Today at the Forum: The right to shoot to kill

Friday, March 23, 2007

The right to shoot to kill

I've been struck over the past few days by several shootings committed by people who believed their homes were being invaded.

Intruders were shot and killed. The visceral response is that that's what criminals get for home invasions. Perhaps it'll deter others, knowing more folks are armed locked and loaded. Another response is shun gun violence in all its forms. But what if the shooters in either case had not been armed. Would we have read their obituaries?

Curiously, something similar has been happening in post-Katrina New Orleans, where the murder rate is tops in the United States.

What do you think?

17 Comments:

at 10:41 AM, March 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

This has been the policy at my house: If the individual(s) isn't in a delivery uniform (Post Office, FedEX, etc.), pizza delivery or wearing a badge, they won't make it to the porch.

I don't have a gun, but I swing a very mean & deadly Louisville Slugger.

In the car, I keep a trusted tire iron tucked under the driver's seat. Yes, I have a vicious swing with that, too.

I'll be damned if a bunch of loaded up hoodlums are going to take my stuff & family items from my heritage. They'll either die in the ER with a brain hemorrhage or they'll rot in prison.

at 10:49 AM, March 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

First off, you have not been “struck” the last two days. So far you are still safe behind your paper desk.

However, two homeowners were invaded and “struck” by fists and a sledge hammer. Why the “believed” reference? The facts are not in question. Are you casting doubt and resentment against the homeowner victims defending themselves?

Who cares if gun ownership may deter further crime? A homeowner has the right to live peacefully within their home without fear of invasion. No tears should be shed for an invading criminal receiving swift justice.

at 11:47 AM, March 24, 2007

InFerroVeritas said...

I am a little confused by your turn of phrase "who believed that their homes were being invaded" In the story linked it clearly states:

"Jamie Buck was asleep early Friday when a sledgehammer shattered his side door’s window and a stranger burst into his rented home, demanding money or jewelry."

I would say that it is safe to assume that a side door window had been shattered and entrance made into the home.

That being said lets try to use a bit of common sense here. If someone breaks into your home during daylight hours it can be safely assumed that they are doing so because they believe you are not in residence. Since most people would normally be at work, it can be deduced that the burglar does not want to risk confronting a person in the house. However they still run the risk someone might be home.

Break-ins that happened a night are another matter indeed, it can be assumed that a homeowner and/or children, or someone is present in the house. Obviously then there is a risk of confronting them during the robbery. I believe the most criminals aren't stupid and have to recognize this and plan accordingly. Whether that is to flee when confronted or use violence to evade capture, who knows. In the UK, the percentage of "hot robberies" (robberies committed while homeowners are present) are up, as criminals know that most British citizens don't have means to defend themselves.

British law goes as far as to require criminals have "free access to roam in your house without the fear of violence" Thus criminals have taken to breaking in and beating the wife or kids so the other family members will tell them where the "really good stuff is located."

I do know this, Ohio laws permits a
person who while in his/her own house to use deadly force if a person breaks in ONLY if they are in fear of their life or serious harm (Rape is an example of serious harm).

All this being said, lets perform a little thought experiment:

Someone has just broken into your house, do you really have time to ponder everything I have outlined above and decide whether that person is there simply to rob you, or to do harm to your person? In the time it takes you to ponder the above you can be killed or seriously injured.

Since the police have not constitutional duty to prevent crime, you only have yourself to rely on for your own protection. Plan accordingly, criminals do.

at 11:59 AM, March 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

If conserned persons would read,get trained, and follow the advantage the state has given its citizens to protect themselves,THE RIGHT OF CONSEALED CARRY,and state gun laws would then answer your question (what if the intruder is not armed) NOwhere in these laws ,is any mention of the right to kill, THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONES PERSON IF THEY FEAR THEY CAN BE GREATLY HARMED PHYSICALY,or threat of death,which they are obligated by law to prove,nowher are you allowed to use that law to protect PROPERTY.

at 6:49 PM, March 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

What do I think?

I think if someone comes in my house, and especially if they are brandishing a hammer at me, they, too will find themselves facing the wrong end of the barrel of a gun.
And if more thugs met the same thing, perhaps they would think twice before breaking into someone's home.

at 11:54 PM, March 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

Reading the article, it looks like New Orleans will make an interesting "natural experiment" on the Second Amendment. If the pro-gun folks are right, the homicide stats will come down; if the anti-gun folks are right, they should go up.

at 9:56 AM, March 25, 2007

Anonymous said...

