![]() |
Inviting Crime
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? |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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.
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
Think the OP is thinking of the 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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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 |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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 |
Re: Inviting Crime
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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).
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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.
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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.
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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 |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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" |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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? |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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? |
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
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. |
Re: Inviting Crime
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 remains the same, just forget I ever mentioned the coffee woman.
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
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.
Quote:
|
Re: Inviting Crime
Ahh. yes. My apologies for not reading fully.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution