From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:25:56 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <Bt4vz6.CAE@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> 
	wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>In <1992Aug14.181611.23008@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
>>Sorry, but this doesn't wash.  First of all, we have the concept of
>>guilty until proven innocent, generally by a jury of your peers.  Thus
>>if someone breaks a law, it is up to the system to find them guilty.
>>Someone breaking into your house *still* has the right to due
>>process under the law.
>
>That only applies when they are brought into court and charged
>with a crime by the state, David.  A criminal does not have a
>right to due process before force is used against them to halt
>a crime in progress.  The difference is that, in a courtroom,
>there is not a crime in progress.
>
>Would you tell a woman not to use deadly force to stop a rapist
>because there is no death penalty for rape in her state?

Of course not.  Nor am I saying that you should not defend your home.
I am saying that if you should kill the intruder, and in your example
here, if the woman should kill the rapist, you and she are both 
obligated to prove that that action was necessary given the circumstances.
It is my understanding that in such a situation, you (or she) will
have to stand trial and convince a judged and/or jury that your action
was justified in the name of self-defence.  It is possible that the judge/
jury will not agree with you and find you guilty of manslaughter or
such.

>>Sure, if they threaten your life, you can
>>shoot/whatever them in self defence.  The onus is on *you*, though, to
>>be able to prove your life was threatened.  This does not always lead
>>to pleasant situations (and most of the posters have expressed their
>>dislike of this idea).
>
>A criminal intruder in one's home is a threat.  To demand that the
>legitimate occupant of the home accept greater risk in order to
>reduce the risk to the intruder is disgusting.

I make no such suggestion.  I see nothing in my above paragraph that
suggests taking on "greater risk". I do suggest that you will have
to justify your actions in a court of law.  I find this not disgusting,
but a great relief, as it protects me from being killed while in
someone elses's house for legitimate reasons (well, maybe it doesn't
protect me directly, as they could still kill me, but presumably
they will go to jail for it, and not be able to simply claim
self-defence).

>
>>What you must remember is that once a 
>>precedent has been set for the removal of basic rights, it becomes
>>difficult to stop.
>
>You are confused.  The doctrine of "A man's home is his castle" has
>been enshrined in the English common law for hundreds of years.  It
>is the *reversal* of this doctrine which is now giving us problems.
>The basic right to be secure in one's home is under seige and has
>been removed in some jurisdictions.  *That* trend is becoming
>difficult to stop, and the only people who benefit are crooks.
>
>Is that really what you want?

It is true that the constitution pretty much gives us the right to
protect our property (though they had seizure by the government more in
mind, I think).  It does not give us the right to blow away someone
who breaks into our house.  Unless they threatened you and you were
defending yourself, that would be murder.

>
>>Thus, when you get pulled over for drunk driving
>>and the police officer proceeds to beat the shit out of you (not that
>>any such event could happen in this great country of ours) because
>>"you are guilty of a crime against society" [drunk driving] and
>>should therefore "loose [sic] all rights," you might find that idea a
>>little less appealing.
>
>If you are equating the beating of a prisoner in police custody
>with the use of force to neutralize a threat in one's own home,
>it is no wonder that you are confused.

I am not confused.  I was pointing out that the precedent of denying
someone their right to due process has some disturbing potential
consequences.  

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
The heart and the mind on a parallel course, never the two shall meet.
						-E. Saliers