,

Not disagreeing but it seems sad that American laws seem to expect the average American householder to train themselves on how to handle an intruder. I would generally hope that our society would do a good enough job of protecting the average citizen so that this type of training would be unnecessary. It is sad if we would rather put our energies into telling women how they should behave (like submitting to the attacker) when confronted with a rape situation. Yes, some women take self-defense courses and may actually be able to defend themselves. How sad it is that they have to do this because we coddle rapists...

Everyone have a great weekend,
Pewter

 

[NeadMead]

I will never submit to an attacker. Several years ago, I was attacked by a man at least twice my size. I have had extensive unarmed combat training form the military and martial arts (not the spoorty game type). He did not know that. He did not even know me nor who I was. he was just a punk looking for a fight. He almost got one. My training helped me to keep calm. I used simple not agressive counters to his grab attempts., and both times he went into the building near us. He gave up after the second attempt. He was thinking he had an easy target. someone he could beat up easily. he found out wrong. One of the sayings our school had was "Never underestimate an assailant. Always assume he or she is dangerous." He obviously never heard of that one. If he made a third attempt; I would not have struck his gut or chest (too much fat there). His knees and groin were first and then his thoat if necessary. I would not have hit the front or back of his knees. I would have hit them where it would have done the most damage; the sides. Crime is a problem. There is no arguing that, but guns are not what is causing crime. It is an uninformed public that make unreasonable demands for better treatment of inmates. Give them exercise equipment, books, and cable tv. Not if I had anything to say about it. They would be constantly stuck in an nine by nine cell with nothing but their conscience (if they have one, but given their current situation, I would say they did not have one). I would also outlaw criminals and their families from suing when they get hurt or killed during a comission of a crime. "That is just too damn bad. You should not have broke into that man's home. So what if he had a raging pit bull. You were wher you were not supposed to be. Deal with the loss of your left eye and the use of your right hand." "Aw, I am sorry you raped that woman with HIV, but you did it to your self." "It is not against the law to have tigers in your home if you are licensed to have one. Your son broke into the wrong house, I guess, but he would still be alive if he obeyed the law and not broke into that millionaire's home." "Your husband was shot and killed because he pointed a gun at another man's seven year old daughter. His fault, not the girl's father's fault."

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

I would also outlaw criminals and their families from suing when they get hurt or killed during a comission of a crime. "That is just too damn bad. You should not have broke into that man's home.

Amen! Absofrickinlutely! Part of the needed tort reform.

I always have to laugh about the shopowner in Miami who had repeated burglaries by people breaking in through the ceiling of his store. So he wired the ceiling to the electricity and fried one of them. Unfortunately, he lost the lawsuit. I suppose I believe that you actually do have the right to use deadly force to protect your own property in a case like this. Why shouldn't you? Does the criminal have a right to rob you without his life being at risk? I think not and maybe if there was more risk involved in committing a crime and more deterent in the punishment if you got caught, fewer people would risk it.

 

[kash]

Dan,

Not disagreeing but it seems sad that American laws seem to expect the average American householder to train themselves on how to handle an intruder. I would generally hope that our society would do a good enough job of protecting the average citizen so that this type of training would be unnecessary. It is sad if we would rather put our energies into telling women how they should behave (like submitting to the attacker) when confronted with a rape situation. Yes, some women take self-defense courses and may actually be able to defend themselves. How sad it is that they have to do this because we coddle rapists...

Everyone have a great weekend,
Pewter

I'm going to lock horns with ya here, especially on the part I bolded. No where, never, has any state justly taken away the right of self defense. I don't doubt our (my) society looks down on those that take this opinion and they even go on to say that our police force is there to protect and serve. Unfortunately, our police not capable of protecting everyone. The rampant crime is enough example of this. The police in our society are crime investigators. Meaning they come in after the fact.

It's not sad at all. To blindly accept the fairytale that the police will protect you from all harm is a much more destructive idea than expecting each of us to be able to defend ourselves. I agree that our justice is too leaniant on rapists, but coddling women into thinking that they're to be protected is even more disgusting.

 

[pain]

Exactly. What is sad is that we're not *allowed* to protect ourselves and our loved ones. State and federal government has made it so that the criminals are given more rights than those of us that choose to live lawfully.

The job of the police is not to protect us from ever having to be hurt/afraid/victimized. It's their job to round 'em up when they're caught (if they're alive), deliver them to the justice system, and provide the needed info to prove/disprove their guilt. The justice system then proceeds to fall down on their part to see that they pay for their crimes.

