Situation: You're living the the middle of no-where, farming your land. In the middle of the night, thieves poison your gaurd dogs, and attempt to steel your entire flock of sheep. If you call the police, they won't arive on time, because you live to far away. You yell at them telling them to leave you land, but they ignore you. You fire a warning shot at the tresspassing thieves. You miss, accidently killing one of the thieves. What should the punishment be? ******************************************* 02-15-07, 12:56 AM DorianGreyed Assuming that you have given us all the pertinent facts, I think involuntary manslaughter is the proper charge. The farmer's life was not in danger, and the farmer did not act with due diligence in discharging his weapon. Generally speaking, in the US, killing another when life or limb is not in immediate danger is a crime. Any time you fire a weapon, the damage caused by your action is your responsibility. If the farmer was defending his own or his family's life, a different situation than the one you describe, killing an attacker would almost certainly be justified. But that is not the situation given.
02-15-07, 06:45 AM Elexina You have the right to intervene to protect yourself or the life of another, but not your property. Not by taking a life. In the U.S. I'm not sure what the laws are in other countries. And I'm not saying I agree.
02-15-07, 09:41 AM newnickname As DG and Elexina say, you can't go blazing away when your life is not in danger, just to protect your property. Human lives are more important than ownership of sheep.
In the UK you might be charged with murder, manslaughter or 'grievous bodily harm' - Farmer cleared of shooting intruder outside his home - depending on the circumstances. You'd have to convince people of your intentions, that you only meant to warn for example, which might not be easy.
I wonder if this is more like the context of Leppi's story, however, than an isolated incident in Canada, the US or the UK. If we're talking about disputed territory in Palestine, and feuds between Israeli and Palestian farmers, that's a whole different set of issues.
02-15-07, 09:45 AM coldfuse Involuntary manslaughter, in North Carolina, is a Class F Felony with a sentence of 10 - 49 months.
02-15-07, 12:11 PM newnickname It's impossible, it seems, to find a website on this that doesn't lean to one side or the other, but anyway, since 2000 perhaps 4,411 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been violently killed. In that kind of situation there might be genuine fear for your life if there's anyone snooping around your property, no matter what they're doing. It's a different context. 02-15-07, 12:39 PM Kendor And let's note that Leppi's question was "What should the punishment be, and not "What would the punishement be?"
Seems it is a question of opinion and not law.
Me, I'd have shot the other guy and buried them both, in my middle of nowhere. 02-15-07, 01:46 PM DorianGreyed Illinois Law
Homicide and Suicide
• Homicide is the unlawful killing of another human being. There are several types of homicide such as:
1. murder, 2. manslaughter, and 3. reckless homicide.
• All forms of homicide are felonies.
• Murder is the unlawful killing of another with intent to kill and may be divided into subcategories by degree of seriousness.
1. First degree murder is killing someone with intent to kill or to cause great bodily harm, or knowing that one's actions will cause death or create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.
Punishment: 20 to 60 Years in penitentiary Or Natural Life or death Penalty
2. Second degree murder is similar to first degree murder, except at the time of the killing the offender has the unreasonable belief that the killing is justified, or the offender is acting under an intense and sudden passion resulting from being provoked.
Punishment: Fine Up to $25,000 and/or 4 to 20 Years in penitentiary
3. Manslaughter and reckless homicide differ from murder because these crimes do not require proof of intent. Under Illinois law, involuntary manslaughter is unintentionally killing another person while engaged in an action that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the action is done recklessly.
Punishment: Fine Up to $25,000 and/or 2 to 5 Years in penitentiary
02-15-07, 02:16 PM newnickname
quote: Me, I'd have shot the other guy and buried them both, in my middle of nowhere.
Mention the US and the shooting of intruders to any of my Japanese students, and they'll tell you this story:
Having made yourself investigating officer, judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment, and having decided you should waste everybody - what happens if you've made a mistake?
What should the punishment be for so recklessly taking all those powers on yourself? How could Leppi's farmer know for sure what those men he was firing vaguely in the direction of had done?
02-15-07, 03:02 PM DorianGreyed I think we have to assume that Leppi gave us the facts of the situation. Anything else is conjecture, whether it is assuming the situation involves Israeli and Palestian farmers or asuming that the intruders were not stealing the sheep.
Given what we were given, I think a charge of manslaughter is appropriate, but I can't give an eact sentence I feel would be propert without more details.
02-15-07, 03:23 PM clarebear I have to agree with Kendor. I would shoot them. When the police came I would just tell them I felt scared for my life. (which would be true)
I believe a bill was passed in Michigan a few months ago allowing residents to fatally shoot intruders. The original story is here.
In my CCW (carry concealed weapons) class we were told that you can only shoot if you feel threatened for your life. This is usually the case. The family of the victim usually files a civil suit against you. These rarely win.
02-15-07, 03:29 PM clarebear I found it. It passed 10/01/06
quote: Originally posted by clarebear: I have to agree with Kendor. I would shoot them. When the police came I would just tell them I felt scared for my life. (which would be true)
I just wouldn't recommend BURYING them! Wink
02-15-07, 03:42 PM clarebear As for the punishment, I think you should have more gun range training. You shouldn't have missed any of them.
02-15-07, 07:31 PM JohnGalt If it happened in the United States, it depends on which state where the hypothetical shooting occurred.
Despite the claims by some who are implying or even saying that the use of deadly force by the victim to protect their property (especially on the victim's domicile) is illegal all the time in all places, that simply is not true. That may very well be their opinion that crime victims shouldn't have that right. But the facts are different and it all depends on the state. At least Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Dakota (with possibly more) all allow the use of deadly force for the protection of property under certain circumstances.
But your question was what should be the farmer's punishment? My opinion: No matter what charges the D.A. may bring against the farmer, if I were on the jury the farmer would walk with not a single charge against him and if at all possible, he would be awarded a medal for doing society a favor. I'm sure others will have their own opinion of what they would do if they were on the jury. And in the United States, it all comes down to the jury. Get one composed of idiots and a double murderer can walk free to write a book bragging how he did it, cough, cough O.J.! cough, cough. Get one composed of smart people and justice can be served.
