Thread: Enough is enough

It's been a while since I read about it and I can't remember where I read it but it stated that the swiss had laws in place that provide for the protection of their own home. The gyst of that part of the article was if someone broke into a swiss home they did so at their own risk and the home owner was free to blast away if necessary. (crudely paraphrased but still ).

I didn't get the impression it was like the old west days of the u.s. from the article. I got the impression that every male was armed and knew how to use a gun. This in itself is a heavy deterrent even for armed robberies outside. what happens if the perpetrator gets a lively one who wrestles the gun away, or someone else happens by and manages to get it away? not good for the criminal. The article didn't insinuate that there was zero crime there. It merely pointed out how low crime was compared to other countries and how the gun laws are the exact opposite of countries who's crime rates are so high.

Originally Posted by FUD

It's been a while since I read about it and I can't remember where I read it but it stated that the swiss had laws in place that provide for the protection of their own home. The gyst of that part of the article was if someone broke into a swiss home they did so at their own risk and the home owner was free to blast away if necessary. (crudely paraphrased but still ).

I didn't get the impression it was like the old west days of the u.s. from the article. I got the impression that every male was armed and knew how to use a gun. This in itself is a heavy deterrent even for armed robberies outside. what happens if the perpetrator gets a lively one who wrestles the gun away, or someone else happens by and manages to get it away? not good for the criminal. The article didn't insinuate that there was zero crime there. It merely pointed out how low crime was compared to other countries and how the gun laws are the exact opposite of countries who's crime rates are so high.

We technically have the same type of "law", its called Castle Doctrine. The last few decades however have been slowly ignoring it more and more, its very sad.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

We technically have the same type of "law", its called Castle Doctrine. The last few decades however have been slowly ignoring it more and more, its very sad.

Some states go out of their way to prevent that type of law. Michigan prosecutes people who defend their home. if the criminal dies while breaking in the homeowner gets charged with 2nd degree murder and often convicted of manslaughter. In ohio, even though there's supposed to be self defense laws on the board, they've prosecuted people who've shot intruders, one notable case where a group of teenagers kept breaking in and threatening to harm the man, he finally got a gun, kept it at his bedsite and shot one kid after the kid broke in, disregarding repeated warnings by the man that if "whoever's out there doesn't quit trying to get the door open (he'll) shoot!". When the kid broke the door in and stepped in, the man shot and the prosecutor tried to get him on 1st degree murder because he had the gun loaded and ready after repeated break ins.

One southern state ( I can't remember which now) found a man criminally and civilly liable after shooting an armed intruder but only maiming him. the man was sentenced to jail time and everything he owned was confiscated and turned over to the armed robber.

Criminalizing the innocent has become a common practice in the United states.

Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3

didnt sound like preaching or arguing, we just have widely different opinions on "healthy fear" and that "it's hard to argue against the evidence of an entire country. more guns= less violent crimes=less non violent crimes."
until you did a much deeper study of swiss society, the high gun ownership and low crime correlation remains Very Very weak to me.

similarly i cant buy into "Every single state in the US which has instated a concealed carry permit program has had their crime rate drop. conversly, the states with the most gun control also have the worst crime." drawing the conclusion that the minority of a states population that takes advantage of a concealed carry permit is responsible for dropping crime rate just isnt believable to me, show me the crime rates before and after the implement of a concealed carry permit and then show me highschool drop out rates and a slew of economic indicators for the same time span and id be willing bet the concealed carry permit would be at the bottom of my list of why crime dropped or increased.

like any semi political debate i dont think we're going to be changing each others minds lol

Whether you believe it or not, it happens to be provably true. Reducing guns feels good intuitively, but it doesn't reduce crime practically. Real world translation: More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens absolutely reduces crime. Like it or not. The truth is the truth, whether you choose to believe it or not. While economic indicators and education levels certainly do help or hurt, the ability to defend one's self in a meaningful way gives the criminal element a moment of pause, and often they'll move on to easier prey.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

We technically have the same type of "law", its called Castle Doctrine. The last few decades however have been slowly ignoring it more and more, its very sad.

Basically, the law is generally that you cannot use deadly force to protect property.

So, if someone breaks into your house to steal your stereo, and you know they only plan to steal your stereo, you can't shoot them dead because they broke into your house.

Now, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you are afraid for your life and the lives of your family, then that is a situation where you could justifiably use deadly force in self defense.

The distinction is between using deadly force to protect your /house/ and using force to protect yourself and your family.

Some states are different, though. Florida, for one. But what I've explained is the general common law. If you own a gun, you might want to find this out from a lawyer in your area who knows about these things.

Unfortunately, that was not the initial intent of the castle doctrine. Initially as it was taken from Roman law, to English law, and then to America it initially stated something to the effect of "a man`s home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack."

