Dealing with burglars

[guthrie]

This thread is about what I think of as a storm in a teacup. On the back of various media enforced worries about burglars and the dangers they pose, a police chief made the following comments:

"Met commissioner Sir John Stevens said householders should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is contrary evidence.

Laws which often seemed to favour criminals should be clarified, he said.

People should be prosecuted only when there was evidence of gratuitous violence, he told the Daily Telegraph.

Under the current law, people are entitled to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves and their homes.

It is up to judges and juries to decide what level of force is "reasonable".

Sir John said the public and police were confused about what that meant.

The law was currently sending the wrong message by encouraging burglars to break into houses in the belief that no householder could harm them, he said."
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

Now, from my point of view, we already have the authority to defend ourselves, and that suits me fine. Reasonable force is a nice, loosely worded phrase that can cover most eventualities. I wonder how people can be so thick as to think that reasonable force means that burglars cannot be touched by householders. The point is that you legally have no right to assault the other person, just to defend yourself. What Sir John Stevens is saying is a kind of tightening up of the wording, which isnt too bad an idea.
One comment I have read about it says:

"A lot of contributors are stating that Sir John is encouraging violence. My understanding is that he is stating that the home owner should not be automatically prosecuted if he hurts a burglar when defending his property. I would like to see the law support this by revoking the rights of a burglar to sue someone if injured on their property whilst in the act of or intending to carry out a crime."

Now, the problem is that you do not want to encourage householders to attack burglars. It increases the risk to themselves manyfold, given that a fair number of burglars are armed and probably have more practise at fighting than your average householder.

Given all that, the storm this apparently minor propsed change has unleashed is odd. Some people say that burglars should be open season, others that you have the right to defend yourself (even though in this country we have few rights of any kind) and others point out that there is no excuse for breaking the law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4068083.stm

I would be very interested if anyone could dig up some examples of people whove been prosecuted for using more than "reasonable force" in the UK whilst defending themselves from a burglar or two.

 

[goofyfish]

One that I remembered discussing on another board...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-411040,00.html/

:m: Peace.

 

[Shenzhou]

In my opinion, burglars sacrifice their rights as soon as they enter somebody else's home. As was said in the article Goofyfish linked to:

Who can predict what effect fear will have on any one person?

 

[Bowser]

Taking a life is not so frivolous. Killing in the defense of your own life or another's life is reasonable; but to kill over ownership of an object or objects is quite another. I suppose that if you add the effort and sacrafice required in obtaining wealth, you could claim some exception to the above; however, I would rather endorse the application of pain and suffering in defense of my property.

I would think that the presumption of potential harm would be excuse enough to take down an intruder and eliminate his/her life. Not knowing the full intent of the intruder, the homeowner is the victim of and subjected to emotional stresses that otherwise would not have been present. In other words, the intruder creates a dangerous situation.

I have heard that in some states self-defense is not allowed in court as an excuse to cause harm or kill.

 

[guthrie]

Precisely Bowser, that is the point.
What i should have said was:
"Should the law not apply equally to people no matter the circumstances?"
and
"Do burglars forfeit their part in society as soon as they enter someone elses house?"

It seems to me that saying you are allowed to kill someone when they invade your house is taking it too far. It makes sense to have something closer to the presumption towards the householders innocence as teh policeman said, btu thats the problem with this kind of discussion, it can be very dependent upon semantics. Which is why we end up with lawyers.

As for the state of self defence in the UK, I prefer this site:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/gullible4.html

A quote about the Hastings case that goofyfish mentions:
"Stabbed him in the back 12 times, outside the house and while the burglar was lying face down."

So, upon what evidence do we base our decisions?

 

[Bowser]

It must be the circumstances then. Years back there was a teenage kid who mistakenly crawled through the wrong widow of the wrong house. Apparently he was flying on LSD. The group of kids whith whom he was hanging that night said that he was tripping on the drug and ran off, pulling off his clothes as he ran.

That night a homeowner awoke to sound of someone breaking through a window in his young daughter's window. he grabbed his gun and charged into the room. There he found a naked young man standing by the broken window. Without question he shot the kid dead.

No criminal charges were brought against the homeowner.

