Well I guess I have to move now...again!

[djct_watt]

^ The entire state of CA is a hotbed for crime (and we have the strictest gun laws, because criminals are not scared of breaking any law except a gun law because the government gets really really mad at them).

But the SF Bay Area as well as Socal is high up on the nation's auto theft and break ins. I lived in a multi-million dollar neighborhood. Some rich kid had his parents import him a JDM Integra Type R from Japan and it was stolen in less than a month. There is no escaping petty crime in California.

However, those nice neighborhoods are usually good at eliminating violent crimes, and I'd rather be a victim of petty over violent. To think that if you kill in intruder who is robbing your home, you can go to jail in CA. You have to justify use of deadly force and (it seems) the criminals often have more rights than victims.

[tomato]

Originally Posted by djct_watt

^ The entire state of CA is a hotbed for crime (and we have the strictest gun laws, because criminals are not scared of breaking any law except a gun law because the government gets really really mad at them).

But the SF Bay Area as well as Socal is high up on the nation's auto theft and break ins. I lived in a multi-million dollar neighborhood. Some rich kid had his parents import him a JDM Integra Type R from Japan and it was stolen in less than a month. There is no escaping petty crime in California.

However, those nice neighborhoods are usually good at eliminating violent crimes, and I'd rather be a victim of petty over violent. To think that if you kill in intruder who is robbing your home, you can go to jail in CA. You have to justify use of deadly force and (it seems) the criminals often have more rights than victims.

Funny you should mention it. And I do have to agree with you about the petty over violent comment.

We were burglarized 2 days ago, on Sunday night. I kept kicking myself in the behind all day Monday because I probably forgot to put my car alarm on (?), so I heard nothing. But it is probably a good thing that I heard nothing. They came, ransacked our storage units, broke into some cars, stole some stuff and left. Some property damage, some loss, yes, but everybody's healthy, able to pick up and move on with their lives.

If had heard (or my neighbors') my alarm, I probably (or they) would have run down the stairs to see what's going on. Its pretty safe to assume that everybody here committing a crime is also packing. We're not. So what would have happened next, then, is anybody's guess.

When I lived in Marin County, I had countless break-ins but never worried about getting shot. Here, I generally don't worry too much about my property but I wonder sometimes if I'm gonna catch a stray bullet when I come home late from work And I do live in a so called "nice neighborhood," but every day I have to commute through the "not so nice" parts and I always wonder if one day I'm gonna run out of luck...

Just the day before yesterday, we had a freak shoot at the police 2 miles away from here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNMN1EHB37.DTL (good thing the police stopped him in his track before he actually did some real damage)

The day before that, some guy who came from another state to interview for a job at Google, got shot downtown Oakland coming out of the dentist ??? http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_1554...rce=rss_viewed He had a whole $17 on his person!! They shot him for that!!

In another incident, some douche called the police in a section 8 building some place downtown or not too far, and the police responded .... only to be shot at from the top of a building by a sniper. (can't find the link, but I'm definitely not making it up, unfortunately).

The irony is that last week, they laid off 80 cops in Oakland, which is not exactly a peaceful city,

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-0...-demonstrators

can't find the recent link for this ^ but we had another round just a week ago, after the verdict of manslaughter came out ... and they're talking about laying off another 150 cops in the near future!!

Don't think this is confined to Oakland.

More shootings... in SF this time.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-2...stephen-powell

ah, but they're used to it, they did it last year too, in the same neighborhood, too.

sorry about the rant, guys.

[DevilGirl]

Originally Posted by djct_watt

To think that if you kill in intruder who is robbing your home, you can go to jail in CA. You have to justify use of deadly force and (it seems) the criminals often have more rights than victims.

Not just in CA. That's in a lot of states. The general rule is that you use only enough force as necessary. And if you think about it, it does make a little sense. Why should you be allowed to kill somone who is just stealing stuff from your home? If they came in and did nothing to your person physically or mentally (i.e., threatened you with bodily harm to the point that you felt your very life was in danger), then your person was still safe. It's only when your life is threatened and there is no other alternative (i.e. run), that you are allowed to use deadly force.

To put it another way, sure a guy comes in to rob you, and you shoot to kill. You've just committed manslaughter. Why should you be held to a different standard just because someone was trying to take a possession that is replaceable? A life is not. Killing is still a crime, there are just some instances when there are mitigating circumstances (i.e. self defense, military at war)

[djct_watt]

Originally Posted by DevilGirl

Not just in CA. That's in a lot of states. The general rule is that you use only enough force as necessary. And if you think about it, it does make a little sense. Why should you be allowed to kill somone who is just stealing stuff from your home? If they came in and did nothing to your person physically or mentally (i.e., threatened you with bodily harm to the point that you felt your very life was in danger), then your person was still safe. It's only when your life is threatened and there is no other alternative (i.e. run), that you are allowed to use deadly force.

To put it another way, sure a guy comes in to rob you, and you shoot to kill. You've just committed manslaughter. Why should you be held to a different standard just because someone was trying to take a possession that is replaceable? A life is not. Killing is still a crime, there are just some instances when there are mitigating circumstances (i.e. self defense, military at war)

Your argument is very well put, and I respect it, but also disagree. I believe that a person has the right to defend their property, and anything less than deadly force is not a deterrent. Let's face it, you get robbed and let the their go, he/she'll probably never get caught unless they make a mistake. You effectively are allowing the theft to occur. However, if you decide to fight back, there is no way of knowing how many intruders there are, how heavily they are armed, or their intentions. If I decide to take action, I'm not going to take any risks to protect someone who should have less rights (as they are encroaching on mine). Imagine I put up an electrified fence and a burglar dies by getting shocked, despite the warning signs. Should I be accountable for his stupidity? I believe (and this is a no win argument) that it should be an assumed risk that you could die breaking into someone's home, and that if you (the burglar) get killed, it's due to your own ignorance. To me it's no different than jumping in front of freeway traffic and trying to blame the driver if he cannot stop. And in that situation, I'd mow down the person than even consider risking my own life trying to swerve.

I had some kid (westerner rich kid with vandalism intentions) break into our house here in Thailand once... We found out who it was and called the cops. In front of the kid and parents, the cop told us to just shoot him on site (a bit extreme, I know) if he's in our property again. I don't think I've ever seen him again and I know he moved out of the neighborhood.