German virtual hitmen, among the most feared in the world, could soon find themselves behind real bars if the regional governments of Bavaria and Lower Saxony have their way.

The two states have drafted a bill that would subject developers, distributors and players of video games whose goal is to inflict "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" to a fine and a maximum of one year in jail.



more (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16070177/)

The draft law, a reaction to a school shooting that shook German public opinion last month, will come before the upper house of parliament next year. But it is already sending shockwaves through the 2m-strong German online gaming community.

"It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect," Mr Beckstein said on Monday.Let's see. Two million gamers, one school shooting. Clearly, a proven causation!

The Germans should be ashamed of themselves, they're becoming almost as stupid as Americans.

If you want to crack down on school gun violence, you have to go to the root of the problem -- gun ownership and undisciplined children -- and not use video games as a scapegoat. Of course, that would require pressing some sensitive voters' buttons, so why not sidestep the issue and screw with people who are you too young to vote you out of office.

stupider sir!

Let's see. Two million gamers, one school shooting. Clearly, a proven causation!

The Germans should be ashamed of themselves, they're becoming almost as stupid as Americans.

I wonder how many video games there were in Germany in 1935?


Yes, this is very stupid.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4162/csf334kt7.gif

nuff said imo

You guys obviously didn't read the article closely enough and missed the most important point of the entire article:
In the past decade, online gaming has become increasingly professional, with a rising number of players making a living out of their skills and teams acquiring renowned gamers for hefty transfer fees.

Holy sh!!! How sweet would that be? I mean just think if you were 12 or 15 again and being able to tell your parents when they asked you what you were going to do with your life just playing video games all day, and you could say, "Well this German team just PayPal'd me $10,000 to play on their Unreal team during the tournament next month. We're playing for a grand prize of $100,000."

I think it sounds a lot more glamorous then it really is. I mean I played UT in a few competitions, and it was a lot of fun, but I could quit whenever I wanted and go have a life again. If I had to play 15 hours a day or lose my income and sponsors, ugh forget it.

I don't want to get this thread too offtrack (too late?), but if you're actually interested in working in the game industry, or know someone who is, I recently picked up a pretty good book on the subject called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Paid-Play-Insiders-Guide-Careers/dp/0761552847">Paid to Play</a> - An Insider's Guide to Video Game Careers. Most of it focused on "real" careers like designing, art, music and journalism, but it did devote a chapter to those people who were lucky enough to make a living playing games in tournaments.

gun ownership and undisciplined children

I'd qualify the first part with irresponsible gun ownership. The gun is just a tool, not the cause.

If you want to crack down on school gun violence, you have to go to the root of the problem -- gun ownership and undisciplined children --

Guns kill people, let's ban them!
Cars kill people, let's ban them!
Cigarettes kill people, let's ban them!
cDonald's kills people, let's ban them!
Drugs kill people, let's ban them!
Alcoholic drinks kill people, let's ban them!

Blame the tool first, worry about blaming the person after you've banned all the tools.

Or maybe the tools are inanimate objects that can't have blame assigned to them, and you should just blame the person's lack of thought, intelligence, compassion, caring, and/or morality or lack thereof.

Everyone is personally responsible for their own actions, and to ask how did this act of violence happen?; it takes only a very simple answer. The person in question pulled the trigger/drove the car/smoked the cigarette/ate the Big Mac/took the drug/drank the liter of vodka. The buck stops with them.

None of us would want to live in a society of straightjackets and padded rooms, so we can't prevent every case of violence. We can only ensure with 100% veracity that once someone does a horrible deed, they never will get the chance to do another one.

Blame the tool first, worry about blaming the person after you've banned all the tools.I can blame both. And yes, some "tools" are far more dangerous than others and must be banned for the greater safety of the public. You wouldn't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb, would you?

You wouldn't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb, would you?
No, but the guy who made this video (http://www.compfused.com/directlink/657/) should be allowed to have some so that he can remake the video at higher resolution.

/hijack off (no pun intended)

I can blame both. And yes, some "tools" are far more dangerous than others and must be banned for the greater safety of the public. You wouldn't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb, would you?

an, if you let people have a shotgun, next thing you know they will all want a nuclear bomb...

Talk about a fallacious slippery slope, man.

I can blame both. And yes, some "tools" are far more dangerous than others and must be banned for the greater safety of the public. You wouldn't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb, would you?

Sure. Everyone can make a nuclear bomb and own one right now, with a Radio Shack catalog and a machine shop.

I'm sure you weren't talking about a functioning nuclear bomb, because you already know it's impossible to build a functioning nuclear bomb because of the inavailability of C4 or Plutonium, but if you wanted to build the hardware to look at, or mount on your wall.. go right ahead.

If you were referring to a functioning nuclear bomb per family, well, you can't use a nuclear bomb to defend yourself too well. Shotguns, however, blow the bad guy out your front door with great efficency. And with a firearm, you can control which direction the killing force goes. Hard to do that with a nuclear bomb.

So, hopefully you have learned:

Nuclear bomb != firearm.

If you were referring to a functioning nuclear bomb per family, well, you can't use a nuclear bomb to defend yourself too well.Tell that to the major powers. Defense was the purported purpose behind the world's nuclear stockpile.Nuclear bomb != firearm.The point is, the nature of the "tool" is important, because it lets people do violent things they couldn't otherwise do.

he point is, the nature of the "tool" is important, because it lets people do violent things they couldn't otherwise do.

