From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:11:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) 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.

Doug, why do you post something that effectively refutes what you say?
It may not be constitutional, but maybe that's because no one has tried
to remove that right from the populace at whole. Perhaps the Founding
Fathers thought that the right to protect yourself in your home was
so sacrosanct that it would never even be questioned, much less revoked.
After all, in their days you could call upon a gentleman and duel him
to the death, without legal reparations, for anything that could be
considered an argument. Just some food for thought.

>   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

Your emphasis means nothing in the actual practice in courtrooms. Lawyers
know how to make their clients word their truth so that this is effectively
null, unless there is direct evidence that the alleged perpetrator had
disabled the dead criminal before killing him, say like shooting him
17 times tracking bullets slowly up the limbs, as in knees and ankles
first, to cause the criminal maximum pain. This goes beyond the self-defense
argument. Anything else, when encountering an intruder in the home,
could be considered self-defense, and any lawyer could tell you how
to word your actions to indicate it was self-defense.

...

>   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.

I'd like to see you find a case where an intruder was shot and the homeowner
was tried *and* convicted when six or less shots were fired. WHy
six, because it seems that lawyers and juries believe panic stops at
six or so shots, and most common guns only hold six bullets, so firing
more would indicate reloading. (Good reason not to buy a 17 round magazine
for your Glock, if you're prone to panic:) As for trespasser, is that
defined as someone trespassing on your property, or breaking into your
house?

...

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.