From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:48:14 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug30.153208.20600@midway.uchicago.edu> 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>> False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
>>> from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
>>> them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
>>> members of the human species. 

>> There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
>> it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
>> your valuables.  

> Names of states, please?

I don't have a list of states, but perhaps this blurb on the use of
deadly force in self-defense might be helpful: 

   Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, US Dept. of Justice, 1989

   In all States, citizens may use deadly force if they reasonably
   believe their life is in danger. However, the danger must be
   _imminent_ and _immediate_ [my emphasis]. For example, if an
   intruder in a dwelling pulls a gun, a confronted person has reason
   to assume he or she is in imminent and immediate danger of losing
   his or her life. If the same person encounters the intruder peacefully,
   several hours after leaving home, no imminent and immediate danger
   would exist, so deadly force at that time would not be justified.
   In most States, if the assailant is provoked, the use of deadly
   force is not justified.

   In some circumstances, citizens may use deadly force to protect their
   surroundings, their belongings, or a third party. Whether or not a
   citizen is legally entitled to use deadly force to protect his or
   her dwelling varies from State to State. In some States, forced entry
   is enough to indicate that an inhabitant is in _imminent_ and
   _immediate_ danger that justifies deadly force. In other States,
   the intruder would have to attack directly or threaten an inhabitant
   before deadly force would be justified. Generally, a trespasser
   is not considered to pose a direct threat to life. Therefore, deadly
   force against a tresspasser is not usually justified. 

   If an assailant is attacking a third party, a citizen may be justified
   in using deadly force if the third party is in _imminent_ and
   _immediate_ danger of losing his or her life, provided the third
   party did not provoke the attack.

   In most States, a citizen is not justified in using deadly force to
   protect property. However, some States do allow the use of some
   type of physical force to protect property.

   Each State distinguishes when a citizen may use deadly force as
   compared to physical force. Deadly force usually refers to any
   force that is intended to cause death or serious physical injury.
   Physical force refers to all force directed at another person
   including confinement but is not intended to be lethal. 



Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion