[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Platapus

First of all, a citizen should not be allowed to administer a punishment in excess of what the courts can assign after a successful conviction of a crime.

If that is what you believe, then you have to recognize that in states that do not allow for capital punishment, there would be no situation in which lethal force would be justified then.

Someone stealing my TV? Do the courts assign execution for burglary? No, therefore, I, as a citizen, should not be allowed to "execute" someone for simply stealing my TV no matter how much I like that TV.

Ok - so your saying that your just going to sit there on your couch waiting for 5-0 to show up as they tote your stuff out the door? Really? If not - what are you going to do? Are you going to act in any way to stop them, or will you retreat even though you do not - based on their actions - have a reason to fear them?

States do have the authority to execute/imprison for life, those who commit murder. Therefore, I, as a citizen should be allowed to "execute" someone who is trying to murder me/my family.

Hold on there - if your going to equate life in prison with execution - we have to go back to the above situation of someone stealing your TV. You see, 24 states have some form of "habitual offender" law - the so called three strikes law - in which those convicted of multiple serious crimes - not necessarily violent ones - in which the offender is then in jail on a mandatory life sentence. So - if a life sentence equates to execution, as it appears you are stating - then it is very possible (depending on a prior record) that the state would upon conviction incarcerate that criminal stealing your tv for life. Thus - you should have the right to execute them according to your argument.

Those two extremes are pretty easy to understand even if you disagree with them. But where is "the line" between these?

I do understand what your saying. I am in part playing devils advocate here.

There is a lot of room between actual attempted murder and burglary. Where is the line? That's a toughie. Who gets to decide?

Well, since in the eyes of the law the burglar may be looking at a life sentence anyway, and the fact that he is in your home, taking your stuff, means you do. Historically, we are given the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which is defined by most as the right to own property - aka stuff - and gain the benefits thereof.). Now in the above scenario, the burglar wants to probably keep his life, and you want to keep yours. However, he is risking his life (possibly yours too) and liberty by committing a crime, and he is also infringing on your right to your stuff. So he is abrogating the responsibilities inherent in our rights and thus is no longer entitled to them. This is the very concept upon which the judicial system allows incarceration - a deprivation of liberty. A person's rights end when they infringe on another's rights.

Well, the citizen who decides to shoot in self-defense gets to decide. And the citizen needs to be held accountable for their decision.

So your saying that a person should be held accountable for acting to protect their own life or wellbeing - or the life or wellbeing of another?

This is why, in my opinion, self-defense should always be an Affirmative Defense. In many states this is already the fact of law. A person, who kills someone in self-defense should be required to prove the case of self-defense. Affirmative defenses can be considered an exception to "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

This is also why many states allow for the use of legal, lethal force when someone is breaking/entering in your home - aka the Castle Doctrine. The presence of someone committing a crime in that case precludes the necessity of an affirmative defense - because in the criminal act is an abrogation of their rights.

However, many states do require that in the case of self defense outside your own "castle" (however that is defined by the state), you must be in "reasonable" fear of serious bodily harm or death. Thus creating the "affirmative defense" you mentioned. However, do you note that you do NOT need to necessarily be in fear of your life to take the life of another at that point? You need only reasonably fear serious bodily injury - and it is the jury that decides whether that fear is reasonable.

In any case, all self-defense killings must be investigated as homicides in order to gather evidence and a hearing (Grand Jury) needs to be held to determine whether this homicide was or was not justified.

Ok, I have to call you on that one. The "grand jury" system is seriously flawed. Did you know that the indictment rate of the system is 98+%? The reason is that the person being indicted is not allowed to offer any evidence or testimony - it is only what the prosecution brings to the table. If the system allowed for more than one side, I might agree - but it doesn't.

All the police know is that someone has been killed. It may be self-defense, it may be Murder. Who knows?

Lets go back to your tv burglary situation. Maybe the burglar wanted your silverware too and grabbed a big ole knife while he got it - and that made you scared so you shot and killed him. Or maybe you just shot and killed him as he unhooked your tv. Either way - guess what. The cops know he was in your house stealing your stuff. Again, Castle doctrine.

But lets say it wasn't in your home. Let's say you were walking down the street and some punk tries to mug you. He has a knife, and you shoot him dead. Cops get there and gee - the dead guy has a knife in his hand and a bullet in his chest. There might be witnesses, there might not. Were you justified? Maybe they should take a year+ of your life to have you facing murder charges - "just to be sure"? Is that what you would prefer? Heck, maybe you should have him stick you once before you shoot him just to make sure your "affirmative defense" needs are met - just hope he doesn't hit anything vital.

Again - someone commiting a criminal act has already abrogated their rights - so all your doing is protecting your own.

I do not want the police to have the authority to decide, on the spot, with out collecting evidence that the killing was justified. This is not a decision to be made quickly.

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting any such incident should not be investigated - but the idea that it should automatically require you to prove you acted in self defense doesn't fly. Let the evidence lead where it leads - and if you did act in self defense - you won't have to prove it because the evidence will do so for you. AKA - the knife in the dead mugger's hand.

I also believe that armed citizens need to be required to take reasonable actions to remove the threat of violence. In many states this is already a fact of law. In none of those states is an armed citizen required to place themselves in additional danger. Reasonable is the key term.

So you feel that in the case of a mugging - its give up your goods at knifepoint? Ok - the sad thing is - you can identify your mugger - and he doesn't want that - so even doing so your still likely to get a knife in your belly. How are you supposed to "remove the threat of violence" in a case like that?

"I heard someone break in to my garage. I got my handgun, went outside and entered the side door to my garage. I shot the guy in the process of stealing my car" - not justified.

Legally it is right now - but that is why we are having this discussion. I can see your point, I just disagree. The moment the "bad guy" decided to break into your garage, he abrogated his rights and violated yours. Why should you respect his rights when he doesn't do the same for you? In this case - being the "bigger man" simply means your letting another trample your rights. Many of us - and our ancestors near and far - shed a lot of blood to make sure you didn't have to have your rights trampled. You can if you want - that is your right too - but you can't expect us all to be ok with that same outcome.

"I heard someone break in to my house. I got my family in one of the bedrooms, and I called 911. When the burglar entered my bedroom, my family did not have anywhere else to retreat to, so I shot the intruder." - Justified.

I agree - and I will say that this is "more justified" than the other - because it is a more reasonable approach IF you value life above other rights.

I have been a gun owner for 30 years. I keep guns especially for home defense. I was once burglarized in Utah and I found the guy in my apartment! My gun is to be used only in the absolute last resort after all other reasonable measures are taken, including my running away crying like a little girl if necessary.

Nothing that I own is worth killing someone over. Only when I perceive that not only is there significant threat to me/my family AND there there are no reasonable options open, would I ever consider using my weapon.

You respect the right to life above all others - and I don't fault you for that at all. I agree with you in many ways, a firearm should be used as a last resort. Where I differ is I see it as a last resort to protect not only life and liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness. We can agree to disagree.

I would expect to be arrested, interrogated, and subject to a hearing to determine if my shooting was justified.

I don't have a problem with the interrogation/interview and an investigation. However, an arrest deprives me of liberty when the evidence very well shows the truth. A hearing is also unnecessary in the case of actual self defense or castle doctrine shooting under most circumstances. Arresting before you have probable cause - aka evidence of a crime (and a dead body by mere virtue of its existence does not qualify) is a violation of my right to liberty without cause.

If it was justified, it should not be too terribly hard to prove... unless you have an unethical state prosecutor (is that redundant?)

I dunno if it was redundant - probably depends on where your at. But it sure was funny!