Inviting Crime

[archbishopjabber]

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

[devonin]

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

He would have to prove that the person trying to loot his house posed him an immediate threat upon his life. A crack addict desperate for money needs only walk two feet inside the wide open door, pick up one expensive thing and leave with it. The man can -easily- simply stay hidden and let the robber leave.

He is under no actual threat of death, and thus, not put into a situation whereby he needs to defend himself, so as far as I'm concerned, the man is guilty of at the minimum manslaughter, and depending on whether the state lawyer assigned to the case against the man is clever, could claim that since the state of his house was inducement to enter and loot, he was actually guilty of premeditated murder in the first degree.

[slipstrike0159]

It would be near impossible to prove that he had his windows and doors open without a witness though. Plus, you couldnt really prove that the crack addict posed a threat or not, anyone could say that by the slightest action they thought they were in immediate danger. With such a law you would have to have many eye witnesses to convict the man. "Dead men tell no tales"
Although, assuming a man lures a known convict into his house just to kill him, he probably has done such things before and enjoys them. In this case a character witness would tell the jury that he is very prone to such things.

[Kilroy_x]

The question is whether infringement upon property rights constitutes an act of violence. Since ownership ultimately dictates even why murder is wrong, there's nothing unreasonable with accepting that people have the right to protect their property as well as their person, but at the same time killing to defend it is often excessive. Minimum necessary use of force is always the most moral action if action is taken. The man in this case could hypothetically have been shown to be provoking an attack. There are a number of other considerations.

[slipstrike0159]

Another concept i just thought of is that if this "property violation justifying murder" thing were set in place, once the man sets foot inside the house (or on the property for that matter) with the intention of taking something he is trespassing and would deserve to die (according to the law). As long as the law says its ok to kill a man inside your home, then any advance with the thought of law infringement towards that individual would be counted as an act that would spark self defense. In such a case the owner would not be at fault, as clearly stated by the law.

Now morally it would not be justified, but that is a whole other issue.

[Melone Marshe]

Think the OP is thinking of the Make My Day Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_law)?

It all depends on if the person is trespassing and is of immediate threat to you or someone in your household. It doesn't matter if the door's closed or even wide-open, displaying a 50'' plasma screen TV - Having expensive stuff in plain view wouldn't hold up in court, since no one's gonna use "He has nice stuff, he's just begging to be robbed" as an argument in court, you know?

Granted, if they don't see that you or those around you were in dire danger, you could very well get charged with anything up to second-degree murder for it.

[Kilroy_x]

Another concept i just thought of is that if this "property violation justifying murder" thing were set in place, once the man sets foot inside the house (or on the property for that matter) with the intention of taking something he is trespassing and would deserve to die (according to the law).

Not quite. More like, the man who owned the property would be entitled to defend himself.

As long as the law says its ok to kill a man inside your home, then any advance with the thought of law infringement towards that individual would be counted as an act that would spark self defense. In such a case the owner would not be at fault, as clearly stated by the law.

It's very hard to discern intent. In this case the fact the criminal had a switchblade and a TV in his hand is probably what makes the self-defense argument sensible.

Now morally it would not be justified, but that is a whole other issue.

Yes it is, but I don't think it's outside the range of discussion based on the OP.

[Kilroy_x]

Having expensive stuff in plain view wouldn't hold up in court, since no one's gonna use "He has nice stuff, he's just begging to be robbed" as an argument in court, you know?

The argument might be used against a jury.

[tsugomaru]

I would've voted him guilty. From the start, he laid a trap with an intent to kill people and that's enough to prove him guilty. It doesn't matter if his life was at any level of threat, the intent to kill was still there.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

I would've voted him guilty. From the start, he laid a trap with an intent to kill people and that's enough to prove him guilty. It doesn't matter if his life was at any level of threat, the intent to kill was still there.

~Tsugomaru

You can't necessarily prove that owning expensive things and not locking your door are intent to trap people any more than you can claim that a woman dressing in a revealing way is trying to trap people into raping her.

[tsugomaru]

Yah, but this case is different. He was sitting there waiting to kill someone and he purposely set up that trap to kill someone.

But then again, the story isn't all too clear about it now that I reread it. =\

~Tsugomaru

[slipstrike0159]

Well with that reasoning yes, you could get him, but only on the crime of conspiracy of murder.
Exactly what i was saying earlier, the man could say that he "thought" he was in danger out of any random movement the guy makes. From this, the owner could say he was only defending himself cause no one was really around to say otherwise. The only way i could really see the prosecution able to prove that it wasnt in defense is if the body of the man was overly beaten.

Also, laying a trap isnt against the law, its whats done after the trap has been sprung.

[devonin]

It would up a charge from manslaughter to first degree murder if you could prove he planned it all out, that's about it.

As an interesting legal aside, "Entrapment" -is- illegal if it is the police who entrap you to commit a crime, at least insofar as the legal defense of entrapment is recognised and if proven, negates any criminal liability.

[archbishopjabber]

This is sort of like saying that a girl who was dressed in skimpy clothing was "asking to be raped." I don't see much difference in the two situations, and logically they should be dealt with in the same manner (in both cases, the robber or rapist are at fault... hopefully).

[xWnLx Crisco]

I have personally talked to 3 police officers about this similar situation.

All 3 said that if they pose a threat to YOU then you have every right to deal with it.

The rules are if they are in your house or on your property after 10pm you can injure/kill them.

They also noted that you shoot to kill or in this case swing to kill. There have been many instances where the robber sued the owner and won.

In Texas they have a law where if someone is on your property after 6pm you can shoot to kill.

Its the same about a couple cities in America about Car Muggings. Aslong as you feel you need to do something be sure to kill them. THats one less mouth for the Jury to hear.

[Kilroy_x]

If you're going to shoot someone who poses a threat it's pretty much a rule to shoot to kill, in terms of tactics. Morality is in conflict with pragmatism seemingly.

[hayatewillown]

The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber.

This does not make sense.

First of all, the man should have been more careful.
IF he did know that living near a crack-house would result in high crime, install an alarm system and for the love of god lock the door!

I would also say that this is the mans fault for not locking his door?
IF The thought hasn't been put to place, than it should have.

Unless you are going into a high presidential-like place, then you are allowed to carry a knife with you. Just not into a high security place.

Unless the man was intending to use the knife for his self defense when he was caught stealing: Thats my idea, and that brings us down to the point on whether or not the man was going to use that knife to kill someone intentionally. He would of had to have pulled out the knife. We can also put in play, that the man that killed the thief, did not commit foul-play.

We can also take into effect that stealing something, ( non federal) , should not result in the death penalty. We can take the fact that the thief had a knife, and if he was intending to use that knife, then why would he steal something if someone came there? IF he was found out, he COULD have used the knife. But he didn't.

I could say that I was cutting something up at a camp out ( like a coconut or fruit) , and my friend saw me mistakingly with a knife and not with the item I was cutting BECAUSE I dropped it. He could take out a gun or a knife and kill me mistakingly.

I guess that doesn't count though because it was a would be robber.

[devonin]

I think the implication that the OP was going for was that he left the place tempting for robbers -simply- because he could then kill them and have an (in his mind) ironclad defense. The debate is whether in such a situation, the defense ought to be valid, since it looks like he was -planning- to kill whoever tried to rob him.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Then I could say

its summer

Most people keep their windows open

Forgot to lock front door or didnt feel it was needed to be locked

Who doesn't sleep next to a crowbar? I have a hand gun but no crow bar.........yet lol

[AquaTeen]

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

Well as you were stating if it were perfectly legal to do that in self-defense you should be innocent. I'm studying to be a criminal defense attorney so I'll put this in legal terms for you. It is for one, legal to do something like that in self-defense only if the other was using deadly force. For two if it's not written down as a law stating that it's illegal to use self-defense to kill someone and you get charges pressed that's means of ex-post facto and it's unconstitutional. So to wrap up you can't use deadly force in self-defense unless you have a fear for your life or if the other person's using deadly force and you should be innocent if it's not written in law form stating that it's illegal to use deadly force in self-defense because it would be means of ex-post facto and it would be unconstitutional.

[devonin]

You seem to have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't a question of whether or not it should be legal to kill someone in self-defense or not, or where the line is betwen self-defense and not.

