OK, answer me this....

[one-eyed fat man]

"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to...he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon..." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth,i 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931)

No one should be required to yield to a criminal assault. To insist that you must flee your own home and avoid confronting the interloper with as much force as is needed to make him quit is ludicrous.

What kind of twisted notion of "civilized" behavior requires me to accommodate a thief, an assassin, or a rapist and makes HIS life less stressful?

Why so misplaced sympathy for some villainous blackguard who was thwarted by their erstwhile victim?

Why so much thinly-veiled enmity for those who successfully resist a criminal's vile predations?

[virgogal]

1. + 1

[badtoworse]

2. Agree completely

[bonzotex]

3. uhhh...

Who is being required to yield to a criminal assault?

Who is requiring you to accommodate a thief, an assassin, or a rapist and makes HIS life less stressful?

[PavePusher]

4. aahhhhh....

I see you're in Texas, were you don't have to worry about accomodating criminals.

Some states are not yet that progressive.

[bonzotex]

6. Still no example

I guess I was looking for a concrete example of the things the OP describes. Maybe you have one?

[one-eyed fat man]

7. Try this one

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10332/1106690-454.stm#ixzz16YgNwiR7

Mr. Rendell said in a statement issued Saturday afternoon. "I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves."

So when safe retreat is available he expects victims to avail themselves of it. So if you can get out of the back door while the burglars are coming in the front door, why contest the invasion of your home, business or anyplace else you might rightfully happen to be?

Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction. In 1996 its Superior Court found that: “Although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self-defense is a qualified, not an absolute, right.”

The duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

[bonzotex]

13. that's an example

PA does allow you to defend yourself in your home. Personally I think I'd have all sorts of verbal instructions to an intruder before anything went "bang". Beyond that, I personally think the bar should be set pretty high to legally kill someone. Politically, I don't have a big problem with Rendell vetoing this law. Looks like PA will get it anyway when Rendell is gone.

In self-defense situations, juries are usually pretty understanding of legitimate self defense. I guess I've always just considered you use deadly force if you feel you have to and let the courts sort it out later. On the other hand, no matter how well armed I might be, I wouldn't shoot anyone over property. I also don't have a job or living circumstance where assassins, thieves, rapists, and villainous blackguards are accosting me or my family - so far.

[cleanhippie]

26. There is a high bar.

Breaking into a home that is not yours means that the bar has been reached.

[bonzotex]

32. qualified, not absolute right...

Nobody here is arguing you shouldn't or couldn't defend yourself inside your home. Current PA law doesn't preclude that. If you read the Post Gazette article, it is a little clearer. What legislators in PA and other States are doing to try to expand the envelope where you cab legally use deadly force, specifically with firearms. In Texas it is realy broad. Still, it is not an "absolute" right and it shouldn't be.

In all cases it will often fall to a court to determine what the facts were. You simply do not have an absolute right, in any State, to kill anybody that comes on your property or in your house, even in Texas. I get tired "what if" and anecdotal stories where brave home defender kills some intruder and then if the courts raise an eyebrow; this is somehow an assault on our freedom to defend ourselves. These cases are just not very common in reality. What is sadly all too common is people killing acquaintances or family with guns intended for self defense. No legislation is going stop people from being stupid. "Retreat" clauses in current laws don't prevent you from using deadly force to defend yourself as a last resort. It should be a last resort.

A no-shit intruder breaks in your home, do what you think is best. Just make sure it's not drunk uncle Bob stumbling in to crash on the couch before you pull the trigger and the courts are probably going to see it your way.

[cleanhippie]

37. "I personally think the bar should be set pretty high to legally kill someone."

Thats what you stated, and I replied that the bar ALREADY is set pretty high: when you break into a home that is not yours, you have reached the bar. What more needs to be said, or why does anything need to be qualified? Don't break into a home that is not yours and that bar will never, ever be met. Its plenty high right where it is.

[Katya Mullethov]

38. This possibility was important in my formative years

A strict upbringing , much responsibility and hard work from early on not with standing .

It was not an uncommon occurrence for my little brain on occasion to say " Self , if you walk up in there , and then walk up on that porch and go in that door ...you might get shot . " Having killed plenty of animals and done my own ballistics/forensics on preparation of said meal , I knew full well the implications of intersecting with a high velocity projectile and chose to avoid this at all costs .

As time went on it no longer became necessary to even ponder it , I just accepted it like gravity and went about minding my own business .

