Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.
John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.
From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.
"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.
The incident made national headlines since it was Baker's parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.
But Woodson's death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.
Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.
In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.
Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."
But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.
Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.
"This law will bring common-sense self-defense protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.
"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.
"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."
But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.
"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.
"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.
"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."
According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 2.18 million burglaries to the United States in 2006, up 1.3 percent compared to the year before.
But the number is still well below the 3.24 million burglaries a year committed 20 years ago.
What do you guys think about shoot first laws? Do you think a person should have a right to kill a burglar even if that person isn't a visible threat to them?
If they prove to have something that could be life threatening towards you (a knife, a gun) then yes, I believe it's right for you to defend yourself in a life taking manner.
It's a tough call. I see both sides of the story. Why should you be able to shoot someone if they aren't even armed?
On the other hand, an unknown person entered my place of residence with harmful intentions (stealing) and I should be allowed to take action while having minimal risk to myself.
I don't think that I could shoot someone without knowing that he/she is willing/planning to do me harm, but that's me.
If I had to choose a side, I'd be against this law. To put it simply, I don't think its right to kill someone because they are stealing from you. Moral decision.
I definitely agree with CJ on this one. Why should someone else be in charge of protecting my property or myself after it is gone as opposed to me who is right there and can put a quick end to the situation. I'm all for human rights and such, but I don't think it is an affront to human rights to stop someone who is intending to take from you.
We are good liberals, CJ /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
I definitely agree with CJ on this one. Why should someone else be in charge of protecting my property or myself after it is gone as opposed to me who is right there and can put a quick end to the situation. I'm all for human rights and such, but I don't think it is an affront to human rights to stop someone who is intending to take from you.
We are good liberals, CJ /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
I'm not saying that I believe my belongings are worth more than a human life. If someone is breaking into my home and I know all i have to take is a penny with a hole in it, I'm still going to blast that fucker. It's the fact that as a victim you have no idea what their intentions are beyond getting into your house without permission. I feel like any reaction you have to them is justified because they're not supposed to be there in the first place.
the hell, if someone breaks into my home and I pwn them too bad for them. if they actually survive then I'd sue them for making me waste a bullet on them.
I'm not saying that I believe my belongings are worth more than a human life. If someone is breaking into my home and I know all i have to take is a penny with a hole in it, I'm still going to blast that fucker. It's the fact that as a victim you have no idea what their intentions are beyond getting into your house without permission. I feel like any reaction you have to them is justified because they're not supposed to be there in the first place.
QFT
I think that the lack of me knowing what their intentions were would most certainly end up in a deadly consequence. Although I wouldn't feel any joy in the process, most likely be very apathetic about it, but I would rather my family be safe, rather than the asshole that broke in for a few thousand dollars worth of shit, or whatever the reason he was in my house.
hahah that article is awesome. I agree with the shoot first laws 100%. Besides the fact that people have a right to protect themselves and their possessions constitutionally, and you have no idea if the robber is armed or what his intentions are, it adds a whole new thought that criminals would hopefully consider before breaking into someones house. If more robbers are getting killed when they break into a house, hopefully the thought "Oh hey I could very easily get shot and killed doing this" would be a powerful crime deterrent.
On the flip side to that though, criminals could just start arming themselves and taking the same attitude, shoot the people living here first. I see potential for a general escalation of house-robbing violence with these laws as well.
hahah that article is awesome. I agree with the shoot first laws 100%. Besides the fact that people have a right to protect themselves and their possessions constitutionally, and you have no idea if the robber is armed or what his intentions are, it adds a whole new thought that criminals would hopefully consider before breaking into someones house. If more robbers are getting killed when they break into a house, hopefully the thought "Oh hey I could very easily get shot and killed doing this" would be a powerful crime deterrent.
On the flip side to that though, criminals could just start arming themselves and taking the same attitude, shoot the people living here first. I see potential for a general escalation of house-robbing violence with these laws as well.
i don't know about that. when people are robbing homes they're not necessarily willing to become murderers. there are people that go in and out of jail for robbery etc. that will never get charged with anything violent passed maybe aggravated assault or something like that. it's a big step from taking shit to killing shit.
I'm going to have to agree with CJ solely on the fact that you can't know what kind of weapons they're concealing or if they have harmful intentions towards your or your family.
I think a questionair on the nightstand next to the gun would be best.
I got to get me one of those parrots.....have to teach him to say "your gonna die" instead of "good morning". /ohmy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="ohmy.gif" />
If a person enters my home with no firearm visible or any apparent knowledge of my presence I would give verbal warning (if I have a good position). If they are visibly armed 99% chance I shoot first
The burglar has broken my private property right, and I'm supposed to be like "please, dont take my stuff or i'll call the police that will come in 15 minutes when you've ran away and then I have to wait forever for them to catch you and bring my stuff back"?
the "castle doctrine" has been around for a long time (um..."castle"?), i'm pretty sure the only cases that made the news were when the homeowner would set up some nefarious system of destruction for a would be burglar (cue schoolhouse rock, "electricity, e-lec-tric-ity!"). that being said, if you shoot anyone, in any circumstance, there's a very good chance you'll see the wrong end of a civil action. comes with the territory.
back to the castle doctrine. again, it's been around forever, maybe some states didn't have specific laws allowing you to protect yourself within your home with deadly force, but even without that law you stand a very small chance of being prosecuted if you shoot an intruder inside your home. the law only takes care of the half percent chance that you have a nimrod, anti-gun district prosecutor.