Indeed. The reason guns are dangerous and should not, in my opinion, be in the hands of everybody is that there is a low usage treshold and a high efficiency to them. Any moron can use a gun and hit -something-. It may be a tree or concrete wall. Or the side of the barn they are standing in front of. It might even be what they are aiming at. Or the neighbours' 3 year old daughter, or the bus driver half a mile away across the field.
And using guns is -fast-. Somebody running amok with a kitchen knife is less likely to make lots of victims than somebody with a semi-automatic.

The whole nuclear bomb argument was not about a slippery slope (nobody suggests that giving people access to guns means they will eventually get access to nuclear devices), but to show that all weapons are not the same and some need to be controlled because they are indeed far too dangerous. It negates the claim that access to weapons should not be controlled.


Eri

Indeed. The reason guns are dangerous and should not, in my opinion, be in the hands of everybody is that there is a low usage treshold and a high efficiency to them. Any moron can use a gun and hit -something-. It may be a tree or concrete wall. Or the side of the barn they are standing in front of. It might even be what they are aiming at. Or the neighbours' 3 year old daughter, or the bus driver half a mile away across the field.
And using guns is -fast-. Somebody running amok with a kitchen knife is less likely to make lots of victims than somebody with a semi-automatic.

That's an incredibly.... weird... statement.

I can throw a stick and hit something. Heck, I can spit and hit something. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You are aware that while pointing and clicking and shooting at little paper targets, most law enforcement officials can score over a 90% accuracy right? However, introduce a real life stressful situation and that drops to around a 20% accuracy.

Yes, any moron can use a gun and hit something (since we seem to be counting the ground as a "something" here), but I could pretty much make the same nebulous statement and say any moron can use a knife and cut something.

You are also aware that semi-automatic guns are still illegal in most states right? And that even during the ten year gun ban there had been no significant data showing that the ban had done anything to reduce violent crimes; in fact, the violent crime statistics went up in various areas.

That's an incredibly.... weird... statement.

I can throw a stick and hit something. Heck, I can spit and hit something. What the hell does that have to do with anything?


Simply that if you hit somebody with a bullet it is likely to do a lot more damage than if you hit that same person with a knife. Unless your stick weighs several kilos it is unlikely to do anything worse dan cause a little bruise.


You are aware that while pointing and clicking and shooting at little paper targets, most law enforcement officials can score over a 90% accuracy right? However, introduce a real life stressful situation and that drops to around a 20% accuracy.

Yes, any moron can use a gun and hit something (since we seem to be counting the ground as a "something" here), but I could pretty much make the same nebulous statement and say any moron can use a knife and cut something.


ost likely himself, but the point was not that so much that he (or she) can hit anything as well that if he does the damage is likely to be more severe than if that same moron had a knife and had to walk up to his victim before the stabbing could ensue. In the time it takes to get close enough to somebody to use a knife that same moron could have emptied a gun, and even if the accuracy is only 20pct that means that he needs 5 chances. With a knife he is unlikely to get that many chances, with a gun it is a lot easier.


You are also aware that semi-automatic guns are still illegal in most states right? And that even during the ten year gun ban there had been no significant data showing that the ban had done anything to reduce violent crimes; in fact, the violent crime statistics went up in various areas.

If it is only illegal in -most- states then it is not that hard for somebody determined to get one. But again, I am not really arguing whether or not guns should be banned or not. Seeing that I do not live in the USA my opinion is irrelevant anyway. I simply explain why I think guns should be controlled more tightly. They are designed to be able to kill quickly efficiently and at a distance with a minimum of skill (compared to more ancient weapons).
If you ask me I will say things like that do not belong in houses or even cities. If you ask you, you obviously disagree. But I do not think it is such a strange observation that I made.


Eri

You are also aware that semi-automatic guns are still illegal in most states right? And that even during the ten year gun ban there had been no significant data showing that the ban had done anything to reduce violent crimes; in fact, the violent crime statistics went up in various areas.

It's going to take a while for the numbers to go down. In any country where there are few civilian held guns then it's sensible to have gun restrictions. The benefits are immediate. In the US it will take a lot of time for the number of illegally held guns to drop and the benefits of a ban won't be seen for a while.

For example, UK police are not armed unless they're on a special operation. That's a benefit for the police and the public. That benefit won't be available in the US in the foreseeable future, no matter what gun laws are in place.

You are also aware that semi-automatic guns are still illegal in most states right? And that even during the ten year gun ban there had been no significant data showing that the ban had done anything to reduce violent crimes; in fact, the violent crime statistics went up in various areas.As if violent crimes can only be committed with semi-automatic weapons, and criminals will always respect the ban. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif> Tell me, did the guns made before the ban just vanish into thin air?

It's not enough to ban guns and look five minutes later to see if crime went down. You have to stop the manufacture, import, and sale, and destroy all existing ones, such that it's physically impossible to get one. Then you have to wait for all the ones you missed to get out of circulation. And only then can you judge the effect on violent crime.
Yes, any moron can use a gun and hit something (since we seem to be counting the ground as a "something" here), but I could pretty much make the same nebulous statement and say any moron can use a knife and cut something.How many people are killed or maimed by knives each year? How many by guns?

If you take 100 convicted rapists or 100 convicted burglars what the number one deterrent for them from breaking into homes is, and the answer is going to be unanimously fear of the occupants with a gun, and not the law.

They will break in or rape when they overcome that fear of the gun in the occupants' possession, they already have no fear of the law by that time.

If you take 100 convicted rapists or 100 convicted burglars what the number one deterrent for them from breaking into homes is, and the answer is going to be unanimously fear of the occupants with a gun, and not the law.http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.htmlThe proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.Even if you were right, it would be irrelevant. An armed nuclear bomb would also deter a burglar (for a radius of miles), yet the deterrence factor wouldn't justify each homeowner owning one.

Deterrence is just one variable in a complicated formula. The collateral risk from gun ownership outweighs even your flawed theoretical deterrence benefit.

For a man who discounts slippery slopes, you sure do use them a lot.

For a man who discounts slippery slopes, you sure do use them a lot.You need to learn the difference between a slippery slope argument and an analogy.

Anka there's this show on the Travel Channel called Five Takes, last season they plucked out five random people from the US and sent them to the Asias, this season they sort of returned the favor and plucked out four Asians (and an Aussie) and sent them to various locations in the US. It's actually a really boring show, imo, and the only reason I watched it this past week was because they were in Austin, Texas and I was a little homesick for my home state, so I was watching to see where they went.

Getting to the point, one of the final places they went in Austin was this ranch right outside the city. They did all the cowboy-ish things like riding a horse, roping cattle, etc, etc. Towards the end, they split off into two groups, one went to go do ... uh, something, I really wasn't paying attention, and the other group wanted to go shooting. What was interesting was that in one of the groups was a female from Singapore. As you probably know, Singapore has extremely strict gun laws, and it's usually only cops/military that are allowed to carry them legally. So this girl/lady just wanted to shoot a couple of guns to see what all the fuss was about.

She said in the viewpoints interview afterwards that she was really nervous about handling the gun and bullets, but when she actually started shooting, she found it be extremely fun and could understand why people would want to do it as a sport or as recreation. She also said that she was very surprised that she ended up thinking that way because she was very anti-gun and grew up in a very anti-gun society.

Point is, the majority of gun owners in the US, me included, buys and shoot guns for the recreational value. I don't own a rifle, I don't plan on going out to shoot deer or boar or whatnot anytime soon (although I will admit that if I was invited, I would probably go). When I first shot my first handgun at around the age of 23 (I forget exactly when), I felt the same way as the lady from Singapore, except about the anti-gun mentality. Having grown up in Texas, I felt that if anyone wanted to own a gun, they should be able to, however I was given a deep ingrained sense of respect for any firearm, such a respect that when I first handled this pistol in the shooting range, I was very nervous and extremely hyper-careful, even when loading the bullets into the clip (not even handling the actual gun). Still to this day, I have a slight butterfly sensation when loading a clip and I really hope to never lose that, to me it's a sign that I still respect the dangerous nature of this weapon (and it is a weapon, I won't even try to call it a tool). However, I have tons of fun when I'm in a shooting range, shooting at little paper targets - there is no righteous sense of learning to shoot better in order to defend myself or anything like that - I shoot my gun purely for the sake of fun, just like many archers I know who shoot their bows just for competition or sport, not for hunting. …yes, I know a lot of archers. You try growing up in a big hunting area <i>and</i> a big SCA area, you get a nice mix of hunters and nerds. :P

You also have to know some other things about crime statistics. Most (something like 80% or more) conflicts involving guns take place within an area of 20ft or <i>less</i>. Also, the majority of homicides are in situations where the victims knew their assailant. Put those two facts together and it is not a far stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that knives are very often used in place of firearms – and in fact the FBI has quite a few statistics on that being the case. Point is, in close quarters, if one person has made the mental desiscion to cause injury to another, there is very little to stop them, weaponry often has very little to do with it, and level of injury does not always correspond to weapon used (ie: it cannot be said that guns always cause the most trauma).

Also, FYI - the gun ban was enacted for ten years (1994-2004), not exactly five minutes. And since we all seem to agree that the people using these guns are using and obtaining them illegally, well I fail to see the point of trying to ban them. Stop importing them, sure you can try that, from what I understand we’re trying to stop the import of things like crystal meth and cocaine too, and I think we’re doing a bang-up job on those two. Stop manufacturing them? I’m sure the military would appreciate that. Plus, what are you going to do with all the gun manufactures who are not subject to the laws of the United States, like say, all those in Germany, or Russia? I’m sure they import quite a few “samples” to Mexico every year.

Oh, and by the way, year after year, police show statistics that the #1 home entry crimes deterrent are large dogs (in fact, the same ones that many are keen on banning in other threads). Number two is usually home alarm systems, but funny enough, “loud” guns also usually come in the top five. Not loud as in “really loud when they go bang,” but guns such as shotguns or single/double action rifles which make a very distinct sound when being loaded and cocked.

You need to learn the difference between a slippery slope argument and an analogy.
Analogies are a horrible debate tool.

A dog is to wolf.
As cat is to tiger.

A hat is to head.
As a glove is to hand.

Those are analogies.

A homeowner with a shotgun to protect her home from intruders.
As a homeowner with a nuclear bomb to protect her home from intruders.

See, that just sounds stupid as far as analogies go.

Analogies are a horrible debate tool.Then forget the analogy. Just look at the logic. Oh, and look at that study, which you conveniently ignored.

You are not presenting any logic.

I am a hunter.
I hunt deer.
If deer had guns, I would not be a hunter.

Now that is a fairly good analogy. And one which is logical, and one that you can't really counter. Well, you could, of course, if you argue that deer don't have fingers and thumbs, and can't pull a trigger of a high powered scoped human rifle.

Phil Donahue was the king of slippery slope arguments. Imagine Phil Hartman doing his impression of him, running out into the audience, turning around with his microphone..."You know, if we allow people to have shotguns to protect themselves in their homes, one thing leads to another, then this happens and that happens, next thing you know, everyone is going to want a nuclear bomb in their home to protect themselves from intruders..." "How about that, Marilyn Manson, what is your view about that?"

And your link is not a study, it is an op ed. Essentially saying, "well there are no scientific studies(including this non scientific 'study') to prove that guns in the home prevents crime, therefore guns in the home do not prevent intruders." I get the picture.

Point is, the majority of gun owners in the US, me included, buys and shoot guns for the recreational value.Great. Then there's no reason to have one at your house; just use it at the shooting range.Point is, in close quarters, if one person has made the mental desiscion to cause injury to another, there is very little to stop them, weaponry often has very little to do with it, and level of injury does not always correspond to weapon used (ie: it cannot be said that guns always cause the most trauma).How much luck would you have trying to kill me without weapons? What's the chance I would kill you in the process?well I fail to see the point of trying to ban themSo because it's hard work, we shouldn't even try.funny enough, “loud” guns also usually come in the top five.I'd like to see these studies.

You are not presenting any logic.Cut & paste:

Deterrence is just one variable in a complicated formula. The collateral risk from gun ownership outweighs even your flawed theoretical deterrence benefit.

I want one, that is a great reason.

You don't have to want one, if you don't want to.


You do what you want to do, and you let me do what I want to do. Unless you are a Fascist.

Deterrence is just one variable in a complicated formula. The collateral risk from gun ownership outweighs even your flawed theoretical deterrence benefit.

I want one merely because when Fascists, like you, eventually take over, I want to shove one down their throats.

Well, not you in particular, but people like you.

Is that logical enough to you?

You should try visiting the FBI website sometime Tuda, they have all the studies available to the public, including crime statistics, gun law impact studies, post incarceration interview results, and a lot more. It's all up there.

You should try visiting the FBI website sometime Tuda, they have all the studies available to the public, including crime statistics, gun law impact studies, post incarceration interview results, and a lot more. It's all up there.Ok, but I'm not interested in any of those. I'm interested in the study that shows that "loud" guns are the #3 biggest deterrent to breaking and entering. Not some interview with a convict, but a scientific study. No, really, I am genuinely interested.

I want one, that is a great reason.

You do what you want to do, and you let me do what I want to do. Unless you are a Fascist.If by "fascist" you mean not a libertarian anarchist who wants to leech off society while refusing to follow its rules, then yes, I am, and so is virtually every American.

Sing along, You Can't Always Get What You Want....

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/2nd_index.htm

Ok, but I'm not interested in any of those. I'm interested in the study that shows that "loud" guns are the #3 biggest deterrent to breaking and entering. Not some interview with a convict, but a scientific study. No, really, I am genuinely interested.

How can you have a scientific study on something like random crimes? I don't even understand that concept. I would think that the best information would come from those who committed those crimes in the past, or those who continue to commit the crimes - since they are the ones that are doing it -they would know what is the biggest deterrant yeah?

I mean seriously think of the logistics of setting up a scientific study - every home in America would have to have one of the deterrants and then "wait" for a crime to happen to see if the deterrant worked or not and if not why.

The study would of course be with thieves/attempted thieves who were caught, as well as many convict-gone-legit persons and victims/"almost" victims.

Ok, but I'm not interested in any of those. I'm interested in the study that shows that "loud" guns are the #3 biggest deterrent to breaking and entering. Not some interview with a convict, but a scientific study. No, really, I am genuinely interested.

The most "deterred" criminals that descend from successful ownership of guns are unfortunately not able to speak. You will first need to invent a "speak with dead" spell to interview them.

And since we seem to be throwing around well-used cliches..

Better tried by 12, than carried by 6, I say.

The most "deterred" criminals that descend from successful ownership of guns are unfortunately not able to speak. You will first need to invent a "speak with dead" spell to interview them.
That's a completely incorrect statement, the most successful use of a gun in a self-defense situation is not having to fire the gun at all. Look up
Defensive Gun Usage (DGU), Gary Kleck, Phillip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

There's tons of source material out there from various sources, since many people on this board are skeptics about group bias, I'll let you Google and pick and choose your own report sources.

You also need to consider whether more criminals carry guns because they know they could face opponents with guns. Very few criminals carry guns in the UK, especially petty criminals or burglars. They don't want the risk of being apprehended by the police for just carrying the gun, especially when the sentence for carrying a gun is more than the sentence for burglary.

Is it better to have more burglaries but with a drastically reduced risk to homeowners from firearms? It's hard to say, but it needs consideration.

How can you have a scientific study on something like random crimes?Simple empirical research. For a set of socioeconomically similar areas, compare the rate of gun ownership and the burglary rate. If you repeatedly see a correlation between the two variables, and no other variable can explain it, you have strong evidence for a causation.

Of course, collecting this data in practice is very difficult, which is why it hasn't been done extensively. But if you look up, I cited a study for Fyyr which attempted to do so, and found not only no positive deterrence from increased gun ownership, but even a possible inducement to commit crimes because the gun itself is considered valuable loot.I would think that the best information would come from those who committed those crimes in the past, or those who continue to commit the crimes - since they are the ones that are doing it -they would know what is the biggest deterrant yeah?But those are loaded questions and you'll get wildly inaccurate answers. Plus, you have a very biased sample, because the only ones you can realistically ask are the ones who are in prison. Empirical research is the only objective way to test the hypothesis.

