Your life is not worth...

[FreeRights]

...safe to say I think the majority of people would draw the line when someone enters your residence uninvited with the intent to steal and/or do harm to you and/or your family...

So you'd be in support of a law that allows you absolutely no limit to the force that you use on someone, as long as they are in your home?

...the Trayvon Martin "fiasco" was a fiasco because of race - not because of stand your ground, bolstered by the fact he was found innocent...

It was a fiasco because of the confusion of the stand your ground law. Race played a part of course, but the law itself is confusing and has experts arguing for its' repeal.

The whole goal of new laws and amendments is to simplify and expedite the justice process. The stand your ground law, in this particular case, actually lengthened court proceedings due to it's failure to broadcast clarity.

[Swoop]

...there's no simple solution to what is an extremely complex problem, hence the reason the top law makers can't figure out where to draw the line...the alternative however certainly isn't working either when the victim becomes the criminal for simply trying to protect their home and family from harm and loss...

[FreeRights]

...there's no simple solution to what is an extremely complex problem, hence the reason the top law makers can't figure out where to draw the line...the alternative however certainly isn't working either when the victim becomes the criminal for simply trying to protect their home and family from harm and loss...

It's not a complex problem, but there would be if we start trying to implement different scenarios and circumstances where the use of force laws should differ from one another. There's a line very clearly drawn already that applies to all circumstances. It's not confusing, but like literally any law, a person should be responsible for understanding it.

[Swoop]

...you mean just like the laws that are supposed to prevent people from stealing, causing physical harm to others?...

[FreeRights]

...you mean just like the laws that are supposed to prevent people from stealing, causing physical harm to others?...

While those laws are also very clear as well, I was referring to laws pertaining to self defense as being clear.

[Swoop]

...sure - but when you start "to implement different scenarios and circumstances" the laws are not very clear at all - and in fact work backwards to the intent they were designed, to the point where victims are in worse trouble trying to protect themselves than the criminal intent on doing them harm...

[FreeRights]

...sure - but when you start "to implement different scenarios and circumstances" the laws are not very clear at all - and in fact work backwards to the intent they were designed, to the point where victims are in worse trouble trying to protect themselves than the criminal intent on doing them harm...

Agreed. That's exactly why we shouldn't implement an indiscriminate "shoot first, ask questions later" law for home intruders.

Our use of force/self defense laws that exist now apply to essentially every scenario or circumstance and have drawn a fairly clear line between what you can and cannot do.

[Puddlejumper40]

You bring up a lot of fair points FreeRights. But, you also bring up a lot of what if's as well. What if the intruder could have been stopped before he killed that family and then went on to kill three more people?

I completely understand your viewpoint but if some person has entered my house uninvited with my family home, I do not want to find out if he is just stealing something or if he is going to kill us all.

[GordonH]

It appears this thread has wandered off bit, may want to re-read the OP.

[FreeRights]

You bring up a lot of fair points FreeRights. But, you also bring up a lot of what if's as well. What if the intruder could have been stopped before he killed that family and then went on to kill three more people?

I completely understand your viewpoint but if some person has entered my house uninvited with my family home, I do not want to find out if he is just stealing something or if he is going to kill us all.

You're right, that should be how it goes but it would be very difficult to implement a just, fair law to support it.

There's an Australian comedian - I can't remember his name for the life of me - but he brought up some extremely good points to gun laws, but I think they apply just as well to home security and home protection as well. His point was that pro-gun people argue that guns are used to protect their family, but literally nobody really cares about actual home security (padlock magazine). And this is true. We don't need more laws that allow you to shoot up someone in your home. What we need is people who really understand that some of the responsibility of home protection relies on them, and actually cares enough to install home security systems. I'm not even talking about high-end surveillance systems and intrusion devices, I mean simple doors, windows, and locks that are literally manufactured to prevent intrusion. Literally nobody invests in these devices to protect themselves and their family, and I think that once people care enough to do so, then we could really discuss firearm use for protection.

It appears this thread has wandered off bit, may want to re-read the OP.

