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

[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.