"Reasonable limits" on self defense

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,228
40,318
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#71
Incorrect. The bail bondsman makes a percentage (3-10%) regardless. It's big money.
My state (along with three others) does not have those ... you can put up a percentage, the overwhelming majority of which you get back if you do not jump bail. If you do, your losses are your own fault in any case.
 
Likes: The Man

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,228
40,318
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#72
Are we better off if we impose a duty to retreat, knowing that occasionally that will mean legal turmoil for a killer in a gray-area situation, if there's an over-zealous prosecutor?
No, not from one's home. The initial intruder should be the person who is arrested and prosecuted, not the defender.
Or are we better off inviting people to act as executioners of petty criminals, by having bright-line permission not to retreat?
Using the term "executioners" is an attempt to sway with emotive language. I should have the right to use reasonable and appropriate force to eject the intruder from my home, or otherwise restrain him while awaiting the police to take him into custody. The absence of a duty to retreat from one's home does not permit the excessive use of force, and as anywhere else what qualifies as "excessive" depends on the circumstances.
 
Sep 2017
4,884
5,805
Massachusetts
#73
No, not from one's home. The initial intruder should be the person who is arrested and prosecuted, not the defender.
I'm fine with arresting and prosecuting the intruder, the same as if he were intruding on a place of business, or any other structure. I'm just not fine saying that in the home there's no duty to retreat.

Using the term "executioners" is an attempt to sway with emotive language.
Yes. Similarly, the way you opened your post, framing a false choice between arresting an intruder and arresting a defender, was an attempt to sway with emotive language. You didn't imagine that I was advocating not arresting and prosecuting intruders, but it was helpful to pretend I was advocating that, to trigger an emotional response, right? In the same way, you chose the word "defender" rather than "killer" because of its emotional content, even though what we're talking about here is the particular scenario where someone has used deadly force against a home invader.

I should have the right to use reasonable and appropriate force to eject the intruder from my home, or otherwise restrain him while awaiting the police to take him into custody.
I disagree when it comes to using deadly force, just as I'd disagree if you were in your place of business, your car, on the street, etc. Deadly force should be reserved for situations where there are not non-deadly alternatives, INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE OF SAFELY RETREATING.

The absence of a duty to retreat from one's home does not permit the excessive use of force, and as anywhere else what qualifies as "excessive" depends on the circumstances.
The absence of a duty to retreat takes retreat off the table when it comes to determining what alternatives there were to the use of deadly force. It's a way of saying that killing an intruder is OK, per se, if the only alternative was to retreat safely from your own home. I disagree with that. I think the analysis of what force is excessive should be done with all options considered, rather than arbitrarily ruling one out of consideration by law.
 
Mar 2015
25,764
12,142
Istanbul NOT Constantinople...
#74
My state (along with three others) does not have those ... you can put up a percentage, the overwhelming majority of which you get back if you do not jump bail. If you do, your losses are your own fault in any case.
Wow, that's pretty cool! How many times you been pinched?
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,228
40,318
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#76
I'm fine with arresting and prosecuting the intruder, the same as if he were intruding on a place of business, or any other structure. I'm just not fine saying that in the home there's no duty to retreat.
I understand. Obviously, we disagree on the second item.
I disagree when it comes to using deadly force, just as I'd disagree if you were in your place of business, your car, on the street, etc. Deadly force should be reserved for situations where there are not non-deadly alternatives, INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE OF SAFELY RETREATING.
Yes, we disagree, in that I hold that safe retreat from one's home is not a reasonable alternative. No intruder has the right to force me from my home under any circumstance.
 
Likes: Akosikojak
Sep 2017
4,884
5,805
Massachusetts
#77
I understand. Obviously, we disagree on the second item.

Yes, we disagree, in that I hold that safe retreat from one's home is not a reasonable alternative. No intruder has the right to force me from my home under any circumstance.
I'm not arguing the intruder has a right to force you from your home. Again, I'm all for arresting and punishing the intruder. I just choose life over death, when that just means a person's brief retreat from his home.
 

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,410
29,813
Toronto
#79
I'm not arguing the intruder has a right to force you from your home. Again, I'm all for arresting and punishing the intruder. I just choose life over death, when that just means a person's brief retreat from his home.
I suppose it's a cultural thing, in some ways...

I am from Caucasus, I remember how it is there, no matter which nation or republic, or whether among Muslims or Orthodox Christians, they all follow the tribal Law of the Mountains. A man who enters another's home without permission essentially forfeits his life, over there. If it is, at least, the home of someone of your own clan, you may be spared. But if it is the home of a family from another clan you invade, you will indeed likely be killed. Police will probably not even be called, they do not get involved in such issues over there, especially in the rural areas, where the people have own ways of justice... A man over there is a warrior, a defender of his home, of his wife, and his children, above all else...

Practically a baby, but already with own kinjal (dagger)... That's Abkhazia, where I grew up lol

I left my home at about 11; but I also lived among many other Caucasians in Moscow too, and my upbringing thus stayed with me. And, in a way, still does.

I do see your point, and if a person poses me and my family no actual physical danger, I'd like to say I wouldn't also do any drastic to them in return. But, I honestly, I cannot say that. Until, God forbid, I am in that situation, I have no idea how I would react...
 
Sep 2017
4,884
5,805
Massachusetts
#80
If you require the homeowner to retreat from his home on account of the intruder and his behavior - even briefly - then you are indeed arguing that.
No, I'm very clearly not arguing that. Here, maybe this will help you to think it through more clearly. Imagine for a moment someone has been stealing some soda I keep in the fridge for myself at work. I've put a note on it telling the unknown thief it's mine and demanding that he stops, but still a little goes missing every few days. So, I lace the soda with poison, resulting in the death of the thieving coworker. Should I be allowed to get away with that, legally? Assuming you say no, would it be accurate to say that by making that claim you're saying the coworker had the right to steal my soda?

Presumably you can see that it's possible for you to simultaneously believe that the coworker had no right to take my soda, and that I had no right to kill him for it. Well, in the same way, it's possible to simultaneously believe that a home intruder had no right to enter your home against your will, and that you don't have a right to kill him for doing it (if you have the option to safely retreat).

Now, granted, attempted burglary is a more serious crime than petty theft, but the point isn't to say the crimes are equal -- just to illustrate the non-sequitur of treating a rejection of the death penalty for a crime as if it were saying people should be able to get away with the crime.