Stand Your Ground

According to this story, there are 70-80 thousand no-knock warrants by SWAT per year, https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/death_at_your_door_knock_and_talk_police_tactics_rip_a_hole_in_the_constitu

Quote: RonC

I'm not shooting someone outside my house unless they are directly threatening me (if I am outside and they are attacking me). Face and everyone else is safe--they have not entered my home uninvited. Once they enter my home or directly threaten me, they risk the results. There is no reason for me to feel unsafe in my home or on my property as long as I am doing nothing illegal. No reason. Attack me, my family, or invade our home at your own risk.

So you're a responsible person. Why is it so hard to understand that that is no guarantee the next home owner isn't as responsible? That the next property owner is actually the bad dude in the situation.

Don't favor either party involved and let the facts speak for themselves. That's what I'm saying.

Quote: petroglyph

According to this story, there are 70-80 thousand no-knock warrants by SWAT per year,

Not to menton the practice of Swating... a hacker hacks a remote 911 system and sends a swat team to a home.

...and just to put another possible spin on the particular situation. Suppose the kid in the home is later convicted of raping one of the dead kid's sister 2 days earlier before the home invasion. And that's why the attack happened.

Now attacking the guy wasn't the right answer, but you can't just assume owners of the property need to be given favoritism because that somehow makes them special.

Investigate it just like two strangers on the street, favor neither.

Quote: rxwine

...and just to put another possible spin on the particular situation. Suppose the kid in the home is later convicted of raping one of the dead kid's sister 2 days earlier before the home invasion. And that's why the attack happened.

Now attacking the guy wasn't the right answer, but you can't just assume owners of the property need to be given favoritism because that somehow makes them special.

Investigate it just like two strangers on the street, favor neither.

That case still wouldn't give any justification for forced entry.

More likely to arise is a false claim of forced entry. Person is invited in, gets shot after escalation of argument, home owner falsifies facts to claim forced entry and use a right to home defence.

Which is why the investigation needs to take place to ensure a crime was in progress and not just that there's a dead stranger.

I have little sympathy for Americans who break and enter, then end up dead.

Quote: RonC

That seems to be a stretch--I don't see Face busting into someone's house to deliver the mail. These young idiots followed the advice of a loser and broke into the wrong house. They ended up dead. Stay out of places you don't belong. The people who live in the house have a right to be free of invasion by idiots.

This is true. Though I do recall, several Xmas nights before and several more to come, where I'm rollin' up to a house in my blacked out truck getting out in hoody and mask at an hour several past sundown... and walking into a garage or open into a breezeway to dump a package. Certainly not "busting in", and never into a living quarters... but it's always on my mind. [daydream] Lol, me and my friends used to play "Commando". It was nothing more than skulking around at night acting suspicious but doing so in a manner that was clandestine. Like, sneaking up on and touching an idling cruiser on speed watch without being detected.[/daydream] Anyways, holiday mail is like that. There's a greater than 0 chance of being confronted with weapon.

SYG and Castle Doctrine need to apply, but always with a "reasonable fear of harm". "Busting in", like kicking down doors, jimmying windows, aggressive entry or actions, et al, those should be met with instant and decisive force. Banging down someone over a knock in the garage? No, that's entirely different, and should be handled as such.

Quote: RonC

Investigate away. There should always be full, factual investigations of deaths like this.

They wouldn't be investigating three deaths if three people had not invaded someone's property.

...as they say, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 when it comes to things like this.

I trained hard to take lives when necessary. I don't take it lightly at all. I do, however, have a right to be free, and safe from, the criminal activities of others. If they invade my home, they'll get what they get.

Exactly this.

Entry with force, you get what you get. Maybe a cowering dude, maybe a combat vet, maybe a hick with a boomstick. And when there's force, investigate away. I don't think even the hardest right or gunner would disagree. But if there was "reasonable fear of harm", where "someone you don't know enters with force" certainly qualifies, you have a right to neutralize that threat immediately with force.

If we disagree, there's a question I just have to ask. What due, what duty, should the American citizen have to pay to be secure in one's own home? I think this is where my stems from, exactly. Assuming one's arrears are made and the property is of your ownership or stewardship properly, and let's go so far as to say you have entered the necessary labor to ensure said property is not a blight upon the neighbors, I believe you owe nothing further to habit securely. I feel that kowtowing to an intruder and basically giving leave to allow him any number of material, financial, or physical goods is a price no man owes, and certainly not for the life of a villain.