02-15-07, 09:51 PM DorianGreyed Having just read the pertinent Michigan law on this, I feel safe saying that, unless the shooter had a reasonable fear of bodily harm to him or someone else, he does not get a free pass to shoot people on his property. I can't speak for the other states that John mentioned, but think that a good reading of the law would show that to be the case in almost every one of them. In order to have that "free" pass, the intruder must be inside the house, dwelling, place of business, attached garage, on the porch, or on the deck, and even then, the owner must be able to convince the prosecutor and/or a jury that he had a reasonable fear of harm to life or limb. I was told by someone from Michigan that the police tell gun owners to pull any shooting victims into the house. They wouldn't say that unless there was a difference in where the shooting victim was when shot.
It seems that John is the one projecting his wants onto the law.
02-16-07, 01:36 AM newnickname In Canada, it seems, the farmer would be on a sticky wicket, too:
'Self defense is a troublesome right. On the one hand, it would seem obvious that all people have - or should have - the inherent right to use force to defend themselves from assault. Criminal codes in many countries include self defense as a legitimate justification for the use of deadly force. On the other hand, the right of self defense threatens the rule of law. It is too easy for revenge or even aggression to be confused with legitimate self defense.
Canadians typically view the debate on self protection as restricted to the United States. The prevailing attitude is that there is no need for self defense in Canada as superior social systems have eliminated these problems. Many Canadians prefer to believe that problems of violent crime are limited to the rather tumultuous republic to the south.
It should come as no surprise that there are surprisingly few organized groups that officially support self defense, even in principle, or that teach self defense in any form. Talk show hosts discuss violence against women for hours without mentioning the possibility of women using physical force to defend against those who seek to assault or rape them. Not only do the police actively discourage self defense in general, but armed self defense is widely considered illegal.
In Canada the topic of weapon use in self defense has been almost completely ignored. Only recently have studies been published that attempted to estimate the frequency with which firearms are used in self defense in Canada. (Mauser 96). A few recent studies have investigated the carrying of weapons by Canadians (Sacco 1995; Kong 1994), while others have examined attitudes towards the use of firearms in self defense (Mauser 1990; Mauser and Margolis 1992). Does Canada differ from the United States with respect to the defensive use of firearms? Although dangerous animals and criminal violence exist in both countries, firearms ownership is not as widespread in Canada.
Unlike the United States, the federal government is responsible for criminal law and the provinces are generally responsible for enforcement - although most provinces rely upon the RCMP to act as the provincial and local police force. This introduces a further element of national uniformity. Despite disavowals by police officials, the Canadian Criminal Code does include the right of citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves (sections 34, 35, and 37).
In Canada, the key provision in the criminal code is that no one may use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that, "he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose." Moreover, the right to use physical force to defend non-family members is more limited than it is in many states, as are a Canadians' rights to repulse trespassers on one's own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes (Sections 24, 40, and 41)...' teapot.usask.ca
Notice that all the above is to do with defence of yourself. The idea that it's OK to kill someone in defence of your property isn't even mentioned.
02-16-07, 01:52 AM newnickname I think John must be referring to stand your ground laws .
But aren't those laws also supposed to be about the defence of people, not property? What they do, it seems, is remove that necessity to show that you 'declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so'. Is self-defense law vigilante justice?
02-16-07, 05:48 AM Lighteningrodd A person should have the right to protect themselves, their family & their property. However we have laws that protect the criminals to do their illegal activities.
So what should the punishment be for the man protecting his property??? There should be none. But realistically speaking he could get life.
02-16-07, 08:59 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
So what should the punishment be for the man protecting his property??? There should be none. But realistically speaking he could get life.
LR Do you have the death penalty for trespass or burglary or theft in your state ? If you don't then by what logic is a landowner entitled to inflict a punishment which is more than the law allows and beyond that which any jury could recommend on finding the accused guilty? Or is it your opinion that there should be the death penalty for offences of unlawfully taking of or of damaging property? If so, at what level of value should it be imposed ? Damage or theft to a value of more than $10 , $100, $1000, $1 million, what?
02-16-07, 09:35 AM newnickname Shoot the guy Yup, the days when you could get the town together and string some drifter up for horse theft are sadly over (except in parts of Alberta).
Going back to the original post, and switching into CSI mode for a moment, what are the chances of a "warning shot" fired in the middle of nowhere killing someone? Is it a "warning shot" if you fire it at them?
Presumably, the farmer had the information that his dogs had been poisoned and his sheep were being stolen before he fired the shot, or those facts wouldn't have been mentioned.
So what was the situation?
You hear plaintiff bleating, you go out and find Old Rover lying in a pool of sick. You see some thieves attempting to steal your flock. That is - they are going away from you (unless they're attempting to steal the sheep via the front room of the farmhouse for a laugh). In what way (unless we're talking about Hebron) are you in danger at that point? Where's the urgency that means a life has to be taken?
The police may not arrive in time to prevent the theft, but isn't it fairly straightforward to track a flock of sheep? Or. even later on, to watch the pawnshops and see who brings in hot sheep to fence?
02-16-07, 10:06 AM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Having just read the pertinent Michigan law on this, I feel safe saying that, unless the shooter had a reasonable fear of bodily harm to him or someone else, he does not get a free pass to shoot people on his property.
I realize that those who are intellectually honest and/or mentally sound know that I never said people had "a free pass to shoot people on...[their] property." DG on the other hand is either being purposefully deceitful in altering what I said or has psychiatric problems that make it impossible for him to differentiate the phrase he came up with from, "[certain states] allow the use of deadly force for the protection of property under certain circumstances," which is what I actually said.
And to reiterate, there can be, and often is, a difference between what the law says should be the punishment and what a jury decides. Like it or not, in the end, the jury gets the final word. To paraphrase Churchill, our jury system is the worst form of justice there is, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I was told by someone from Michigan that the police tell gun owners to pull any shooting victims into the house. They wouldn't say that unless there was a diference in where the shooting victim was when shot.
