The nightmare that comes true

[SapperSix]

I really hope for the best for the homeowner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31ZpQVILRk&feature=player_embedded&fmt=18

[Caster13]

I support what the woman did.

However, I am absolutely disgusted at the comments to that video. A bunch of people are saying **** about "stupid Americans owning guns and being trigger happy and not civilized, not using all of the options" and all of that bull****.

[animeotaku99]

I would have done the same thing, but I'm sure we all kow that by now. Thank you Castle Doctorine.
In some states you are REQUIRED to leave your home if an intruder coems in and not harm him or her in ANYWAY

[Caster13]

I would have done the same thing, but I'm sure we all kow that by now. Thank you Castle Doctorine.
In some states you are REQUIRED to leave your hoe if an intruder coems in and not harm him or her in ANYWAY

Which I think is bull.

[tenshi_a]

Was that really ok?

I mean, the woman was so panicked that she wasn't thinking straight, and the woman on the phone was kind of egging her on.

For all I could hear he could've been yelling "help!! is anyone home? My house is burning down and my children are inside and I need you to call the fire service!!" or something.

Oh well. I they know the guy was definitely super-bad crazy man now he's dead, yeah?

I mean, like... burglars don't yell and bang on doors, do they?

In some states you are REQUIRED to leave your hoe if an intruder coems in and not harm him or her in ANYWAY

"There's a man banging on the door! He's breaking in!"
"Put your hoe down!"
"what?"

[animeotaku99]

..damn it tenchi stop making fun of my poor typing abilities.

and the man was high on meth. A few months ago a guy in the next town over shot an intruder that was walking into apartments. Everyone else's apartment he went into they just kind of looked at him. But when he went into tis guys place and refused to leave., he got his shotgun, and told him to leave, well the intruder grabbed for the shotgun and got shot. He was acting like he was intoxicated on drugs or alcohol., but, of course, his parents said "My baby don't do drugs! He a good boy" and a lot of liberals think it was racially motivated because the intruder was of Native American descent. The tox screens have really been delayed, but my guess is it was ether meth or pot as the man was unresponsive to commands

[Caster13]

Was that really ok?

I mean, the woman was so panicked that she wasn't thinking straight, and the woman on the phone was kind of egging her on.

For all I could hear he could've been yelling "help!! is anyone home? My house is burning down and my children are inside and I need you to call the fire service!!" or something.

Oh well. I they know the guy was definitely super-bad crazy man now he's dead, yeah?

I mean, like... burglars don't yell and bang on doors, do they?



"There's a man banging on the door! He's breaking in!"
"Put your hoe down!"
"what?"

*buzzer* WRONG.

A guy breaks down the door, into your house, you're alone, you have a gun, you shoot to defend yourself. Simple.

[tenshi_a]

*buzzer* WRONG.

A guy breaks down the door, into your house, you're alone, you have a gun, you shoot to defend yourself. Simple.

That's not shooting to defend yourself, that's shooting to defend your property.

Me, I'd probably be chucking dumbells and giant knives at an intruder, haha. Though knowing how badly built this place is, they'd probably go flying through the wall...

[Caster13]

That's not shooting to defend yourself, that's shooting to defend your property.

...Are you kid..:facepalm:

[Old Ape Face]

That's not shooting to defend yourself, that's shooting to defend your property.

Either way I consider you have the right to defend your Property.

Even though that's not exactly allowed in the UK or am I just talking out of my *** again?

[tenshi_a]

...Are you kid..:facepalm:
Well if all someone's done is break into your house, they aren't immediately a threat. I mean, they probably only want to steal your stuff, not murder you. So, if you attack them, you're more likely to be defending your property, not yourself.

If they attack you, or behave like they are going to, then you're defending yourself.

Either way I consider you have the right to defend you Property.

Even though that's not exactly allowed in the UK or am I just talking out of my *** again?

Yeah, I think you're allowed to defend your property, but it's within reason. You're allowed to stop them, and protect yourself or your family, but you're not allowed to punish criminals or take revenge. Something like that.

[Ridley-X4]

Finish him! FATALITY.

[Old Ape Face]

Well if all someone's done is break into your house, they aren't immediately a threat. I mean, they probably only want to steal your stuff, not murder you. So, if you attack them, you're more likely to be defending your property, not yourself.

And so you are not allowed to defend your property when obviously he's breaking in to rob you?

Sorry but I work hard for my stuff, I'm not going to give up trying to stop the guy from running off with my stuff just because he hasn't attacked me first.

[f2akid]

I don't see why the woman couldn't have just pointed the gun at the guy and told him to get out. If he rages forward like he's going to kill her after she's tried that then she's justified in shooting, otherwise she wasn't provoked to shoot the guy in my eyes. If he was there to steal stuff she could easily threaten him with the gun and tell him to stay where he is and even tie him up for the feds to come get him. Pretty cowardly for me and it just goes to show people with unstable personalities shouldn't be allowed near a gun, American or not.

[tenshi_a]

And so you are not allowed to defend your property when obviously he's breaking in to rob you?

Sorry but I work hard for my stuff, I'm not going to give up trying to stop the guy from running off with my stuff just because he hasn't attacked me first.

I didn't say you weren't allowed to, I just wanted to make the distinction between person and property. You are not your house. You shouldn't say "I was defending myself" when someone breaks in, you should say "I was defending my property". Simple as that. ^_^

[Siendra]

The comments on that video make me hate the world a little bit more. I'm a pretty big advocate of gun control, and even I don't see a problem with this. She's a 57-year old woman home alone and some guy for all intents and purposes was breaking into her home. She was already on the phone with the 911 operator meaning police would have already been dispatched. I can't see how she had any other real options.

I mean, sure, she could have threatened him or warned him first, but working within the realm of reality I don't expect her to really be thinking that clearly when terrified.

[willag]

Was that really ok?

I mean, the woman was so panicked that she wasn't thinking straight, and the woman on the phone was kind of egging her on.

For all I could hear he could've been yelling "help!! is anyone home? My house is burning down and my children are inside and I need you to call the fire service!!" or something.

Oh well. I they know the guy was definitely super-bad crazy man now he's dead, yeah?

I mean, like... burglars don't yell and bang on doors, do they?"

Just from this video, here's what we know: the man was trying to break into her home. That is reason enough nowadays to defend yourself.

Frankly, you can't really hear what he's saying, but let's just play with the idea that he was screaming for help. Ideally, if someone was crying for help, you wouldn't have to think twice about opening the door for them and offering your help. I would hate to be put in that situation, because I don't know what I'd do. I'd like to help, but for my own safety I probably wouldn't go near the door. Why? You don't know the person's intentions even if they're crying pleas, or the person attacking them might go after you as well. Besides, if they are that loud, you could rely upon your neighbors to help them instead (perhaps someone better equipped at protecting him/herself). Unless if I could actually see the person was hurt or that a house was burning outside my window, I probably wouldn't open it.

But in this situation, the news media reports that he was yelling threats and that the situation went on for 10 minutes. Under normal circumstances, a person who needs help wouldn't stay around for that long.

In any case, he tried to break into her house. Under any situation that gives her the right to defend herself. How a person does that is up to him or her. People b**ching about her killing the man instead of just wounding him are ignoring some several key things: 1) she's 57 years old and wouldn't stand up in a physical match; 2) he had been threatening her for near 10 MINUTES; 3) he picked up a patio table and threw it at a glass door in order to enter her house. He was dangerous. Shooting to kill is the only way you can guarantee your safety (by only wounding the person, he still could have been able to attack her). She clearly understood the consequences of her situation with her own turmoil about having to shoot him, so it's not like she's some gun-toting, happy shooter. Under the circumstances, she made the best decision to protect herself.

That's not shooting to defend yourself, that's shooting to defend your property.

Semantics. Fine, her body is her own property and he has no right to harm it. If he's going far enough to yell and scream obscenities at her for 10 minutes and using physical force to break into her house, then there's a ******* high possibility that he's GOING TO CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM TO HER. And if he was only high off of drugs or drunk and didn't know what he was doing? That's his own ******* fault. I don't give a **** to the reason why, he was threatening harm to a 57-year old woman who was living alone. I say, "Go girl". I feel more sorry for her for having to be forced into shooting a man (she was obviously shaken and in turmoil over killing him).