The fringe examples some may post in opposition... dude, I'm right there with you. Investigate, charge, and convict. Sure. But just the same, you can't dispute these shooting that are just, just because later evidence happens to show it was unnecessary.


In any case, you've all mostly made me happy with your stances. Not that you owe me or anything, but it feels good =)

Dang it Face, thought I was done with this thread, but one thing caught my eye.

Quote: Face

...there's a question I just have to ask. What due, what duty, should the American citizen have to pay to be secure in one's own home?

Don't you feel like even if you're out on the sidewalk, you still have certain rights. No one should sucker punch you. Or throw acid on you. It's not just being in your home that affords you rights.

My main point about the "stand your ground" law, is not the right to stay and defend your home, but that one of the basis for implementing it is they decided someone involved had too much burden of making his case. Yeah, I'm sorry it's a pain in the ass to go through all the necessary hassle to prove you did the right thing, but I don't think it's too much burden because the homeowner is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

There's no potential victim in any crime that has an easy time AFAIK. But first you got to prove they are a victim.

And to me, you already got a leg up on your defense being in your home. Why should we make it any easier for you and harder for someone else in proving it?

Quote: rxwine

Dang it Face, thought I was done with this thread, but one thing caught my eye.

Sorry. I had that reply all ready yesterday but fell asleep =p

Quote: rx

Don't you feel like even if you're out on the sidewalk, you still have certain rights. No one should sucker punch you. Or throw acid on you. It's not just being in your home that affords you rights.

My main point about the "stand your ground" law, is not the right to stay and defend your home, but that one of the basis for implementing it is they decided someone involved had too much burden of making his case. Yeah, I'm sorry it's a pain in the ass to go through all the necessary hassle to prove you did the right thing, but I don't think it's too much burden because the homeowner is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

There's no potential victim in any crime that has an easy time AFAIK. But first you got to prove they are a victim.

And to me, you already got a leg up on your defense being in your home. Why should we make it any easier for you and harder for someone else in proving it?

Yes to most all of this, and "maybe" to the part I didn't quite understand.

I'm with you on the investigation side of things. Forget a death, an investigation should occur anytime there's a use of force resulting in injury, maybe even in an action that could cause an injury, such as throwing, or discharge of a weapon (bow and arrow, taser, mace, whatever), even if it misses. As much as I'm pro-gun, pro-protect-your-own-self, I do know people and have witnessed actions that just need to be looked at. Plus there's the experience of mail, and I imagine contractors, landscapers, meter readers, etc have the same concerns. Despite my complete lack of concealment, I can totally see how my job could cause folks some fear, especially folks who may have a history of victimization. I know meter readers and delivery men have scared the s#$% out of me after my incident. Because of that, yeah, I'm on board. Someone shoots my ass because of f#$%ing Amazon, don't just let it slide =p

My only dispute, and I think it ties into AZD's beef, is there is that court of public opinion thing, not to mention a very large possibly crippling responsibility forced onto the victim. I know if I were to defend myself today, I could not begin to afford to lose a week of work, let alone months or years of being bounced from holding cell to holding cell, or relegated to house arrest unable to make a wage or care for my kid. I might be railing against an issue that doesn't exist, because I'm not all that familiar with the process. But this whole "innocent until proven guilty" right seems to me to be eroding away insidiously. Used to be that we believed it was better that 100 men went free if it prevents 1 innocent from seeing jail. It does seem we're edging into a "shoot em all and let God sort em out" stance on this, and I just have to stand up against it.

If an "investigation" amounts to no more than simple hardship; required meetings, required check ins, etc, but does not restrict your free travel to tend your affairs, then I'm pretty much 100% on board. If we're just gonna slam em in a cell "until the facts play out", then that's Red Chinese horses@#$.

Quote: JimRockford

Like my friend Jim Bob says, "If someone breaks into your house, chances are they're up to no good."

I know I am getting old because I now believe anyone out after 9pm is up to no good.

Quote: DRich

I know I am getting old because I now believe anyone out after 9pm is up to no good.

I thought it was 8pm?