[X_Digger]

8. New York Penal - Article 35 - § 35.15

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;

[bonzotex]

11. that is a pretty big legal caveat

..."if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;"

I didn't go read the whole statute. It still sounds like you have a reasonable right to use deadly force if retreating was at all a more questionable strategy for "complete" safety. Getting into a gunfight always is going to be risky.

Have their been a lot of prosecutions in New York of victims defending themselves with deadly force when they should have "retreated"?

[X_Digger]

15. People v Aiken, 2005 was the most recent I could find..

"Before defensively using deadly physical force against another, does a defendant standing in the doorway between his apartment and the common hall of a multi-unit building have a duty under Penal Law § 35.15 to retreat into his home when he can safely do so?   We answer that question in the affirmative."

[bonzotex]

18. Do you think that is ...

...an odious, unrealistic restriction? Tactically, retreating back into your home where you have cover and freedom of movement is a hell of a lot better than a door or hallway - for a defensive gun fight. There may be other cases but still my perception is that nationwide there are not many cases of innocent citizens using firearms to protect themselves and then being prosecuted.

I can see a citizen firing at a suspected intruder/criminal from his doorway as being problematic. Of course in Texas we had the guy that shotgunned two thieves in his front yard after he saw them exiting a neighbor's house. He was on the phone with 911 and cops were on the way, nobody's life was in danger. They didn't know he was there till he came out yelling, then firing. Was that cool? Smart? Safe? Lots of people thought so here. It was legal according to Texas. I think it was nuts. I have shotguns, a yard, neighbors and we have crime, but I would never consider stepping out to open up on property thieves that weren't threatening me or anyone else.

These laws will always be hard to apply in the real world where there are lots of armed people, good and bad. It doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage reckless use of guns in public under the umbrella of self-defense. Sometimes that includes laws against it. I'm not seeing any of this as an encroachment on the 2nd Amendment or even civil liberties.

[X_Digger]

21. In the above case, the guy was in his face threatening to kill him (and had stabbed him before.)

That's absolutely unrealistic.

In essence, the court said Aiken should have 'yield(ed) to a criminal assault' as you ask at the top of this thread.

[bonzotex]

30. oh god, you made me look it up...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1343654.html

This moron started the altercation that led to the other dude getting in his face and threatening him. He had lots of opportunities to back off and avoid a confrontation. Yeah, I believe he was scared and pissed and the other dude had stabbed him before, so he had a reason to feel threatened. Still, he sought him out with a metal pipe in his fist. I think realistically this guy could have done lots of things rather than starting another screaming match with a known violent antagonist - first through the wall and then later from his doorway.

This is really not a good case to argue the "castle" laws should be extended and expanded nor does it support the OP's idea that courts and legislators are coddling or accommodating criminals. Plus, no guns were involved and thank God. Nothing better would have happened had either of these fucktards had guns to "defend" themselves.

[X_Digger]

31. Question asked and answered.

The trial court determined that the victim must retreat, and one's doorway (in an apartment building) does not constitute part of his home.

Nice eliding of the facts, btw..

"Although the families remained next-door neighbors, separated only by a common wall, from 1997 to 1999 the victim repeatedly threatened to shoot, stab or otherwise injure defendant.   He made these threats to defendant's face, to his father and to neighbors-at one point even brandishing a boxcutter."

[bonzotex]

33. I'm sure you read the whole thing too...

Speaking of elision

"On December 21, 1999, defendant and the victim argued through the shared bedroom wall between their apartments.   Using a metal pipe, defendant knocked an indentation into his side of the wall.   The victim then left his apartment to go downstairs and open the building's front door for the police, who responded to the 911 call his mother had made about defendant.   Defendant, inside his apartment, walked to his front door several times, opening it and looking into the public hall until he saw the victim there with a friend."

"Still holding the metal pipe he had earlier used to hit the wall, defendant (while remaining in his doorway) then engaged in an angry argument with the victim.1  According to defendant's trial testimony, he continued standing in the doorway, never going into the hall, when the victim reached into his pocket, came up to defendant's face “nose to nose,” and said “he was going to kill” him.   Believing he was about to be stabbed again, defendant struck the victim on his head with the metal pipe, killing him."

The court was basically saying this guy was a big part of the problem. He definately has reason to be afraid of the other guy, but he was obviously looking for a fight, caused it, killed the other guy and claimed self defense. I don't have any problem at all with how the Appeals court decided this one.

[X_Digger]

34. Never stepped outside his doorway, and he 'caused' it?

That's rich.

The trial court did not find that he instigated the fight. Had that been the case, that finding of fact would have led to the jury finding him guilty of murder, not manslaughter.

[bonzotex]

35. People kill each other in fights all the time and it is...

...prosecuted as manslaughter not murder. In this case had the other guy knifed and killed the doorway stander he would have likely been prosecuted for manslaughter too even considering he had stabbed and threatened him before. A Murder charge would have been more likely, but hardly a done deal especially since they had already called the cops to intervene in response to the defendant's prior actions. These guys had a running feud going. These guys were going to have fight (again) someplace. It happened in his doorway which got his defense lawyers hunting around the "castle defense" ....which failed.

You think they guy was justified?... stood his ground and defended himself, defended his home? I don't - not from what I read. A trial judge & jury and then an appeals court looked at all the details and determined that he should have backed off before hitting the other guy in the head with a pipe. That sounds about right to me.

Anyway, I appreciate your viewpoint and thanks for trying to add some substance the the rather substance-less OP.

[X_Digger]

9. Oregon had it until 2007..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Roberts

In 1982, she wrote the opinion in State v. Charles (293 Or. 273), which adopted the duty to retreat in Oregon. This requires people to attempt to retreat in most situations before one could use deadly force, even in self defense.

It was overridden by State of Oregon v. Sandoval.

[Euromutt]

36. People of the State of New York v. Ronald Davis (2001)

The case concerned the killing of one Eddie "Bubblegum" Leonard by Ronald Davis, in Harlem in 1992. Leonard was a 435-pound bruiser with a PCP habit, and known to generally be carrying an illegal handgun, who had robbed Davis at gunpoint on at least three occasions over a seven-year period, and had concluded the last robbery (in the spring of 1992) by anally raping Davis to boot. In parting, Leonard told Davis that he would kill Davis the next time he saw him. Davis' problem was that he was himself a petty criminal, and thus for a variety of reasons not inclined to take his problems to the police.

In the evening of June 20th, 1992, the two spot each other again at the intersection of Amsterdam Ave and 146th Street; Davis claimed he saw that Leonard had seen and recognized him. Fearing that Leonard would at a minimum badly hurt him, and very possibly make good on his threat, Davis runs west along 146th to the apartment of an acquaintance, from whom he borrows a handgun (which is illegal for a 23 year-old black kid from Harlem like Davis to possess, let alone carry, but then,the acquaintance almost certainly possessed it illegally as well). Davis then heads back to Amsterdam Ave, and seeing that Leonard is a block north on the west side of Amsterdam, crosses to a friend's apartment building on the east side, hoping to find refuge there. The friend, however, does not answer the buzzer, so Davis finds himself unable to proceed further than the vestibule, and coming out back onto Amsterdam, he sees Leonard crossing the street toward him, followed by a woman (who, as it turned out, was trying to sell Leonard a stolen cell phone). Davis places his back to a wall, assuming that if he tries to run, Leonard will just shoot him in the back. Leonard and the woman actually pass by Davis, but then Leonard says something to the woman and turns back toward Davis while reaching for his waistline. Assuming Leonard is reaching for a gun, Davis draws the borrowed handgun and keeps shooting until Leonard is on the ground, then runs like Hell down 146th.

In due course, the NYPD identifies Davis as the killer of the late, unlamented Eddie "Bubblegum" Leonard, and Davis is charged with murder, and ultimately convicted of first-degree manslaughter (and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm). This in spite of the fact that Davis' counsel managed to get Leonard's previous assault entered into evidence, along with the "something" Leonard said the woman--"I have to hit this guy off"--even though Davis did not hear Leonard's words. A key factor in Davis' conviction was the refusal on the part of the judge to instruct the jury that Davis might legitimately have acted in self-defense, on the grounds that Davis failed to meet the legal requirement to retreat. This was primarily based on the fact that Davis returned to Amsterdam Ave after acquiring the handgun, even though Leonard subsequently pursued him across the street.

It's worth noting that Davis' conviction for manslaughter was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but still, that was a federal court rather than a NYC/NYS one, and Davis got lucky in that the NYC Legal Aid Society assigned him a remarkably good lawyer, Frances Gallagher, to handle his appeal. As far the New York courts were concerned, the fact that the deceased had repeatedly victimized the defendant, and had pursued him with evident intent to commit grievous bodily harm, counted for naught against the fact that Davis had failed to meet the legal "requirement to retreat."

[lawodevolution]

10. You see, in Texas this is how we view you Yankees

Or

[east texas lib]

5. That's an easy one...

Political correctness. It governs all in certain quarters.

[bluedigger]

12. Well, it's basically "fight or flight".

You seem to be of the opinion that "fight" is preferable. In the animal kingdom, even the baddest ass predator will generally avoid conflict if it isn't sure of winning, or protecting it's offspring. I guess us humans are smarter. I'll fight, too, if there is no alternative, or to protect the defenseless. I wouldn't take a life to protect material possessions or territory, though, if I could avoid it.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. It's not just about stuff.

Being a criminal is a choice. The low-life isn't stealing bread to feed his starving family. He might be miserable, but he ain't Les Miserable.

If it was only about stealing stuff or money, he would break into places where no one is home or pilfering cash from his mother's purse.

Robbery is confrontational. That is where the rush is. He wants to see the fear. Why should someone who'd threaten with death a minimum wage clerk at a fast food joint or a convenience store be treated as if he had just created a new social compact? "Give me what I want an might not hurt you."

Subway clerk murdered

A 22 year old clerk, paralyzed with fear, unable to open the cash drawer, and the vicious vermin says to her, ‘Girl you’re too slow. You gots to die.’ Then the misbegotten bastard shoots her three times.

Robbery is about cash like rape is about sex. The goal is subjugation, humiliation, and domination, the rest is incidental. The robber's threat of bodily harm makes it personal.

[bluedigger]

23. No, but if you have a choice, you make it.

How many times is that Subway story going to be trotted out, anyways? She had no choice in that situation. You are making a false equivalence. I don't have to take a life to teach a robber "a lesson" or "send a message" to robbers everywhere. I'll let the criminal justice system do that, if possible.

[oneshooter]

24. Yet many times you must lose your life to make a point

And yet the "peace at any cost" crowd will never learn.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Robbers

Paul Dennis Reid

You really believe he turned to robbery because he was down on his luck Nashville songwriter?

Robbers Execute 2 Store Clerks

This Florida robbery might go down as the most senseless double-homicide ever. These men rob a convenience store. Even though both clerks are obviously compliant, the man guarding the door shoots them both -- all for $77...

Surveillance video images of two men sought in Monday morning robbery incidents and a store clerk’s shooting.

Tired of Subway? I am more incensed by the fact that googling "Robber executes clerk" produces about 752,000 results (0.37 seconds)

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. What if the robber was already "taught" by the system, yet kept on doing it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x278560

"Another compliant store clerk is shot and killed"

It turned out later that the shooter had done time for murdering a store clerk in the past:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/15/convicted_killer_arrested_in_slaying_of_tedeschis_clerk/

Convicted killer arrested in slaying of Tedeschi’s clerk
1971 crime similar to Dec. 26 robbery
By Maria Cramer
Globe Staff / January 15, 2010


Almost 40 years ago, Edward Corliss held up a store clerk at gunpoint in Salisbury, tried to steal the $15 in his cash register, and then shot him to death before fleeing in a car.

Last month, a day after Christmas, Boston police and prosecutors say, he committed the same crime in a Jamaica Plain store.

Corliss, 63, of Roslindale, was charged yesterday with the Dec. 26 fatal shooting of Surendra Dangol, a 39-year-old Nepalese store clerk who had started working at a Tedeschi Food Shop in Jamaica Plain just days before. Police believe Corliss fled in a white Plymouth Acclaim driven by someone else.

In 1973, Corliss was convicted of killing George Oakes, 61, and sentenced to life in prison. But in May 2006, the state Parole Board voted 5 to 1 to release him as long as he obeyed several conditions, including going into a long-term residential treatment program for substance abuse and undergoing drug and alcohol testing....

I'm with some of the other posters: If someone is making you a victim of armed robbery, the have irretreivably broken any social

code that I am obliged to obey.

[Glassunion]

40. I feel that you may be looking at this backwards...

Well, it's basically "fight or flight".
You seem to be of the opinion that "fight" is preferable. In the animal kingdom, even the baddest ass predator will generally avoid conflict if it isn't sure of winning, or protecting it's offspring. I guess us humans are smarter. I'll fight, too, if there is no alternative, or to protect the defenseless. I wouldn't take a life to protect material possessions or territory, though, if I could avoid it.

