From: callison@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:10:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <199211170651.AA00435@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
#In article <Bxu306.AGz@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> callison@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
##Here's an interesting question...according to some news report or another,
##there's been a rise in burglaries (or, I guess, technically, robberies)
##committed while the residents were at home--and they were purposefully 
##committed while there was someone there. These perps were doing it for 
##feeling of power, and they were bent on harm...
#
#I think that's burglary (entering private property with the intention
#of committing a crime) not robbery (where the intention is theft.)

The distinction between burglary and robbery can get somewhat blurry, 
but as a rule of thumb, if you're there, it's robbery. Robbery is
_generally_ a crime against a person, while burglary is _generally_
a crime against property. There are exceptions either way (under
some circumstances, it's robbery even if the object is out of your
sight), but that's the general picture.

##...and posed a clear and
##present danger. Question: If you catch one of these, and he tries
##to leave, do you shoot him? He poses a clear and present danger, and
##will likely try it again (according to the report), if not with you
##as the target, then with someone else...
#
#Can you be sure of that? Perhaps the experience of being held at gun
#point will reform him. I suspect a court of law would take that
#view: You can not be sure that individual will be a future threat,
#and therefore you are not justified in acting in self-defense.

But, having seen the reports (and, since the figures are compiled
by the US Department of Justice, we may assume that they are
accurate), would you, as a reasonable person, feel that the person
still constitutes a clear and present danger? From what I've been
able to glean, if a reasonable person feels threatened, he's
justified--but what if the threat is not necessarily towards _him?_

##I know the FBI's position is that a Special Agent who witnesses a 
##a robbery is bound to try and apprehend the subject, even though it
##is technically not under FBI jurisdiction; do we, as "a well
##regulated militia," do the same?
#
#The militia has no legal status in this respect. You could hold him
#until the police arived. If he ran away, I think you could legally
#consider this "resisting a citizen's arrest" and use force to
#prevent it _in_some_states_.

I was using the term "well regulated militia" somewhat fecetiously.
(i.e.--It was a joke son, I say, a joke. A funny. A story with a 
humorous climax. OK, so it wasn't a very good one. :-)

##(I think the answer is to shoot, under
##Arizona's laws, but I'm not certain what any other laws are. I think
##that, under Colorado and Oklahoma law, the moment he enters my
##house, he's at my mercy, no matter what he does, so I'd shoot, no
##question. What would _you_ do?)
#
#At least under Colorado law, you might get away with it: Without
#evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that someone in your
#home without your permission is a threat. I'm not sure about 
#cases where evidence suggests there was no threat (e.g. someone
#shot "execution style", shot in the back, etc...)

Of course, this all depends on the judge and jury, and, to some extent,
the DA...(see .sig)

				James

James P. Callison       Microcomputer Coordinator        OU Law Library 
Callison@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu   /\    Callison@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
	constellation!biglaw!callison@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
When asked why he had freed a killer and hung a horse thief, Judge
Roy Bean replied, "In Texas, we got men that need killin', but we
ain't got any horses that need stealin'."