You can't expect the police to keep the peace, there will always be more criminals than there are police to catch them. What we need is for citizens to have the right to protect *themselves*. Right now we're expected to be sheep. Thats why 3 of the 4 planes from 9/11 got through, because we're trained to be sheep. On the last plane, they fought back, and saved the lives of *many*, while sacrificing themselves. Not sheep, them.

If I'm going down to the scum, I'm bloody well going to take as many of them as I can with me as an honor guard. I would have fought had I been on one of those planes.

Thanks for the sentiment, Pewter, but I'll protect my own interests. I don't expect or *want* the State to do it. I do expect them to clean up the mess afterwards, and not give me crap about cleaning one more piece of lawless scum out of the gene pool.

 

[NeadMead]

I agree with you, Gotmead Webwench. Women should not be made to feel that they need protecting. History is full of women who not just defended themselves and their families, but their countries as well. Japan's samurai had many females in its ranks. Their are many women in the world who protected themselves and their families. Women, as far as I am concerned, can more vicious than men, especially when it comes to prtecting their children. Many women in law enforcement has proved to be almost invaluable to their male counterparts (not as sex fantasy targets).

May the gods grant you great brews,
Gerald

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

kash,

One of my major points throughout the thread is that crime would not be so rampant and the police would not be so overwhelmed if we punished criminals instead of coddling them. If a criminal was going to spend 20 years working on a chain-gang for breaking into a home, you think they'd be as likely to do it?

As far as ANYONE, male or female, being able to defend themselves... it just takes a surprise blow to the back of the head to render anyone incapable. Every convienience store clerk has the right to never have a gun pointed at them while they work. Every woman has the right to never be raped. Our laws and law enforcement need to be structured to assure those rights are protected.

 

[WRATHWILDE]

If a criminal was going to spend 20 years working on a chain-gang for breaking into a home, you think they'd be as likely to do it?

Semi off topic

Yes they would, Pewter you are forgetting that basic premise of all criminals, that "they" won't get caught. An increase in penalties has never deterred first time offenders... just as making more and more offenses eligible for the death penalty has not deterred people from committing those crimes. Personally I'd like to see these people returned to productive society ASAP, this means teaching them, training them, giving them the skills they need to be productive members of society. There are other things that need to be done outside the jail system. Legalize all drugs and handle them through state run/licensced pharmacies so there isn't a black market (this will take away the financial rewards that benefit so many Gang Members and other undesirables) keep a central database as to who is purchasing how much of what. Have accurate data available on consumption rates that will flag when people are at risk for addiction. Make them sign a statement that they understand all risks and known side effects of the drugs their taking (a 5 minute video would do, with actual addicts telling their story, and medical problems resulting) Also signing a form agreeing to hold the state harmless. They also must agree that once/if they reach a certain level of addiction that they will be refered to to a rehab facility. Tax the hell out of them to pay for treatment facilities, with all additional funds being split between social services and better schooling for K thru 12.

Legalize all consensual crimes, or make them subject to monetary fines instead of prison sentences. Theft should be repaid using work release, violent offenders should be subject to three strikes your out.

Right now I'd say the major problem is with keeping kids in school, thus feeding Gangs with new recruits, and supplying the world with undereducated petty thieves and hustlers trying to scrape by.

1st - Schools don't seems to offer any practical skills that seem relevant to real world job issues, and so the majority of kids view the entire process as irrelevant... luckily only a handful drop out.

2nd - You can make more money in a day selling drugs part time to your friends than you can in a week (or month) working a standard job. Take away the illegal drug trade by putting it through legal channels and you'd cut the major funding of most of the problematic/violent gang and drug cartels, as well as petty thieves, who, from personal experience (friends) tend to be users/occasional dealers trying to fund their next score/sale to put them back in a positive financial position. You'd force these kids to stay in school because they wouldn't have the drug funding/social support group to fall back on. Make supplying drugs to minors a one year mandatory sentence per occasion, mandatory life sentence if it contributes to the death of said minor. Sure there might still be a black market for drugs, but with individual purchases tracked it would be pretty easy to find patterns of who might be reselling, and availability to minors would be cut drastically. In Northern California, just 10 years ago, the people I knew (many of them under 21) had no trouble getting "anything"... just a few phone calls or a 2 hour trip to the streets of San Francisco and they were set.

Take away the underground suppliers and these "kids" would have had a tough time getting their hands on them. Unlike liquor which is bought easily in bulk by anyone over 21, drugs through legal channels couldn't be, limiting the ability of "friends" supplying their habit. Anyway that's my plan for a better America, and I'm sticking to it.

Wrathwilde

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

WW,

Not sure that we can measure the impact of the "death penalty" on crime since America still doesn't have a viable death penalty. For instance, the guy just put to death for the murder of a family in 1980something...

I wonder if there has been a downturn in crime since "three strikes" was implemented?

Peace,
Pewter

 

[Sigmund Von Meader]

Nu, I am looking at this much later than I should.

There is much more to look at. Penalties do not deter psychopathology. That is what psychopathology means! There are sociopaths, and there are antisocial people. Both groups are different, but they are alike in that they don't understand social norms. So! They don't understand penalties, because penalties mean personal responsibility. They don't understand this!

Some criminals are psychopaths, some are antisocial, and some are neither.

But these are only thoughts, when faced with a threat one must first act. Later comes time for thought! Hopefully forethought has helped the act.

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

Sigmund,

Any idea what percentage of criminals fall into either of these categories?

Maybe a question that begs to be asked is "If a person is mentally disturbed enough to do a violent crime, should they ever be allowed to be back insociety where they can commit another crime?" (ie. the temporary insanity excuse, et.al.).

Peace,
Pewter

 

[Pewter_of_Deodar]

WW,

I think I used to be more in line with your proposals. As I get older I am becoming more like the "commune mentality" people of the 1960's. Sort of "just get me away from all of it"...

The trouble with the rehabilitation emphasis is two-fold. First, we've had that for 30 plus years and the repeat offender rate has gone way up, so it doesn't seem to work. Second, is that it costs me money that I shouldn't have to pay and could use to do a better job of raising my own family, who participate in none of the actions we are describing. In essence, you are monetarily penalizing me for the criminals well-being at the detriment to my family's well-being...

Just put up a wall with one door where I can pick and choose who gets to enter and who cannot. You get in, of course, after a suitable donation of good mead... *grin*

BTW, what's the rest of your month look like? We should try to get together sometime after Easter for a tasting...

Peace,
Pewter

 

[WRATHWILDE]

Pewter,

The problem is we're paying for it now, and a great number of these are non violent offenders who pose little risk. Right now the USA has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country, and in most cases a much higher percentage. The problem is the get tough on crime mentality that imposes sentences that are neither fair nor justified.

The states vary widely as to their punishment of drug offenses, where mere possession (personal use quantities) can get you, in the case of Marijuana, anywhere from one day to 5 years. Give me one good reason why I should be paying to house these people for even one day... not to mention the court costs, law enforcement costs, etc. Possession of anything (other than stolen property) shouldn't make anybody a criminal and these people shouldn't be locked up.

Even the Governments own fact sheets support that the prohibition on drugs is responsible for drug related crimes...

Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways. Most directly, it is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse (such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines). Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user's behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking.

Trafficking in illicit drugs tends to be associated with the commission of violent crimes. Reasons for the relationship between drug trafficking and violence include the following:

Competition for drug markets and customers.
Disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market.
The tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.
In addition, locations in which street drug markets proliferate tend to be disadvantaged economically and socially; legal and social controls against violence in such areas tend to be ineffective. The proliferation of lethal weapons in recent years has also made drug violence more deadly.

Basically most everything that the Government considers drug related crimes is self induced from their own policy decisions.

1. It is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse.
Legalize the use/possession of personal quantities... problems 1&2 solved!
License the Manufacture/Distribution of said drugs... Problems 3&4 solved!

2. Reasons for the relationship between drug trafficking and violence include the following:
Competition for drug markets and customers.
Disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market.
The tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.
With the market moved into the licenced/regulated channels these would be almost nonexistent.

3. Locations in which street drug markets proliferate tend to be disadvantaged economically and
socially; legal and social controls against violence in such areas tend to be ineffective. The proliferation
of lethal weapons in recent years has also made drug violence more deadly.
Again, by moving the market to legal/regulated channels you are removing the conditions that perpetuate
the social ills of these communities, if there is no profit to be had, the social criminal network collapses,
the allure/support of new recruits is minimized and the community will rebuild itself when the children
are no longer lured from school by the current reality of easy money for almost no work.

Legalized and regulated the drug problem would be close to solved, we'd probably have about 1/2 the people in prison we do now. That's more people contributing to the economy instead of being a drag on it. As far as ending non-drug related violence... I think banning rednecks would be a good start. Almost every fight I've ever seen in person was started by a beer drinking Redneck, usually attacking someone who has no desire to fight and is trying to get them to calm down before things get out of hand.

Wrathwilde