Now, being a father myself, I can understand the his reaction; however, there needs to be consideration that the kid on drugs probably had no ill intent and had simply climbed through the wrong window.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If I found a naked guy who had just crawled through the window standing over my daughter's bed, I'd probably shoot him too. Sometimes intentions don't matter. When you decide to take a drug that can have that profound of an effect on your judgment, you automatically sign up for a lot of misunderstandings, a few of which can be fatal. Sorry, acid-freaks.

Although this is yet another anecdote about LSD that I have trouble believing, having lived through the 1960s and 1970s in California. I wonder how many other drugs, including alcohol, were in that guy's bloodstream? Everybody loves to blame the illegal ones.

 

[Bowser]

It's an old story, and I don't remember all of the details, but LSD was the drug that was blamed. I know that not every flight is a pleasant one.

 

[Tiassa]

It's a matter of degrees obviously.

Two defense shootings that bother me to this day:

• A homeowner hears a sound, gets his gun and starts looking around. He sees a burglar outside his window, and shoots the thief dead. He claims his home was violated and his life threatened. He shot a runaway thirteen year-old rummaging through his trash for food.

• A young exchange student is lost, and decides to ask for directions. As he walks up to a house, someone yells, "Freeze!" and begins shooting through a closed door. The student is killed, the homeowner pleads self-defense and walks away scot-free.​

Knowing people who own guns, and hearing them talk about whose ass they'd cap, I feel that both these homeowners were seeking an excuse to kill somebody. Now, perhaps they're part of that slender portion of gun owners who treat the power of life and death with appropriate reverence, and these were truly unfortunate circumstances, but given the number of times I hear someone declare, in the middle of an otherwise civilized conversation, "Don't threaten me!" and in consideration of what they call a threat, I'm glad most of those folks don't own guns.

In Seattle, looking at someone wrong is a threat worth killing over. Which is an interesting aspect to the Taser controversy. Seattle saw 2003 pass without a fatal shooting by police because they implemented Tasers. Of course, now police departments across the country are taking heat for using the things too liberally--it doesn't kill, so why not use it?

Additionally, think of someplace like Oregon, where they had at one time a law called Assault 4 (Mutual Combat). For instance, Jack forces his way into Ron's house, looking for a woman. In the ensuing fight, Ron manages to wrestle Jack out of the house and dump him on the sidewalk. The police refuse to arrest Jack because (A) the fight covered a certain period of time, and (B) involved public property. If they arrest Jack, the police explain, they also must arrest Ron under Assault 4.

The obvious solution to that conundrum? Kill the bastard as quickly as possible. Ergo, guns, guns, guns.

As the old song says, "Stand tall, don't think small. Don't get your back against the wall. Shoot straight, I can't wait to aim for the heart and fire away."

(Actually, it's a coke-fueled song about chicks with big racks, but it works well enough here.)

 

[guthrie]

I think that is the point, Tiassa, in the link I gave above for the british case, the table there has several cases in it. The key is that the ones where the defendant was found guilty of some kind of murder/ manslaughter, the act had been done where the dead person was of no clear danger to the guy who had killed him. By comparison, the ones where they were let off, they had killed someone who seemed to be actually attacking them. that is where I draw the line. If the dead bloke was fairly clearly attacking someone at the time, then it doesnt matter so much. If you stabbed him/ shot him in the back, then you overreacted. Which is where the two examples you site [sic] would have me saying the people should be done for something, even 3 years for manslaughter as tony martin did. He shot a burglar in the back after years of torment from burglars.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I feel strongly about this.
I think we should avoid all confusion and make it clear that no one is to go on a strangers premises under any circumstances, or they will be killed.
Make buzzers on the gates as common as refridgerators, and just get it instilled into society that going on other people's property is akin to falling asleep on train tracks.
A few dead girl scouts would simply aid in making the public aware of this new standard for behaviour.

 

[Xev]

What if they order a pizza, or lo mein, or a call girl?
I mean the scenerio is really appealing on one hand, but practically?
Many people rent their domicile from others - who then, has ultimate right? A consumer at a store is a stranger to its inhabitants, indeed the store is not inhabited. What relationship is there between buyers and sellers? So on.

" Sorry, acid-freaks."

Sorry, sweetheart, but you'd be going to jail for a long time.
And you'd damn well deserve it for not respecting your firearm.