The question was "If it appears that I am actively -baiting- someone into committing a crime simply so that I could appeal to a legal defense to justify my actions, ought I actually be protected by that law"

If a woman were to dress up in very revealing clothes, go into a very seedy bar, strut around, tell everyone how drunk she is, flirt with all the men, and then stagger out of the bar into a dark alley, all the while being actually completely sober, for the sole purpose of trying to tempt someone to come after her , intending to kill them and claim self-defense, should the claim of self-defense still stand.

I guess it's more a question of "Where could/should/would you draw the line between self-defense, and conspiracy/entrapment"

[AquaTeen]

You seem to have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't a question of whether or not it should be legal to kill someone in self-defense or not, or where the line is betwen self-defense and not.

The question was "If it appears that I am actively -baiting- someone into committing a crime simply so that I could appeal to a legal defense to justify my actions, ought I actually be protected by that law"

If a woman were to dress up in very revealing clothes, go into a very seedy bar, strut around, tell everyone how drunk she is, flirt with all the men, and then stagger out of the bar into a dark alley, all the while being actually completely sober, for the sole purpose of trying to tempt someone to come after her , intending to kill them and claim self-defense, should the claim of self-defense still stand.

I guess it's more a question of "Where could/should/would you draw the line between self-defense, and conspiracy/entrapment"

Good point. I feel that the cry of self-defense shouldn't stand because it wasn't only she and the other people involved know that but of course others will take the side of the person that cried self-defense. So No it shouldn't stand.

[bobeck2]

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

First off, the "bait setting" known as entrapment is irrelevant. There is no criminal law which is violated simply by making your good accessible with the intent that someone will steal them. (I must make a note here that entrapment does come up when dealing with police officers such as sting operations but for the general civilian entrapment does not apply to them).

Regarding whether he should be guilty or not will depend of whether deadly force was reasonable in light of the situation. If there was proof that a "reasonable person" in light of the situation would have felt the need to use deadly force. If the deadly force was only in defense of his property then he will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter (involuntary manslaughter involves a mistaken belief that deadly force was necessary).

However if the deadly force was used under a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary and that, he or his family was PERSONALLY at risk of imminent bodily harm then the deadly force would be justified.

Under the circumstances of this hypothetical and given the fact that dead men cant talk (hahah :D) the one who did the killing will easily be able to argue (whether or not it actually happened) that he was justified in killing because there was a switch blade in his hand. This offers proof that he was in actually imminent serious bodily harm and thus was justified.

[devonin]

Right, but the question isn't about whether as written, his legal defense of 'self-defense- would stand up in court. The question is: If it could be proven that he went out of his way to encourage the attempted theft -so- he could defend himself with deadly force, should that not counter his claim of self-defense because he diliberately provoked the crime?

If I go up to someone and taunt and belabor him to try and goad him into hitting me, and then, since "he started it" I beat the everloving crap out of him "in self-defense because he attacked me" shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

[Ground_Breaker]

shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

Yes. This is one of the things I have thought about from time to time. I saw it happen in high school all the time between teenagers. Bully comes up to some kid, harasses him until the kid can't take it anymore and takes a swing, then the bully beats him up, claiming that self-defense was his motive. Unfortunately for the bully, when the school's police officers come around, he is not able to claim self-defense since he provoked the action of the other kid. Admittedly, in most of these cases there were witnesses to the event, but even when there weren't, the outcome was still the same.

In the expensive gadget/open door situation, realistically, I think that a jury would look at how much the guy seemed to be baiting the burglar to come into his house, and wouldn't simply say, "Well the guy came in and trespassed, so the homeowner was justified in taking action." Having a switchblade in his (the burglar's) possession doesn't necessarily warrant deadly force on the part of the homeowner unless the switchblade was obviously brandished in a threatening manner or something, which can't be proved since the only testimony a jury will hear is that of the homeowner.

This reminds me of all kinds of instances of frivolous lawsuits brought against large companies because of the lack of completely unnecessary warning labels. It's not exactly the same thing, I know, but the similarities between the type of people who will bring such frivolous lawsuits against companies and people who try to bait criminals into their homes are very interesting. It's like they're testing the court systems and the law, respectively, seeing what they can get away with by using their own interpretations of the law to their advantage.