I would argue that this is exactly what the thread is about. Is it right or wrong for an untrained store employee to intervene with a shoplifter? What are laws pertaining to self defense, and should they apply to your personal life, or should they also apply to your professional one?

[Swoop]

You bring up a lot of fair points FreeRights. But, you also bring up a lot of what if's as well. What if the intruder could have been stopped before he killed that family and then went on to kill three more people?

I completely understand your viewpoint but if some person has entered my house uninvited with my family home, I do not want to find out if he is just stealing something or if he is going to kill us all.

You're right, that should be how it goes but it would be very difficult to implement a just, fair law to support it.

There's an Australian comedian - I can't remember his name for the life of me - but he brought up some extremely good points to gun laws, but I think they apply just as well to home security and home protection as well. His point was that pro-gun people argue that guns are used to protect their family, but literally nobody really cares about actual home security (padlock magazine). And this is true. We don't need more laws that allow you to shoot up someone in your home. What we need is people who really understand that some of the responsibility of home protection relies on them, and actually cares enough to install home security systems. I'm not even talking about high-end surveillance systems and intrusion devices, I mean simple doors, windows, and locks that are literally manufactured to prevent intrusion. Literally nobody invests in these devices to protect themselves and their family, and I think that once people care enough to do so, then we could really discuss firearm use for protection.

It appears this thread has wandered off bit, may want to re-read the OP.

I would argue that this is exactly what the thread is about. Is it right or wrong for an untrained store employee to intervene with a shoplifter? What are laws pertaining to self defense, and should they apply to your personal life, or should they also apply to your professional one?

...but why should people have to be literally locked down with bars on the windows and breach-proof doors in their own homes just to enforce the fact that one's home is their castle?...I like to look out my windows - and preferably without bars...however, should I forcibly remove someone from my home for fear of my or my family's safety and injure that intruder in the act, I could very well enjoy a view from behind bars - that's wrong imho...cross the threshold of my home uninvited and with the intent to steal or do harm to someone - I say all bets are off...the same with those intent to rob and do harm to businesses and their employees...

[Swoop]

...recently in West Virginia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfQf9K3xr6k

[Temet Nosce]

"There's an Australian comedian - I can't remember his name for the life of me - but he brought up some extremely good points to gun laws, but I think they apply just as well to home security and home protection as well. His point was that pro-gun people argue that guns are used to protect their family, but literally nobody really cares about actual home security (padlock magazine). "


I meant to quote the above post...



I think this is who you are referring to
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gu ... -jefferies

[FreeRights]

...but why should people have to be literally locked down with bars on the windows and breach-proof doors in their own homes just to enforce the fact that one's home is their castle?...I like to look out my windows - and preferably without bars...however, should I forcibly remove someone from my home for fear of my or my family's safety and injure that intruder in the act, I could very well enjoy a view from behind bars - that's wrong imho...cross the threshold of my home uninvited and with the intent to steal or do harm to someone - I say all bets are off...the same with those intent to rob and do harm to businesses and their employees...

But we aren't talking about bars on windows, we're talking about a slightly better door or a slightly better pane of glass made to deter and prevent intrusion.

I view it as I view anything else. You have to take some responsibility for your own protection. If it were possible to have a law that states "All bets are off if someone breaks into your home," I think a lot of people would support it, but it's not possible to do. That would create so many issues and areas where public safety could be at risk that it would harm more than it helps.

We don't need a law that allows you to go and kill someone who enters your home. Especially not when the average person has literally no relevant high-stress firearms training. What we need is the courts to pass out proportionate sentences to home invaders so that their home, being their castle, is behind bars for a very long time. That's the solution, not gun-toting. And this also applies to shoplifters and other crimes committed against businesses so that people like that in the original post, aren't put in a similar situation.

[FreeRights]

There's an Australian comedian - I can't remember his name for the life of me - but he brought up some extremely good points to gun laws, but I think they apply just as well to home security and home protection as well. His point was that pro-gun people argue that guns are used to protect their family, but literally nobody really cares about actual home security (padlock magazine).

I think this is who you are referring to
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gu ... -jefferies

Good find, that's exactly what I was referring to.