Reply to post: Re: Ambiguity; not in this case.

Click here to see the New Zealand livestream mass-murder vid! This is the internet Facebook, YouTube, Twitter built!

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Ambiguity; not in this case.

"in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"

Liar. You still need a good reason.

Do you know what a lie is? Somehow I doubt it. I'll explain below.

But, without more than a few minutes searching, I came across this snippet of law from Texas :

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

(source https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-have-the-right-to-kill-someone-for-trespassing-on-their-property-but-in-the-UK-you-have-to-use-reasonable-force)

I did not read the full article.

What is claimed as "reasonable" will differ widely. A person well-trained in hand-hand combat, with a dozen of his army mates, going up against a single person who is naked and dazed probably would not be able to convince anyone they had a reasonable fear. An old lady, with a dozen people in their late teens carrying baseball bats, however, could make such a claim.

I normally am loathe to quote Shittypedia, but :

"[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide[s] that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder..."
(emphasis mine)

and :

Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
(again, emphasis mine)

(source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Another one from the same source :

Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Rodney Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime because—in their view—Peairs had been "within his rights in shooting the trespasser".

(source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori)

This was a case of a person going to the wrong address for a halloween party. I do not recall the case from the time it happened and stumbled across it from a linked WP article following on from the first one I mentioned. In this case, while the people who did the shooting were found not guilty in a criminal trial, they did lose a civil trial later.

A stronger argument can be made from HG.ORG though, a site supported by several US law firms :

In some states, the belief regarding the intent of the other party does not need to be reasonable. In a growing number of states it is legal to shoot someone if they are in your house uninvited. Sometimes called the “castle doctrine,” this legal standard makes it possible for one to defend not just their person and their family, but also their property, all using deadly force so long as it occurs in one’s home. According to the laws of many states, the belief that the other person intends harm does not need to be reasonable when exercising the castle doctrine. Some states have begun expanding the zone of defense to include the outside of a home, such as one’s yard or even their neighborhood. Still, even under the castle doctrine, it is generally not allowed for one to shoot a common trespasser or to lure someone into the protected zone for the purpose of justifying lethal force.

(source https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-it-okay-to-shoot-someone-35050

Note here, they claim it does NOT require a reasonable belief of an intent to harm to shoot someone, although they do state that it is "generally not allowed" for you to shoot a common tresspasser. the use of the word "generally" strongly implies that in at least one jurisdiction within the US it is legal to shoot a common tresspasser, and if that is the case then what I initially said is true, "in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"

I'm still not done.

It seems like an obviously unnecessary escalation: An argument about a convenience store parking space turned into deadly violence. Michael Drejka, after being shoved to the ground, shot and killed Markeis McGlockton, who had pushed Drejka but started to back off.

But Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said the authorities will not charge Drejka for the shooting, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.

(source https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/7/23/17602312/stand-your-ground-florida-michael-drejka-markeis-mcglockton WARNING There is a video embedded in this article that I have not seen (I have youtube's JS blocked by default so it won't play), but the site does give a warning about the video and it may be illegal to view in some places, and certainly could be upsetting for some people - including myself I suspect)

So a person shoves someone who is harassing him and his family, then starts to leave. The other person (who, BTW, has a history of threatening people in such cases) shoots him and kills him in a public car park. In front of his children, I might add. The authorities refuse to prosecute because he was allowed to shoot to kill. The site does have an update notice to say the shooter was charged with manslaughter, but it is still clear that the police initially refused to charge him because shooting people over such trivial incidents is considered legal in the US. (And yes, shoving someone to the ground during an argument is absolutely trivial!)

At least Arizona seems to have somewhat sane self-defense laws.

I do NOT claim the sources are accurate, just what someone will find searching for such matters on Google. Those from law firms should at least carry some weight, even if I did quote wikipedia in this.

I deal with various online forums which have US citizens present, and have often been told by people in that country that they have various rights about shooting people who enter their property or act in other ways. I have witnessed motorcyclists lobbying for "stand your ground" laws to be extended to allow them to shoot car drivers who cut them off, or are percieved to be following too closely.

As such, a person who does not live in the US but comes across this material on Google et al, and over many years hears it from various citizens of the US, and sees it portrayed on many TV shows could reasonable be expected to believe that such is the case in the US.

All that said, I will invite you to show where I have been a "liar" as you claim.

Now to explain what a lie is, since you appear not to know. A lie is stating something you believe to be false. Lets say I tell my friend that I know your name is Peter Jack Tompson, and you live at 112525 Hampshire Boolevard, Boggleton, The Shire, London. If you had told me your name was Tim Bucktoo, and you live at 1600 Pensylvania Ave, Washington DC, I would be telling a lie. However, if you had given me the first name and address then even if it was a false name and address, I would NOT be lying by passing it on. I would be honestly stating what I believed to be your real details. I would not be telling the truth, but I would not be lying.

IOW, I honestly believe that in some parts of the US you can shoot someone for stepping on to your property, and I believe i have demonstrated how that is a reasonable belief backed by US law.

Christ alive, if someone with your attitude is allowed firearms, it really does prove that the psychological checks they are supposed to carry out don't work.

And yet, I have been able to back my argument up with several sources. Do you care to apologise for your claim?

(I would've liked to have previewed this to check the HTML works etc, however El Reg has that stupid broken captcha shit coming up again, which does not seem to allow previewing - PLEASE FIX IT!)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019