But if you look up, I cited a study for Fyyr which attempted to do so, and found not only no positive deterrence from increased gun ownership,

I can't get to the data from your link.

Your link only leads to the opinion about the purported study.

Give me a link to the data, please. To the study. Not the op ed conclusion.

I can't get to the data from your link.You have to be a subscriber to get the full download, but the link is there.

You also need to consider whether more criminals carry guns because they know they could face opponents with guns. Very few criminals carry guns in the UK, especially petty criminals or burglars. They don't want the risk of being apprehended by the police for just carrying the gun, especially when the sentence for carrying a gun is more than the sentence for burglary.

Is it better to have more burglaries but with a drastically reduced risk to homeowners from firearms? It's hard to say, but it needs consideration.
There's also a couple of things you have to throw into your hypothesis, Anka.

Burglaries are generally conducted by people who are considered "career criminals" - while the stereotypical thief now days is portrayed by the media as on drugs or alcohol, generally they have many more factors that can be profiled. First off, most are repeat offenders - many starting from childhood. Many have grown up in broken or "absentee" parental situations. Many have little to no formal education and have grown up "on the streets". While the "made for TV movie" type burglar is usually shown as this jittery guy who just got his first high and will do anything for money, if you have any police friends, they'll usually tell you that the people they catch are usually the same people they've been catching for the last five years.

Point is, these types are generally not the "heroic" type. If confronted with a gun with no way out, they've done time in jail before and will do it again before risking their lives. They know that there is big difference between being charged with Breaking and Entering and Assault with a Deadly Weapon compared to Murder One or Attempted Homicide. The difference usually being ten to fifteen years.

Granted, this is not to say that everyone who ever gets robbed at home or at work should suddenly take up arms and defend their castle with their lives, because chances are you could indeed encounter that nutjob who's willing to throw away his life for more crystal meth, but there is also a big reason why a loud alarm/dog/gun will scare away would-be burglars rather than them continuing to ransack the property until they have everything of worth. For most, the possibility of escape is much more important than having their last stand at the OK Corral.

While the "made for TV movie" type burglar is usually shown as this jittery guy who just got his first high and will do anything for money, if you have any police friends, they'll usually tell you that the people they catch are usually the same people they've been catching for the last five years.

Thus, scaring them away with a gun doesn't deter them. It simply pushes the problem off on to your 88 year old grandmother of 10 down the street, or the housewife with 3 kids across the street, or someone else that is weaker and unwilling or incapable of defending themselves. I'm all about protecting the weak, not herding the criminals onto their heads.

The deterred criminal is one that won't do it anymore. You're proving the point that the only way to permanently deter these career criminals is to plant them 6 feet in the ground.

Actually, chances are that the thief in question will know his or her neighborhood, so the 88yr old grandmother will probably be the first target - but again, only if they're not home or does not have a caretaker. Most criminals try and avoid a confrontation, escalation is not what they're looking for, they're looking for a quick cash get away. I’ve also never stated that a gun is the #1 best way to protect your home, in fact, I’ve often said that my own gun is for recreation only, not self or home defense. I still believe that a loud dog is probably responsible for deterring more would-be burglars than even the highest count of “Defensive Gun Usage” numbers.

What I have said about guns as defensive usage, however, is that barring any loud dog or other alarm system, if you find yourself in a situation where there is an intruder inside your home, the loud cocking of a pump-action shotgun is often enough to send most criminals packing (that's what the DGU polls are asking about in most cases).

I just got robbed recently and they took almost nothing and didn't really ransack the house like I expected, from watching "It takes a Thief" on Discovery. They were obviously looking for cash and jewelry. While I've got jewelry apparently they know the difference between the junk I buy and the real stuff. They didn't find any cash, because I don't keep any except in my purse. Although I had a change thing full of change, which they didn't want.

The police thought it was probably kids on their way to or from school. The job involved climbing up the side of my house on some teeny ledges that stick out maybe 1/2 - 3/4 of an inch around the door frames and windows to get into the 2nd floor window I had left open a crack.

I didn't feel any need to rush out and buy a gun after that. I didn't feel particularly violated or paranoid. I was rather glad they didn't trash my house.

The deterred criminal is one that won't do it anymore. You're proving the point that the only way to permanently deter these career criminals is to plant them 6 feet in the ground.Luckily, here in California we have laws against trigger happy nutjobs. If your life is not reasonably in danger, you cannot claim self-defense with deadly force.

Luckily, here in California we have laws against trigger happy nutjobs. If your life is not reasonably in danger, you cannot claim self-defense with deadly force.

If a person or persons break into your house via kicking in your door, breaking a window, or any other violent means of entry, it's a default position of the courts that they are not there to give you the winning check to the Publishers Clearing House.

If this is somehow changed in California, and you cannot even defend yourself with deadly force in your own house, then California is a completely lost cause. The fact that you would label someone as trigger happy that kills an intruder that has broken into their house shows every bit as much extremism as you purport to assign to me via the constant use of your petty labels.

And btw, whenever you use "religious zealot", or "trigger happy nutjob" to indirectly refer to people on the other side of the argument, it actually is pleasing to me. You see, when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you are admitting you've already lost whatever line of argument you were putting forth.

Didn't you ever do any debating in college? Ad hominem is a big no-no. But go right on using it as a tactic. It's not like you'd take advice from me in any case.

What I have said about guns as defensive usage, however, is that barring any loud dog or other alarm system, if you find yourself in a situation where there is an intruder inside your home, the loud cocking of a pump-action shotgun is often enough to send most criminals packing (that's what the DGU polls are asking about in most cases).

If that would drive them off 100% of the time, then you'd be wise to let them flee. However if that tactic failed to scare them off, and after you racked the slide, you were subsquently forced to shoot them or be hurt or killed yourself, then it would be bad for you if it ever went to trial.

The racking of the slide on a shotgun "to scare them off" could be (and has been!) construed in court to show that you weren't really in mortal fear of your life, thus qualifying for the use of deadly force. If you actually thought your life was in danger from the intruder, they'd argue, then you would never announce your presence to them for fear they'd hurt or kill you first.

I think people are confusing what steps must occur for an officer to be authorized to use deadly force, and the homeowner, while in his own house. The burden for authorization of deadly force is much less for a civilian in his own home than it is for an officer of the law. You don't need to let them get the first shot at you with an assault rifle before you can fire back. Like I said already, if they used violent means on the first obstacle to get into the house (your door and/or window), it can be reasonably argued they would have been more likely to continue the application of violence on another obstacle (say, your head, or your wife's head) if you were in their way.

Quite obviously, this only applies if you are home at the time of the break-in. Even if you arrive the precise moment they are leaving with your goods, you can't then begin shooting them in the back. That would qualify as trigger happy, and you'd be convicted.

This scenario has further qualifications though. In the case of a national disaster or emergency, looting can be upgraded to a capital offense, depending on the level of law enforcement presence in the disaster area. YMMV.

If this is somehow changed in California, and you cannot even defend yourself with deadly force in your own house, then California is a completely lost cause.To obtain "perfect" (i.e., you are not guilty of anything) self-defense in California, you must either be defending an intruder in your home or preventing a crime involving imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm. Your use of force must also be reasonably proportional to the threat.

So, you can kill a burglar in your own home, if you show he was armed or was otherwise threatening your life. But, if an unarmed burglar comes in, you surprise him with a shotgun, he tries to flee and you shoot him in the back, you are guilty of murder. If the burglar was no threat but you shoot him in a panic, you're probably guilty of manslaughter, so-called "imperfect" self-defense.

In other words, California doesn't allow you to play "the best deterrence is 6 foot under" vigilante, just to protect yourself from real threats.And btw, whenever you use "religious zealot", or "trigger happy nutjob" to indirectly refer to people on the other side of the argument, it actually is pleasing to me. You see, when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you are admitting you've already lost whatever line of argument you were putting forth.Those terms aren't intended to be derogatory, just descriptive. You can substitute euphemistic terms such as "devout Christian" or "gun advocate" if you like, as long as we all know what I'm talking about.

Like I said already, if they used violent means on the first obstacle to get into the house (your door and/or window), it can be reasonably argued they would have been more likely to continue the application of violence on another obstacle (say, your head, or your wife's head) if you were in their way.No, it can't.

Gunny,

Brother Tudamorf thinks that California is superior for protecting people like Mike Morales from the same fate he would inflict on you, and it is superior for protecting people like him from people like yourself.

There are a lot of people in California who also share that opinion.

I don't know how they ever got their Jenga puzzle of bizzaro logic this high, but they have. And there are lot of them(which is probably how, some kind of mob mentality thing, I suppose) who have it.

I guess you are a bad person if you are so rich that you have to buy a gun, but you deserve protection when you have to steal one. The poor deserve those kind of protections, and a culture is superior when it protects the poor like this.



OBTW, Mike Morales was not poor growing up. No more poor than I was, I could throw a baseball from my first house to his(with a good roll).

Brother Tudamorf thinks that California is superior for protecting people like Mike Morales from the same fate he would inflict on you, and it is superior for protecting people like him from people like yourself.Not every thief is "like" Michael Morales, or intends to do what he was convicted of doing. If you could prove the burglar entered your home to kill you, the state permits you to kill him. If you can't, the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from trigger-happy nutjobs.

Well, I am telling you now, and giving you fair warning, so that you can tell all your poor criminal friends who you want to protect from the likes of me.

That if they come into my home, without my permission, that I will assume that they are coming to do me great bodily damage. And I will honestly fear for my life from them.

And thus, I will be able to kill them, according to the Criminal Code of the State of California.

If they were only coming in to steal my toothpaste, they better leave a letter before trying.

I don't have to prove what was going on through the criminal's mind, I only have to convince a jury what was going through my mind.

This man here was my friend, and who I sold my alarm company to.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060311/NEWS01/603110324/1001
He got off on self defense.

You do not have to prove the intentions or the thoughts of your assailant, despite your opinion to the contrary.

If that would drive them off 100% of the time, then you'd be wise to let them flee. However if that tactic failed to scare them off, and after you racked the slide, you were subsquently forced to shoot them or be hurt or killed yourself, then it would be bad for you if it ever went to trial.

The racking of the slide on a shotgun "to scare them off" could be (and has been!) construed in court to show that you weren't really in mortal fear of your life, thus qualifying for the use of deadly force. If you actually thought your life was in danger from the intruder, they'd argue, then you would never announce your presence to them for fear they'd hurt or kill you first.
Absolutely - the police still suggest that you (the homeowner) leave if you can find a safe route out as the best way to deal with an intruder breaking into your home. If you cannot leave safely, then the next suggestion is to barricade yourself in a safe room, ideally with some form of communication with the outside world (cell phone or home phone).

The "home is your castle" argument used to be nearly foolproof. If you could prove that someone was entering onto your property illegally, you could pretty much take whatever action you deemed as required to ensure yours or your family's safety. Unfortunately I think it is a failure of our current legal system that criminals can now sue their victims. Yes, I'm sure there were more than a few legit cases where the homeowners went a little vigilante-style and crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed, but I get the feeling that there are more than a few incidents where the criminal was clearly in the wrong as well.

The whole "if you shoot, shoot to kill" mentality became just as relevant from a legal standpoint as compared to the butt of a Dirty Harry joke.

If you could prove the burglar entered your home to kill you, the state permits you to kill him. If you can't, the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from trigger-happy nutjobs.
California has the same standard as most other places: basically, a reasonable person who believes they are in imminent danger may use deadly force. The California Penal Code (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/calpenalcode197.html)gives the details.

If someone kicked in my door they'd have to be doing one hell of a good job of not looking threatening (or looking like a cop) in order for me not to shoot them.

And I will honestly fear for my life from them.The standard is reasonableness, not "honesty." It is an objective, not a subjective standard. To successfully claim perfect self-defense, a reasonable person in your situation must react the same way.

The burglar's actual thought process is irrelevant. All that matters is a reasonable person's perception of what the burglar is likely to do.

If an unarmed burglar sees you getting your gun and starts to run away, and you kill him, but you convince a jury that you had an honest (but <b>UN</b>reasonable) belief he was going to harm you, you'd be eligible for imperfect self-defense, i.e., manslaughter.I don't have to prove what was going on through the criminal's mind, I only have to convince a jury what was going through my mind.You also have to convince them that the same thing would have been going through <i>their</i> minds had they been in your situation.

As we have discovered in these 2 threads, reasonableness is COMPLETELY subjective.

No one who thinks like you would be allowed on my jury, sorry, Tuda.


And I don't know about you, but every burglar who will ever break into my home, makes a beeline for the kitchen to grab one of my Henkels. Funny, that they will all do that, wouldn't you think?

As we have discovered in these 2 threads, reasonableness is COMPLETELY subjective.Of course. But you have to convince a jury, composed of people from your area, that what you did was reasonable, not just that you, personally, believed it was necessary.No one who thinks like you would be allowed on my jury, sorry, Tuda.If you're looking to buy a house, I'd skip San Francisco if I were you. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Of course. But you have to convince a jury, composed of people from your area, that what you did was reasonable, not just that you, personally, believed it was necessary.
/sticks some grass in mouth.
Uh huh, I rekon. Whys me put in the link to my fren Paul dere.


If you're looking to buy a house, I'd skip San Francisco if I were you.
If there was a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, I would consider living there.

I remember this one time when I was there with my fiancee at the time, we were eating a beautiful brunch at some cafe. And some mentally deranged homeless woman comes up to the window(thank god there was a window), and starts glaring at us, then starts cursing us through the window, then starts spitting on the window.

Nice bunch of colorful folk you got in The City, Tuda.

I remember saying about that time or before, to use an old cliche, "It's a nic..."

I never finished it, "It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here". I did not even put the 'e' on the end of nice, actually.

No, you don't have to worry about me buying a home in and bringing all my guns to SF.

You should take some of your liberal compassion and do something about all the poor people there living on grates. And jacking off onto the walls. And urinating on windows. And defecating outside of chinese restaurants.

The homeless problem has been getting much better in the past couple of years since we stopped giving them extra welfare checks (who thought up that stupid idea) and started giving them housing instead. In a few years, there will be so few homeless, you'll hardly notice it.

Leave your guns at home, though. We recently voted in favor of a total gun ban (except for police officers, etc.), though it was challenged in the courts and I don't recall how that ended.

I was just there November 6th.

There were homeless people everywhere.

Like I said, lot a good that enlightened liberal consciousness does.

Funny, a that.

And at least you are honest in saying that some of the Bill of Rights should apply to people today, while others no longer do. That whole 18th Century mindset, I suppose. Pick which ones you like, and make the rest illegal, I suppose. I can't really argue with that.

It is a good thing that there was not a Constitutional right to reproduce, will make it easier to sterilize people when the need arises. And when enough opinions are changed, where the idea is reasonable.

And at least you are honest in saying that some of the Bill of Rights should apply to people today, while others no longer do.No, all apply. At least, they apply as they were written and interpreted by our courts, not the way the NRA says they should apply.It is a good thing that there was not a Constitutional right to reproduce,There is, it's part of the implied constitutional right to privacy. That's why the forced sterilization programs from the 30s and 40s were stopped, and remain illegal today.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

This reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 where a political officer was telling Sheridan that homelessness was eradicated, crime was non existant and the joblessness rate was 0%.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.htmlEven if you were right, it would be irrelevant. An armed nuclear bomb would also deter a burglar (for a radius of miles), yet the deterrence factor wouldn't justify each homeowner owning one.

Deterrence is just one variable in a complicated formula. The collateral risk from gun ownership outweighs even your flawed theoretical deterrence benefit.

There is virtually no personal crime in Israel (muggings, break-ins, rape, etc), because your average Israeli home has at least one gun and someone trained to use it very well.