the fact that this is no new concept takes the wind out of the sails of the "BOO! HERE COMES THE WILD WEST! BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" crowd. there will not be blood in the streets with the passing of these laws, just as the predicted blood in the streets for every state that passed concealed weapons legislation over the last 10 years never came to be.
the castle doctrine did slowly move on in many states to encompass vehicles when carjackings started to be teh new hawtness. going a step further, several states (including god's country, florida) have adopted STAND YOUR GROUND laws (which, in the above poorly written article is confusing because they call a certain law "stand your ground/shoot first"(???)). in michigan, for example, if confronted with a life-threatening situation you are obligated to flee. you have to run. if you determine you cannot flee (make sure to sit down with your lawyer and figure out the situation while the criminali takes a smoke break) then and only then are you able to meet deadly force with deadly force. in florida, we've determined that bullets travel a few feet per second faster than humans, and last year florida passed the STAND YOUR GROUND law; if you are confronted with a life-threatening situation you are not obligated to flee and are within your rights to defend yourself or another human being using deadly force if necessary.
I be accumulatinz moneys in order to purchase the following - sig p226 40. - saiga 12 black ak mod w/ folding stock and 10 round mag, slug barrel, loaded witt 000 buckshot 3 1/4" mag for home defense. - HK 417 (dont care if its classIII, when I can get it I will regardless... JK LOL. xfingers), threaded barrel and surefire p.rail fore end with surefire light and supressor, an eotech holo sight... or maybe leupold tactical cqc scope.
quite literally whether I shoot or say something it has to depend on the situation by each .10sec at a time . If its some little scrawny punk ass kid unarmed or relatively harmless im not going to shoot him necessarily. If I was in the roughest part of town with very high frequency of breaking and entering, car jackings and those sorts of things where a huge portion of it is done by older juveniles its a different story. I know several people personally who have tried living in these areas for the property value and potential, people getting robbed at gunpoint in the street, 16-18 yearold males and females in a group. then theres the persons house getting broken in, cut power, same general gang of kids. For a portion of them being taken by surprise at gunpoint still does'nt face them. All thats to say If I live in the roughest part of town that age factor goes away to an extent. If I'm living in the nicer part of town where crime is low, if I I'm not immediately threatened I'll take more time to observe just what this person is so I may act accordingly. This is all given I have the element of suprise. If it boils down to me rounding a corner, im already in firing position, and I come face to face with him/her I'm going to shoot- I'm just waiting for them to do anything but freeze, allowing no more time than a milisecond (plus who knows what the brains doing at that point w/ adrenaline) which is why I think we should definitely have the right to shoot first. What matters is that you know your target, absolutely. I hope you remember who all has keys to your home, or could possibly gain entry unexpectedly with good reason, a very close friend with dire circumstances, family members, etc...
Good luck getting the 417. You'd have more luck with the 416, but either way, its hard to find because they don't sell to the civilian market. You have to be LE or .mil to buy from them directly, and only then I believe its company orders, not individual. Just finding the bolt for an HK is near impossible. Trying to get the whole gun will be even harder.
I'd recommend going a different route. Try the LWRC upper or complete rifle. It works exactly the same way as the 416 (meaning piston instead of gas tube), and is actually available for people to buy. Several competitions have put them easily on par with the HKs and slightly better then the POF rifles. Plus, the LWRC will run PMAGS no problem. PMAGs won't fit in HK416s.
If they come trespassing into my property and break into my house to steal shit, then they cross that protective barrier that forbids me to shoot them when they are not trespassing. Once they break into my house, what they are telling me is that they could careless of what happens to them consequent to their actions. That's how i see it.
yes Im aware its only available for LE/military/security, its class III like I said before. I still plan on getting it /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />
yes Im aware its only available for LE/military/security, its class III like I said before. I still plan on getting it /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />
Kinda like me and that Bren I'm eventually gonna buy...
If you can put something that could be life threatening towards you (a knife, a gun) in their hand after you have shot them, then yes, I believe it's right for you to defend yourself in a life taking manner.
wow hex exists...awesome /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> we hear from you again in about 7 months from now right?
"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.
"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."
Very true^
I have my fists, my forehead and a baseball bat in my room. Anyone breaks into my house, I'd prolly go at them witha baseball bat.
Of course I know I'm out of the loop when it comes to this whole Gun thing in America, but that quote is so true. To me it seems like lunacy to murder someone because they broke into your home to steal. If they came in and assaulted you then it's completly different.
That said, I also see the lunacy in going to Jail for shooting a thief and killing them. If I had a gun, I can't see myself being able to fire it at someone who I didn't know was armed or not. I'd use it as a threatening deternt. e.g Get the fuck out of here or I'm going to shoot you.
However, with a non lethal weapon, e.g a bat to the knee cap, I'd swing first and ask questions later.
For close quarters defense I have a Remington 870 with shells unloaded next to it, and if they try to run I have a Browning .22 Long that I'm pretty good with next to the 870. If disarmed or guns are somehow unavailable, I have multiple knives in everyone room of the house, a sword, and three fighting sticks (the names of which escape me; Indian police units use them). To speak nothing of my dad's fire safe, which is likely packed enough to arm the whole block.
My family can't own all these weapons and be against the use of lethal force in one's own defense. I would prefer NOT to have to kill someone, because there are a lot of personal moral questions that come into play, but I will if the need arises.