From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:13:44 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug18.075004.411@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> 	Again, here I am deleting reposts of my old stuff.
> 
> In article <1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug17.174422.9520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 	(deleted some stuff)
> 
>>>>Not true. Different tates have different requirements. The norm tends to be you
>>>>must try to use all reasonable alternatives including fleeing. The "Western
>>>>Defense" (called so because it becomes more predominant as you move west across
>>>>the country) states that if you are under a reasonable fear or someone
>>>>attacking you OR your property, you may stop them with deadly force. That can
>>>>be as little as you are afraid they might strike you barehanded.
>>>>
> 	(more deleted)
>>
>>That is what varying state laws say, yes.
>>
>>
> 	(more deleted)
>>
>>No, you ar eboxed in, escape is impossible. Plus, being surrounded by several
>>attackers means you are already fearing for your life.
>>
> 
> 	But, unless I try, I do not know that escape is possible.  You said
> that, on the norm, you must try to use all reasonable alternatives before
> fleeing.  What constitutes a reasonable alternaticve? 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a jury question. Surprise! You have no way of knowing in advance.

Kind of makes you less trigger-happy, huh? 

							I mean, fleeing is
> never *really* impossible (i.e. you could charge through them) Also, if the
> several attackers say "We are only going to take your money, if you do not
> resist, and only hurt/kill you if you do resist."  Could I say that I tried
> every alternative?  Such as:  Giving them what they asked for?  Is that a
> reasonable alternative?  i guess, again, that it depends.  Previously,
> though, i have agreed ewwith the idea that state laws may change the
> situational alloowances.

Yes, it depends.

> 
>>But, let's change it. You are in your home when you hear someone knock on the
>>door. He asks to use your phone. You show him you are armed and let him in, his
>>friend comes up and tells him to hurry up. The first person pulls out a bag and
>>starts stuffing valuables into. You ask him what he is doing, and he says "Do
>>not be alarmed, we will not harm you or interfere with you at all. We are
>>merely robbing your house. We are unarmed, nd will not hurt you. You are free
>>to move about and even leave if you wish." Whereupon the second man comes in
>>and says, "Oh, I just cut the phone line. By the way, nice VCR. I am sure I
>>will get good money for it. Hope you are insured."
>>
>>The start to collect the things they want from your house. You pull out the gun
>>and try to prevent them from leaving. They call your bluff and walk past you.
>>
>>Do you:
>>
>>1. Have to let them go, as they are not threatening you or any other human
>>being?
>>
>>2. Have to right to protect your castle, and have the right to blow them away?
> 
> 3) Act intillegently 9for my area, at least) and simply not let them into
> my home.  Then, if they tried to break in, I would use whatever means
> necessary to deterr them.

Sorry. I am not allowing you to modify my hypo. You have to deal with it as
presented--they are already in.

Further, depending on the state, if they come in unannounced, and reassure you
that they intend no harm to any person, you might not be able to use deadly
force to drive them away.


> 
> 4)  NOT use deadly force, but, instead use less than deadly force to stop
> them.  I don't think it is illegal in any state to kick the shit oput of
> them to get them out of your house if they begin to rob you (and, in your
> scenario, you made their stated intendt pretty clear.  Also, would force be
> allowed for a citizens arrest, assumming that it was justifiable.  After
> all, they are committing a felony, unless, the fact that you invited them in
> makes any difference.  I am also pretty sure that there would be a
> justifiable level of force allowable in any state which can be used to keep
> someone from taking your property.

Ah, but what if you hurt or kill one of them? People can die from a blow to the
head.

Your striking them could be dealdy force, given your military training.


>>
>>Surprise! Trick question! BOTH are valid, depending upon the rule of law of the
>>state you live in.
>>
> Not a very big surprise, actually, as giving the matter any thought would
> have one assume that it all depends on your local laws.  And, also, that
> there are other options.  Many l;evels of action that a person could take.

Sure, like helping them carry it out to the car. What do those issues have to
do with a deadly force argument?

> 
>>Oh, by the way, people who thought they lived in state #2, but were really in
>>state #1, have done some long time.
>>
>>DC
>>
> Sam
> 
> 

DC