From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:30:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.155648.28224@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> 
	oscar@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Oscar DeMartino) writes:
>In article <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.  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
>
>	Please explain to me why in the first case, the someone breaking
>	into my home, they will still have "the right to due
>	process under the law" but if I shoot someonein self denfense
>	then "The onus is on *you* to be able to prove your life
>	was threatened"?  This seems to be a bit of a double standard.

Not at all.  You, too, have the right to due process of law.  You have the
right to prove that you acted in self-defence, and if the jury agrees, you
will be acquitted.  Similarly, the burglar has the right to be tried by
a jury of his/her peers, and if they find him/her guilty, they will be
punished.  By taking the law into your own hands, you are depriving them
of their rights.  Now you will probably respond with "tough darts, they
gave away their rights when they entered my house," but that doesn't
always hold up in a court of law.  I admit that I DO NOT KNOW what the
precise legal situation would be.  FRom cases I've read about, I'm
inclined to believe that the criminal has more rights, UNTIL FOUND
GUILTY IN A TRIAL, than one would think.  I do not say this is right.
I think it would be sad for someone to spend time in prison for kiiling
a theif.

>
>>to pleasant situations (and most of the posters have expressed their
>>dislike of this idea).  What you must remember is that once a 
>>precedent has been set for the removal of basic rights, it becomes
>>difficult to stop.  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.
>
>	You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.  You start out
>	talking about an individual protecting themselves, their 
>	property, and/or their family, you then go on to use that
>	argument in bashing the police.  You can not compare these
>	situations in anyway.  The police do and should live by a
>	more stringent set of rules then individuals do in their
>	own homes.  If examples are to be used make sure they apply.

I'm talking about the precedent of forfeiture of rights without due
process.  If you can decide that someone is guilty of a "crime against
society" and punish them for it, without trial by jury, what is to
stop you from being similarly treated?  The example I chose is one that
has received a sufficient amount of media exposure that most people
would be familiar with it.  I feel it is an excellent illustration of
my point.  It *may* also illustrate (depending on how you feel about
its outcome) the fact that "justice" very often has little or nothing 
to do with what is fair; it has very much to to with laws, the way those
laws are worded, and how those words are interpreted (often by those
far removed from the authors of those words).


Again, anyone with *concrete knowledge* of this area of law should post
what they know (conjecture based on common sense does not count).

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
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house