IRELAND: Bill Lets Public Use Lethal Force On Intruders

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfcwojgbaucw/rss2/



Ireland is moving in the direction of most of the U.S. in getting their own version of Castle Doctrine. It doesn't seem to be quite as strong as ours, but it is a strong move in that direction.

Step in the right direction. No need to make the homeowner a victim twice.

The reason we moved as far as we have in what you perceive as the "wrong" direction on this, is because people frequently "screw up" and shoot the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. The laws developed because of the tendency of some to "shoot first, ask questions later". The use of deadly force was supposed to be reserved for protecting oneself from ACTUAL harm, not just as a knee jerk reaction to unjustified fears. The problem comes of course in the reality that some situations will be hard to know until after the fact. Laws and court decisions got started to try to outline what a "reasonable" reason for choosing force over other options. This did move in the direction of the "retreat" standard, i.e. if you could protect yourself as well by retreating, you should do so. This allowed them to hold people accountable who made the "wrong choice" and shot someone innocent. The problem is when this same standard effectively gets used against someone who made the RIGHT choice.

I'd have less concern about these laws if they clearly GAVE people more power, and also burdened them with more RESPONSIBILITY for choosing wrong. You may have been afraid, but only because you are a paranoid nut job and the law ain't gonna protect you. Identify and VERIFY your target before shooting. If you had done that, you wouldn't have shot your kid.

If you don't know, don't pull the trigger. However, if it is an adult (Or near adult) stranger who has broken into my home, then I am under no obligation to attempt to find out to what degree his is armed, or if at all armed. I am allowed to assume he is armed and act accordingly.

Like I suggest, these laws and decisions rose out of horrible mistakes by people that fired on targets they didn't identify as threatening. It is that presumption of threat that gets one in trouble. The drunk guy that pulls up to the wrong house and walks in. The 17 year old neighbor kid trying to sneak into the wrong room looking for his girlfriend. These are the people that get shot because the presumption is that if I don't know them, they deserve to be shot. Identifying your target also means identifying that they are a threat. The courts, and the legislatures attempted to try to narrowly define these parameters without much luck. By many measures they went too far. But it arose because of individuals that took it too far the other way.

Putting the burden on the law abiding to determine how/why someone is illegally in their home is an undue burden.

Sure the guy may be a drunk who broke into the wrong home but he also may be an armed intruder.

"Identifying your target also means identifying that they are a threat."
Firearms can be easily hidden. Someone is illegal in my house they are going to get shot. If it turns out they were unarmed or not armed very well (sharpened screw drive) frankly my dear I don't give a damn. Even soldier knows that imitative is very valuable and once lost isn't likely to be regained.

Homeowner: "Hey who is that. Are you a threat?"
Intruder: BLAM BLAH BLAH.
Oops I guess he was.

While a homeowner has the OPTION to not shoot, determine what weapon the intruder has, find out why they are there, ask them to leave, or even break out the bible and try to bring them to Jesus the homeowner shouldn't be under the OBLIGATION to do so.

The law abiding shouldn't be required to place themselves at additional risk to reduce the risk to the intruder. If you are in the residence illegally you can be presumed to be a threat and force used to stop you. If that force ends up killing you in the process well that is the consequence for breaking into someone's castle. I would recommend not breaking into other people's homes and you will be fine.

Also someone who illegally enters a residence is not "innocent". Maybe they are less guilty (only guilt of breaking and entering not attempted rape or murder) but they certainly aren't "innocent".

The presumption of deadly force is what we are discussing. I can agree that in a case where facts, afterwords, demonstrate that the proper choice was made, should be legal, even if those facts weren't known in advance. As such, an invader that afterwards is identified as a lethal threat cannot be the basis for charging you with a crime, regardless of whether you actually knew that in advance. I can even agree, as you allude, that in certain situations it was reasonable to conclude that a person was a lethal threat, even if it later turns out that they were not. "It was dark, he was breaking down the door, told him to stop, he didn't". The fact that the guy was a drunk whose wife locked him out regularly, doesn't change the fact that you had made reasonable efforts to identify your target.

Shooting through a closed door because you "don't know who is on the other side" on the other hand isn't trying to identify your target.

If you choose to fight instead of flee, you choose to carry a heavier burden upon your decision to use lethal force. If fleeing wasn't an option, that burden declines. If you meet force with force, that burden declines. If you escalate a situation, you accept a increasing burden.

Unfortunately these concepts generate strange court decisions about "shooting people in the back" and "dragging them back inside" and silly measures like that. You either met a lethal threat with a lethal force or not. If it turns out it was not a lethal threat, then the burden upon begins to increase. It shouldn't go to infinity, but it should increase.

Lethal force isn't a death sentence. The purpose of death sentence is to end your life. If you survive lethal injection you don't get to go free. They will just do it again and again and again until you are dead.

The purpose of lethal force is to end the threat. If I use lethal force it is my intention to end the threat. I am justified in using lethal force only until the target stops being a threat. If I shoot someone and they are no longer a threat then the purpose of lethal force has been accomplished. If I then shoot them again and again and again while they are no longer a threat well THAT would be a death sentence and it is already illegal.

"The fact that the guy was a drunk whose wife locked him out regularly, doesn't change the fact that you had made reasonable efforts to identify your target."

Nope. Not in a castle doctrine state. The overwhelming number of someone illegally entering a residence are due to criminal intent. Thus the law has said ANYONE illegally entering can be PRESUMED to be a threat.

Shooting through a closed door because you "don't know who is on the other side" on the other hand isn't trying to identify your target.

All depends on the exact wording of the statute and it varies from state to state. Some only apply to inside the residence. Some apply to all of one's property. Personally I wouldn't shoot through the door however there are situations where tactically that may be the best choice. I am not going to increase the burden on the law abiding for the negligible % of time that they shoot the wrong person (one in 26,000 per another post in this thread).

It is immoral to COMPEL me to investigate at risk to myself and my family in order to reduce the risk to the criminal. Now will this increase the number of criminals killed. Of course; I have no illusions of that. However the need of the few additionally killed criminals doesn't override the needs of the majority to be safe from threats to life or limb.

If you are good at identifying the target, you'd have little concern. Because as long as the determination is allowed to be made after the fact that you were in fact correct, you're golden. The law goes too far when it compels you to be able to prove this a priori. However, if it is determined after the fact that you were wrong, the burden upon you to demonstrate your choice was correct should increase. People need their rights to self defense recognized. And the strange web of court decisions that tended to drive much of this needs some more clear, concise, and consistent definition. However, I have seen laws which tend to want to absolve anyone who engages in lethal force, even in the presence of information of need to the contrary. That's going too far.

However, if it is determined after the fact that you were wrong, the burden upon you to demonstrate your choice was correct should increase.

- I disagree. The invader is presumed to be a threat. Correct or not the persons doesn't and shouldn't need to justify their identification. Once again this requires the law abiding to put themselves at additional risk in order to protect the criminal. Not acceptable. If people don't want to get shot there is a simply solution .... don't break into people's homes. If you illegally enter a home you are presumed to be a threat and that is the extent of the burden.

However, I have seen laws which tend to want to absolve anyone who engages in lethal force, even in the presence of information of need to the contrary. That's going too far.

I doubt it. Do you have a cite? Every castle doctrine type law I have seen uses terminology like "presumed to be a threat". If the shooter has evidence to the contrary then it breaks that presumption.

Example A: Burglar comes into home (he is presumed to be threat and lethal force can be used). I point gun at him. He drops weapon, puts hands in air. I walk up put pistol in his mouth and pull trigger. No law in the country would protect me from homicide charges. I had data that broke that presumption. The difference here and you above quote is that there was no BURDEN to obtain that information.

Example B: I hear and intruder in the home. I load pistol. My daughter yells dad it is my boyfriend. I shoot him anyways despite her identification. Once again I obtained information which broke the presumption of the intruder being a threat.

In neither example does Castle Doctrine (in any state) protect me. It simply protects me in a situation where information to break that presumption is unavailable. I am not compelled to gather information and the lack of gathering information can't be used against me.

In summary:

* A person illegally entering the home can be presumed to be a threat (because statistically they are).
* Resident can use force including lethal force to defend themselves from that presumed threat.
* Even if that presumption is wrong there is no further burden on the Resident.
* If Resident is aware the presumption is wrong they are not protected.
* DA can always prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resident was aware the person wasn't a threat.

Key point is the burden of proof is on the state not the citizen.

I think your dislike for Castle Doctrine type laws simply comes from a misunderstanding of what they do and don't do.

In summary:

* A person illegally entering the home can be presumed to be a threat (because statistically they are).
* Resident can use force including lethal force to defend themselves from that presumed threat.
* Even if that presumption is wrong there is no further burden on the Resident.
* If Resident is aware the presumption is wrong they are not protected.
* DA can always prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resident was aware the person wasn't a threat.

What is your burden for determining that the person is entering illegally?

What is your burden if you intentionally avoided information that they were not a threat?

Generally speaking state statute defines the conditions for castle doctrine.

A commonality is that of illegal entry. This once again is defined in state statutes. some states simply cover illegal entry, some states only cover entry by force. There is no universal definition since it is an issue at state level.

Here is CA for example: CPC 198.5



Thus in CA the qualifier is
a) person must unlawfully & forcibly enters residence
b) resident must know of or have reasonable belief unlawful entry occurred
c) the person unlawfully entering is not of the household.

If those 3 conditions are met then the resident is presumed to have have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury which is exact the requirement for using lethal force lawfully in CA.

Thus is DA believes that isn't the case the burden of proof is on the DA.