I am a little confused by your turn of phrase "who believed that their homes were being invaded" In the story linked it clearly states:

"Jamie Buck was asleep early Friday when a sledgehammer shattered his side door’s window and a stranger burst into his rented home, demanding money or jewelry."

I would say that it is safe to assume that a side door window had been shattered and entrance made into the home.

That being said lets try to use a bit of common sense here. If someone breaks into your home during daylight hours it can be safely assumed that they are doing so because they believe you are not in residence. Since most people would normally be at work, it can be deduced that the burglar does not want to risk confronting a person in the house. However they still run the risk someone might be home.

Break-ins that happened a night are another matter indeed, it can be assumed that a homeowner and/or children, or someone is present in the house. Obviously then there is a risk of confronting them during the robbery. I believe the most criminals aren't stupid and have to recognize this and plan accordingly. Whether that is to flee when confronted or use violence to evade capture, who knows. In the UK, the percentage of "hot robberies" (robberies committed while homeowners are present) are up, as criminals know that most British citizens don't have means to defend themselves.

British law goes as far as to require criminals have "free access to roam in your house without the fear of violence" Thus criminals have taken to breaking in and beating the wife or kids so the other family members will tell them where the "really good stuff is located."

I do know this, Ohio laws permits a
person who while in his/her own house to use deadly force if a person breaks in ONLY if they are in fear of their life or serious harm (Rape is an example of serious harm).

All this being said, lets perform a little thought experiment:

Someone has just broken into your house, do you really have time to ponder everything I have outlined above and decide whether that person is there simply to rob you, or to do harm to your person? In the time it takes you to ponder the above you can be killed or seriously injured.

Since the police do not have the constitutional duty to prevent crime, you only have yourself to rely on for your own protection. Plan accordingly, criminals do.

at 9:32 AM, March 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

Jeff, are you a Liberal, Lawyer or both? Do you actually believe there is a difference of intent whether a crime is committed during the day or night? Have you ever heard of 3rd shift work? Those people sleep too. The rest of your posting doesn’t desire further comment.

Gustus, maybe your criminals should carry a big Slogan on their outer garments that reads:
I’m only stealing your property. I will not harm you, unless provoked.”
Then, if the homeowner victim harms the invading criminal, the criminal has excellent grounds to sue the victim; and win in your Liberal Court world.

11:54pm New Orleans can not be used as an example for anything other than what results as a dysfunctional city from decades of corruption, victimization politics, graft, and other Liberal Policy.

at 9:48 AM, March 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

Well,Let me get this straight.There are actually people out there who would rather be a victim of a home invasion,with risk or only one thing,loss of ones personnal security/or life while they and or there family sleep in the privacy of there own home.If the person committing the crime does not want to end up dead,maybe THEY should consider there own actions before we call into context the result of what happens after they place themselves into a criminal act and then later have people point fingers at the law abiding homeowner,who in some cases actually had the ability to take control over this act of violence and comes out alive,without having to be in the Obituaries himself.There are rules in life and it really is black and white,trying to create a gray area not only tries to confuse the law abidding citizen, but makes those who are following the rules the last line of defense when it comes to a one on one confortation with a criminal.What would really help slow crime down,so it would not come to these constant threats over and over again,is if the court system would impose a long term sentence on those who choose this way of life.By allowing those to serve a short sentence or reduced sentence and placing repeat criminals back into society when in most cases they will only continue to break the law again,not only creates more time and money being spent on police as well as more victims falling prey to these crimes.The court system should REMOVE the parole board from its existance, as well as time off for GOOD BEHAVIOR while in jail and maintain the actual sentence imposed by those who gave there time to serve on the jury or the judge that handed down the original sentence; with not one single day off of recommended time imposed.Look at any crime sheet or crime committed,in most cases they were already in jail at some point,and once again have been turned loose to do it again.If the argument come down to overcrowded jails I would suggest using a three shift work schedule to rotate the convicts in there cell to maintain the proper space required and allow more to be using there time doing productive work rather than watching tv,radio,smoking,weight lifting,or any other recreation most of us working class do little of,since we have to pay bills and lead productive lifes.It really is not to hard to figure out,what works and what does not..I would suggest working in jail,rather than working over an innocent victim,who once in a great while actully come out ahead.

at 12:46 PM, March 26, 2007

Brah Coon said...

