Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

tsa posted:

That's not true, many European countries have self defense laws that exonerate you if you have a reasonable fear for your life-- both France and Germany have these sorts of laws. I mean unless you actually know the specifics of the case I'm not sure how you can be so certain they proved beyond a reasonable doubt he had no reason to fear for his life.

In such a circumstance the landowner would have failed that test and be sent to prison. There was no reasonable threat to life or limb, he only felt there was a threat and that isn't enough to justify using lethal force. Most have a proportional force element which means you can only react with the amount of force you are face with. If you have the gun and they the knife, it becomes your duty to back off or de-escalate. It doesn't mean you are forfeiting your right to property, it just means at that moment in time, life is worth more than property.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 02:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Captain_Maclaine posted:

He's likely referring to the Byron Smith killings from 2012, where the perpetrator went out of his way to make his place look abandoned thus to lure trespassers in, all while waiting in the basement with a mini-14 which he emptied into two teenagers who did brake in, subsequently finishing them off with, "a good, clean finishing shot."

In that particular case, I'd agree with the law professor who said that the initial shootings were justified, but that finishing off someone who clearly no longer posed a threat moved it straight into premeditated murder.

oohhboy posted:

Don't argue with Dead Reckoning, he only likes appeals to authority no matter how absurd it is as long as it is technically correct.

I'm not sure how "I think the law as it stands reflects the proper burden of proof and shouldn't be changed" is an appeal to authority.

oohhboy posted:

In such a circumstance the landowner would have failed that test and be sent to prison. There was no reasonable threat to life or limb, he only felt there was a threat and that isn't enough to justify using lethal force. Most have a proportional force element which means you can only react with the amount of force you are face with. If you have the gun and they the knife, it becomes your duty to back off or de-escalate. It doesn't mean you are forfeiting your right to property, it just means at that moment in time, life is worth more than property.

See, this is exactly the sort of hindsight second-guessing I feel is inappropriate. "Well, you told the jury that you couldn't retreat, but our experts think you could have opened the door, got through, and closed it before the armed home invader was able to close the distance." It's not a question of whether life is more valuable than property: your example presumes that in every circumstance the homeowner has the option to safely de-escalate or retreat, which is not a reasonable assumption. Someone on their own property should not have to determine the level of force an intruder is willing and able to bring to bear before defending themselves, nor should they have their heat-of-the-moment decision about whether or not they can safely retreat second guessed. The law should not require that a homeowner prove that the person illegally entering their home represented a threat, because the act itself demonstrates criminal intent. As far as I'm concerned, the duty to retreat should rest with the person illegally on another's property, not the property owner.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 04:08

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

SedanChair posted:

Man, murderers don't have to be very cunning to have murder houses in your line of reasoning.

Doom houses.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 04:29

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost

Dead Reckoning posted:

In that particular case, I'd agree with the law professor who said that the initial shootings were justified, but that finishing off someone who clearly no longer posed a threat moved it straight into premeditated murder.
I'm not sure how "I think the law as it stands reflects the proper burden of proof and shouldn't be changed" is an appeal to authority.
See, this is exactly the sort of hindsight second-guessing I feel is inappropriate. "Well, you told the jury that you couldn't retreat, but our experts think you could have opened the door, got through, and closed it before the armed home invader was able to close the distance." It's not a question of whether life is more valuable than property: your example presumes that in every circumstance the homeowner has the option to safely de-escalate or retreat, which is not a reasonable assumption. Someone on their own property should not have to determine the level of force an intruder is willing and able to bring to bear before defending themselves, nor should they have their heat-of-the-moment decision about whether or not they can safely retreat second guessed. The law should not require that a homeowner prove that the person illegally entering their home represented a threat, because the act itself demonstrates criminal intent. As far as I'm concerned, the duty to retreat should rest with the person illegally on another's property, not the property owner.

This line of thinking results in sons and daughters getting blown away while sneaking home after hours.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 04:43

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

Dead Reckoning posted:

In that particular case, I'd agree with the law professor who said that the initial shootings were justified, but that finishing off someone who clearly no longer posed a threat moved it straight into premeditated murder.

I'm not sure how "I think the law as it stands reflects the proper burden of proof and shouldn't be changed" is an appeal to authority.

See, this is exactly the sort of hindsight second-guessing I feel is inappropriate. "Well, you told the jury that you couldn't retreat, but our experts think you could have opened the door, got through, and closed it before the armed home invader was able to close the distance." It's not a question of whether life is more valuable than property: your example presumes that in every circumstance the homeowner has the option to safely de-escalate or retreat, which is not a reasonable assumption. Someone on their own property should not have to determine the level of force an intruder is willing and able to bring to bear before defending themselves, nor should they have their heat-of-the-moment decision about whether or not they can safely retreat second guessed. The law should not require that a homeowner prove that the person illegally entering their home represented a threat, because the act itself demonstrates criminal intent. As far as I'm concerned, the duty to retreat should rest with the person illegally on another's property, not the property owner.

Do you think the initial shootings were morally justified as well? I don't see how the intruders could have the duty to retreat when they didn't have an opportunity to retreat. The guy set up what amounted to a duck blind specifically to ambush them. If he had yelled at them to get out of his house and they came after him anyway, that might be a different story.

more friedman units fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 04:48

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

So shooting anyone entering your property is fine as long as you deem them illegal? Is presumed criminal intent all that is needed for Death or Grievous bodily harm to be an option? Your laws are actively encouraging vigilantism and murder houses. There should be a duty in your country for the defender to identify and asses the threat. Anything less would be shoot first and ask questions later. Your laws and values do put property above life.

Even in hunting accidents we charge and punish people for involuntary manslaughter. At a minimum voluntary manslaughter would have been a lock here as the prosecution would have shown the defender failed to take necessary defensive steps to satisfy self denfense. NZ Laws here. There is even an imminence clause in there just in case poo poo hits the fan.

I guess he didn't call the cops since they would have shot everyone.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 04:57

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

Painfully-written local news piece about the protests in Olympia last night:

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/olympia/2015/05/31/protesters-clash-on-streets-of-olympia/28261933/

# ? Jun 1, 2015 05:07

sugar free jazz: Mar 5, 2008

Your honor, I was surprised by the baseball and it scared me and I had no choice but to fire on Little Jimmy with my MANPAD when he ran onto my lawn to protect myself and my property

# ? Jun 1, 2015 06:15

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Two people asleep in bed in a building I chose to enter in the middle of the night are definitely an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, and the only reasonable course of action to end the threat to my life was to pepper the prone man and woman with 5 and 3 rounds, respectively.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 06:26

Drunk in Space: Dec 1, 2009

Captain_Maclaine posted:

He's likely referring to the Byron Smith killings from 2012, where the perpetrator went out of his way to make his place look abandoned thus to lure trespassers in, all while waiting in the basement with a mini-14 which he emptied into two teenagers who did brake in, subsequently finishing them off with, "a good, clean finishing shot."

There was also the case not too long ago of a German exchange student who was shot after entering a guy's garage that had been intentionally left open with some valuables in it to lure intruders. The owner had been robbed several times before and was basically itching to kill some of them, so he set up a trap and waited until his motion sensors went off, then went into the garage and just blazed away. I don't think it was even clear that the victim was necessarily a burglar. Poor guy might have just been curious what was up with somebody's garage door being up that late at night, and gone in to see if someone needed help.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 07:03

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Salvor_Hardin posted:

This line of thinking results in sons and daughters getting blown away while sneaking home after hours.

This would be a super great argument if I had said, "I think it's a good idea to full loving mag dump on any shadowy movements in your house. Just throw a bullet tantrum." If you think it should be mandatory to identify intruders before you defend yourself, what particular standard of legal liability do you want to impose? Just because something is a bad idea doesn't mean it should be illegal.

oohhboy posted:

So shooting anyone entering your property is fine as long as you deem them illegal? Is presumed criminal intent all that is needed for Death or Grievous bodily harm to be an option? Your laws are actively encouraging vigilantism and murder houses. There should be a duty in your country for the defender to identify and asses the threat. Anything less would be shoot first and ask questions later. Your laws and values do put property above life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "deem them illegal." Trespassing and breaking & entering are both already established legal principles. Again, you misunderstand that law in this case isn't about property in terms of things: if someone steals your TV, you aren't allowed to kill the thief if you see them trying to sell it at the pawn shop the next day. It's about what rights and responsibilities someone has when confronting an intruder on their property (as in the spaces that society recognizes as lawfully theirs.) Your contention that there should be a duty to identify the intruder is meaningless: if I live alone, how much identification do I have to do in order to determine that the person in my home at 2:00 AM isn't supposed to be there? Should I have to give a, "Halt, who goes there?" like an old timey sentry?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 08:08

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Dead Reckoning posted:

if I live alone, how much identification do I have to do in order to determine that the person in my home at 2:00 AM isn't supposed to be there? Should I have to give a, "Halt, who goes there?" like an old timey sentry?

What if instead the hypothetical is: you've abandoned a building for almost a decade and decide to sneak up on some people who broke into it in the middle of the night?

Should seeing a scary arm be enough justification to kill those people? What if it was just a scary noise or a scary thought?

How little justification for my fear do I need to kill someone who broke into an abandoned building I own? Since we shouldn't dare to second guess someone who saw an arm and thought it was a gun.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 08:11

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Baiting a human trap with a purse just inside an open garage door and lying in wait in the dark to headshot anyone who comes inside for any reason may be immoral, but do we really want to make first-degree murder illegal?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 08:13

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Dead Reckoning posted:

This would be a super great argument if I had said, "I think it's a good idea to full loving mag dump on any shadowy movements in your house. Just throw a bullet tantrum." If you think it should be mandatory to identify intruders before you defend yourself, what particular standard of legal liability do you want to impose? Just because something is a bad idea doesn't mean it should be illegal.

So throw a bullet tantrum, and think up a good story, and you're in the clear. This is just and good. Yes?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 08:47

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Dead Reckoning posted:

Strawmans

Questions asked and answered in the second paragraph you gleefully ignored.

oohhboy posted:

Even in hunting accidents we charge and punish people for involuntary manslaughter. At a minimum voluntary manslaughter would have been a lock here as the prosecution would have shown the defender failed to take necessary defensive steps to satisfy self defence. NZ Laws here. There is even an imminence clause in there just in case poo poo hits the fan.

On this alone in New Zealand he would have failed to assert Self Defence.

NZ law posted:

This defence recognises that people have a right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence, so long as the force used is no more than is reasonable for that purpose. The law does not require people to wait until they have been attacked before taking action to protect themselves. But the law also acknowledges the attacker�s right to life and bodily integrity and requires the force used in self-defence to be no more than is necessary to prevent the violence or threatened violence.

There is more than enough in that link to bury the absurdity you uphold. Such legal questions have been "solved" for a very long time and it is America that is back sliding. None of the 3 examples so far of trespass or burglary or what the gently caress would have met the criteria for self defence even with the first shot.

Dead Reckoning posted:

"Halt, who goes there?" like an old timey sentry?

Yes as this would be a reasonable and sane thing to do. Not doing so gets you Reeva Steenkamp.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 08:51

Murderion: Oct 4, 2009; 2019. New York is in ruins. The global economy is spiralling. Cyborgs rule over poisoned wastes.

The only time that's left is
FUN TIME

It's notable that in the UK, protection of property does not give you grounds to shoot at minorities. Self defense is also not grounds for ownership of a firearm in Britain.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 10:50

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Identifying someone in your house? God, the next thing you'll be telling me is that we can't pour boiling oil on people who get too close to our moats.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 13:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

oohhboy posted:

On this alone in New Zealand he would have failed to assert Self Defence.

Do you have any case law on this? In a situation where I have 1) hands and 2) a gun, and two intruders I believe to be dangerous, I don't see a way of applying minimum force to the situation, or rather the minimum force that will be successful is shooting them. Note New Zealand doesn't even require my belief that they are dangerous is reasonable:

quote:

The fact-finder must determine what the defendant believed the circumstances to be when he or she resorted to the use of force. This is a subjective inquiry. The defendant�s belief need not be reasonable, although lack of reasonableness may influence the fact-finder in deciding whether the defendant genuinely held that belief.

twodot fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 14:41

CheesyDog: Jul 4, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

One time on my way home from a late dinner with friends I saw smoke coming from the 2nd story/attic of a house. With the help of a passing pizza guy, I broke down the front door and shouted inside to make sure no one was asleep or injured.

All this time I considered things lucky because no one was home so no one was hurt as the building burned down, but little did I know that Mr. Pizza Guy and myself were just truly blessed we didn't wake up some gun nut and get murdered on the front porch.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 14:58

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

It would have easily fallen under this.

quote:

47 The force used in self-defence is unlikely to be reasonable if it is out of proportion to the danger threatened. To take an extreme example, it would not be reasonable to shoot a big bully to death in order to prevent him from pulling one�s hair.

Again the homeless shooter would be denied self defence.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 15:02

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

oohhboy posted:

It would have easily fallen under this.
Again the homeless shooter would be denied self defence.

My understanding is that perceived threat was that they were holding a gun, and we don't get to test the reasonableness of that perception. Like it's cool that you can make assertions, but it's not very impressive unless you actually give your reasoning.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 15:07

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Drunk in Space posted:

There was also the case not too long ago of a German exchange student who was shot after entering a guy's garage that had been intentionally left open with some valuables in it to lure intruders. The owner had been robbed several times before and was basically itching to kill some of them, so he set up a trap and waited until his motion sensors went off, then went into the garage and just blazed away. I don't think it was even clear that the victim was necessarily a burglar. Poor guy might have just been curious what was up with somebody's garage door being up that late at night, and gone in to see if someone needed help.

He was convicted.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 15:43

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

I don't much appreciate you trying to trip me up by flooding me with irrelevant questions when said questions have been asked and answered. If you like, you can follow the case law inside that link that the article is based on. I don't have to give my reasoning as others far more studied have already made clear far better than I can how the Law works in NZ and it is self evident as to how it applies to the past 3 mentioned cases.

In any case, the Homeless killer had sought the situation he found himself in. Not only did he fail to make any attempt to prevent violence, he initiated it making him the attacker. At that point it would be the two homeless acting in self defence had they the ability to respond. You don't get to play Rambo under our law.

quote:

37 In order to determine whether the force the defendant used was reasonable, juries are often told to consider two inter-related factors: whether the danger the defendant sought to avoid was imminent and whether the defendant had options other than the use of force. Imminence is a question of fact and degree and does not necessarily mean immediate. However, danger would not be considered imminent if the defendant has a reasonable means of avoiding it. The question is, was the defendant facing danger that was so pressing that he or she had no reasonable option to repel or avoid it other than to use the force that he or she used.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 16:11

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

oohhboy posted:

I don't much appreciate you trying to trip me up by flooding me with irrelevant questions when said questions have been asked and answered.

Are you replying to me? I've asked you exactly one question, and it's not one that's been asked or answered (whether you have any case law supporting your interpretation, which still hasn't been answered).

quote:

If you like, you can follow the case law inside that link that the article is based on. I don't have to give my reasoning as others far more studied have already made clear far better than I can how the Law works in NZ and it is self evident as to how it applies to the past 3 mentioned cases.

Ok, maybe I understand now. That link doesn't contain any case law, just law. You're correct that I can't physically force you to give your reasoning, but I don't really get why your posting if you don't want to.

quote:

In any case, the Homeless killer had sought the situation he found himself in. Not only did he fail to make any attempt to prevent violence, he initiated it making him the attacker. At that point it would be the two homeless acting in self defence had they the ability to respond. You don't get to play Rambo under our law.

Again, the danger the person sought to avoid was being shot by the gun they believed was being pointed at them. That seems pretty pressing to me. While I agree that factually he was the attacker (as no such gun was recovered), the law posted calls for two things, that the person actually believed they were in danger (which you so far haven't denied) and that the response was reasonable to the perceived danger. I see an argument if he did something aggressive prior perceiving a gun pointed at him, but there's no evidence for that. (I can't consider entering your own property to be aggressive)

# ? Jun 1, 2015 16:31

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

Again, the danger the person sought to avoid was being shot by the gun they believed was being pointed at them. That seems pretty pressing to me. While I agree that factually he was the attacker (as no such gun was recovered), the law posted calls for two things, that the person actually believed they were in danger (which you so far haven't denied) and that the response was reasonable to the perceived danger. I see an argument if he did something aggressive prior perceiving a gun pointed at him, but there's no evidence for that. (I can't consider entering your own property to be aggressive)

So do you think this man shouldn't be convicted of murder?

quote:

Michael Dunn, 47, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Jordan Davis on 23 November 2012.
The software engineer says he feared for his life when he opened fire on Davis, 17, and three other teenagers in a row at a Jacksonville petrol station.
The case has drawn comparisons with the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Martin, 17, was gunned down in an Orlando suburb in February 2012 by a neighbourhood watchman, George Zimmerman, who claimed self-defence and was acquitted.
Mr Dunn faces life in prison if convicted of Davis' murder.
'Local thug'
He has said he asked the car full of teenagers to turn down their stereo, but that Davis refused and the two exchanged words.
In public, we can't all walk around acting like we are in our home, telling people what to do in a public place
Ron Davis, Father of deceased Jordan Davis
He alleges he saw a gun barrel pointed out the window at him before he opened fire, but police found no weapon in the teenagers' vehicle.

I mean, just because there wasn't a gun doesn't mean he didn't really believe there was one, right?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 17:06

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Black Americans twice as likely to be unarmed when killed by police than whites.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis

quote:

Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.

But it's okay since I'm sure the police were just more scared of the black people and so it isn't really racism or anything.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 17:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

So do you think this man shouldn't be convicted of murder?

I mean, just because there wasn't a gun doesn't mean he didn't really believe there was one, right?

You can't generalize what I've said about the application of New Zealand law to a specific situation to entirely separate situations. The only plausible reason I can think of to do this is to attempt a slap fight over who is wearing the right jersey, which is a stupid thing to do. Dunn seems like a pretty clear candidate for imperfect self defense assuming his jurisdiction has the law. I strongly doubt that Dunn decided he wanted to just murder some kids over a music dispute, but I also suspect his belief he was about to be shot wasn't reasonable (even assuming he honestly thought he saw a gun). New Zealand doesn't have a reasonableness requirement, so I don't know how they handle this situation.

Yes, that's correct. You shouldn't have to ask this question if you know English.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:02

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

twodot posted:

Again, the danger the person sought to avoid was being shot by the gun they believed was being pointed at them. That seems pretty pressing to me. While I agree that factually he was the attacker (as no such gun was recovered), the law posted calls for two things, that the person actually believed they were in danger (which you so far haven't denied) and that the response was reasonable to the perceived danger. I see an argument if he did something aggressive prior perceiving a gun pointed at him, but there's no evidence for that. (I can't consider entering your own property to be aggressive)

Entering a dwelling you know to be occupied, armed and in the dark, is aggressive regardless of who holds title to said dwelling.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:03

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Entering a dwelling you know to be occupied, armed and in the dark, is aggressive regardless of who holds title to said dwelling.

If the occupants give you permission to enter, this is clearly not aggressive. Also for this to matter you have to think that "Entering a dwelling you know you actively don't have permission to be in" is not aggressive, which I was willing to concede, but not if "Entering a dwelling you definitely have (edit: legal) permission to enter" is somehow aggressive. I don't see how you can justify the notion that we have to respect the wishes of occupants, but don't need to respect the wishes of the title holder (absent a contract specifying such).

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:32

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Because instigating an armed confrontation in the middle of the night iver some property you've abandoned for a decade is being reckless with people's lives and safety?

Go check on your property in the morning when it's daylight. Bring a sheriff with you if you're worried.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:44

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

Because instigating an armed confrontation in the middle of the night iver some property you've abandoned for a decade is being reckless with people's lives and safety?

Go check on your property in the morning when it's daylight. Bring a sheriff with you if you're worried.

What does this have to do with aggression? Obviously it was reckless to enter the property, he knew there was a serious risk that violence would occur, and ignoring that risk entered anyways, but by this standard squatting is equally reckless. Checking on the property in the morning with law enforcement is definitely a better strategy, but unless you can find a "duty to secure access to law enforcement and daylight" statute, I don't see the relevance.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:52

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Unarmed squatters sleeping in a building they knew was empty and not shooting at anything that made them jumpy were not being equally reckless.

And you generally have a duty to retreat when you're not in your home, although obviously here the jury didn't agree. You can defend yourself at home, that doesn't mean you have a right to take a gun to some commercial property in your name, looking for a fight.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

Unarmed squatters sleeping in a building they knew was empty and not shooting at anything that made them jumpy were not being equally reckless.

They couldn't see a plausible risk that someone might attempt to violently remove them (either the property owner or other people wanting their space) and ignored that risk?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 18:58

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Being shot is not a reasonable outcome of sleeping in an empty building, no.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 19:04

Waco Panty Raid: Mar 30, 2002; I don't mind being a little pedantic.

VitalSigns posted:

Unarmed squatters sleeping in a building they knew was empty and not shooting at anything that made them jumpy were not being equally reckless.

And you generally have a duty to retreat when you're not in your home, although obviously here the jury didn't agree. You can defend yourself at home, that doesn't mean you have a right to take a gun to some commercial property in your name, looking for a fight.

Breaking into a house (even one you think is empty), ignoring calls to come out, then making quick movements (possibly with an unlit flashlight in hand) during the confrontation is actually pretty reckless. Carrying a gun when there is the chance for a violent confrontation could just as easily be construed as prudence (I know at least a couple of property owners/managers in my area who do so)- what exactly is prudent about breaking and entering to squat? Ultimately it seems absurd that someone entering their property legally could be construed as a legal provocation against someone there illegally, regardless of how the parties are armed.