[devonin]

McDonald's coffee woman, etc

Yeah, an 80 year old woman who was too old to react nearly quickly enough to the spilled coffee, who suffereed 3rd degree burns on six percent of her body, spent 8 days in the hospital, that was totally a frivolous lawsuit.

[bobeck2]

If I go up to someone and taunt and belabor him to try and goad him into hitting me, and then, since "he started it" I beat the everloving crap out of him "in self-defense because he attacked me" shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

The flaw in this as compared to the original hypothetical is that this "flaunting" asking to be hit would constitute consent to be hit. Thus the one consenting to the bodily harm can not retaliate and thus has no means for self defense.

In the case at hand however, simply placing all items near a window is not "implied consent" for them to take it. Thus, simply by intentionally making the crime more easily accomplished is no grounds for making one guilty of defending his personal property.

Edit. Further i must add that self defense is only justified to the extent necessary to remove the danger. Beating the ever loving daylights out of a person out of self defense is clearly beyond the scope of removing the present danger.

[Ground_Breaker]

I thought the argument was that since the coffee cup didn't explicitly say "HOT" on it somewhere, she presented a case with which she sued McDonald's. Seems frivolous to me, since if you don't understand that coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself, you'll probably get burned, then you shouldn't be drinking it. Her age really is irrelevant.

How was it McDonald's' fault that she was burned by the coffee? Is McDonald's at fault every single time someone spills one of their hot products on themselves? Should they make people sign a waiver of liability before consuming coffee? Should they only sell cold coffee?

[devonin]

I thought the argument was that since the coffee cup didn't explicitly say "HOT" on it somewhere, she presented a case with which she sued McDonald's. Seems frivolous to me, since if you don't understand that coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself, you'll probably get burned, then you shouldn't be drinking it. Her age really is irrelevant.

How was it McDonald's' fault that she was burned by the coffee? Is McDonald's at fault every single time someone spills one of their hot products on themselves? Should they make people sign a waiver of liability before consuming coffee? Should they only sell cold coffee?

The lawyer claimed that the coffee was made -too- hot, to the point where it was undrinkable, and thus defective in its production.

More importantly, before ANY of that came up, they asked for 20,000 dollars to cover the medical expenses (I think the actual bill only ended up being about 12 grand, but still) and considering she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS from their coffee, and spent over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts, I think she had a perfectly legitimate case at that point.

McDonalds countered with an offer of 800 bucks. That was when they got a lawyer involved, and when the numbers started getting crazy.

[Ground_Breaker]

Ahhh, well I guess I didn't quite know the whole story, my mistake. In any case, my point about frivolous lawsuits in general in this post (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showpost.php?p=2959411&postcount=25) remains the same, just forget I ever mentioned the coffee woman.

[bobeck2]

. In any case, my point about frivolous lawsuits in general in remains the same, just forget I ever mentioned the coffee woman.

How does this relate to inviting crime?

[Ground_Breaker]

I said this topic reminded me of those types of scenarios. If you'd actually read my first post in this thread, then you'd know I made a point about the topic at hand.

Yes. This is one of the things I have thought about from time to time. I saw it happen in high school all the time between teenagers. Bully comes up to some kid, harasses him until the kid can't take it anymore and takes a swing, then the bully beats him up, claiming that self-defense was his motive. Unfortunately for the bully, when the school's police officers come around, he is not able to claim self-defense since he provoked the action of the other kid. Admittedly, in most of these cases there were witnesses to the event, but even when there weren't, the outcome was still the same.

In the expensive gadget/open door situation, realistically, I think that a jury would look at how much the guy seemed to be baiting the burglar to come into his house, and wouldn't simply say, "Well the guy came in and trespassed, so the homeowner was justified in taking action." Having a switchblade in his (the burglar's) possession doesn't necessarily warrant deadly force on the part of the homeowner unless the switchblade was obviously brandished in a threatening manner or something, which can't be proved since the only testimony a jury will hear is that of the homeowner.

Thanks.

[bobeck2]

Ahh. yes. My apologies for not reading fully.