Print

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

[Forumsdwarf]

Here's a legal gray area to ponder:

What if you've built a booby-trap that can only be activated by deliberate trigger? ... lawyers will call it "The Dwarf Fortress Defense" ...

In colorado, yes. If the Booby trap is controlled by a human, it is legal.

You actually knew that?  That's pretty cool.

[Kogan Loloklam]

You actually knew that?  That's pretty cool.

If they aren't anyone in the house it wouldn't work, but if you had anyone living there, you'd be fine.

Also, it says "any degree of physical force"
The military calls torture a physical force, so you could, in essence, torture someone for entering your property until such point that they no longer have any desire to go on your property again.

How's that for a gray area?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Colorado Revised Statutes

TITLE 18 CRIMINAL CODE : ARTICLE 1 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY

18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

[Forumsdwarf]

You actually knew that?  That's pretty cool.

If they aren't anyone in the house it wouldn't work, but if you had anyone living there, you'd be fine.

Also, it says "any degree of physical force"
The military calls torture a physical force, so you could, in essence, torture someone for entering your property until such point that they no longer have any desire to go on your property again.

How's that for a gray area?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Colorado Revised Statutes

TITLE 18 CRIMINAL CODE : ARTICLE 1 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY

18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Wait, if you could torture someone that would imply they were already subdued.

If that were legal it would also be legal to execute an intruder even if he were unconscious and tied to a chair.

Are you sure it works like that?  Usually the right to self-defense ends when the victim feels the threat is ended, a standard which if applied to an unconscious person tied to a chair would probably not earn an aquittal.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Colorado doesn't make any distinction about it being in self defense. It isn't a self defense law. It is an authorization for use of deadly force against an intruder.

There might be a problem if they were unconscious, but as long as you only do stuff to them when they are capable of headbutting or flicking you, you are fine.

[smigenboger]

Ouch, don't go smoking stuff in an unknown pasture in Colorado.

[Grakelin]

Colorado doesn't make any distinction about it being in self defense. It isn't a self defense law. It is an authorization for use of deadly force against an intruder.

There might be a problem if they were unconscious, but as long as you only do stuff to them when they are capable of headbutting or flicking you, you are fine.

If you can't kill them when they're incapable of harming you, it's a self defense law.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Colorado doesn't make any distinction about it being in self defense. It isn't a self defense law. It is an authorization for use of deadly force against an intruder.

There might be a problem if they were unconscious, but as long as you only do stuff to them when they are capable of headbutting or flicking you, you are fine.

If you can't kill them when they're incapable of harming you, it's a self defense law.

Perhaps. Still, since the level of "harm" required can be trivial and non-damaging...

[cowofdoom78963]

Are you sure it works like that?  Usually the right to self-defense ends when the victim feels the threat is ended, a standard which if applied to an unconscious person tied to a chair would probably not earn an aquittal.

They could wake up, escape while the hostage taker is not looking, and then come back the next day and kill the hostage taker in his sleep.

[Jackrabbit]

Hey, that's the risk you take.

Also you've probably called the police by that point, if you're sane.

[cowofdoom78963]

Hey, that's the risk you take.

Also you've probably called the police by that point, if you're sane.

Any good burgler knows to cut the phone lines before he makes any big moves.

[smjjames]

Hey, that's the risk you take.

Also you've probably called the police by that point, if you're sane.

Any good burgler knows to cut the phone lines before he makes any big moves.

Two words:

Cell Phones.

[Jackrabbit]

This is the burglar who is tied up, yes?

You're talking about a situation where a burglar, after having his attempt to rob a house with presumably a single occupant foiled, is tied up and unconscious and in order for your scenario to make sense, he needs to become conscious once more, escape from wherever he's being held within the space of time it'd take to whip out a mobile phone and dial 911 or, if the person doesn't have one and the phoneline is cut, to run to next door and use their phone and come back and murder this person who has by this point certainly called the police who will be providing him with assistance to make sure some killer who miraculously escaped doesn't come back and murder them.

I get that you're playing the Devils Advocate, but it still doesn't justify having a law that allows you to kill someone who can't fight back on the off chance that they might kill you at some point in the future if a series of unlikely things happen.

[cowofdoom78963]

Lets say the burgler has escaped into the blackness of the night and for a long while is unheard of. He could still come back. Bastard could be tricky.

[Jackrabbit]

Yes, he could. Witness protection acts exist and he'd still have be party to a huge amount of unlikely coincidences. If he escapes, you get out. You don't just kill an unarmed and unconscious intruder because he might escape and he might be stupid enough to come back and try and kill you because how can you know? You can say better safe than sorry but this is a human life we're talking about. You are not justified in doing that, ever, because you're basing your decision on assumption, unfounded assumption, because how can you know this stranger, and whether or not he'd come back and kill you if he somehow managed to escape before the police arrived and managed to get far enough away that they couldn't catch him?

Are you playing devils advocate or do you honestly believe people should be allowed to kill unarmed, defenseless intruders one they're no longer a threat? Or are you just trolling? I can never tell with you.

[cowofdoom78963]

A human life? What about my life? I dont want to have to give up my home and identity becuase some asshole who could kill me. You want me to risk my life for him? I should not be in this situation in the first place. Also you forget this man has already broken into my house. If he didn't want to die he should have stayed out of my house. It's as simple as that. Im not responsible for some burgler. No one forced him to come here.

Also like I said he is a criminal. I assume a drunk person who drives around in the middle of the night will get into a wreck. I assume a criminal who broke into my house will want to kill me. Im not the police. I should not have to use restraint around dangerous people like these.