However over the years it has been stepped on and torn a part. Luckily, many states still recognize castle doctrine for the most part, Florida being the best of the best.

But beyond all laws and backward values is this... "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and if someone breaks into my house, unless I develop ESP and instantly know that they only want my stereo, he/she is going to walk, crawl, or be carried out with quite alot more lead and shrapnel in their blood stream then they came in with.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

Basically, the law is generally that you cannot use deadly force to protect property.

So, if someone breaks into your house to steal your stereo, and you know they only plan to steal your stereo, you can't shoot them dead because they broke into your house.

Now, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you are afraid for your life and the lives of your family, then that is a situation where you could justifiably use deadly force in self defense.

The distinction is between using deadly force to protect your /house/ and using force to protect yourself and your family.

Some states are different, though. Florida, for one. But what I've explained is the general common law. If you own a gun, you might want to find this out from a lawyer in your area who knows about these things.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Unfortunately, that was not the initial intent of the castle doctrine. Initially as it was taken from Roman law, to English law, and then to America it initially stated something to the effect of "a man`s home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack."

However over the years it has been stepped on and torn a part. Luckily, many states still recognize castle doctrine for the most part, Florida being the best of the best.

But beyond all laws and backward values is this... "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and if someone breaks into my house, unless I develop ESP and instantly know that they only want my stereo, he/she is going to walk, crawl, or be carried out with quite alot more lead and shrapnel in their blood stream then they came in with.

Note to self...skip JL's house on next klepto binge...

RT

Originally Posted by rtaylor61

Note to self...skip JL's house on next klepto binge...

RT

Its ok RT, I dont think I have anything actually worth breaking in for...at least nothing that isnt kept in my 700lbs gun safe. Of course, I have always said that if someone can somehow steal my gun safe, they can have what is in it

Originally Posted by JLStorm

But beyond all laws and backward values is this... "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and if someone breaks into my house, unless I develop ESP and instantly know that they only want my stereo, he/she is going to walk, crawl, or be carried out with quite alot more lead and shrapnel in their blood stream then they came in with.

Amen Brother Man! Preach it again!

Bottom line is, if the person breaks in and the homeowner isn't a certified mind reader, there should be no charges. Additionally, if there have been repeated break-ins and the police haven't caught the perpetrators then the homeowner is at risk because getting away with something repeatedly emboldens criminals to go further.

Here's a cool "magazine clip" from the internet. I've only seen this on the net. don't know which magazine, etc..

"Expedite your police response times"

"I woke up one evening to some noises in my back yard that sounded like intruders. Using my night vision scope I verified that three young men, possibly teenagers, were breaking into my shed. I immediately called 911, who transferred me to the local police station. 'We're sorry sir, we have no available units to send to your area at this time. We'll send a patrol car around as soon as one is available.' Then they hung up.

I waited 2 minutes and called back and was transferred to the local police station again. 'You don't need to worry about the police' I stated cheerfully 'Just send a coroner. I've shot the bastards dead. Take your time getting here, they won't spoil in this cold weather' I thanked the speechless dispatcher and hung up.

Within minutes my house was surrounded by police with a search & rescue helicopter hovering over. All 3 burglars were caught.

'I thought you called and reported you had shot the burglars' the leading officer half accused me. 'I thought your dispatcher said there were no units available in my area' I politely replied."

FUD,

I love it!!! That sounds like something that may have been published in Concealed Carry Magazine, but I cant be sure. I read a lot of articles somewhat similar to this in which homeowners do have to take matters into their own hands because the police have no duty to protect most citizens.

Besides 911, is BS, not so much in the above situation, since there was no immediate threat of loss of life or limb, but had they gotten close to the house that would have changed quickly. However, I believe that we should be able to protect our property with all and any force necessary.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, 911 is just like calling the cleaning crew to clean up the mess, its up to the individual to protect themselves from becoming a victim. In fact there have been many court decisions have stated repeatedly that police have no duty to protect the people. Here are a few things to read that took about 10 seconds to find on the internet, you could literally spend days reading all similar types of court decisions.

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that
individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of
their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is:
only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals,
judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other
words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police
protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special
cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts,
however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to
protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are
emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with
such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this
type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate,
a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police
several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30
minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police
had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact
the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren
court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the
women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts
upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their
attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect
them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying
that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any individual citizen." (4) There are many similar cases with
results to the same effect.(5)
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia
under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are
brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of
state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more
onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil
rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials
for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or
Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no
duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Department of Social Services.(6) Frequently these cases are based on an
alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In
DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured
by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local
officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed
by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,"(7)
but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special
relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection
only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners,
involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their
will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to
protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament
or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which
it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."(8)