Curious to see thoughts on this. 21 year old intoxicated intruder shot after being told to leave home. Looks straight forward to me.
I'm glad to see people actually defending their property despite the central government takeover these days.
No, this does not seem like a good example of property rights defense. Did you see the picture of the girl? You can't tell me that the couple had ample reason to fear for their lives. A drunken/stoned college girl of 21 does not pose a threat, and firing a shot (in the dark!?) and actually hitting her tells me the guy should learn how to use a firearm before he actually pulls a trigger.
Trespassing on someone's property is not justification for shooting them, especially when the trespasser is obviously impaired. But admittedly, there may be more to the story. This is my initial impression.
It says they are psychiatrists. Maybe they thought they were under attack from one of their loopy patients, and not just a drunk.
I think their claim of putative private defense is legitimate, but I don't think the trespassing charge is. "Trespassing" is really a crime in terms of public law - it's not as if they could lay a civil charge and claim damages. My biases lead me to suspect that they are persuing criminal charges because they want this girl to "get help", and they think this will achieve it.
Lewis S.: No, this does not seem like a good example of property rights defense. Did you see the picture of the girl? You can't tell me that the couple had ample reason to fear for their lives. A drunken/stoned college girl of 21 does not pose a threat, and firing a shot (in the dark!?) and actually hitting her tells me the guy should learn how to use a firearm before he actually pulls a trigger. Trespassing on someone's property is not justification for shooting them, especially when the trespasser is obviously impaired. But admittedly, there may be more to the story. This is my initial impression.
Dude, if you try to negotiate with someone who's breaking into your house and continues walking forward despite your requesting them not to, you're a moron. Good luck fending for yourself when the crazies come loose during the economic collapse and ensuing chaos. Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina?
The article was unclear with respect to some details. It sounds like there was a length of time that transpired and the coupled identified her as a young woman. I just wonder whether or not based on the visual evidence they had available that they shouldn't have concluded it was a drunken college student. Again, look at her picture. The woman said in the 911 call they were looking at her and she kept coming in. It just seems they had time to evaluate the threat level. It even sounds from the story that the husband may not have been aiming at her, as if he were trying to scare her or something. I don't know.
I fully concede I could be wrong here, but the way the story is related raises some questions for me.
I'm with Lewis. We don't know enough details, but from what it sounds like, actually shooting the girl seems excessive. And Lew may be right the guy was just trying to scare her. (Who shoots someone in the hip?)
Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina?
Is that where the US Army confiscated people's firearms?
Good luck defending in that scenario...
this technique is not endorsed by everyone in the firearms community. This post is for informational use only.
I'd say a shot to stop her (not kill her) was reasonable given that the government has prevented/banned any route to legitimate defense/prevention in this scenario.
Aristophanes: Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina? Is that where the US Army confiscated people's firearms? Good luck defending in that scenario...
You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That's my only point.
So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area?
gamma_rat:I think their claim of putative private defense is legitimate, but I don't think the trespassing charge is. "Trespassing" is really a crime in terms of public law - it's not as if they could lay a civil charge and claim damages. My biases lead me to suspect that they are persuing criminal charges because they want this girl to "get help", and they think this will achieve it.
Indeed, that appears to be the goal here. From the article:
Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said his office usually prosecutes about a dozen cases a year involving drunken trespassing. The main goal in prosecuting such cases is to get defendants treatment for their alcohol habits, he said. The felony trespassing charge can carry a sentence of one to five years in prison, but Garnett said prosecutors often opt for treatment or lesser pleas instead of prison time. “We try to help the person get the treatment they need for their drinking,” he said.
The main goal in prosecuting such cases is to get defendants treatment for their alcohol habits, he said. The felony trespassing charge can carry a sentence of one to five years in prison, but Garnett said prosecutors often opt for treatment or lesser pleas instead of prison time.
“We try to help the person get the treatment they need for their drinking,” he said.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Also from the article:
They don’t plan to file charges against Justice – Colorado law allows residents to use deadly force against trespassers who intend to use force.
It's not at all clear to me that the girl intended to use force. If she was hammered, then I seriously doubt that she had any such intent.