Doing this is altering evidence and is a crime that even this libertarian takes a dim view upon. Doing something like this most likely will get you in additional trouble above that which you may or may not already be in.
Believe it or not, criminals are capable of killing you outside your house. Because of this if you truly fear for your life or grave bodily injury outside your home, using deadly force outside is acceptable by most rational states and people. You irrational people, however, are free to do nothing other than sympathize with your murderer while he is killing you outside your house. I'm sure the police will make sure they do a great job of drawing a real nice chalk outline around your body. I guess you'll have the last laugh then, huh?
02-16-07, 11:00 AM dance girl I'm surprised leppi hasn't come back yet to clarify the situation, as several of you were asking what the actual situation was. However, I think she may be busy with exams.
This was the case she was referring to, and it took place in Israel. She had a better link, but I couldn't find it again.
02-16-07, 11:04 AM DorianGreyed Show us the laws that back up what you say, John. We are speaking of the defense of property, not the defense of self or family. I didn't read all of the link that Clare provided, but what I read seemed to show that any lethal defense of property outside of a man's home, porch, deck, place of business, occupied vehicle, etc. must be tied to the defense of person. If that fits the "certain circumstances" that you mention, then what you say doesn't contradict what I said in my first post. If you have to include personal defense, then that isn't within the scope of this thread. Nothing was said about the farmer having a reasonable fear of any personal attack.
******** I'm sorry if you read my post about the free pass as implying that you used the words. However, I think a reasonable reading of what I said shows that there was no such intent. ******** I do want to thank John for not somehow making some connection to Teddy Kennedy or one of the Clintons. (So far, at least.) It's nice to read a Galt post that doesn't have some sort of reference to one of them, regardless of the subject matter.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 02-16-07 10:38 AM
02-16-07, 11:09 AM coldfuse Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
02-16-07, 11:45 AM DorianGreyed Thanks, Fuse. I thought that Texas would be the one most likely to have such laws.
02-16-07, 12:01 PM newnickname Thanks for the link, dance girl. So the farmer fired three warning shots into the rustler's back?
02-16-07, 12:07 PM dance girl NNN, I know there is a much better link than this one..I'll let leppi come back and explain.
The link she gave me was in Hebrew and I don't have it now anyway.
She did say that there was a general outrage at the charges and that this farmer had lost whole flocks of sheep to rustlers in the past, and that the police had done nothing.
02-16-07, 12:51 PM frankvan The next time I fire two or three warning shots into someone's back when they are fleeing with property they appear to have stolen from my premises, I'll call on Fred or some other legal professional to advise me. I don't think I'd want to rely on either Kendor or John Galt getting on the jury. Roll Eyes
02-16-07, 12:59 PM Kendor Frank, if you had shot and killed a man that had poisoned your dogs, (first line of protection for many farmers), and stolen your sheep, (part of a farmers livelyhood), I would vote to acquit you. Why wouldn't you want me on your jury?
02-16-07, 01:07 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli:
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
So what should the punishment be for the man protecting his property??? There should be none. But realistically speaking he could get life.
LR Do you have the death penalty for trespass or burglary or theft in your state ? If you don't then by what logic is a landowner entitled to inflict a punishment which is more than the law allows and beyond that which any jury could recommend on finding the accused guilty? Or is it your opinion that there should be the death penalty for offences of unlawfully taking of or of damaging property? If so, at what level of value should it be imposed ? Damage or theft to a value of more than $10 , $100, $1000, $1 million , what?
How about the right to self protection???!!! Someone who is illegally on your property, you don't know if they are armed...Why should the property owner be in the position of waiting to be attacked first???
02-16-07, 01:49 PM babthrower Originally posted by JohnGalt: ...in the United States, it all comes down to the jury. Get one composed of idiots and a double murderer can walk free ... Get one composed of smart people and justice can be served.[/QUOTE]
Substitute 'people whe believe as I do' for 'smart people' above, and the statement is true enough. But what are the odds that this will happen? (Even if the case wouldn't go to appeal?)
Well, judging by the 'representative sample' of this thread, you have a way, way better chance of winning the lottery. Wink
So beef up your homeowner's insurance and let the guy take the stuff. But discreetly photo him doing it, as an aid to the cops.
Then the cops come and are pissed off, because they have to file a report so you can claim the insured value of the stolen stuff, and they don't like paperwork. So they say, "What, you just sat there and watched them do it? You didn't open the door and yell at them, 'Hold it right there, Wenzel! I see you and I'm calling the cops!' Then they would have run away and there would be no crime to report."
To which you reply, with a virtuous air, "Oh, no ossifer, that would have been confrontational! That would have escalated the violence! The Perp would then have tried to prevent me phoning by charging me and I would have had to slam my door closed and that would have likely caught his arm and caused an injury!
So, no, here's his photo, sic 'im, that's your job, meantime please do the paperwork so I can get my claim in early. Can't wait to go shopping!
And you'd never have to face a jury. And pay a lawyer!! Frown
(Hey, this is an excuse for more fun shopping! special film, cameras, night vision goggles,etc.!)
The above is for our context.
If my sheep were stoled by people who poisoned my dogs in preparation for robbing me, in a place where police took no action against sheep thieves, I'd shoot them, too. I remember my dad saying that of a litter of ten pigs raised to marketing age, one pig was the profit. So with tight margins, as you have in difficult terrain, thieves can threaten the livlihood of the family.
02-16-07, 02:17 PM aminator2002 Shoot them in the feet next time. 02-16-07, 02:23 PM Koz
quote: Shoot them in the feet next time.
Bad idea Ami. If the suspect is wounded and has a concealed weapon (In particular a gun) he can turn and kill you with it after being wounded. That is the reason police officers are trained to shoot to kill, not to maim.
My dad used to say, never point a gun at anything you don’t fully intend to kill Wink .
02-16-07, 03:38 PM DorianGreyed "...you don't know if they are armed.
You don't know if they have a nuke, either, and have threatened to set it off if anyone shoots at them. You could be responsible for the worst disaster (after the bush administration) to ever visit the US. Way to go, LR.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 02-16-07 04:43 PM
02-16-07, 03:43 PM DorianGreyed "So the farmer fired three warning shots into the rustler's back?"
Use LR's line of reasoning - The rustler could have been deaf.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 02-16-07 04:42 PM
02-16-07, 04:35 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
So what should the punishment be for the man protecting his property??? There should be none. But realistically speaking he could get life.
How about the right to self protection???!!! Someone who is illegally on your property, you don't know if they are armed...Why should the property owner be in the position of waiting to be attacked first???
He isn't. Provided he has some reasonable grounds, that is reasonable in the light of what he believes the situation to be, he can shoot dead whomsoever he likes (even in Britain). That means that he is in fear of then and there being shot or seriously wounded. The argument than you can shoot someone merely because they are trespassers (which is, in effect what your argument is, since anyone can claim that any trespasser might be armed and so the 'defence' is irrebuttable in any and every case ) is dangerous nonsense and gives every householder the right to kill anyone, dangerous or innocuous. The common law would hold that he has no such right (but then that's based on centuries of human experience, so may not mean much Wink ).
As to sentence: circumstances alter cases. However in England I'd expect this man to be facing 8 years. We take a dim view of people who use firearms nowadays. He hasn't got even the beginnings of a valid, if mistaken, reason. After all, his best line is that he intended someone to think that they would be shot dead or seriously hurt and that at a time when he had the means to inflict such an injury.(Moreover the motive for his action is that of safequarding his property, not safeguarding his family or himself). It's not much of a mitigation to claim, in these circumstances, that when the death happened it was utterly beyond his contemplation or foresight.He evidently contrived not to fire straight up in the air but at such a level that someone could be hit.
In England, of course, we are not keen on anyone having a gun in the house.If this was a shotgun and the man a farmer that view would be less severe , his having a valid reason for having such a gun (in which case it would be licensed under conditions relating to storage). If it were a rifle then he'd be in very serious trouble indeed.
02-16-07, 05:46 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Way to go, Kendor.
I have no idea why you typed that sentence.
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Use Kendor's line of reasoning - The rustler could have been deaf.
That wouldn't make the thief any less of the piece of feces that he is.
02-16-07, 05:52 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Shoot them in the feet next time.
Why? So he can steep his anger and nurture his criminal mind in prison? He'll just get out in a few years and commit probably an even worse crime. Rehabilitation in prison is more hopeless than you ever agreeing with anything I say.
02-16-07, 05:59 PM DorianGreyed I inadvertantly typed your name, Kendor, when I meant to type LR's. I apologize for that error. I've corrected my mistake.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
See especially the case of John Pritchett, p. 13. ************************************************************ 02-17-07, 04:47 AM FredPuli The bill in Bab's link, a fine example of a legislator trying to make law by tabloid headline and get himself lots of publicity, failed to get support when the various lawyers in the House and the Law Officers pointed out what the common law said.There is some extraordinary misconception that householders and others can't ever kill burglars and robbers. (Tony Martin's case, cited in the link, was played up into a grotesque attempt to get public support for a man who was a mentally disturbed cold-blooded murderer.It prompted the bill in the link. His own counsel was later to say that Martin had no tenable argument for self-defence. Of course that did not stop this same counsel pursuing that line with great skill and vigour at the trial Wink. You couldn't fault the skill of the tabloid press in grossly distorting what the evidence was at the trial and so portraying Martin as some poor innocent Roll Eyes )
My own favourite is not cited in the link. Some men tried to hold up the owner of a gun shop. To their great surprise his assistant pulled a gun from the display and shot one of them dead. The prosecution service did not even bother to prosecute. It's a favourite because you do have to wonder about the thinking of someone who tries a hold- up in a gun shop! On Darwinian principles you can't help but think that removing that man's genes from the gene pool was a good evolutionary step. The human race is already stupid enough without our breeding more as stupid as that Big Grin
02-17-07, 07:59 AM dance girl
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: On Darwinian principles you can't help but think that removing that man's genes from the gene pool was a good evolutionary step. The human race is already stupid enough without our breeding more as stupid as that Big Grin
I can never miss the opportunity to recommend a book Fred. " The Darwin Awards " are true stories dedicated to such people. Many of them, through their own stupidity, have been removed from the gene pool.
02-17-07, 08:33 AM
Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "...you don't know if they are armed.
You don't know if they have a nuke, either, and have threatened to set it off if anyone shoots at them. You could be responsible for the worst disaster (after the bush administration) to ever visit the US. Way to go, LR.
Actually DG the worst disaster is not what the Bush Administration has done. The real disaster is what the Democrats and their willing news media accomplices have done to sabotage & under-cut the Bush Administration at every turn. The lies & distortions made by The Presidents political enemies have successfully played right into the terrorists hands. When the Democrats won back their power, the enemies of the United States won as well.
02-17-07, 08:59 AM coldfuse Before this thread started, did you know exactly what the law where you live had to say about deadly force in defense of your property? If you move somewhere else, are you going to make sure to thoroughly research the matter there before taking up residence?
Fact is, most of us are simply going to do what we're going to do when someone comes onto our property to commit a crime. Some will retreat in fear, letting the criminal do whatever he wants. Some will call the police or take a picture, which will probably get lost in the paper mill at the precinct. Some will confront the criminal, hoping to scare him away. Of course, that person would be wise to carry a weapon. And, if the criminal just sits there and laughs at you, I can easily envision a situation where additional force might come into play. What would you do, and how do you know that's what you would do in the emotion of the moment?
By the way, are the police entitled to use deadly force in defense of your property?
02-17-07, 09:04 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by dance girl: I can never miss the opportunity to recommend a book Fred.
Oh, you're a fan, too? I find the stories oddly comforting.
Actually, Cold, I did know, because I took the Firearm Acquisition course two years ago. You learn all kinds of neat things, like the difference between the dabbling ducks and the diving ducks. And the quickest way to clean a gun after firing it. (WD40 and a length of plumber's chain and a plodge of clean cloth tied to the end). A mountie explained it to us. (No, not from horseback.) He said, basically, you will need to make a credible case to convince the crown attorney (Canajun for 'prosecutor) that you had reason to fear for your life and acted in self defense. Then they won't bother laying a charge, because you would be found not guilty. If a Crown Attorney finds it credible, a jury will give you a medal.
02-17-07, 11:15 AM newnickname Where have all the heroes gone?
It's kind of sad, reading the pro 'shoot the guy' responses on this thread, to see how the image of the All-American he-man has deteriorated.
When did it become manly to hide behind your curtains and take pot-shots at visitors/intruders with your pistol? Whatever happened to throwing people out of your house with your bare teeth? And what's this obsession with property? "Mine, mine, mine - you can't have my iPod speakers. I'll kill you!" A real man doesn't have any more property than he can carry in his saddle-roll, does he? And if he loses that, he shrugs it off.
What social change, or insidious commercial propaganda, changed the icon?
02-17-07, 11:29 AM Sarai I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with DG that the punishment should be the same as involuntary manslaughter.
Personally, I think that the person should not have shot at the thieves. The person should have either shot up into the air or yelled out at the thieves to stop. The fact that a person was stealing sheep doesn't justify killing them. 02-17-07, 12:40 PM newnickname If it's OK to kill intruders, especially if they're armed and you have reason to fear for your safety, even if they're not yet in your house... And if it's OK to kill people in defence of property, even pre-emptively, when you feel that the police are useless and there's no law and order...
...then should a typical member of the Iraqi insurgency*, on trial for a crime typical of those being committed, walk free?
*I don't mean that small minority of al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, or the (even smaller?) minority of Iranians stirring up trouble for the US in Iraq, much as the US did for the Russians in Afghanistan.
I know the situations aren't exactly the same; it's just a thought. But what is the difference?
02-17-07, 12:46 PM juanruiz What has been lost here, I think, is the original context of the question. If we are talking about the outback of Israel, where one never knows if the next guy is armed or not, and measures were taken by the perpetrators (poisoning dogs) to be successful, that is one thing. If you are talking metropolis America, or small-town America, that is something else. I wouldn't use lethal force to save my snow blower, I would fight the guy who tried to take it, though. As for home invasion, that is a different story.
02-17-07, 01:04 PM frankvan
quote: What would you do, and how do you know that's what you would do in the emotion of the moment?
Fuse has got the right question here. A co-worker of mine many years ago, arrived home unexpected, in the middle of the night. He was surprised to find his wife in bed with a local policeman. The cop's revolver, trousers etc. were on a chair by the door. my friend Ben picked up the gun and stood locking into the eyes of the pair sitting bolt upright in the bed. He says he stood there for several minutes and all three were speechless, and finally he turned and walked out the front door, the revolver still in his hand. He says he walked through the streets of the town for the longest time, before he suddenly realized that he was walking around with a loaded gun, without any attempt to conceal it. When he did, he threw it over someone's fence.
The moral of the story is that, as 'fuse says, "in the emotion of the moment, who knows what they will do?" I think some of you avowed cold-blooded killers are full of baloney. IMHO. Rational people don't take a human life if there is any way to avoid it.
02-17-07, 02:38 PM babthrower I think technology and morality are involved together intimately here, as usual. In the old days, rifles and shotguns were for hunting and defending one's lifestock against wild animals. You wouldn't confront a human being with a weapon. Men would confront other men with their fists, and women and men alike would use challenging behavior at the point of dispute |(for example one's property line). Kids imitated their parents. Schoolyard fights were simply to establish dominance. No one carried a revolver except army officers: they were useless because rifles had a greater range. When weapons were used, as in the famous case of the Black Donnelleys in southern Ontario, the police were called in to restore order. When the police failed, forces in the community restored order. As they finally did here. This was very rare.
Canada was a policed nation from the outset. The North West Mounted (later the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) preceded settlement all the way to the west coast.
So we grew up believing that only outlaws used guns against humans; that revolvers were the coward's weapon; and that guns were merely a tool, like any other tool.
The American view of weaponry seems quite different. To many Americans, the handgun is a holy icon, a symbol of freedom and independence, and every firearm is sacred. With it the intrepid frontiersman protects property and family against enemies, including outlaws and the Indians from whom the settlers were stealing land.
So when statistics showed that the well-armed Americans were killing each other off at a much faster rate than the virtually unarmed Canadians, the Canadians concluded that arms - particularly the very convenient and easily concealed handgun, were more trouble than they are worth, and are way too easily accessed by a hothead during q domestic or neighborhood dispute; and so in 1935 handguns were outlawed except under strict circumstances, and even rifles and shotguns were controlled to some extent.
Americans viewed the same statistics in a completely different way. The increasing death rate from gunfire (including suicides and murder-suicides within families) 'proved' to them that what was needed was more, not fewer guns. Every room in the house needed at least one. Women should carry purse guns. Family memebers needed one under each pillow at night. Businesses had a stock of arms in case of robberies. (And when the theives surprised their victims, they stole their arms, too.)
Now Canadians are in trouble, because hand guns and automatic weapons are being smuggled into Canada from the U.S. by 'bad guys' at an increasing and alarming rate, especially in the Toronto and Vancouver areas.
I like the Canadian method, which creates a strong deterrent against reckless and overly-macho use of firearms. I think it's sickening that someone going to a neighbor's house at night could be shot because he/she was mistaken for a burglar.
But I know that a Canadian, in true fear of his/her life, will use a weapon for self-protection even if he/she may be in legal jeopardy as a result: "Better judged by twelve than carried by six", as they say. We just won't use a weapon as cavalierly as do our neighbors to the south.
And Americans now have a car-weapons arms race. The simple handgun in the glove compartment is no longer adequate. Road-rage killings are on the increase, and one's risk for being 'punished' for making a driving error. Now an automatic weapon in a car is necessary. This will impede the downsizing of vehicles to save fossil fuels; but, oh well. Safety first. Confused
02-17-07, 03:00 PM DorianGreyed Nice post, Babs.
02-17-07, 03:57 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Do you have the death penalty for trespass or burglary or theft in your state ? If you don't then by what logic is a landowner entitled to inflict a punishment which is more than the law allows and beyond that which any jury could recommend on finding the accused guilty? Or is it your opinion that there should be the death penalty for offences of unlawfully taking of or of damaging property? If so, at what level of value should it be imposed ? Damage or theft to a value of more than $10 , $100, $1000, $1 million , what?
I think the penalites for our former corrupt Primie Minister's (Benazir and Nawaz) and 90% of the members of our assemblies should be simple. Hang them. By being corrupt in poor country, indrectly results in more poverty and people suffering. Individuals stealing just because they dont have anything to eat, should'nt be called a crime. As far as our actions are concerned when we are being personally robbed, it would vary from situation to situation. I cant think of being calculative in my agression (if any) if a person enters my house. If i do have gun, ill proberbly use it. If the person is stealing my car, i may then think first and proberbly shoot in his feet or in the air.
The situation Lepi described, i think there should not be any punishment for the owner.
02-17-07, 04:59 PM FredPuli By the way: the population of Britain is 60 million. Last year there were 49 people here who were unlawfully killed by firearms. In the previous year there was a scandal because the number was 74.The police mounted a big crackdown, with some evident success: the perpetrators are within quite small areas and the source of the weapons, which are commonly guns that were deactivated or made as replicas or as gas-guns and which have been adapted to fire live ammunition, is comparatively limited. Apparently Americans need guns to protect themselves, as of right. Presumably you have gunfights with every trespasser Big Grin Seriously, it would be interesting to know just how many suspected criminals in the USA are, in fact, shot dead by citizens who claim to be protecting themselves or their property. Anyone?
02-17-07, 06:26 PM newnickname There are probably thousands of websites with different statistics, but...
'For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event.5 Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians.6 To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.' vpc.org
Those notes - '5. Although the SHR offers no information on non-lethal self-defense firearm use, the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) does. What is most striking about the information contained in the survey is how rarely firearms are used for self-defense. The April 1994 Justice Department study Guns and Crime revealed that according to the NCVS only about one percent (62,200) of all victims of violence claimed to have used a firearm of any type (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) to defend themselves. Another 20,300 reported using a firearm to defend their property during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft. (It should be noted however, that all self-defense uses were defined by the survey respondent, and would therefore include all perceived threats as well as legitimate threats.) Also, in these instances it is not known whether the gun was used successfully to stop the crime. In comparison, the study reported, offenders armed with handguns alone committed a record 931,000 violent crimes in 1992. Michael R. Rand, "Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft: Guns and Crime," Crime Data Brief (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, April 1994).
6. FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1978-1998. In 1998,there were 191 civilian justifiable homicides in the United States according to the FBI SHR. Of these, 145 involved a handgun. Of these handgun justifiable homicides, 12 were committed by women, 121 were committed by men, and 12 were committed by people whose gender was not reported.'
It makes sense that self-defence with a gun is rare. Guarding your property with a gun is surely a 24/7 job; it's no good having a gun if you're caught taking a shower. What do you do? Crouch behind the sofa all day and night with a gun, a potty and a big bag of Cheezies, waiting for a burglar?
02-17-07, 08:30 PM dance girl
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: It makes sense that self-defence with a gun is rare. Guarding your property with a gun is surely a 24/7 job; it's no good having a gun if you're caught taking a shower. What do you do? Crouch behind the sofa all day and night with a gun, a potty and a big bag of Cheezies, waiting for a burglar?
Which is why gated communities are so appealing to our neuroses.
02-18-07, 01:38 AM DorianGreyed But where's the fun of owning a gun if you can't shoot someone who you think may look like he might possibly be thinking of intending to do you bodily harm?
Also, the guy, because of all the recent thefts, decided to sleep in the field with his flock, and shot the intruders as they were climbing over the fence.
I don't know how much this is true because I don't have a confirmed source, but I was told that the intruder who died, was shot in the leg, but bled to death because it took so long for hlep to arrive.
02-18-07, 02:15 AM ProfessorHere's an anecdotal listing of some, er, heroic cases of shots fired by would-be victims: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog. Only in America...
Pity the case of the 88 year old Atlanta woman recently killed by police (story) after they stormed her home on a "no-knock" warrant based on a bogus tip from an informant. She managed to wound three of her 'intruders' before she was killed by police return fire. Neighbors said she was armed for fear of crime.
I recall an item in the 1980s in The New England Journal of Medicine that gun owners are more likely to be killed by their own weapon than to successfully foil a home invasion. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) tried to get involved with gun control research in the 1990s but it became a political hot potato & then I lost track of it. Apparently, though, they're still plugging away.
Some say Britain's increase in crime is a result of disarming the populace. One advocate of this view is U.S. history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm...Whatever Malcolm may think, there's no direct correlation between weapons restrictions and crime. As she points out, the UK began requiring gun permits in 1920 and in 1953 prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, even things like Mace. While a slow rise in the UK crime rate began in the mid-1950s, the rate didn't increase sharply until the 80s. Handguns were banned altogether in 1997.
But then contrast that with Canada where millions of people own guns but, as explained in Michael Moore's 2002 Bowling For Columbine, the per capita rate of gun violence is much lower in Canada than in the US. The 'gun culture' is unique to the US.
quote:
Originally posted by FredPuli: ...guns that were deactivated or made as replicas or as gas-guns and which have been adapted to fire live ammunition...
When Mad Magazine was all the rage among the sophisticated intelligentsia -- of my youth -- they did a parody of a gun magazine including an advertisement for WW2-surplus German Lugers. "100% safe -- all the firing pins have been removed," it proclaimed. Below this ad was a smaller ad: "Firing pins for Lugers -- on sale now!"
02-18-07, 03:52 AM DorianGreyed "...and shot the intruders as they were climbing over the fence."
I'm curious. If the intruders were going to steal the sheep, how were they going to get the entire flock over the fence?
02-18-07, 08:17 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "...and shot the intruders as they were climbing over the fence."
I'm curious. If the intruders were going to steal the sheep, how were they going to get the entire flock over the fence?
Depends on the fence. Wire cutters can snip through many fences. If the fence is really big, a powerful tractor or 4-wheel drive could do the job Big Grin
02-18-07, 11:47 AM DorianGreyed OK, got it. For a wire fence, you climb over it to get at the sheep, then cut the wires to get the sheep out. "If the fence is really big", however, you climb over it to get at the sheep, then tear it down to get the sheep out.
02-18-07, 12:23 PM frankvan I guess wire fences are best cut from the inside of the strands, and they are climbed backwards, that accounts for being shot in the back while climbing in, since there seems no need for climbing on the way out???? Confused
02-18-07, 12:30 PM FredPuli Prof: We do have draconian laws. There's an automatic five year jail sentence for anyone over 21 who is found in unlawful possession of a gun. Mr Blair wants this extended to cover anyone age 17 or older. It is true that 'firearm offences' overall have increased over the last 15 years or so but we have to put that in perspective. We call 'firearms offences' anything which is a crime involving a firearm, even simple possession.In the year 2004/5 the total of all such offences was just over 8,200
The control of guns is a question of control of supply and one of culture. In Britain it is utterly unthinkable that anyone normal would want to have a gun. We simply don't think that way e.g. I farm and don't even have a shotgun. When possession of handguns was outlawed here there was no fuss: owners were compensated, but the fact is that there were very few people,those very few who were pistol target shooters, who ever had occasion to use a pistol.That in itself restricts the market.It means that there are far fewer guns out there to fall into the wrong hands. The other aspect of culture is that young men in deprived areas may think that a gun is some proof of being tough and make it a desirable accessory or they may fall into the company of drug dealers who encourage the possession of a gun (not currently everyday, as explained below but as and when ). To a degree draconian laws and good policing can restrict that , particularly the former,but might never remove it altogether, in which case the answer lies in improvement in conditions, social education and work to stop youngsters getting in to this way.So far in Britain this remains a small, but important, fact and the attitude is confined to small areas and small numbers in London and Manchester.
The figures for a country of this size are still modest compared to the USA. Even now the 2004/5 figures show that there were 3,369 'slight injuries' from recorded offences involving firearms and 410 'serious injuries'. Injuries reported are undoubtedly much higher than in 1999. The serious injuries recorded in 1998-99 were only 162.
The number of murders with firearms remains low. It is only in tens, not hundreds. Because the figure is so small the percentage increase/decrease can look dramatic. Hence 2004-05 having 78 and 2005-06 having 48.It was that level in 1999 too but freakishly peaked at 90 + in 2001/02.
One immediate effect of our gun laws has been the great increase in the number of 'imitation weapons' used in crime.These are imitation only in the sense that they are replica handguns which may be be adapted to fire bullets This has gone up more than fivefold since 1998 when it was made illegal to have a handgun in any circumstances and all Britons were required to surrender any such weapon in return for some monetary compensation.It's a measure of a) the stupidity of our law-makers in the past (allowing the possession of any deactivated real weapon or any replica that could be adapted to fire anything ) and b)the overall difficulty in obtaining weapons that we have had two or three high-profile cases where the defendants had been selling deactivated or replica guns for activation or activating them themselves for sale.No American criminal would need to go to this trouble: he'd simply get himself a proper handgun. Wink The most recent case, this week, involved a Lithuanian man who was supplying a British dealer with gas-guns that the dealer could convert into effective handguns to fire standard ammunition.The dealer got 10 years.Some weapons in these cases have been tracked to crimes.
Unfortunately it may prove almost impossible to stop guns getting into this country. When the Soviet bloc collapsed there were a lot of weapons out there. One single consignment from Croatia in the 1990s provided weapons used in crimes as far afield as Dublin and the Netherlands as well as Britain. The police rely on the fact that criminals need 'armourers': if you can catch armourers with a cache you can almost stop gun crime in a district 'overnight'. Very few people actually keep a gun: they get one as and when.The penalty for being caught in simple possession of a handgun means that only a rather foolish criminal keeps one lying around at all times.There's no point in that at times when he's not 'working'. That's how we had a few cases of criminals using automatic weapons in London but these stopped suddenly: the police found the source of the guns. Some investigation by undercover journalists this week showed that one 'gang' criminal said he could get the investigator a gun 'given two or three days'(imagine that in the USA). Another investigator was offered, after much riding in cars and being told not to look up, a handgun, a Beretta, for £1500 ($3000) to buy. If he wanted it 'to frighten someone' the rate was £400 ($800)and he would then return it, on demand. If it was used to shoot someone then the supplier would demand the full price (and not want the gun back !) The going rate for a converted imitation gun is said, by the Sunday Times, to be £400-800 ($800-1600 ) Cheapest of all is a handgun that's been used in some crime, at £200. Now that would be a case of 'buyer beware' or ignorance of forensic science Big Grin
02-18-07, 02:25 PM DorianGreyed "Depends on the fence. Wire cutters can snip through many fences. If the fence is really big, a powerful tractor or 4-wheel drive could do the job Big Grin"
Help me out here, LR. They climbed the fence to get the sheep. Then, "(i)f the fence was was really big", climbed back over to get "a powerful tractor or 4-wheel drive" to open the fence up to get the sheep through. Is that how it happened?
If that is how it happened, Frank, that would account for the warning shots in the guy's back. He was just going back to get the truck when the warning shots were fired. Roll Eyes
02-19-07, 01:06 PM DorianGreyed (After reading the last link) So now, instead of a warning shot that accidentally hit someone, we have 4 of 6 shots hitting two different people, both of whom, according to the indictment, were running. That poor farmer really has bad luck, I guess. Who would think that it was possible that 2/3 of one's warning shots could possibly hit two different moving targets? Even more unlikely, we also have "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time", who barks after being poisoned.
But maybe I am being too cynical. I really don't know the societal attitudes and culture in Israel. Perhaps someone could tell me - is it the norm for people in Israel to stand still when someone is shooting at them in the middle of the night (or even in the daytime)?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 02-19-07 12:26 PM
02-19-07, 01:41 PM newnickname There's also this puzzling idea, mentioned in other links, of the farmer giving CPR to someone bleeding to death from a leg wound.
I guess if you're going sheep-rustling in Israel, it's advisable to first learn the Hebrew for "tourniquet".
I doubt if, even after the trial, we'll get the full story. The rustlers and the farmer were the only ones there, and were all in the wrong, in different ways, and are trying to put the best light on their actions.
02-19-07, 01:50 PM babthrower I think we're judging from a safe distance. Here we sit, fat and sassy, where if an intruder enters our home to steal, we can call the police who will respond promptly. So if we have a weapon, we might tiptoe over and get* it, then watch and wait. If the burglar leaves with our goodies before the cops arrive, we're insured. If the intruder then goes to the rooms of our sleeping family, we can switch on the light and point the weapon at him and order him to stop or we'll shoot. If he stops we can order him to leave, which he'll probably be glad to do. If instead he runs for a family member's room, we would shoot, aiming for the thorax, because he is threatening to take a hostage.
But in that hell-hole, sheep stealing doesn't get much police attention, it seems. Yet it's his livelihood. So it's likely he thought he'd give them a reason not to return. Didn't plan to hit any arteries, but that's the risk he took. He's facing many years in prison for manslaughter.
Isn't that sufficient both as a punishment and as a deterrent? --------------------------- *If you're Canadian - tiptoe to the key storage place to get the trigger-guard key - tiptoe to the gun and unlock the trigger guard - tiptoe to the other room where the ammunition key is and get it; bring the gun - tiptoe to the ammunition lock box and unlock it - load the gun - tiptoe to a hiding place and keep your eyes peeled; burglar by now has left, but might return -if the doorbell rings, don't take the gun to answer it; it's likely the police Eek.
02-19-07, 03:17 PM DorianGreyed In spite of what some have said, indicated, or implied, I fail to see how shooting someone in the back (3 times) outside, someone who has neither stolen anything nor harmed or threatened to harm the shooter (or anyone else that the shooter had knowledge), can in any way be considered defending anything. The dog was poisoned a few days before the shooting, and it seems to be a stretch to assume that the shooting victims had anything to do with that. Further, the farmer is a cattle farmer, and it is really hard to see how two men on foot were going to steal his herd of cattle. Making the situation worse for the farmer is that he changed his story during the investigation, and even his revise story doesn't stand up. Firing a warning shot at someone's legs generally doesn't result in 3 wounds to that person's back.
02-19-07, 04:21 PM FredPuli With the benefit of the link: Manslaughter sounds to be the right charge in a place like this seems to be.{Evidently under Israeli law the definition of murder does not include kiling someone when intending only to inflict grievous bodily harm on them.]Any cynical prosecutor might hope to 'cop a plea [of guilty]' to manslaughter and then sit back whilst the defence gives some heart-rending tale of woe to get some minor sentence.We'd run it as murder in Britain but not with any great hope that a jury would find the necessary intent, bearing in mind the nature of the weapon used (if it were a shotgun:the link does not say)and the tale of suffering which the defence would pitch Wink (The opinions in the robing room would likely all be on a manslaughter verdict which means that counsel would confine themselves to betting on the length of time the jury would be out, instead Smile. There are things that go on in London courtrooms that it is better the public don't know. At least they don't start splitting the pool in the open courtroom any more, since a senior judge ruled that unseemly Big Grin ) There is something we call 'jury equity' that comes into play. The jury might think that the intruders should have known that they were running the risk of being shot by some farmer or other (contributory negligence Wink) or might think they deserved to be shot, albeit not fatally: the jury would take a fair bit of persuading to find the accused guilty of the more serious charge.A verdict of manslaughter is an easy and attractive option: it may attract quite a light penalty
02-21-07, 12:27 AM newnickname Some background: Israel's Bedouin
02-21-07, 02:23 AM babthrower Were the sheep stealers Bedouins?
I didn't realize there were so many Bedouins in Israel.
Like any modern state, Israel has to deal with the claims of its indiginous people. Here in Canada, the native people in the prairies who had lived by hunting buffalo began to take free range cattle when the buffalo were gone. The mounties explained to them that these were 'the Queen's buffalo' and they could not kill them.
But quite early we gave them back some of their land in the form of reserves to live on. We also gave them medical care ('the Queen's medicine box') but that didn't come close to compensating for the smallpox they got from us. We gave them free education. Before student grants programs were introduced, the only people entitled to a free university education were the native people. Free education for the rest of us stopped at the end of High School.
So we stopped them taking free range cattle, but we gave them a little something in return.
02-21-07, 09:44 AM babthrower In the sense that the peoples learned to read and could communicate with other reserves and bands, and learn a little about Canada's size and extent, the education was 'a good thing'.
Their orientation was tribal. They traded with bordering tribes but did not travel far beyond their own territory unless on a trading expedition.
But its main purpose was to socialize them to accept the European model of society. I can't say if that was a good thing or not. As with the buffalo/cattle issue, not knowing the system could get you shot. But the purpose was not only that they would understand the European systems, but that they would [/i]internalize[/i] them.
The heavy emphasis on accepting European religion (and the strong repression of aboriginal religion) helped make them submissive. "Jesus died for you, the least you can do in return is accept his will that you were conquered and accept your subordinate condition." Yet that is not what religion taught the Irish.
A man of aboriginal descent in Mexico told me they were taught in Catholic school that no matter how brutal the Spaniards were (e.g. using the Inquiaition to convert by torture and, if that failed, death by burning) they should thank god because now they could get to heaven.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6556 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