[tenshi_a]

Fair enough, all I had to go on was that little clip that was posted in the OP. It wasn't clear whether or not he was a super-crazy bad man, but if he'd been threatening her for 10 minutes, and then chucked a patio table through her window, that makes it totally clear.

[Jack_Bauer]

Well, she had every right to protect herself. She sounded really distraught and this will scar her for the rest of her life im sure. Most people cannot stomach the fact that they've killed someone. I hope the best for her as well.

[Ridley-X4]

A live like the one of that man, if lost, is nothing. It is even an improvement, if he was a meth-head.

[MirKz]

Moral of the story, use a silencer.. dispose of body.

[Shiroiyuki]

See, this is why I'm glad to be poor. No one wants to break into this piece of crap place.

We'd have to tag along to their next stop just to make it worth the while.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

If they attack you, or behave like they are going to, then you're defending yourself.

Yeah, I think you're allowed to defend your property, but it's within reason. You're allowed to stop them, and protect yourself or your family, but you're not allowed to punish criminals or take revenge. Something like that.

A few words on Private Defence in English Law:

Sorry about the length of the quote, but it was all good stuff so I left it in. Please do read it:

Sigismund Palmer v R [1971]

In their Lordships' view the defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury.]It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. It requires no set words by way of explanation. No formula need be employed in reference to it. Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. Of these a jury can decide. It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have a avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence. Of all these matters the good sense of a jury will be the arbiter. There are no prescribed words which must be employed in or adopted in a summing up. All that is needed is a clear exposition, in relation to the particular facts of the case, of the conception of necessary self-defence. If there has been no attack then clearly there will have been no need for defence. If there has been attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence, where the evidence makes its raising possible, will only fail if the prosecution show beyond doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence. But their Lordships consider, in agreement with the approach in the De Freitas case (1960) 2 W.I.R. 523 , that if the prosecution have shown that what was done was not done in self-defence then that issue is eliminated from the case. If the jury consider that an accused acted in self-defence or if the jury are in doubt as to this then they will acquit. The defence of self-defence either succeeds so as to result in an acquittal or it is disproved in which case as a defence it is rejected. In a homicide case the circumstances may be such that it will become an issue as to whether there was provocation so that the verdict might be one of manslaughter.

There is no duty to retreat (that is you don't have to run away from your attacker before you fight back) although if you do it will be very good evidence that you didn't want to fight. And if you killed someone then you probably really want to convince the jury that you didn't actually want to kill them.

R v Bird [1985]

“It is scarcely consistent with the rule that it is permissible to use force, not merely to counter an actual attack, but to ward off an attack honestly and reasonably believed to be imminent. A demonstration by [the defendant] at the time that he did not want to fight is, no doubt, the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self-defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances so act without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing; and he should have a good defence.”

We respectfully agree with that passage. If the defendant is proved to have been attacking or retaliating or revenging himself, then he was not truly acting in self-defence. Evidence that the defendant tried to retreat or tried to call off the fight may be a cast-iron method of casting doubt on the suggestion that he was the attacker or retaliator or the person trying to revenge himself. But it is not by any means the only method of doing that.

On defence of property

R v Martin

A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property

In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

It just so happened that Martin had not been reasonable, he shot two fleeing men in the back with a shotgun he wasn't allowed to have (his license was revoked for shooting at passing cars) and went and hid it in his mother's cupboard. He did though succeed in a defence of diminished responsibility (he came up with fresh psychiatric evidence that suggested that he "suffered from a paranoid personality disorder and so consequently might have perceived a greater danger to his physical safety than the average person" and was reduced from murder to manslaughter)

Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 1983

The case arose in the following way. The defendant is a man of good character aged 40 at the material time. He owned a shop in an area where on two nights during July 1981 there was extensive rioting.
...
On the night of 11–12 July 1981, £600 worth of damage was done to the defendant's shop and £400 worth of his goods were looted.

He was justifiably in fear that he and his property might be the subject of further attack. So much so, he had had his shop boarded up and protected by fire resistant paint. He had bought 22 fire extinguishers at a cost of some £200. On 13 July he equipped himself with three containers of sulphuric acid (the subject of count 3) intending, if necessary, to spray any attacker therewith. On the same day he made ten petrol bombs and placed them on the upstairs landing of the shop. These bombs were conceded to be explosive substances. In the event the expected attack never materialised.

When questioned by the police some five months later, the defendant gave a full account of his actions, which he confirmed in evidence before the Crown Court. He described his state of mind and intentions as follows:

'My intentions were to use them purely to protect my premises should any rioters come to my shop. I thought I would be able to throw a petrol bomb from my office window onto the pavement to keep them away from my shop. I had no intention to injure anyone but to use purely as a last resort to keep them away from my shop.'

Later he said this:

'Such was my state of mind, at the height of the rioting, I even considered using acid which we keep on the premises for filling batteries, as a first line of defence … which I would have used to spray the acid in a fine spray which from personal experience causes irritation to the skin and smarting of the eyes, but would not cause any serious damage.'
...
He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be guilty of other offences will avoid the risk of anarchy contemplated by the reference. It is also to be noted that although a person may 'make' a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless, if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed which made his object lawful, it may cease to be so. It will only be very rarely that circumstances will exist where the manufacture or possession of petrol bombs can be for a lawful object.

For these reasons the point of law referred by Her Majesty's Attorney General for the consideration of this court is answered by saying: the defence of lawful object is available to a defendant against whom a charge under s 4 of the 1883 Act has been preferred, if he can satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property against imminent apprehended attack and to do so by means which he believed were no more than reasonably necessary to meet the force used by the attackers.

Note, this is a very extreme case.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

On reasonableness

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

s.76...
(3)
The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question. .
(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances— .
(a) the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but .
(b) if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not— .
(i) it was mistaken, or .
(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made. .
(5) But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced. .
(6) The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

So 'reasonable' force is what a reasonable person would think is reasonable under the circumstances that the defendant thinks exists.

R v Williams [1987]

In a case of self-defence, where self-defence or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury come to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed, that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed, and that force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved their case. If, however, the defendant's alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected.

Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely on it.

(A rather unusual case in which a man sees another man beating a youth and jumps off a bus to save him. It turned out that the youth had stolen an old woman's purse and the man was attempting to arrest him!)

So you are allowed to use reasonable force in the circumstances (as you understood them); provided that you are not attacking someone or acting out of revenge or pure aggression, to defend yourself, defend another, defend your property or to aid in the lawful arrest of a person or prevention of crime.

--N.B This is the state of the law to the best of my knowledge at 4 am on a Sunday morning, I will correct any errors when I have slept.

[Vaikyuko]

Might be a random side note, but that gun shop one? Damn, sounds like somebody's preparing for the zombie apocalypse, seriously. Fire resistant outside + multiple petrol bombs and such? Awesome.

[Arnold]

I support gun control, but given what I've heard on the threats on her life and the breaking through the window, I'd say it's tough to argue against the woman's actions. Her reservations about what she was doing clearly didn't strike me as the thoughts of a trigger happy nut.

I can't say if I would have done the same, but then I can only imagine what it's like to be in that situation in the first place.

[Bernard_Monsha]

I really hope for the best for the homeowner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31ZpQVILRk&feature=player_embedded&fmt=18

I have been in that position twice, once while leaving work 2 blocks from police headquarters in Houston. They still took 20 minutes to come.

[taily]

Why would she shoot to kill before he even tried to harm her or her property? At least aim for the legs.

[tenshi_a]

Why would she shoot to kill before he even tried to harm her or her property? At least aim for the legs.

willag posted more details a few posts ago; the guy chucked a patio table through her window to get in. :O

[Mazinkaiser]

At least aim for the legs.
Something tells me you've never shot a gun before. Its hard enough just trying to hit a stationary bullseye target, let alone fine tuning your aim on a moving object like flailing legs or legs. there is a reason why police are trained to hit center of mass. Biggest target, and the part that moves the least in comparison to other body parts. And leg shots can definitely be very lethal. Femur artery?