 

[Nasor]

I think that in most cases simply finding someone intruding in your house is sufficient in itself to justify both an assumption that your life is in danger and the accompanying use of deadly force. Trying to determine whether or not deadly force is acceptable based on whether the wounds are inflicted to the robber’s front or back seems pretty silly. If I find someone robbing my house, why should I wait for him to turn around and possibly attack me before I shoot him? His mere presence tags him as a deadly threat.

 

[Xev]

"I think that in most cases simply finding someone intruding in your house is sufficient in itself to justify both an assumption that your life is in danger and the accompanying use of deadly force"

When I was seventeen I roomed for a few months with this other chick. She left town for the week, so I had the place to my-self. Sunday night I can't sleep, walk downstairs to the kitchen figuring I'd put on a pot of coffee and study. Lights are off, only illumination is from the streetlamps shining in the living room window. I'm at the landing of the stairs and - damn! - there's a completely strange guy standing in my living room. I startle and go the fuck? who are you? He startles and goes the fuck? who are you?

Turns out to be her boyfriend, and that they only left for the weekend.

Now can you see how stupid that assumption is? You don't even necessarily know that they're intruding. Some burglar lawsuits have won because of the very good argument that a dog who attacks a burglar could just as well attack a cop or gas company official trying to avert a crisis.

You don't know that a stranger in your house is seeking to do you harm. Had I made that assumption (and been carrying a gun) when I bumped into my ex-roomate's boyfriend, the consequences would have been unpleasant. As it stood, worse that happened was my awkward trip backwords up the stairs so as not to flash him my ass.

His mere presence tags him as a deadly threat.

So does the presence of a cop's pistol. You don't go blasting away at the coppers, do you?

 

[Nasor]

When I was seventeen I roomed for a few months with this other chick. She left town for the week, so I had the place to my-self. Sunday night I can't sleep, walk downstairs to the kitchen figuring I'd put on a pot of coffee and study. Lights are off, only illumination is from the streetlamps shining in the living room window. I'm at the landing of the stairs and - damn! - there's a completely strange guy standing in my living room. I startle and go the fuck? who are you? He startles and goes the fuck? who are you?

Turns out to be her boyfriend, and that they only left for the weekend.

Now can you see how stupid that assumption is?

You'll note that I said "finding someone intruding in your house". Obviously if it's possible that someone else might be legitimately inviting people over who you might not know about, you couldn't necessarily assume that anyone you unexpectedly encounter is an intruder. If you have your own place, presumably you would know who has permission to be there and who doesn't.

So does the presence of a cop's pistol. You don't go blasting away at the coppers, do you?

It's unreasonable to assume that a cop pulling you over to give you a traffic ticket has an interest in harming you. It is, I think, reasonable to assume that a criminal intruder in your house is likely to have an interest in harming you. Surely you see the difference?

 

[Bells]

I think that in most cases simply finding someone intruding in your house is sufficient in itself to justify both an assumption that your life is in danger and the accompanying use of deadly force.

In most cases? So in what case would you not use deadly force then, if you find someone in your home? Your choice of words is interesting. The person in your house could be your neighbour coming to warn you about the fire in your kitchen that you don't know is burning as yet. If it's dark and he can't see you and you shoot him, your 'assumption' would be wrong and you'd have shot an innocent man in cold blood... solely based on an assumption. Your argument fails further with this next statement:

Trying to determine whether or not deadly force is acceptable based on whether the wounds are inflicted to the robber’s front or back seems pretty silly.

You just stated above that if you find someone in your home, then you'd be justified in using deadly force. Lets use the neighbour scenario again. Lets say your neighbours back is turned to you and you shoot him in the back, not knowing who he is. You've just stated that it's acceptable to shoot someone in your home in the back, even though you don't even know who he/she is and why they are there. But as you stated above, you'd be justified to use deadly force on any one who intrudes in your home because of "an assumption that your life is in danger".

When you shoot someone in the back, it usually means that the individual is retreating, so why would you shoot them? They no longer pose a threat to you. Therefore deadly force would never be acceptable in such a case. If you shoot someone in front, and they are standing too far from you to pose you any danger and they are unarmed, deadly force will never be acceptable. You cannot kill someone based on an assumption.

If I find someone robbing my house, why should I wait for him to turn around and possibly attack me before I shoot him? His mere presence tags him as a deadly threat.