"Shoot 'em, beat 'em or burn 'em. They go up pretty quick..." - Night Of The Living Dead

at 12:54 PM, March 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

9:48am You had a decent post until your closing line:
"I would suggest working in jail, rather than working over an innocent victim, who once in a great while actually come out ahead."

I'd restate that the victim does not "come out ahead" by protecting his life, his family, and his property. The victim AT BEST is trying to MAINTAIN his/her one-time sense of safety, peacefulness, life and property.

Maintaining the status quo and your own sanity is not "coming out ahead".

at 9:14 PM, March 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous at 9:32a.m said...

Jeff, are you a Liberal, Lawyer or both?"

That is the first time I have EVER been called a Liberal, and then you further insult me by calling me a lawyer!

Dude you need to recognize satire when you read it....I am simply parroting what judge/juries have the luxury to ponder over for weeks, unlike the homeowner who has seconds to decide.

I come firmly down on the side of "if you break into my house, I am assuming the worst that you are there to harm me" And I will behave accordingly exercising my right of self defense in accordance with Ohio law.

at 9:08 AM, March 27, 2007

Anonymous said...

Jeff, sorry I accurately read your miswritten intended thoughts. That's satire.

at 9:27 AM, March 27, 2007

Anonymous said...

I believe in protecting yourself if you are in harm but in the story of BUCK he has lied to police he knew the so called intruder and they both have a criminal history so what makes one better than the other ? It is one thing if you believe you are in harm tell the truth Buck told police they did not know each other, when in fact they do , so my question is what is being hidden , Brandenburg has a record yes but what is failed to be told so does Buck . Forgive me if anyone thinks this is an ignorant question but after being smashed in the head with a sledgehammer who is really going to think to run and get a gun and the burgalar is going to wait for me. Sorry this story is very screwy he was hit in the HEAD with a hammer and picture frame? Come on people is everyone seeing ex-con on Brandenburgs record and not seeing the full story. This story does not add up everyone is just ok with it because it is one less ex-con someone has to worry about. That is my oppinion.

at 11:56 PM, March 27, 2007

Anonymous said...

Byron, obviously posted a good question - this is the most comments I've seen on a strand since the election.
ANd, he briefly cites both sides of a controversial issue. (By the way, reporters -until a conviction occurs- always refer to things in the "reportedly" voice for legal reason - I don't think it's a reflection of questioning the facts, only demonstrating that the "facts" haven't been determined by a court of law yet)
Anyway, being a big fat liberal - I'd have to say, you come into my house or near my kids and if I have a gun, I'll blow your KNEE CAP off, and if that doesn't work HEAD SHOT BABY - HEAD SHOT!

at 10:45 AM, March 28, 2007

Anonymous said...

11:56 pm You're obviously very proficient with a gun. In a few seconds you are able to aim and hit a charging attacker in the dark, in the kneecap, while in fear of your life. Are you a NRA sharpshooter?

BTW, as you maim your attacker for life, you have set yourself up for a whopping losing lawsuit in your self proclaimed "big fat Liberal" world of law and justice.

Had you killed the intruder, the intruder would not be alive to sue you and his relatives probably would not have enough evidence to bring a case.

That's your "big fat liberal" world of reality.

at 9:14 PM, October 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

Breaking into a home is an Offesnive measure, Shooting said offensive person is a defensive measure. If you wish to argue that it makes "sense" that someone would be at work during the day and not be home, the same person would also have enough sense to get a job and stop robbing people. It is a matter of survival of the strongest, or nautral selection. If you are foolish enough to invade another's home, you haven't the sense to survive. I know it seems harsh, but undrestand no matter how much you choose to candy coat life, stupid people find their own end at an untimely demise. I have no intent to take a life or teach my children the same, but their safety is paramount. If another country invades our country i.e. Japan WWII we always take action, not to is to invite more invasions. You are sheltered and a fool to believe otherwise. Obviously you who speak out aginst this haven't had any real experience with this issue. That is the response you have when people tht only know of theory have. It is narrow and unrealsitic.

Of course not everyone should be armed, but enforcement of existing laws (instead of having to waste time busting violators) would quickly resolve this issue.

Previous Posts

Friday, March 23, 2007

The right to shoot to kill

17 Comments: