Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-04-2003, 11:47 PM   #1 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Defense of person and property?

First off, this is NOT a gun control thread -- please do not turn it into one.

To what degree should a person be able to defend his or her property?

If someone is attempting to steal your $25,000 car should someone be able to use lethal force to attempt it from being stolen? What line are you willing to draw between theft of property, and potential harm to person which justifies doing bodily harm and/or fatal harm to a criminal?

In Minnesota it is illegal for a home-owner to defend their property if they are not in "imminent life-threatening danger." Meaning, as soon as a criminal turns their back on you, you cannot pursue or harm them. This seems to be placing a huge burden on the lawful home-owner, not the criminal, which is incredibly backwards imho.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 07:46 AM   #2 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: ÉIRE
I think you should have the right to use any means to protect your property, without fear of prosocution from the law.
Whats mine is mine and dare you try take it
__________________
its evolution baby
homerhop is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 09:10 AM   #3 (permalink)
Winner
 
If you are in physical danger, you have every right to use whatever force neccessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. When it comes to property, you have the right to use the neccessary force in order to get back the property or protect it, but lethal force would be totally unneccesary.

Also, I think you are misinterpretting the Minnesota law. It certainly wouldn't be illegal to pursue the criminal. And no one would bring charges if you just roughed the guy up a bit or threathened him with your gun. Its only when you start shooting indiscriminately that you're in trouble.
maximusveritas is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 09:35 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
while stealing a $25k car is a pretty asshole thing to do, i still think its probably right to have something that says its not cool to plug the guy in the back for it.

the law is intended to prevent vigilanteism, and i'd agree with it to a fair extent. Do you really want people chasing the baddies themselves, prolonging the conflict and the likelyhood that somebody gets whacked? There is a reason we have professional police forces. Amatours make shitty policemen.
chavos is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 09:36 AM   #5 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
If you are in physical danger, you have every right to use whatever force neccessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. When it comes to property, you have the right to use the neccessary force in order to get back the property or protect it, but lethal force would be totally unneccesary.

Also, I think you are misinterpretting the Minnesota law. It certainly wouldn't be illegal to pursue the criminal. And no one would bring charges if you just roughed the guy up a bit or threathened him with your gun. Its only when you start shooting indiscriminately that you're in trouble.
Totally agree with this. I think you would be legally able to defend yourself in a situation like this. I think what the law attempts to say is that if the guy is like off your property leaving you can't put 10 slugs in his back. I don't think there is a court in the world (wait maybe California) that would convict of you murder or assualt if you fuck up a criminal in your own home.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 02:47 PM   #6 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
If you are in physical danger, you have every right to use whatever force neccessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. When it comes to property, you have the right to use the neccessary force in order to get back the property or protect it, but lethal force would be totally unneccesary.
In Minnesota, the use of a firearm in defense is considered "lethal force" regardless of whether or not death results from the shot.

Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
Also, I think you are misinterpretting the Minnesota law. It certainly wouldn't be illegal to pursue the criminal. And no one would bring charges if you just roughed the guy up a bit or threathened him with your gun. Its only when you start shooting indiscriminately that you're in trouble.
Minnesota has something commonly referred to as a "duty to flee law" which makes it illegal to pursue a criminal. On top of that, it is currently illegal to use "lethal force" unless a criminal is currently in the act of committing a felony. If said criminal is running away (or driving a truck full of all of your belongings away), you are NOT able to give chase, fire upon them, or attempt to stop them in any way.

How do these laws help the victims of crime? By tying them up in the legal system and draining their life's savings in order to pay for a lawyer, while a seasoned criminal gets three more months in jail?

I think we would have many less problems if we gave the property owner the benefit of the doubt in determining if force/lethal force is necessary. Criminals should never be able to sue someone that they unsuccessfully robbed -- that's just ridiculous.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 09:09 PM   #7 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Minnesota has something commonly referred to as a "duty to flee law" which makes it illegal to pursue a criminal. On top of that, it is currently illegal to use "lethal force" unless a criminal is currently in the act of committing a felony.
Burglary is a felony. Problem solved!
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 09-05-2003, 11:04 PM   #8 (permalink)
JcL
Crazy
 
Location: Simi Valley, CA
In England some punk kid robbed some guys house...

As the kid was running away the guy shot and killed him.

Said guy gets prison time for the killing.

----

I kind of like the idea that, if you're some dumb ass who breaks the law, the moment you step on someones property with criminal intent your life becomes forfeit.

At the same time, we can't have a country run by vigiliantism, even when its in home defense (over property).

I don't think that victims should be screwed over by the law - but at the same time I don't want them taking the burglars life in their own hands. Even if 'aiming' for a non lethal shot. I'm not sure where to draw the line.
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth then lies." - Nietzsche
JcL is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 02:53 AM   #9 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: ÉIRE
It is a bit two sided at the moment there, on a local level your government tells you that you cannot defend your property, yet on an international level they are saying you threaten my stuff and I will whop your ass.
__________________
its evolution baby
homerhop is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 06:34 PM   #10 (permalink)
Crazy
 
If someone is in your house how do you know that all he is going to do is rob you ?
krd913 is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 07:32 PM   #11 (permalink)
WoW or Class...
 
BigGov's Avatar
 
Location: UWW
It is the criminals fault from the beginning.

The victim would have not killed the criminal had the criminal not broken the law. The victim sees someone on his property that should not be there, is not welcome, and the victim does not know what the criminal is going to do. Fleeing exposes the victims back and it could create a disturbance, which could cause the criminal to come and kill him.

What's the safest thing to do? Kill the criminal. Should the victim be punished for doing so? No.
__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"
BigGov is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 07:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: YOUR MOM!!
I wonder what chopping off one of their hands would fall under, probably not lethal.
It's what I will do in that circumstance.
If they want to sue or press charges, they better get placed in the witness relocation program.... I tend to be vengeful.
__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...
prosequence is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 08:00 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I think personally, in a situation like that the law goes out the window. However, I think killing over property is a bit much. Self defense and property defense are 2 seperate issues. i would kill, or maim to protect myself or my family or my friends; i would not kill to protect a car or a stereo or a T.V.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 08:24 PM   #14 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
I think personally, in a situation like that the law goes out the window. However, I think killing over property is a bit much. Self defense and property defense are 2 seperate issues. i would kill, or maim to protect myself or my family or my friends; i would not kill to protect a car or a stereo or a T.V.
I would like to draw a line at commission of the crime. If someone breaks into your house, regardless of if they intend to rape you, murder you, or steal $20 from your wallet, you should be justifiable in shooting/knifing/beating them to death. If they have already committed the crime and are half way down the street, it is now a matter for the police.

I trust the property owner / victim over the criminal in most cases.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 08:51 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Michigan
I think that if you steal a car, you should be shot. And if you rob a home and get shot, sucks to be you.
Nimbletoe is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 09:29 PM   #16 (permalink)
WoW or Class...
 
BigGov's Avatar
 
Location: UWW
What if the criminal is running away but has critical information that could steal the person's identity or something of extreme monatary value that the victim needs desparately. Is the killing justified then?
__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"
BigGov is offline  
Old 09-06-2003, 09:39 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Yeah, i mean if you're being robbed, you have to assume it is a life or death situation, you would be naive not to. But i think violence is only necessary under the direct or implicit threat of violence.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-07-2003, 08:51 PM   #18 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
Life is infinitely more valuable than property. A person has no right what so ever to kill another a person to defend property.
MuadDib is offline  
Old 09-07-2003, 09:05 PM   #19 (permalink)
WoW or Class...
 
BigGov's Avatar
 
Location: UWW
What if the person is trying to steal a gun?

Is it ok to kill to defend your property then?
__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"
BigGov is offline  
Old 09-07-2003, 09:22 PM   #20 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
Obviously that ties into the point bsaid that if you felt it was a life or death situation, then obviously its a big duh.

Now then I have a pretty big stance on life - i would prefer people live than die, and to see people succeed.

But I do agree that there are those that are better off dead than alive. Some criminals truly deserve death because of despicable acts out htere. Others don't or ended up being falsely charged.

As for defense... its one of those things you always see in teh hindsight. Some poor guy gets killed for no reason. Others get off and live.
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 09-09-2003, 03:42 PM   #21 (permalink)
Insane
 
pangavan's Avatar
 
Location: cleveland, OH
Quote:
There is a reason we have professional police forces.
the police are there to solve crimes, not prevent them. A police officer cannot interfere with a citizen until he has reason to suspect that a crime has been commited. Ask any woman or man who has tried to have a violent roomate removed from thier house, until they see a mark that shows battery may have occured they cannot force a leagal resident to leave the property.

Most self-defense laws state that only an equal or lesser amount of force may be used to defend ones-self, and that force must be stopped as soon as the threat is stopped. This means that if someone threatens you with a baseball bat you cannot shoot them,(excessive force),and as soon as they drop the bat you can no longer attack them.

Now some areas have a "Right to Response" law that allows a person to use whatever force is necessary to end the threat and ensure the attacker will not try again.
__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.
pangavan is offline  
 

Tags
defense, person, property

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360