And there is also the possibility that the intruder is only there to rob your house and is unarmed and has no idea that you are home and has no intention of attacking you or anyone else. If the burglar is unarmed and you are armed and hell bent on shooting them merely because they are in your home and you assume that because they are in your home they will harm you, it is not the intruder who constitutes the deadly threat, but you, the home owner.

If you find an intruder in your home, be sensible. Get yourself and your family out of the house as quickly and quietly as possible and then call the police.

 

[Xev]

Nasor:

You'll note that I said "finding someone intruding in your house

You said that simply finding someone unexpected in your house ("intruding") justified deadly force.

T'was my house. My name on the lease. I didn't expect her back, more importantly, I'd never met the man in my life and didn't know she had a boyfriend.

It would not have been unreasonable to fear that he had unpleasant intentions. It would have been eminently unreasonable to use deadly force simply because he was unexpected.

My point stands. You don't go around assuming that seemingly inoffensive people seek to do you harm simply because they are not where you think they should be.

Now yes, most people are generally aware of who should and should not be in their house. However, unless we adopt Lou Natic's solution, then inoffensive people will occasionally find their way into our domicile. Sometimes they seek to aid us - as I noted below. A gas leak, for example, may prompt the intrusion of a company official.

Hence the idea of reasonable threat - which, as all legal concepts, must be modified to fit the circumstances at hand in order to be most efficiant.

It's unreasonable to assume that a cop pulling you over to give you a traffic ticket has an interest in harming you.

How reasonable is it to assume that they are a cop? Several serial rapist/murderer types have impersonated cops to lure their victims.

You want to be paranoid, I can be paranoid too.

It is, I think, reasonable to assume that a criminal intruder in your house is likely to have an interest in harming you. Surely you see the difference?

My point is that their criminality is unestablished.
And in any case, I don't assume that the crackhead rifling my stereo is necessarily a danger to anything but my property. He is certainly a threat, but that does not automatically give one the right to use deadly force.

That said, if he goes after my bootlegs he's a dead crackhead.

Bells:

If the burglar is unarmed and you are armed and hell bent on shooting them merely because they are in your home and you assume that because they are in your home they will harm you, it is not the intruder who constitutes the deadly threat, but you, the home owner.

Which brings up another point that our testosterone-addled brainiac has missed.

The average gun user is not so adept at using their weapon that they would necessarily win a fight. Quite possibly, they would fire, miss, and be shot dead by a tweeker who had no prior intention of doing them harm.

 

[Nasor]

In most cases? So in what case would you not use deadly force then, if you find someone in your home?

Your hypothetical example of my neighbor coming to warn me that my kitchen is on fire would be a good example. Frankly, I think your argument is a bit silly. If my neighbor is coming to warn me about a fire he’ll probably turn on the lights as soon as he enters and immediately start yelling something to the effect of “Hey, Nasor – your kitchen is on fire!” rather than, say, quietly rummaging through my possessions in the dark.

When you shoot someone in the back, it usually means that the individual is retreating, so why would you shoot them?

Or perhaps they simply had their back to me when I stumbled across them? How am I supposed to know that they don’t have a gun themselves and will start shooting as soon as they turn around and see me?

And there is also the possibility that the intruder is only there to rob your house and is unarmed and has no idea that you are home and has no intention of attacking you or anyone else.

Yeah. And if he takes out a gun and points it at me, it's always possible that he doesn't really have any bullets in it.

 

[Nasor]

My point is that their criminality is unestablished.

Obviously one should take steps to be certain that the person you’re about to shoot is a trespassing criminal rather than, say, an employee of the gas company. I wouldn’t have a problem with the law coming down hard on people who mistakenly shoot innocent people.

I admit that I spoke a bit hastily in my original post, so I’ll amend my position: I think that in most cases simply finding a robber in your house is sufficient in itself to justify both an assumption that your life is in danger and the accompanying use of deadly force.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide for yourself what sort of evidence you require to have a high level of certainty that the intruder is actually a criminal rather than an employee of the gas company. Frankly, in most cases I don't think it would be a very difficult call to make. Does anyone have statistics on the number of people who are killed because a home owner mistook them for a burglar? I suspect it’s pretty low.

 

[Bells]

Your hypothetical example of my neighbor coming to warn me that my kitchen is on fire would be a good example. Frankly, I think your argument is a bit silly. If my neighbor is coming to warn me about a fire he’ll probably turn on the lights as soon as he enters and immediately start yelling something to the effect of “Hey, Nasor – your kitchen is on fire!” rather than, say, quietly rummaging through my possessions in the dark.