One question I have is whether the homeowners were able to ascertain that she was a highly intoxicated 21-year-old female before shooting her. However, I'm skeptical that it was so dark that they couldn't more closely determine her age, gender, or size. So I think they may have used excessive force.
of course they are justified in shopoting her. she was in their house in the middle of the night and told to leave and refused.
its unfortunate that the government is filing charges even after the homeowners sound like they don't want any charges filed against her.
is it legal to file charges even if the property owners don't want to file charges?
limitgov:of course they are justified in shopoting her. she was in their house in the middle of the night and told to leave and refused.
Do you think they would've been justified in shooting her in the head? Why or why not?
limitgov:its unfortunate that the government is filing charges even after the homeowners sound like they don't want any charges filed against her.
We agree here. Of course, the government wants its cattle citizens to be productive, and it doesn't think they're productive when they "abuse alcohol".
limitgov:is it legal to file charges even if the property owners don't want to file charges?
Of course it is. In the government's view, all crimes are against itself (as representative and guardian of "the social order").
autolykos: So I think they may have used excessive force.
What is the Colorado legal standard for determining excessive force in the defense of a home?
"Do you think they would've been justified in shooting her in the head? Why or why not?"
Yes. But any rational person wouldn't do that, and they didn't. Although, with a handgun, if you're not that good at aiming and your very nervous and shaking, you could aim for the body and still hit the head. That's the chance you take when you walk into someone else's house in the middle of the night and refuse to leave.
bloomj31:What is the Colorado legal standard for determining excessive force in the defense of a home?
Why should I care?
limitgov:Yes. But any rational person wouldn't do that, and they didn't.
With all due respect, I think that's an attempt at having your cake and eating it too. If you think they would've been justified in shooting her in the head, then why does it matter whether doing so would be "rational"?
limitgov:Although, with a handgun, if you're not that good at aiming and your very nervous and shaking, you could aim for the body and still hit the head. That's the chance you take when you walk into someone else's house in the middle of the night and refuse to leave.
I don't consider refusing to leave someone's home to prima facie constitute a threat against the homeowner's life and thus justify lethal force to be immediately employed against the trespasser. So if Ms. Ripple had died from the gunshot wound, I would consider Mr. Justice to be guilty of murder.
autolykos: Why should I care?
Seems kinda...relevant don't you think?
§ 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
"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."
And then,
"To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder." People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
If you're not going by Colorado legal standards, whose standards are you going by when reviewing this case?
bloomj31:Seems kinda...relevant don't you think?
Not to my judgement, no. You still don't get it, do you?
autolykos: Not to my judgement, no. You still don't get it, do you?
No I get it I just think it's funny that you probably don't even consult the law because you think you have some overriding jurisdiction. The question of justifiable force in this case is a legal one, therefore determining the legitimacy of the act requires the utilization of a current legal standard.
Or we can argue over what was right or wrong in a moral sense all day. Is that what you wanted to do?
bloomj31:Or we can argue over what was right or wrong in a moral sense all day. Is that what you wanted to do?
... Of course it is. That's why I said you still don't get it. I couldn't care less what the state of Colorado says. As far as I'm concerned, I do have an overriding moral jurisdiction. That is, I consider myself to be a moral authority quite independent from the state of Colorado. And the question of justifiable force in this case, and in every other case, is a moral one IMHO.
autolykos: As far as I'm concerned, I do have an overriding moral jurisdiction. That is, I consider myself to be a moral authority quite independent from the state of Colorado. And the question of justifiable force in this case, and in every other case, is a moral one IMHO.
Alright....think I'm done here.
I don't understand why you can't handle this.
Because moral conversations are uninteresting to me. I do not study morality or ethics, I study the law. I have nothing meaningful to say about the morality of home defense because I have no concrete moral standard to consult when making such determinations.
Legal standards give me a concrete framework for considering these sorts of issues. In the state of Colorado homeowners are given great latitude in determining the appropriate level of physical force to use when defending their homes from intruders. I feel confident when making this statement because I believe it's consistent with the letter of the law. I've provided what I believe to be the relevant statute. I'm using my understanding of that statute when analyzing the facts of this case.
Based on what I think the law says and also based on the facts of the case I've been privy to (which may or may not be all the relevant facts) I feel fairly confident that Timothy Justice will be found to have operated within his legal rights when he shot Zoey Ripple in his home. This is all based on the information I've been presented thus far, my determination could change if/when new information becomes available. I do not claim to have all the facts of the case.
bloomj31:Because moral conversations are uninteresting to me. I do not study morality or ethics, I study the law. I have nothing meaningful to say about the morality of home defense because I have no concrete moral standard to consult when making such determinations.
That, to me, is a big problem.
"I don't consider refusing to leave someone's home to prima facie constitute a threat against the homeowner's life and thus justify lethal force"
So, you think people should just be allowed to break into other people's homes and stay there, and property owners just have to live with that?
Aristophanes: You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That's my only point. So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area?
Nothing is black or white in a scenario of someone breaking into your house. In that situation, there's no ability to tell if someone is there to do you harm, to simply steal, if they're simply drunk or anything. That doesn't mean you don't act.
Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
limitgov:So, you think people should just be allowed to break into other people's homes and stay there, and property owners just have to live with that?
No, and you've just argued a false dilemma. Just because I don't think something justifies lethal force doesn't mean I don't think it justifies any force.
triknighted:Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
I know you didn't intend this question for me, but I hope you don't mind if I answer it anyway. I think that using weaponry with the aim to kill is appropriate only when it's in defense of one's own life and/or others' lives. So, for example, if I were to intentionally kill someone who's "simply" trying to steal my car (and let's assume I'm not in the car when he does this), then I think I'd be guilty of murder.
Autolykos: triknighted:Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill? I know you didn't intend this question for me, but I hope you don't mind if I answer it anyway. I think that using weaponry with the aim to kill is appropriate only when it's in defense of one's own life and/or others' lives. So, for example, if I were to intentionally kill someone who's "simply" trying to steal my car (and let's assume I'm not in the car when he does this), then I think I'd be guilty of murder.
I'd say that's fair in most circumstances. I think a lot of it depends on whether one's family is involved. We hear these stories of an old lady turning on the light to find a young man who is regretful. She feeds him a meal, he goes away apologetic or turns himself in, bla bla bla. People who break in have trespassed, and that's infringing someone's private property. If they do so without announcing what their intentions, it's their fault. Most cases I've read about where there are people breaking in to others' homes are not intoxicated and they usually have an ulterior motive in mind: namely either theft, rape or murder.
In this case, I don't know all the details. I thought it'd be interesting to post to see reactions. All I know is people should never feel vulnerable in their own homes. Not insenuating all people on here think this way, but I see that many on here would rather avoid violence than act justly in defending his or her property.
I suppose the fine line lies between justly defending one's property and the need to do so. Would that girl have been a legitimate threat? No, probably not. But how would they know? Hell, I just read a report about two naked men scrambling with one eating the other's face. No joke. I suppose anything can happen lol, so my point is that I'd always take the safest course of action.
Maybe this will make college kids think twice before getting drunk off their ass.
If you want to live with your ****ing choices...
you also should be prepared to die with them.
Buzz Killington: Maybe this will make college kids think twice before getting drunk off their ass. If you want to live with your ****ing choices... you also should be prepared to die with them.
That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
triknighted:That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
Well, maybe she'll learn from this and realize that drinking games jus' ain't hip.
Sorry, that's just awful...
I have a problem with the concept, moral or legal, of people who leave doors unlocked shooting people who enter.
If property is alienable there can only be property privileges and property responsibilities which is a balanced equation. Property rights implies an absolute or unbalanced equation which, in my opinion, doesn't reflect anything observable.
Doesn't it depend on the definition used for "justice"?
triknighted: That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
I invite you to read Punishment and Proportionality by Murray Rothbard. I can only hope that Rothbard will bring you to reason.
Buzz Killington: triknighted:That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft. Well, maybe she'll learn from this and realize that drinking games jus' ain't hip. Sorry, that's just awful...
LOL Mr. Killington, you are hilarious, my friend. You make these forums very entertaining.
I agree with proportional punishment as a maximum, but Walter Block seems to disagree:
If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.