There was some evidence that the property owner was looking for a fight, that he had made statements in the past about how fed up he was with the burglaries, vandalism etc. and the inability of the police to do much about it. But there's also evidence that neighbors in the immediate area had been threatened by armed squatters so carrying a gun was probably prudent, especially for a 74 year old with few other options when it came to defending himself. Neither side is 100% clean on this one (which is probably why it received attention) but I agree the benefit of a reasonable doubt (say how someone could construe a raised arm with an unlit flashlight in the hand) should go to the person who is there legally.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 19:34

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

twodot posted:

If the occupants give you permission to enter, this is clearly not aggressive. Also for this to matter you have to think that "Entering a dwelling you know you actively don't have permission to be in" is not aggressive, which I was willing to concede, but not if "Entering a dwelling you definitely have (edit: legal) permission to enter" is somehow aggressive. I don't see how you can justify the notion that we have to respect the wishes of occupants, but don't need to respect the wishes of the title holder (absent a contract specifying such).

Dance around the legalities all you want. Walking in on sleeping people with a gun in your hand is an aggressive act. If you know a property you own is being squatted in you call the cops. You don't roll out in the dark like a geriatric Batman and shoot two people in their bed.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 20:35

Taeke: Feb 2, 2010

You know what, I've been struggling to put my opinion into words but I just can't. The US culture and legal system and all that is just too hosed up beyond words.

Seriously, there's been so many killings that seem to be blindly (or as good as) accepted as justifiable that, were I a sociopath wanting to know what it feels like to kill a person, or someone who had someone in my life I would rather do without, it wouldn't be all that hard to get away with murdering them.

There's this one thing I can't get my head around.
A lot of these protections, like the castle doctrine and whatnot, that are designed to protect the killer from unnecessary grief (from an investigation) in the case it were justified, which just doesn't compute for me. If I were to kill a person in self defense, in an 'ideal' situation where it were their life or mine and I could 100% justifiably make the choice to take their life to save mine, that being properly investigated would be the least of my worries because I just ended someone else's life. gently caress, the argument could even be made that submitting myself to a proper investigation, getting all angles looked at etc, would be to my benefit because either (1) I'll be completely vindicated and it'll just give me reassurance I made the right choice in taking the other's life, or (2) I wasn't justified in taking their life which could be either punished for and depending on that reason, or I could be made to understand how and why I came to the decision to do what I did, helping me to move on.

Oh, right, never mind. That would be assuming justice is something that benefits people, both society at large and individuals, instead of being purely punitive and revenge driven. Never mind, carry on. I'll just be here on the other side of the ocean reading the occasional article of a mentally unstable person being taken into custody with pepper spray or whatever, because, you know, that's what gets the news, because of the use of pepper spray or a baton or whatever. Usually mentally ill people threatening the lives of themselves or others are taken in without the need of those things, so it isn't really newsworthy.

edit:
Sorry, never mind. I'll leave this up, but it was just a general outpouring of frustration.

Life just seems worth so little in the US. Be that of criminals or mentally ill or addicts or simply those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Drunk college student walking into the wrong house? Kill that motherfucker and get away with it, he could've been a murderer!

Taeke fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 1, 2015

# ? Jun 1, 2015 21:33

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Dance around the legalities all you want. Walking in on sleeping people with a gun in your hand is an aggressive act. If you know a property you own is being squatted in you call the cops. You don't roll out in the dark like a geriatric Batman and shoot two people in their bed.

Point of order: Batman doesn't kill people
:goonsay:

# ? Jun 1, 2015 22:18

Taeke: Feb 2, 2010

hobbesmaster posted:

Point of order: Batman doesn't kill people

I wonder how many people are actually aware of the fact that one of Batman's principles is he doesn't kill people? I wasn't up until like literally a year or two ago, well after I saw The Dark Night. Having never watched the cartoons properly him not actually killing people wasn't one of those things I noticed, or when I did, I just thought it was him being incidentally magnanimous instead of it being an actual code of honor kind of thing. If it was ever explicitly stated I must have missed it or something.

When a lot of people imagine Batman they must be thinking Punisher, I guess. Not someone to be emulated, but when has that stopped the masses?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 22:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:20

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

If one of Gotham cops just popped The Joker in the back of the squad car, would anyone here cry foul?

# ? Jun 1, 2015 22:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »