That's where lines blur; and unless it was premeditated on the part of the hypothetical house owner, it would probably be classed as manslaughter, not murder.

When someone catches a burlglar in their house, adrenaline tends to run and if the flight reasponse isn't activated, then they're going to fight and, believe it or not, in a scenario like that accidents do happen. So again that wouldn't be murder.

Like I said in my above post, recently there have been a spate of burglars breaking and entering and raping, and in other cases, also commiting murder. On the homeowners part, if it would be wrong of them to use lethal force to protect themselves against the criminal, what are they supposed to do instead? Spread their legs and let the criminal have at it, before letting them know that they can be killed now?

Another problem is that some people don't know their own strength, because they've either never fought before or fought to the best of their ability, so if someone took on a burglar to protect themselves and their property, it could be a complete accident that the criminal is killed in the process. It also goes back to not knowing what other intentions the burglar might have; so sometimes it is necessary to use more force, to ensure the victim isn't the one who comes off worse.

All you've said is that tehre are only two options, kill the intruder or let them do what they like. In case you hadn't noticed, that's about as true as the Earth is flat. You've also said that intruders are going to break in to rape someone; the chances of that are about as slim as Twiggy.
I don't know who's been feeding you this, but if you're going to respond as rudely as you have and you're not even going to read what you quote (I very clearly stated that homeowners should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary, perhaps more), you can hardly expect a more detailed reply than this, considering you've apparently misunderstood the entire thing. What you're going on about accidents and not knowing their own strength either I don't know; what does that have to do with anything? Accidently killing somone is one thing. Murdering just for the sake of some twisted revenge is something else entirely.

Nowhere in my post have I said the words, "There are only two options." The possibilities that you gave as an example are two of the possible options that I highlighted; seeing as we're dealing with the extreme in this thread.



Then apparently we're both guilty of the same thing, not understanding each other. Again, I did not say that intruders are going to break in to rape someone - I stated that a number of such incidences of rape upon breaking in have happened recently in areas of the UK.



Nowhere in any of my responses have I been rude - I stated quite clearly, IMHO, my feelings on the matters that have arisen in this thread. Else we both have completely different ideas on what's rude.



I responded to your points where you said there had to be a limit. In murdering the person whose breaking in, would be crossing the limit depending on the circumstances.



Some people don't know their own strength, particularly when adrenaline is pumping after being in a scenario such as a criminal breaking into a person's home. I truly don't understand how that can cause confusion. I used that as an example because, someone running on adrenaline may not be thinking clearly, and go on to use excessive force when dealing with an intruder. I merely pointed out also, that to be murder it would have to be shown to be premeditated.

I am on the side of the homeowner. If you enter my house without being invited, I have every right to kick you out. If you dare to threaten or hurt me or my family while you are on my property, I will sure as hell be ready to fight tooth and nail to defend myself. While I don't think I could kill someone just because they brandished a knife, I will fight them and if it comes down to killing, I will do it. It's instinct - your life or theirs. Personally, I'll take mine.

I find your post quite confusing. I would not classify someone who kills in self-defense a murderer. Murder is pre-meditated - you plan to kill someone, or you do so purposely, even in the heat of the moment. Generally, I'm going to say that people don't usually know when a burglar is going to break into their house. That rules out first degree murder. As for second degree, I suppose that could be applicable, if the homeowner is intending to kill the burglar, but that situation likely resulted because the intruder attacked or threatened the homeowner. Therefore, that could be classified as self-defense. If the homeowner accidentally kills the burglar in the heat of a fight, then IMHO, that should also be classified as self-defense.

I think that most homeowners know not to fight burglars - to just let them go, then call the police later. But if it comes down to that, I don't understand how someone can say that the homeowner acted inappropriately. To me, when you break the law, you forfeit your own rights to be protected by that same law. It seems ludicrous to put the perpetrator's needs before the victim's.

Personally, I'm thinking TheSimaniac is being the rude one here. "Chances are about as slim as Twiggy"? Try reading these for size.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/103718.html
http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6912160
http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/lo..._221221012.html
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl...7280363/-1/NEWS
http://www.wetmtv.com/news/local/st...7d-5e590002e90d

All this was found in a simple FIVE minute search. Maybe you should learn to back up your arguments before you post something.

Protecting yourself or your home should fall under the rules of minimal force necessary.

If you can avoid killing or wounding the intruder/attacker you do so. But I see no need to simply chase them off either as that does not make for a good neighbor if you allow them to run off and try the same on a neighbor or some other person.

No need to shoot them immediately if they are not physically harming or threatening you or a member of the house when you spot them. If you can simply force them to stop and detain them while you wait for the cops. If they try to take off or fight with you, you've pretty much covered yourself already in saying that you were holding a guy who tried to cause you harm, so if the cops show up and they see a body instead of a live detained person, you simply say, "He tried it again."

I have to say that I agree with the decision to arrest the homeowner in this case. If the offender was out on the ledge, and if he was pushed, this is too far over the line for me. The homeowner was clearly out of danger, and his belongings (apart from said ledge) were protected from further incursions.

As far as being able to shoot someone who comes into your house, the last time I looked, robbers did not get the death penalty. Excessive force is what is against the law, and I agree with it.

We had a case about five years ago here in Australia, where a man shot a teenaged offender in the leg as he was running away. There was a huge public outcry at his jailing. However, no one took much notice of the fact that the offender was running away, and the danger over, and that people cannot call it "self-defence" or the defence of property if the person is leaving.

But were there witnesses that can say they saw the homeowner push the intruder? Perhaps the intruder was trying to escape and slipped...We simply don't know, we weren't there. The police arrested him, as they don't know either, and are doing their job in investigating. The homeowner could be 100% completely exhonerated.

Which is why I stated:

I totally agree.Don't go to far with seeing the intuder off.

IMHO the moment you decide to ignore the basic rights of someone else, you forfeit all of your own.

I don't know if the intruder was pushed or not, but i can say that I consider being Robbed, almost as bad as being raped. Both Times you are violated and have something taken from you, mentally, and physically. If I woke up with an intruder in my home, I'd be alarmed to the fullest, willing to protect myself and my family by ALL means necessary. In MY honest opinion, The Burglar gave up all his rights when he broke into someones home, violating their safety and sanity.

I feel a home-owner has every right to stop an intruder. Guess one has to legal steps, installing alarms and have a cell-phone at hand to call the police, or one could be charged. I think its wrong, though. If someone steels my property or hurt my family, I will turn into a dangerous woman, cause I think I have the right to, no matter what the laws says. And how will I know the intruder is "only" interested in stealing my stereo, and not rape or kill someone in the house? Im not gonna sit around to find out.

Well, maybe not blow an intruder away with your gun, but you should have the ability to defend yourself to some degree.

To be honest I think that Home-Owners should be allowed to defend themselves in dangerous circumstances that could occur in their homes, i.e: Theft. If on the other hand the person who is robbing you is unarmed then there should be a limit on what you can do to potect yourself. So if the theif or dangerous subject is armed with a gun, you should be able to use a gun in order to protect yourself! Then if they are unarmed but still capable of doing some harm then you should be allowed to give them a good beating with something.

Arent laws a bit weird.

Now if someone was in my house or garden and they had no permission to be there, and my dogs bit them there is nothing they could do. But it seems if i punched them in the face i'm the one to get into trouble. Now a solution punch them in the face then set dogs onto them and say not me it was the dog.

i would always do what is neccessary to protect my home and family and the dogs are very good guard dogs when they are needed to be. But when they are out of the house they are very friendly.

I think part of the problem with that is, until you come down and see this robber is in the house, you can't know he/she has a gun or knife or whatever other weapon. Chances are the weapon won't be shown until a threat by them, needs to be used or a fight is already underway. In which case, for the victim, it could already be too late.

The reminds me of the Make My Day Law, something we have in Colorado which helps to guarantee the absolute safety of citizens within their homes. This law also protects citizens who use deadly force to protect their homes from against suspected threats, mainly intruders, from prosecution in a court of law. I'm not condoning murder or saying that killing someone who invades your home is right but, in the end, your home is the supposed to be the place of absolute safety in your life. Protecting that safety and privacy should be important.

This year, in Texas, the legislature changed the law regarding the use of force to protect oneself when a home, as well as a car invasion occurs. The prior law called for the owner to attempt a retreat before shooting or other action. The new law removes that requirement, on the basis that you have no where to retreat to.

A surprising amount of criticism made while the law was being debated came from law enforcement people, who argued that it would be like the killing fields out there. That has not come to pass.

In a practical sense, few people that ever shot a burglar in their own home in Texas under the old law were ever prosecuted, because the prosecutors know there was very little likelyhood a jury would convict. Instead of Guilty or Not Guilty, they might take up a collection to help the defendant pay his lawyer.

The feeling that the home is inviolable is strong here, and that is reflected in the statute. Like many places, Texas has it's problems with violent crime, especially in the large cities. Armed robbery, gang and drug related drive-by shootings and bar robberies seem to top the list. You should feel you are safe from those threats in your own home.

No permits are required for any weapons that remain solely on your own property, so no gun violations would be chargeable, either.

<* Wes *>

I remember a case in New Zealand where a farmer shot a man who was riding away on the farmers quad bike. I can't remeber the verdict, but I think farmer was charged. The robber then came on TV and showed his bullet scar, and acted like he was a hero.

If someone breaks into your property you should have the right to do whatever it takes to defend your property/self/family without liability.

If I harm an intruder, I am defending my home and protecting my baby. I will be sure the intruder does NOT harm my baby. No matter what it takes. In my house, our lives are much more important than an intruder's.

There are a few things I have learned over the years when it comes to dealing with home invaders
1. you can't claim excesive force when it only takes two to four pounds of pressure to pull a trigger
2. dead men tell no tale's or sue
3. never shoot someone out side your home but if you do make sure to drag them inside. Believe it or not an officer sugested that to me
4. Allways tell the arriving officer that "you were afraid for your life". Because most likely you were and it also will help cover your ass in court