To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21231
21230  |  21232
Subject: 
Re: What the...?!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:06:19 GMT
Viewed: 
203 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
   Shot burglar wins right to sue Martin

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/2987642.stm

I don’t claim to know the details of this case beyond what is stated in the linked articles, but I think I have to disagree with some of the broader conclusions reached in the case.

What lousy reporting. The guy doing the shooting is in jail, but the article never actually says he is in jail for killing one of the burglers. Nor does it establish why he was convicted even if it was for that incident. Did the burglers turn and run and he shot them in the back? Did they charge him? What? Without knowing the circumstances or the laws involved, it is difficult to render any judgment except to excoriate the reporter and editors involved.

  
A person’s home should be respected, and when it is not - those trespassing should not necessarily expect to avoid personal harm or even death.


Depends on where you are (we’ve been over this ground before, but...): if you are in Texas, my understanding is blaze away! It is assumed that someone breaking into your house is a de facto threat to your life, and you can shoot someone for trying to carry off your stuff (I ain’t a lawyer, don’t come crying to me if you shoot someone on my say so). All the other states I checked (though none of the 6 were in the south) were pretty much the same: you need to establish that you felt your life was in danger. There’s a lot of wiggle-room in there, but if you set up a trap, you probably broke the law and the burgler will be able to sue you, not to mention you’ll be going to jail (the classic example is a fireman climbs into your house and sets off your trap). There are also plenty of people who decided to blaze away and found that they just shot a family member going to the bathroom or getting a drink of water (an example on the rational behind the restrictive laws of use of deadly force).


   They are giving the criminal the right to sue his intended victim. If a person tried to invade my home -- to hurt my loved ones or myself, or just to take some of our things -- I can assure you that they are not going to be leisurely questioned about their specific motives or if they happen to be on their way out. In fact, I think I can pretty much guarantee a “shoot first, ask questions later” policy when it comes to home invasion.

Personally, I am really sick of the quasi-parental role governments now seek to fulfill. It’s as if they were trying to settle a disagreement between violent siblings.

Well heck, let’s all just shoot each other and tell da gub’mint to butt out! :-)


-->Bruce<--



Message is in Reply To:
  What the...?!
 
Shot burglar wins right to sue Martin (URL) I don't claim to know the details of this case beyond what is stated in the linked articles, but I think I have to disagree with some of the broader conclusions reached in the case. A person's home should (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

4 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR