Just had a conversation with a friend about home invasion, I can't remember how the discussion started, but it lead to me looking up laws about the subject. I live in Calgary and in the last few years there have been quite a few home invasions so I started thinking to myself what I would do in the situation.
Quoted from an RCMP officer: "The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property," she said. "However, that force must be the minimum amount necessary." Cpl. Patty Neely of the Strathmore RCMP.
Do you agree with this? If someone comes into your home with the intent to threaten your life and steal your shit do you really think you should be limited in your actions towards said person? There have been situations in which guns have been held to babies heads, people have been tied up and raped, there was even a case where the invaders tortured and killed their victims (though I don't think it was in Calgary).
I can honestly say, that if someone came through my front door right now, even if they had a gun, there is no way I would let them near my family and there is absolutely no way I would allow them to tie me up. I would rather take a bullet to the chest then give up any hope of defending myself or my loved ones. If the guy hurt or sexually assaulted my family I would not let him leave alive, there is no fucking way, if I had to kill the guy with my bare hands, as long as I am alive my only priority would be to end his life. Alot of the cases in which people are raped or tortured, they are held at gunpoint, and then after being tied up when they cannot defend themselves do these atrocities occur.
So TL, I know its not an overly cheerful dicussion, but what do you think about the topic? Do you think you should be able to shoot down anyone who enters your home? Do you think that you should only be able to use reasonable force? What even defines reasonable force? If 2-3 guys come into your home with bats and knives and you have a hanggun are you not just going to gun them down where they stand? I sure as hell would. What do you think about the texas "castle law" which enables homeowners or buisness owners to shoot down anyone forcefully entering their property? Do you think someone invading a home should forfeit their right to life?
I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them?
IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
On September 01 2009 16:10 StRyKeR wrote: I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
That story actually really surprises me. Do you know what state it was in because as any informed American knows the law can be vastly different from state to state, your story sounds like it could've happened in Texas or something. In Massachusetts I bet the guy wouldn't have gotten off too easily since his life wasn't in danger or anything. (Imo he has the right to shoot at the f*ckers though.)
On September 01 2009 16:10 StRyKeR wrote: I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
That story actually really surprises me. Do you know what state it was in because as any informed American knows the law can be vastly different from state to state, your story sounds like it could've happened in Texas or something. In Massachusetts I bet the guy wouldn't have gotten off too easily since his life wasn't in danger or anything. (Imo he has the right to shoot at the f*ckers though.)
I'm pretty sure I just read about that case 5 minutes ago, it was in Texas if its the same one you are referring to. I'm with Texas on this one, if someone comes into my home you can count on me shooting them. If I have to I will beat him to death with a fucking chair. I might let them go if they are making off with my shit, but honestly the law should protect anyone and everyone if they are defending their family and property. Anyone know of cases where the victim of the home invasion has been charged? I am really curious about this.
I think that the word minimum basically it means it scales for different situations? Like if someone unarmed breaks in you shouldn't shoot them but if your life is threatened then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. I personally wouldn't shoot someone for entering my home unless they were threatening me. Some people have gone fucking insane and shot people like right away and I think that is wrong. Like that example of the woman in the car, if they are driving away they obviously aren't threatening his life but yet he unloads on them? Thats pretty fucked up to punish their theft with death and he didn't get charged.
On September 01 2009 16:22 Slaughter wrote: I think that the word minimum basically it means it scales for different situations? Like if someone unarmed breaks in you shouldn't shoot them but if your life is threatened then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. I personally wouldn't shoot someone for entering my home unless they were threatening me. Some people have gone fucking insane and shot people like right away and I think that is wrong. Like that example of the woman in the car, if they are driving away they obviously aren't threatening his life but yet he unloads on them? Thats pretty fucked up to punish their theft with death and he didn't get charged.
I think the law in Texas (where this happened) is that if you feel that by allowing them to escape you potentially give up any hope of recovering said property then you can fire upon them. This part I am not really sure whether or not I agree with, however its one hell of a way to deter thieves. People would sure think twice about stealing your shit.
It's left open to interpretation for a reason. If they have a knife and are threatening you after breaking and entering, shooting them in the head does qualify as minimum force. If you feel your life is endangered you can, that is. Anyone brandishing a weapon to me is enough to make me pull the trigger (oh wait I don't own a gun... =[ )
Here in Missouri we have a thing called the Castle Doctrine which basically means your home is your castle. To break it down in to realistic terms with actual cases. Someone comes into your house by force, feel free to kill them and you're off the hook pretty much guaranteed. The OP and anyone who has legitimate concerns, yes you're absolutely right in your concerns. A guy trying to steal your car, a bike, whatever, that's property. Same thing with a carjacking really, but regardless with pertinence to your house. People aren't just accidentally going the wrong way, they had full intent to enter your home, the one place you should be safer than any other and they're compromising your security(real security not the fake curtain drawn over style security)by committing the act.
I really would feel horrible to find out if someone was defending their own life or their family's lives and got punished for it by being in their own home. Realistically you can say what you want about guns, but bare minimum a gun in the home is just smart--I'm not excluding proper training and familiarity with them either though. Hell chambering a pump shotgun a lone can make most of those bastards to get the hell out, but yeah not that I'm familiar with Canadian politics, but maybe even do what you can to get something like that passed in your area.
Self defense laws in the US vary greatly from state to state, but the bottom line is if your going to carry a firearm you better know the law and be trained well how to use it. Look at this poor bastered here.
On September 01 2009 16:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: Self defense laws in the US vary greatly from state to state, but the bottom line is if your going to carry a firearm you better know the law and be trained well how to use it. Look at this poor bastered here.
They came in with a pistol. Their fault, imo. I'd shoot someone to make sure they were dead if they pointed a gun at me. C'mon, how many movies have you seen where you get the person unconscious and 20 minutes later the body is gone and they are alive again ready to kill you?
I'm not sure how I feel about these laws but frankly if you're bold/stupid enough to walk onto someone's property with malicious intent then you should be prepared to be killed. If you're on someone else's property by accident or whatever then beware because they could shoot you out of ignorance. Plus, there are a lot of people who would shoot first ask questions later with this law.
In 2007 Texas expanded its right to the use of deadly force in defense:
The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.
The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:
- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.
The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.
Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row.
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them?
IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
yeah.. i'm honestly saying that, why would i want to kill someone who isn't threatening my life anyway.
I doubt anyone here will immediately open fire on an intruder without giving them some warning to flee. Why would you want to kill somebody in your house? The blood goes everywhere, underneath carpet / tile. You'd have to rip up your floor if you want to clean it completely. Everytime you walk past that area in your house you will not be able to think of anything else but the time you killed a guy and he bled out on your floor and emptied his bowels while choking on his own blood and vomit. Then what do you do as he is wallowing in a pool of his own blood, spraying it all over your furniture and walls, gargling for mercy? Obviously you'd have to shoot him again or risk replacing your sofa and repainting your walls which probably costs more to replace than anything he could have ran off with.
Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life? Property [ ] Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary: Bare hands [ ] Improvised weapon [ ] Knife [ ] Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible: Yes [ ] No [ ]
EPT
