Debate - Deadly force in home defense

[jack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075411.stm

Normally I'm disturbingly traditionally left, in terms of economics, crime, personal lives, etc, but for once I'm on the other side, which is probably rare enough to be telling-people-about worthy.

Killing someone breaking into your home? Yeah, sounds fair, they deserved it. First I'll define some limiting terms I think most people can agree with to, and that everyone here probably would; if someone's dropped everything and running away, or unconscious, or otherwise safe, no killing; if someone's attacking you, or someone else, anything is fair game.

But breaking into someone's house seems enough of a threat to justify deadly force.

Other things I agree with: *simplifying* the rules sounds good (if they're as simple as some people say, why couldn't they be summed up in a sidebar? :) ); Tony Martin isn't necessarily the best precedent because it was a whole mess.

However, to revert to form, I'll tear some holes in the rest of what the man says. STEP ONE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT KILLING SOMEONE IN YOUR HOME BY MISTAKE. While I may admit the moral in abstract, this sort of kills the law in the real world. Step two, it's still a tragedy if someone's killed, even if they are a toe-rag. It's not something to be proud of, even though they were asking for it.

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Probably worth mentioning that confronting a burglar is rather an unsafe thing to do.

AFAIAA the Martin case falls into the "running away" category. Though to complicate matters, you might not know at the time whether someone is running away or just running to get their well-armed accomplice.

There is also an obvious flaw in laws that make it too easy get away with killing burglars - if you can make it look like someone is a burglar when really you invited them in, you have a good mechanism for getting away with murder. This is an inevitable problem, of course, but should be considered.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

AFAIAA the Martin case falls into the "running away" category.

Yeah, I think so.

This is an inevitable problem, of course, but should be considered.

There was a bit in the Simpsons with this.

Wiggum: You know, if he's in your house you can do what you like *wink*
Homer: FLANDERS! Come here a mo.
Flanders: Okelydokely.
Wiggum: Doesn't work if you invite them.
Homer: Doh. Go home, Flanders.
Fladers: Toodlyoodly.

It's related to where I was going at the end: you, and the court, need to know for sure why he was there. It may well be entirely enenforceable as law, in fact (the absence of details suggests it may well be a soundbite), but still interesting in theory.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

No, I utterly disagree. Deadly force may be excusable in self defence, or defence of other people, but never for just property. OK, at this point you could drop into Benthamite arguments on the monetary value of a human life, but any reasonable estimate would be greater than replacing a hi-fi.

[satanicsocks.livejournal.com]

But the emotional impact of having property stolen, especially identity theft, irreplaceable heirlooms, etc, is pretty high too... I know I felt bad enough when our house was burgled a few weeks ago, and I hardly lost anything, and nothing I couldn't replace. I can't think of an instance in which one would prefer to die than lose property, but perhaps there is one?

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

You say "[…]is pretty high", I'd argue "can be". I managed to fail to feel much trauma when I was burgled a few months after moving out of college into my first rented house. A very nice lady from Victim Support turned up and looked slightly put out that none of us were very upset, beyond the material losses. It did affect us, in that we were more aware of crime, and adjusted our lives somewhat to compensate, but I certainly didn't lose any sleep over it and I don't recall my housemates mentioning having done so.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Is human life *always* worth more? Maybe, maybe not. I'll agree it is for this discussion.

I just realised my post was confusing two different ideas.

1. Breaking into someone's house counts as threatening to them.

Since a reasonable proportion of burglars might harm an occupant, the occupant is justified in self defense. Though there's obviously a spectrum: Is it ok to kill someone without warning them? Is a sign outside enough warning? If you've challenged them and they continue to rifle your belongings, but not threaten you directly? If they have a gun/bat/are bigger than you but don't *explicitly* threaten you.

2. Even though their life is worth more, that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be given up: killing someone trying to maim you I believe is justified, for instance. Could the level of intimidation of repeated burglaries reach this level? Potentially...

After that, I am now less sure than I was.

[captain-aj.livejournal.com]

Think of this from the point of view of preventing the burglar from running off with your property; I believe that's entire reasonable, it belongs to you.
If you do do that, he's hardly going to apologise and run away, it's almost a given that he's going to try and hurt you. By that reasoning, attempting to do the right thing will always result in self defence, justifiable up to the level it takes for them to give up, be it injury or more.
Oh, and I agree with the original post ... killing somebody might be justifiable, but it's almost always tragic ... a life is a life.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, not *given*, but likely enough that you could be justified in assuming it.

Of course, there are burglars who wouldn't hurt a fly. But while I think "you're inviting trouble doing that so take the consequences" is a lousy argument when you're doing something you *should* be able to do, it's quite good when you're doing something you *shouldn't*.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

"He was a bad-un, he got what's coming to him" is a terribly dangerous argument, and one people are hypocritical about. It's the stereotype of the Daily Mail reader who believes that all burglars should be locked up for life, but it's unfair for them to have got a speeding ticket. Society decides on the penalties it imposes for transgressions of laws, people don't lose all rights as humans the instant they transgress a law.

Oh, and if it helps, property isn't special, whereas human life is. This is a major fallacy of US Libertarians; property isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by the State (the State obviously ideally being the consensus representation of the Nation's constituent individuals). In an anarchy, your property is only what you can defend with force, in a functioning state you've given over many (but not all) rights to employ force to the state in return for security. I don't believe that a temporary failure in the state's duty to provide security justifies a lapse in these rules if the only thing at stake is property.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, they do lose *some* rights. I'd say (apart from possibly some extremly convoluted and grave saving-the-wrold circumstance) "not being tortured" is a right *everyone* should have. "Not being locked up" is one you forfeit with enough cause. Where does "not being killed" fall?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what point you're making about property not being a right. In an anarchy, your life last only as long as you can protect it, doesn't it? I might be persuaded that life is an automatic right, and property is something granted, but in the sense of "If I was organising things, what I'd give people" right, I'd give both.

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

Damn, and it sounded so good when I wrote it.

I think there's still some substance there, I'll try and write something more clear at some point.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, everything else you wrote was clearer than what I managed, so you're still ahead, even if that wasn't convincing quite yet :)

[mair_in_grenderich]

If you do do that, he's hardly going to apologise and run away, it's almost a given that he's going to try and hurt you.

Aw, bollocks. Armed robbery is a lot more common than it used to be, but a lot of burglars still run away if they can.

If he's waving a knife at you, though - .

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I stand somewhere in the middle on this one. I think you should be allowed to defend yourself - if someone comes into your house to nick stuff, then I don't think they have a right to complain if you, eg, hit them on the head with a frying pan and knock them out, and take reasonable steps to defend your home and your stuff. If you shoot an unarmed burglar, I don't think that's justifiable.

My friends list has been wanking ranting debating this today, so you might find this and this interesting.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Thanks. *goes to read*

That brings up another sticky thing: that a frying pan to the back of the head *is* deadly. That is, for everyone but a trained ninja, you have to hit them as hard as you can, or they're likely to turn round and hit you back. But hitting someone as hard as you can is *likely* to knock them out, but entirely possibly crush some vital part of the brain, insofar as burglars have them :) Is it fair game?

[satanicsocks.livejournal.com]

yeah, interesting point, do you not hit and hope they don't hit you, or do you hit them and hope you hit hard enough that they don't hit back? Because if they weren't going to attack you, as soon as you make violent overtures towards them, they will...

when Jenni and James got home and the alarm was ringing, they were understandably wary of entering the house in case the burglar was on the premises. a sensible burglar would have run, but some people aren't sensible.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I guess it's partially a numbers game. What chance of your injury balances a large risk of death for them?

If running = ok 95% chance and attacking = ok 90% chance, running it is. But if those are reversed? How big a gap is justification?