Remember that "Robbery" is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation, as opposed to stealth or fraud (which is theft). So the intended target of a robbery is in sudden and immediate danger of being harmed or killed when confronted by a robber.

Spin did not convey the opinion that "fight" is preferable. He stated that "No one should be required to yield to a criminal assault". Basically stating the the rule of law should not state that a victim needs to accommodate an attacker. A victim should be able to make that choice on their own and do what they see fit to protect themselves. Be it to: fight, flee, cry, or curl up in a ball... The choices are almost limitless.

As you stated; "In the animal kingdom, even the baddest ass predator will generally avoid conflict if it isn't sure of winning, or protecting it's offspring." Is this not how a criminal chooses their victim?

I totally agree with you that a life is not worth material possessions. That said, every robbery is unique and I don't think that anyone could write a single piece of legislation that can cover all of the possibilities in any given situation. But legislation that works at tying the hands of all future victims I think is quite short-sighted.

[onehandle]

16. cough

[X_Digger]

17. Here, have one of these for that cough..

[Katya Mullethov]

19. Well played

What pray tell , does that mean ? That the monocular one is an adulterated and poorly cut rum swilling drunk ?

[oneshooter]

20. It means the same as all of his posts. Nothing. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Bourbon is much preferred

http://www.scotch-tasting-bums.com/Our_Tastings/Entries/2010/9/23_Makers_46,_Parkers_Heritage_Collection_Golden_Anniversary_Kentucky_Straight_Bourbon,_Jeffersons_Presidential_Select_1991_Vintage,_17-yr.old,_Black_Hill_Maple_21-yr._old_files/Bourbon_JeffSelect_Bottle.jpg

The origin of the Jefferson’s brand is with McLain and Kyne Bourbon Distillery, which hearkens back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Today they produce small batch bourbons comprising only 12-15 barrels per batch to produce, Jefferson’s, Jefferson Reserve, Jefferson’s Presidential Select and Sam Houston but source their whiskies from other producers (no distilling on their own).

This bottling is from the defunct Stitzel-Weller Distillery, which was owned by the Van Winkle family, which still bottles under the Pappy Van Winkle name. When Stitzel-Weller was closed in 1992, its stock was sold off to other bottlers.

“The discovery of these rare Stitzel-Weller barrels is a coup for bourbon connoisseurs everywhere, who will undoubtedly discover in Jefferson's Presidential Select a spirit that more than lives up to the fine reputation of its distillery. Both Heaven Hill and Buffalo Trace got some Stitzel-Weller barrels when they bought Old Fitzgerald and W. L. Weller respectively. No one has ever been quite sure how much Diageo retained. Did they really mean to age it 17 years or more? How did McLain & Kyne get it?”

I wonder too, but in any case, I'll propose a toast to William Tecumseh Sherman for doing the right thing when he went to Georgia. He burned Atlanta to the ground but let Savannah stand.

[east texas lib]

29. Hmm...

Perhaps it means that the cyber-stalking singular finger-gripper is confessing to a life of spindle shanked rum-sotting debauchery. It would help explain some of the postings, anyway.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. Still sore?

Man in NC arrest (had handgun, asked to see Obama)

Whodathunk what you so breathlessly inferred had to be the greatest right-wing killing machine since Jason Bourne would turn out to be some harmless geek parked over a mile away from the runway in a clapped out maroon Pontiac, equipped with a conspicuous array of obsolete radio equipment and a sireeeeeeeeen!



Joseph Sean McVey, 23, of Coshocton, Ohio, was found guilty of violating an ordinance and possessing a siren. The state dropped the misdemeanor charge of going armed to the terror of the public because the facts didn't fit the charge.

McVey had already served three days in jail and was sentenced to the time served.

[rrneck]

27. I've been shot at. And at the time I deserved it.

Sounds dramatic doesn't it? It was just kid stuff. Country boys in a pickup truck fucking with a farmer. He shot at us with a load of bird shot over sixty yards away. It felt like rain on the truck. He knew it wouldn't hurt us, and we knew we wouldn't get hurt. But we got the point.

It's impossible to legislate what somebody should do under such fluid and specific circumstances. We can only determine culpability after the fact and with evidence specific to the event. It's absurd to try to legislate what we should always have to do when our actions are defined by circumstances beyond our control and the only response is an act of last resort.