Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maldevious]

PTW

[Owlbread]

What if you have no idea it's a first responder and you think you're defending yourself against someone that just violently broke into your house?

This is a good argument for not killing people who come into your house indiscriminately, yes

That said, you can't foresee the situation that comes out of the blue as a result of that law where someone is going to accidentally shoot someone else under pretty understandable circumstances.

[mainiac]

What if you have no idea it's a first responder and you think you're defending yourself against someone that just violently broke into your house?

This is a good argument for not killing people who come into your house indiscriminately, yes

That said, you can't foresee the situation that comes out of the blue as a result of that law where someone is going to accidentally shoot someone else under pretty understandable circumstances.

Yes, it's a shame that our laws are interpreted by robots with no understanding of right or wrong instead of human juries.  Maybe this could have been avoided if we hadn't passed that laws requiring prosecutors to always press charges for every legal transgression without discrimination.  But sadly it's too late for that, our hands are tied.

BRB, gotta go stand trial for that time I didn't signal my turn while leaving my driveway.  Man, it sucks living in this dystopian world of complete adherence to the letter, not the spirit, of the law.

[Nadaka]

Are you sure it's merely first responders? According to Al Jazeera it's any cop or firefighter. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/01/2013115222016325336.html

Police, paramedics and firefighters are all first responders.

[Leafsnail]

The thing is this law only applies to murders anyway, so you'd already be in massive trouble without this law.

[Sheb]

I'm totally reading this.

[Owlbread]

What if you have no idea it's a first responder and you think you're defending yourself against someone that just violently broke into your house?

This is a good argument for not killing people who come into your house indiscriminately, yes

That said, you can't foresee the situation that comes out of the blue as a result of that law where someone is going to accidentally shoot someone else under pretty understandable circumstances.

Yes, it's a shame that our laws are interpreted by robots with no understanding of right or wrong instead of human juries.  Maybe this could have been avoided if we hadn't passed that laws requiring prosecutors to always press charges for every legal transgression without discrimination.  But sadly it's too late for that, our hands are tied.

BRB, gotta go stand trial for that time I didn't signal my turn while leaving my driveway.  Man, it sucks living in this dystopian world of complete adherence to the letter, not the spirit, of the law.

Your dedication to sarcasm is delightful, but remember that some prosecutors do press very heavy charges for pretty sketchy legal transgressions. I'm thinking of people like that farm worker over here who realised he was carrying a pocket knife in the street in his pocket, so he handed it over to the police who thanked him then promptly arrested him. He was then charged successfully, I can't remember what kind of fine he had to pay.

Quite recently in a town in my county a local bam went into a supermarket and tried to rob it, wearing a pair of boxer shorts on his head, carrying a bread knife. The shop assistant was quite upset but they really didn't have much money at all, and everybody in the supermarket knew who he was. After they spoke with him he gave up, realised what he was doing and went back home. After sorting himself out, he came back to the supermarket and apologised fully to the shop assistant. He was probably high on something or drank a lot, but he knew he was being a dick, and he's just a local worthy who wouldn't really have done anything. Next thing - rapid response team turns up all gung-ho and shit, arrest him on the spot like he's got 3 wanted stars. The judge that charged him said something like "although a robbery was not committed, the shop assistant was terrified" so he's in prison for 14 months.

[Leafsnail]

The sketchy legal transgression of murder?

[Owlbread]

The sketchy legal transgression of murder?

The sketchy legal transgression of killing an intruder in your house that may or may not have been armed. I suppose you could get off on manslaughter if you tried to shoot him in the arm and shot him in the heart or something.

[Leafsnail]

This law applies only to murders.

[Owlbread]

This law applies only to murders.

But would shooting an intruder in your house that you didn't know was a member of a rapid response team (unlikely but one must cover all one's bases) count as murder? It ought to be very clearly defined. I'm not really against the law, it just has to be checked thoroughly.

[Leafsnail]

It depends on the case, and this law would not change that at all.  I'd say in most cases yes, and that you should er on the side of not murdering people.

[Owlbread]

It depends on the case, and this law would not change that at all.  I'd say in most cases yes, and that you should er on the side of not murdering people.

You see, here we hit the problem of it being both socially and legally acceptable in a number of places in the USA to kill intruders/criminals and so forth in one's own home if one feels threatened. It's not murder there, basically. I think for the law not to conflict with any others, it should be changed. I can't find anything that shows whether it is legal in Connecticut to kill intruders, but certainly this guy in the state shot his adoptive son because he thought he was an intruder: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/connecticut-father-kills-masked-intruder-learns-it-his-son/

No charges there, probably legal?

Over here, if a burglar was to enter my house and I stabbed him through the leg because I felt threatened (no intention to kill, just incapacitate), I would probably be charged with assault unless he came at me with a knife himself. None of that "attack is the best form of defence" stuff. This is why people in this country tend to own maglites.

[Leafsnail]

It doesn't conflict with any other laws because it doesn't change the definition of murder or add any new offence.  It just makes it a worse offence to perform murder on a particular subset of people doing a particular job.

The possibility of killing relatives is a pretty good reason not to blindly shoot at people in your house though.

[Owlbread]

It doesn't conflict with any other laws because it doesn't change the definition of murder or add any new offence.  It just makes it a worse offence to perform murder on a particular subset of people doing a particular job.

The possibility of killing relatives is a pretty good reason not to blindly shoot at people in your house though.

I suppose if we go by current American definitions, if you did shoot a member of the emergency services because you think he's an intruder that wouldn't really be murder. You'd probably be alright, unless you're dealing with a judge with an agenda. Who knows, maybe it would be the catalyst for changing the laws on shooting intruders if someone did get charged over it. And the thing is, the guy didn't shoot his son blindly as you say, that's exaggeration; he thought he had a shiny object and was wearing a mask and he was trying to break into the house in the dark.