"What is your burden if you intentionally avoided information that they were not a threat?"

How does one intentionally avoid information? The person either knows or doesn't know. If he/she knows then Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. If he/she doesn't know they are not required to take further action to investigate. Lethal force may be used because the intruder is a threat.

This also does not invalidate the chance that s/he may do you harm anyway, due to their inability to reason correctly.

Threats due to error on the part of the threatener, are still a threat.

The larger issue is even IF 100% after the fact it is determined that there was absolutely not risk to the resident, never was, and never was going to be that doesn't change the fact that a break in is a high stress situation.

The homeowner shouldn't be burdened with investigation requirements that place himself (and his/her family) at additional risk.

The person is illegally in the home, most persons illegally entering a home are a threat, the person illegally entering is PRESUMED to be a threat. Placing additional burdens on the home owner simply reduces the risk to the criminal while increasing the risk to the law abiding.

The person is illegally in the home, most persons illegally entering a home are a threat, the person illegally entering is PRESUMED to be a threat. Placing additional burdens on the home owner simply reduces the risk to the criminal while increasing the risk to the law abiding.

This cannot include effectively attempts at willful ignorance. A complete lack of any attempt to identify a target would tend to fall into that category.

If the shooter has confirmed the intruder is not a threat castle doctrine doesn't protect him/her however there should be no burden on the shooter to make the determination. Doing so requires the law abiding to place themselves in risk to protect the criminal. That isn't justice.


4 scenarios:
you break into my home and I shoot you in a Castle Doctrine State.

a) you are a threat but I DON'T know it - you are presumed to be a threat - lethal force is lawful
b) you are NOT a threat but I DON'T know it - you are presumed to be a threat - lethal force is lawful
c) you are a threat and I know it - no presumption required - lethal force is lawful.
d) you are NOT a threat and I know it - no presumption applies - lethal force is NOT LAWFUL.

Obviously we agree on points a, c, d.

c) isn't even Castle Doctrine issue. Normal Self Defense statutes apply.

However on point b it seems that you believe there should be additional burden on the shooter that he should be required to seek out information to confirm the scenario (either c or d). I don't. That places the law abiding at risk. The law abiding shouldn't be COMPELLED to take additional risk obtaining information. The presumption stands and the shoot is good even if it turns out to not be a threat.

However if even inadvertently information is obtained then it evolves into situation D. In no state in the country does Castle Doctrine protect the shooter in situation D.

e) you are not a threat, a simple act on my part could have informed me, but I intentionally took or avoided action to prevent me from being exposed to that information.

Period.

There is no situation where you can gurantee the "simple act on your part" won't expose you to further risk.

Shine flashlight at intruder - give away your posistion.
Call out to intruder - he fires upon you.
Try to move to obtain a better look (more info) - he gains upper hand.

It doesn't matter that is doesn't always happen the point is you are placing a burden where the law abiding is required to take action which exposes him or herself and his/her family to further risk in order to protect criminals.

That isn't justice. That is unacceptable. Don't want to get shot then don't break into other people's homes.

The criminal via a "simple act" (not breaking in) could prevent the entire scenario.

Repo men are particularly at risk here. They show up and try to pull cars out of driveways and garages. The guy comes out shooting. Never mind the truck says "Joe's towing" on the side. "I couldn't see it" is the response. Of course not, you came out shooting.

Repo man has no legal authority to break into a garage. A person in driveway hasn't committed unlawful entry. Thus a repo man who breaks into a garage is now a criminal who has unlawfully entered the residence. Conversely shooting a repo man on the street or in driveway wouldn't be protected under Castle Doctrine.

Of course EVEN IF IT WAS (which it isn't) the legality is only presumed which simply means the burden of proof is on the DA. You know that whole due process thing. If DA can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the residence knew the person wasn't a threat then they can be charged.

I showed you CA statute. Here is TX (section 9.01 of Texas Penal Code)


In TX that wouldn't be lawful either. Given the repo man didn't attempt to enter the residence unlawfully and with force.

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

The presumption on the part of the shooter is that his car was being stolen and he took appropriate action. Yes, after the fact it was determined that the guy was repossessing the car, but if you don't place any after the fact burden on the shooter, you can't bring that into consideration. He came out, a guy was in his garage messing with his car, he saw it being stolen. Even worse if the guy is attempting to force his way into the car to repossess it.

Castle Doctrine isn't absolute. The DA is free to attempt to prove that the presumption is broken. However the DA must prove it rather than place the burden on the law abiding citizens to prove they acted lawfully.

"He came out, a guy was in his garage messing with his car"

repo men have no lawful authority to enter a garage. If someone breaks the law don't be surpised if the law doesn't protect you.