Not so silly. My parents neighbours entered their home many years ago when they saw a small fire burning in the kitchen while my parents were asleep upstairs. My father had apparently emptied his ashtray in the bin and not realised that one of his cigarettes was not out properly. He is now only allowed to smoke outside. The neighbours did not stop to turn on the lights, but merely called out to them and when they didn't reply, went bounding up the stairs in the dark, running towards their bedroom, while the other one went to the kitchen to try to put out the fire. My father had by then heard the noise of someone running up the stairs and had jumped out of bed and grabbed the phone to call the police, thinking it was a burglar. Had he been a gun toting lunatic, he would have grabbed his gun and aimed for the door as soon as the guy had started pounding on it, thereby shooting the innocent neighbour.

If you have a teenage child who has their friend sneak over while you're asleep and you wake up and see that friend of your child sneaking around your house in the dark and you shoot them thinking it is a robber, what explanation would you give to that child's parents? If there is someone sneaking around your house in the middle of the night and it's dark, you're not going to turn on the light to identify them before you shoot them, resulting in they being able to see you as well and harm you if they were so inclined. You're going to shoot at them blindly in the hope you hit them, because as you stated in a post above, you're assuming that they are in your house to do you harm.

rather than, say, quietly rummaging through my possessions in the dark.

If someone is quietly rummaging through your possessions, they are probably not there to harm you. If someone enters your home with the purpose of causing you bodily harm, they will go straight to your bed where you sleep. Therefore, if you hear someone stumbling around in the house at night, it would be a lot more sensible to get yourself and your family out of the house, instead of trying to seek out the intruder and putting yourself in harms way. I would have thought that getting out of the house quickly and quietly would be the most logical step, instead of trying to find them in the dark with a loaded gun in your hand with intent to shoot first and ask questions later, because of an assumption.

Or perhaps they simply had their back to me when I stumbled across them? How am I supposed to know that they don’t have a gun themselves and will start shooting as soon as they turn around and see me?

So you'd shoot a person you deem to be an intruder even if they had their back turned and you didn't know who they were? Lets say it's dark and your child is walking through the house while you think they should be in bed. You bound out of bed with gun in hand, they are rummaging in the lounge looking for the car keys in the dark so that they an sneak out to a party or something without you knowing, and you shoot him/her while their back is turned.

There are endless possibilities Nasor. So many shootings occur this way, because lunatics with guns opening fire on people they assume are intruding in their house at night, and most of them result in parents shooting their children or their friends by accident. Why? Because they assume and they are dumb and irresponsible gun owners.

Here is another example of an accidental shooting of a suspected intruder resulting in a man killing his own son:

Forty-nine-year-old Forrest Johnson returned to his west Houston home Saturday evening and noticed his front door open. He got his gun from his truck and went to the front door.

Police say that as Johnson pushed the door -- unbeknownst to him -- his son, Eli, pulled at it. Seeing a dark figure, Johnson fired his gun, hitting his son once in the chest. He was taken to a local hospital, where he died.
Link

Yeah. And if he takes out a gun and points it at me, it's always possible that he doesn't really have any bullets in it.

It is very possible. It is also very possible that in the dark, as you stumble across this intruder that you 'assume' he has a gun and shoot him first. And one does not stumble across an intruder. If you think there is an intruder in your house, get out of the house by the closest means available, eg a window. You do not wander through your house with a gun in your hand planning to shoot on sight. Your life, and that of your family's is more important than mere possessions. Why would you stumble around the house in the dark with a gun in your hand looking for the intruder?

Obviously one should take steps to be certain that the person you’re about to shoot is a trespassing criminal rather than, say, an employee of the gas company. I wouldn’t have a problem with the law coming down hard on people who mistakenly shoot innocent people.

I shall remind you of a statement you made in this very thread...

"Or perhaps they simply had their back to me when I stumbled across them? How am I supposed to know that they don’t have a gun themselves and will start shooting as soon as they turn around and see me?"

I admit that I spoke a bit hastily in my original post, so I’ll amend my position: I think that in most cases simply finding a robber in your house is sufficient in itself to justify both an assumption that your life is in danger and the accompanying use of deadly force.

One is not allowed to take another's life because of a mere "assumption".