Of course your claims (like most blood in the street claims) are baseless. TX adopted this statute years ago (September 1, 2007) so I am sure you can find hundreds of rep men slain in the line of duty where the killer got off due to Castle Doctrine defense. The part you quoted (about using lethal force to stop a felony) has been on the books in Texas for 60+ years. The only new change was the "castle doctrine" adoption.

This shows how the law was changed in 2007.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

I'll wait. You can start here:
http://news.google.com

One of the news magazines. I don't remember if anyone actually had been killed, but they were getting shot at left and right.

And you are correct, the DA can try to prove that there was willful negligence on the part of the home owner.

I think I basically am arguing that it should in essence be part of the law, that willful ignorance, amongst other forms, is part of the consideration. If you shoot and are correct, it doesn't matter what you were willfully ignorant of. However if you shoot and are "wrong", you bear a greater burden for demonstrating reasonable presumption of lethal threat. I also don't like many of the "presumptions" buried in the law, where attempted entry is reason for presuming lethal threat, or the use of lethal force without other bases for such a presumption.

I think that is the part you don't get. There is no right or wrong. If someone unlawfully enters your residence THEY ARE IN THE WRONG and if they encounter lethal force that is the consequence for THEIR actions.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Unless you can prove that the law has increased the number of mistaken identity shooters and those shooters were willfully negligent, and the DA was unable to get conviction because of castle doctrine I see no legitimate reason to infringe upon the law abiding.

Without castle doctrine an unreasonable burden is placed on the law abiding to determine the motives of intruders inside their own homes. In any restriction the burden of proof is on the govt that it serves a compelling governmental interest. The burden isn't on the citizenry that the law won't be abused.

I don't see it as an "unreasonable burden" to determine that your target is actually a lethal threat to you. Just because a guy is making a mistake, or is undiplomatic, doesn't qualify him as a lethal threat.

That is just an acceptable price to protect criminals? :shrug:

You are saying the law abiding need to take additional risks to life and limb in order to protect the life and limb of criminals during the commissioning of a crime.

Castle Doctrine type laws were passed to prevent exactly that. The law abiding shouldn't be placed at risk in order to protect the criminal. Not just the criminal (as in past tense) but a current violent felony in progress. Yes breaking and entering a residence is a violent felony. If that isn't an unreasonable burden then I don't know what is.

Of course if you don't feel it is an unreasonable burden then you can take any level of risk you want to. Castle Doctrine sets a floor but not a ceiling. If you want to be Joe Detective in the middle of the night with a bunch of gang bangers; knock yourself out. Just don't impose that higher level of risk on others.

"Just because a guy is making a mistake, or is undiplomatic, doesn't qualify him as a lethal threat."
That is a strawman. One needs to enter a residence unlawfully and with force in order for the home owner to be granted presumption of fear for bodily injury or death. Hardly "undiplomatic". That is called breaking an entering and is a felony. The person being shot is a criminal in the act of a violent felony. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

The person who is chosing to use lethal force should not be ignorant of the target they are shooting. You want to assume lethal intent and ability of someone with a very low standard. I am suggesting that the standard should not be that low.

They know someone has unlawfully and forcibly entered their residence.
While they may not know the exact details the law considers that person to be a threat.
I don't consider that a low standard. The standard is lowER because it is inside someone home. A person should feel secure in their home, if nowhere else in the world.

If you forcibly and unlawfully enter my home I will be in "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Now that fear may not be accurate but it certainly is reasonable. Based on that the law (in Castle Doctrine states) says the shooter has sufficiently identified the threat:

a) they are in the residence unlawfully
b) they entered forcibly

While the shooter may not know the specifics on how/why and what level of threat the person unlawfully in their home presents it is a canard to say they haven't ID the target.

They are classifying a target as a lethal threat upon an assumption. My assertion is that the assumption has two low a standard for the use of lethal force.

simple concept.

If you break into someones home you likely will get shot. So if you wish to avoid getting shot don't break into people's homes.

"They are classifying a target as a lethal threat upon an assumption."
It is a reasonable assumption. The person broke into a home unlawfully and forcibly. The overwhelming number of instances the person doing so has criminal intent.

It isn't like 50% of the time, or even 90% of the time or even 99.9%. It is virtually 100% of the time. Burglaries are one of the most common forms of serious crime in the United States. 2,222,196 just in 2008 alone. Individuals acting in self defense shoot based on mistaken identity less than one out of 26,000 times.

There is no statistical validity for raising the bar any higher.

If you fear getting shot by law abiding citizens then I would recommend you not break into other people's homes.

But we don't. We could shoot speeders and jay walkers. We could shoot drug dealers, God knows they are dangerous. But we don't. You already want to limit the use of lethal force to people who you establish through assumption are lethal threats. All I'm suggesting is that the threshold for that assumption should be hire.

"We could shoot speeders and jay walkers. We could shoot drug dealers,"

None of those are violent felonies. Breaking and entering is.

"All I'm suggesting is that the threshold for that assumption should be hire."
Yeah you want to put law abiding at risk in order to protect criminals from possibly injury. I understand perfectly.

I would rather see every single burglar killed by lethal force than a single law abiding citizen be killed due to your higher and unreasonable standard.

I have absolutely no compassion for someone killed by legal self defense during the commission of a violent felony. None.

"you want to put law abiding at risk in order to protect criminals from possibly injury."

The point is that the law abiding citizen isn't at lethal risk from some criminals. Some of these people barely qualify as criminals. To a degree, you are writing the law to make them not only criminals, but lethal threats, even though they have no lethal intent.

"The point is that the law abiding citizen isn't at lethal risk from some criminals. "

That is the whole point. The resident DOES know:
* someone has forcibly entered their home
* someone is unlawfully in their home
* the vast majority of people in this situation are a threat to the resident.

As such the resident is in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. I am sure if you were ever in a home invasion you would feel exactly the same way.

Now is that assumption accurate? Maybe not. It has a very high likelihood of being correct however nothing is 100%.

Castle Doctrine is built on the belief that further investigation PUTS THE RESIDENT AT RISK.
While a homeowner is certainly allowed to investigate further they aren't required to.

If you wish to avoid this "unfair" (your opinion not mine) then I strongly recommend not
a) forcibly entering residences
AND
b) unlawfully entering residences
AND
c) doing so while the residence is occupied.

That is the ONLY circumstance when you could be wrongly subject to this "unfair" assumption.


"To a degree, you are writing the law to make them not only criminals, but lethal threats, even though they have no lethal intent."
Nope. Nobody is saying THEY ARE a lethal threat rather than it is a reasonable assumption they are a threat. Most people in that situation ARE a threat. Validating that assumption further is not required because doing so puts the law abiding at risk in order to protect the criminal.

By calling the person a "criminal" you have tried and convict the person upon a "reasonable assumption". Furthermore, you have elevated his crime to a "lethal threat". The only people I'm suggesting the law "protect" are non-lethal citizens.

Unlawfully and forcibly entering a residence is a felony in all 50 states.

The only people at the receiving end of Castle Doctrine ARE CRIMINALS. Period.

They aren't a "criminals". They are a criminals and not just any criminal but one in the commission of a felony.

You place the needs of a handful of "non threatening" criminals above the right of millions of B&E victims to not be placed at further risk of injury or death. Unacceptable and misplaced.

Accidental shootings have declined despite 24 states adopting Castle Doctrine type laws in last 22 years.

There was a thread a few weeks ago about a guy who was badly drunk and went to the house next door to the party. Unfortunately the residents had left the back door unlocked. Drunk entered at about 1AM, IIRC, and got killed. No charges against the residents.

Like most gun laws your state may vary. All gun owners should be very familiar with laws in their states.

Many states do use the 'forcibly' so I went with the more conservative standard. Some states also allow you to use force to prevent someone from entering while others only take effect once person does enter the reisdence.

So very important for gun owners to know the standard where they live.

You have positively identified him as someone who has absolutely no right to be in your home.

You draw down on him with an firearm and tell him to freeze.

He turns his back on you.

Are you aware that he can grab a hidden handgun, turn and shoot you before you have a chance to shoot?

This concept was covered in a radio interview with Marion Hammer the Former NRA President who was primarily responsible for the castle doctrine or "stand your ground" law in Florida.

there are only a few states which it is not lawful for a repossessor to enter a garage which is DETACHED from the residence, AND is UNLOCKED. Most states are "Self Help Repossession" states. There are SCOTUS rulings on this very subject. A garage attached to a dwelling is considered part of that dwelling, there is no lawful entry by a repossessor. A detached garage is not considered part of the dwelling. If the detached garage door is unlocked a repossessor may enter and remove the vehicle. The garage must be left in the condition it was found (door open, door closed, etc). A garage may not be unlocked or otherwise broken into from the outside to gain entry (breaking and entering).

Another issue would be a process server who possessed a valid court order to take or seize a vehicle or property. In this case it is likely completely legal for that process server to enter a dwelling, even open locked doors, to take possession. You better not shoot a process server with a valid court order.

Bottom line, in most states a person will absolutely be charged with a severe criminal act if they shoot a repossessor or process server who is acting lawfully. SCOTUS has ruled that the person who has shot a repossessor while taking property lawfully should have known that the property was subject to repossession through their own act of default.

Texas (and Louisiana) is really the exception to the rule as repossession goes...every repossessor knows this. My experience is 20 years as a repossessor, 15,000+/- repossessions myself and supervising another 40,000. I may not know much...I do know about repossessions.

Sorry, but if a process server breaks and enters my home in the middle of the night to serve papers, he's likely getting shot. Same basic argument in play, I am not under any obligation to determine that someone forcibly entering my home is not a danger.

The argument about repossession agents is also not totally true. An agent acting in the night using the tactics of a car thief can be assumed to be a car thief. While a few people may have been successfully prosecuted for this, quite a few more have also gotten off depending on individual state laws. Just because I am behind a payment on my car does not mean I must assume anyone trying to steal it is a repo man.

Doing a GIS, it looks like repo men have a horrible habit of getting shot on an almost daily basis.

and do not mark their vehicles, as they can not pull for hire.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Further most wrecker company's liability insurance expressly forbids them to repossess cars without a binder or rider from a repossession insurance company. By the time I got out it was almost impossible to find a wrecker service who would repossess a car without a binder from my insurance company.

There is a local wrecker service with 25 trucks who used to do some work for me on my binder. I had 5 trucks insured on my policy. My annual premium for repossession insurance/garage keepers liability was 3 to 4 times more expensive than his wrecker/recovery/garage keepers insurance.

pulling your vehicle out of your driveway, at night. There have been several repo men killed this way here in Texas. Grand Jury's nobilled.
Now most smart repo men do so in daylight, as Texas law changes when it gets dark.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Most states with very few exceptions are "self help" repossession states, Texas is not. This has a very distinct meaning in law. Essentially self help repossession recognizes a lien holder as a co-owner of a vehicle. In this recognition, it is impossible to claim theft as the lien holder is as entitled to the collateral as the debtor. In most states, if a debtor who is in default and has been duly noticed of that default (notice to cure), shoots an agent of the lender they will be charged with a crime AND be subject to civil action. Now, understand, just because this is established law doesn't necessarily make it a good idea..dead is dead, afterall.

unless that agent unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence (including attached but not detached garages). The issue was the legitimacy of Castle Doctrine. The repo man argument is essentially a canard. Castle Doctrine covers self defense inside the home and has specific conditions that must be met (namely an unlawful & forcible entry). Any "repo man" who is shot and the resident meets the conditions of a Castle Doctrine defense is a criminal.

No lawful repo man is endangered by Castle Doctrine. That being said I realize it is a thankless and dangerous job however the poster who threw "repo man" into the discuss was simply trying to muddy the waters. Do repo men get shot? Yeah, too often but it isn't due to any Castle Doctrine statute.

You basically are suggesting that it should be lawful to shoot a repo man that is not a lethal threat to anyone.

Man breaks into a home unlawfully and with force. Statistically the overwhelming number of cases where this happens that the intruder is a threat. The residence isn't required to investigate the intent of the intruder. The target of lethal force IS A CRIMINAL they are in COMISSION OF A FELONY and have UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE. The law says that creates a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" thus lethal force is justified.

"that it should be lawful to shoot a repo man"
Strawman. It is (and should be) lawful to use lethal force against someone who wilfully, forcibly, and unlawfully enters a residence regardless of their intent.

This is where we differ. Even within the law, intent is important. Shooting a person that has no lethal or harmful intent is where we differ. I agree that there needs to be a limit upon the homeowner to the burden to determine the lethal nature of the threat. I just don't agree that it is effectively zero.

Intent matters when it comes to some criminal charges. Intent doesn't matter when it comes to self defense. Responsible perception matter. If you draw a gun and point it at me; it doesn't matter if your intent was to show me how it looks down the barrel. Reasonable perception is that you actions present a reasonable threat of bodily injury or death. Thus I can (but am not required to) respond with force up to and including lethal force. Your intent (although dubious) may save you from criminal charges if you survive however it is meaningless when it comes to self defense. I may be 100% wrong about your intent but it doesn't make my actions unlawful.

The overwhelming number of unlawful & forcible entries into occupied residences present a threat to the resident. The law simply says that anyone acting under a "fear or bodily injury or death" has made a reasonable assumption. It doesn't mean a 100% accurate assumption but rather a reasonable one.

You pointing a gun in my face (regardless of intent) creates a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death.
You unlawfully and forcibly entering an occupied residence (regardless of intent) creates a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death.

Someone acting upon those fears is acting lawfully. The intent is immaterial.

"I just don't agree that it is effectively zero."
Your 28th strawman of the thread. It isn't effectively zero. To be subject to a resident acting under Castle Doctrine you need to willfully, unlawfully, and forcibly enter an occupied residence. To claim that is effectively zero is beyond laughable.

Someone entering your attached garage to repo your car is not a lethal threat. Yes, he probably broke the law, especially if he damage the door to get through. The idiot who thinks he has broken into his own home is not a lethal threat. He's dumb as the day is long, but he's no lethal threat. The kid prying open a window he believes is his girl friends is not a lethal threat. He's committing a crime, but he is not a lethal threat. We are very fortunate that most folks are more likely to try to identify why someone is trying to get in, and who they are. The law you defend doesn't necessarily make that any sort of obligation.

The overwhelming number of the 2.8 million B&E in the United States were a threat.

The law can never be perfect. It simply strives to do the most good.
You are weighing the risk of bodily injury to the negligible minority of criminals (and yes they are criminals) higher than the increased risk of bodily injury to the millions of B&E victims each year.

Accidental shootings have declined in last 20 years so it would appear your concerns are over-weighted.

Don't break into homes if you feel it is an unreasonable assumption.
Don't be a felon if you feel it is an unreasonable assumption.

If you break the law don't be surprised that the law doesn't protect you.

The law can never be perfect. It simply strives to do the most good.

Agreed, I'm only suggesting that it can be more perfect that it is, and do more good.

You are weighing the risk of bodily injury to the negligible minority of criminals (and yes they are criminals) higher than the increased risk of bodily injury to the millions of B&E victims each year.

Actually, not exactly. I'm suggesting that the law recognize what huge numbers of people do everyday, and that is to choose not to use lethal force even when they might be legally allowed to do so. All I suggest is that they are making reasonable choices and that the law recognize that reasonable choices can and should be made other than your black and white assumption of lethal risk.

This usually happens with low dollar cars and tote the note lots. Above I mentioned the cost of legitimate repossession insurance. This leads to no $50 or $100 repos...then a tote lot, trying to recover a $250 car can't justify paying the $250-$500 plus for a legitimate company to do the work so they hire some idiot with a pickup who doesn't know what he's doing and bad stuff happens.

however, IN TEXAS, you're mistaken. Texas law would permit the killing of a repo man...who had hooked a car up in the owner's driveway.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-14/news/mn-45811_1_texas-law

Even thought the repo man was acting on a legal repossession order, the holder of the lien had failed to notify the vehicle owner. As a result, when the home/vehicle owner, shot and killed Tommy Dean Morris, who was half-way down the street, the shooter could not be tried. District Attorney, Johnny Holmes, was interviewed by the local ABC affiliate and he stated that under Texas law, that even if a police car had been parked in front of the home, that the homeowner (who was not aware his vehicle was subject to a legal repossession order) STILL could have shot Morris, and there's nothing the police could have arrested him for.

Your home, your transportation, the tools of your trade....Texas law recognizes their importance and allows a great deal of latitude in protecting them.

The accounts didn't come up for repossession at the car lot where I worked until they were 6 to 12 months overdue, so the soon to be repo'd knew that I was looking for their car. That was one suckin' job.

No drunk is going to just walk into my home. My doors are reinforced and well secured. If he gets in, he will have to do some work breaking in and make a hell of a lot of noise. If someone smashes my door down that itself is clear evidence that he has evil intentions.

http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/12/15/brit-court-sentences-man-to-jail-for-fighting-off-burglars-lets-intruder-walk-free-56380/

"LONDON - In an amazing travesty of justice, a British court has jailed a businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs to save his family with a cricket bat, while letting one of the intruders go scot-free.

The judge praised Munir Hussain, the chairman of the Asian Business Council, for his “courage” in defending his wife and three children from an attack, but then jailed him for 30 months for the violence of his response."

As far as I am concerned, anyone who breaks into your home and threatens you with lethal force deserves to be killed where they stand.

As I suggested in another post, I think in recognizing more freedom, one has to also assign more responsibility. If you fight and are shown to be justified, so be it. If you fight and turn out to have jumped to conclusions, or aimed irresponsibly, you suffer the consequences. The nature of some of these laws is to allow the reckless to go free, out of concern that the responsible will hold back.

That is the point it isn't the wrong conclusion at the time of the decision. Situation must be judged based on data available at the time, not after the fact. Someone in a home illegally likely IS a threat (the number of burglaries is much larger than the few isolated incidences of someone breaking into the wrong home without malice). The homeowner shouldn't have to quantify that threat at additional risk to themselves. This is why "castle doctrine" like laws were developed.

If someone is in my home illegally I am going to draw on them. Period. If they move towards me or move their hands I am going to fire. Not to kill them but to stop the threat.

If it later turns out it was a burglary but he wasn't armed, or a drunk who broke into the wrong home I will feel bad but too fucking bad for them.

You talk about responsibility and consequence. People should take responsibility to not break and enter (even accidentally). If they don't they might suffer the consequence of being dead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=331480&mesg_id=331480

that if this woman had just 'got up off some pussy' one of there enterprising wealth redistribution specialists wouldn't be dead and another in critical condition. I am sure they loved their mommas and were just misunderstood. They were collecting donations for Tulsa's underfunded shitheads at 3AM.

In the book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" Gary Kleck analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:

- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.

- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.

- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.

- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes.

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.

Which is why I think some of the "fight or flight" laws are over rated in their utility. You're average citizen, properly armed, is far less likely to fire at the "wrong target". Truth be known, they are probably far more likely NOT to shoot at the RIGHT target. Or at least be too forgiving and take too much risk. And I think the data you are highlighting bears that out. They are frequently in situations where they 1) know everyone around and 2) know all of their habits. As such, mistaken identities and false targets are vastly lower. Which strangely gets us back to these "shoot first" laws. They address a fairly small number of cases. Truth is the court decisions of which they attempt to "correct" also affect fairly small numbers of cases. The common law concepts that get started about "dragging people back in" or "don't shoot them in the back" are aimed at addressing the precious few cases where lethal force is inappropriately used. Unfortunately, these decisions often don't maintain the context in which the original verdicts were rendered and folks apply them (at least prosecutors) in absurd contexts.

In defending myself, I am permitted to act on the facts as they appear to be. Here is an example.

Out of my sight and knowledge you tell a stadium full of people you are going to play a "joke" on me.

You cleverly paint over the orange tip on an Airsoft so that it looks like a "real" gun.

You burst into my home waving about your fake gun while screaming you're going to kill me. Your gun looks real; the threat sounds real; (the law lets me take you at your word)thus, you are bought and paid for. It matters little how many people were in on your "joke" if I wasn't one of them.

On the other hand, if you are screaming about how you are going to kill me while the nice officers have you hand cuffed and are trying to keep you from bumping your head as they put you in the cruiser, I would be in big trouble if I took the pre-emptive measure of shooting you. Your threat may have been heartfelt but was hardly credible under the circumstances.

Meanwhile , near Swinney Switch .
http://www.kristv.com/news/mathis-man-shot-and-killed-family-speaks/
You still cant just shoot whomever you please , but brigands and thieves are golden .
And yes , Damian is still sitting in the pokie .

Most people will error on the side of not shooting.

But, having said that, the whole point of the castle doctrine is to give the homeowner the presumption that someone, who does not live there, who has broken in, is a lethal threat.

Most drunks will not breach your front door on their first attempt, giving you ample time to yell "you've got the wrong house"

If you have teens living in the house you'd have to be a complete fool to shoot at a shadowed figure opening a window without first calling out.

Where the law should be correctly used, is when, despite your warnings, an unknown individual persists in knocking down your door, or entering through a window in the dead of night.

Which, I think, may have been a tacit acknowledgment on the part of the English criminal justice system of its own part in creating this situation in the first place. Hussain and and his brother actively chased the burglar down and continued to beat him when he was down and arguably no longer posed a threat, and all other things being equal, that was going to far. All other things being equal, which they seldom are. The burglar in question had something like fifty prior convictions and was out on a "supervision order"; clearly, he shouldn't even have been in a position to break into Hussain's house and threaten his family. And I strongly suspect a large factor in why Hussain chased the guy down and continued to beat him even though he'd ceased to be an immediate threat was that Hussain--rightly--had little faith that the guy wouldn't be out again in short order, and in a position to make good on his threat Hussain's family. We can deplore citizens "taking the law into their own hands," but we have to acknowledge that this very often happens because the criminal justice system is failing to perform its job in adequate fashion.

"Munir Hussain"

Does anybody think the outcome would be the same had the homeowner's name been "Nigel H. Muddlethorpe the 3rd"?

free sovereign individuals who let government borrow some of our authority but retain the remaining authority in the form of individual rights that are unalienable/inalienable.

Regardless of the history leading up to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is irrefutable as SCOTUS said in Heller, both majority and dissenting justices, that We the People retain rights that may only be infringed if there is an overwhelming social benefit but those rights can never be prohibited.

:eyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward

And some similar politics...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/charges-to-be-dropped-over-burglars-stab-death-1940352.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f5_1270486578

And the plain ridiculous...
http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2010/07/10/brit-mum-jailed-for-not-returning-cricket-ball-119501/

they will only liberalize their gun laws so that more law abiding people can get them.

Which was a step back from using lethal force on just your family.

Explain, please?

I am thinking it is a strawman argument that next gunowners will want to be able to legally kill people who piss them off but I am not sure.

The fail is strong with that post.

:beer:

I don't know who this "Bill" guy is. But he should be re-elected.

To let ya' have a little say in who can crash your pad.;-)

in Ireland? Im guessing we are talking shotguns only.

Will they be using potato guns ?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

Ireland has some of the least permissive firearm legislation in Europe. In order to possess a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms,1 gun owners must renew their firearm certificates every three years.2 3 Although small arms-related death, injury and crime remain relatively low, rising rates of gun violence and firearm ownership in the Republic ― in particular the possession and misuse of handguns ― have become sources of national concern.4 In 2009, the private possession of handguns was curtailed. Licensing of all pistols and revolvers using centrefire ammunition was capped through 'grandfathering,' with new licences restricted to a limited range of small-calibre .22 rimfire handguns and .177 air pistols.3 5 The possession and use of realistic imitation firearms in a public place is prohibited.6 7 Ireland is an active supporter of the United Nations process to reduce gun injury (UNPoA).8