You know, Tudamorf, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You claim government spying is ok, because we can always overthrow the government if they go to far...and yet, then you sit here and call for gun bans.

Someone needs to shoot a few more gun control proponents.

Great. Then there's no reason to have one at your house; just use it at the shooting range.How much luck would you have trying to kill me without weapons?

There isn't a home in America which doesn't have weapons galore. Once someone is in a killing rage, if there isn't a gun, they'll use a knife, if there isn't a knife, they'll use a hammer, if there isn't a hammer, they'll use the fireplace poker...

Luckily, here in California we have laws against trigger happy nutjobs. If your life is not reasonably in danger, you cannot claim self-defense with deadly force.

Fortunately, here in Ohio, we still believe that a man's home is his castle and no man should be required to flee his home in the face of an intruder, but is permitted to defend the sanctity of his demense with requisite force.

California has the same standard as most other places: basically, a reasonable person who believes they are in imminent danger may use deadly force. The California Penal Code (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/calpenalcode197.html)gives the details.

If someone kicked in my door they'd have to be doing one hell of a good job of not looking threatening (or looking like a cop) in order for me not to shoot them.

Cops who kick in your door should be shot.

This entire notion of letting Cops bust through doors, guns blazing, shouting "Police!" is for the birds and if for no other reason, Americans should be armed, so they can shoot the dirty pigs as they are mounting an armed assault on their home.

Police should knock on the door, announce their presence, that they have a warrant, and then wait a reasonable amount of time to permit communication from the recipient of said warrant.

When the assholes break down doors first with guns pulled...they deserve to have rounds put in their heads.

Cops who kick in your door should be shot.
I agree. I'm just not willing to do it myself as the consequences would be far too severe. You'll probably get a pass for shooting a robber in your home but you'll be fvcked six ways from Sunday for shooting a cop (assuming you even survive).

No, all apply. At least, they apply as they were written and interpreted by our courts, not the way the NRA says they should apply.There is, it's part of the implied constitutional right to privacy. That's why the forced sterilization programs from the 30s and 40s were stopped, and remain illegal today.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Its pretty clear. It does not say "the right of the state".

The right of the people, just like the right of the people to peaceably assemble and the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms" -- James Madison

"Are we at last brought to such an humilitating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry

To look at the intent of the founders, it is multitudinous in its scope.

They fully intended that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and that in large part that right was to ensure the people could formulate a militia...a militia to stand against the federal government. They would have been vehemently opposed to the formation of the National Guard, which is, by any reasonable definition, a federal militia subject to control by the federal government.

By well regulated milita, they meant a militia of citizens trained in how to use their firearms, and hopefully trained in the military tactics requisite. It was not, however, supposed to indicate a militia controlled by the government, but rather a militia controlled by the people, not subject to the fickle whims of the federal government for armament, nor existant solely to defend the people against foreign enemies or protesting collegians, but rather to defend the people against the tyrrany of their own government.

They greatly feared the oppressive powers of a government with a standing military...

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster

While global circumstances have dictated that we maintain a standing army in order to preserve the security of our United States against foreign powers, nowhere doe those circumstances suggest anything to limit or mitigate the rights of the people to keep and bear arms and to do so to whatever extend necessary to pose grave and direct threat to any oppression enacted with our own military.

In essence, the people should, at all times, maintain a greater military presence than the government and has not merely the individual right to keep and bear arms, but some would suggest that it goes beyond a mere right and that the individuals actually have an obligation and responsibility to arm and train themselves sufficiently that the people could, indeed, assemble and repel the oppressive usurpation of American liberty at the hands of our government.

As the right wing nutjobs are so fond of quoting as reason to go to war, "Freedom isn't Free".

We must pay for it. We pay with taxes. We pay with increased criminal offenses and restrictions on the state in prosecuting criminal offenses. We pay in the blood of victims, be they victims of crime or just accident.

There a plentitude of nations who are unwilling to pay these costs and as a result have willinging given up their basic rights and protections to the State. If you feel that the cost of liberty is too great for your taste, you have the freedom to defect to one of those other nations. Do not, however, attempt to run roughshod over the rights our nation embodies in your attempt to provide security at the barrel of a policeman's gun or the tip of a lawmaker's quill.

I knew it, Aidon isn't a liberal, he's a closet libertarian.

And no, in California you aren't forced to flee while in your home. Your force must still be proportional, however, and I'd be surprised if the rule were different in Ohio. You can't just blow away anyone that sets foot on your property.

Aidon, you should remember that those are all just words and opinions of men who lived in the 18th Century.

We are much more enlightened now, and those tired old notions should be retired.

Thought you knew that.

I knew it, Aidon isn't a liberal, he's a closet libertarian.

And no, in California you aren't forced to flee while in your home. Your force must still be proportional, however, and I'd be surprised if the rule were different in Ohio. You can't just blow away anyone that sets foot on your property.

The force has to be proportional, only if your lawyer and the judge allows such nonsense at your trial.

That is not in the law.

The law is quite clear in the matter.

There is not a requirement to flee. Nor is there a requirement to use less than deadly force.

In fact if you talk to any law enforcement person with half a brain, they will tell you, "don't draw unless you are going to shoot, and don't shoot unless you are going to kill."

I don't have to try and run. Nor scare them. Nor not kill them.

All I have to do is prove to a jury that I thought myself, or someone else, was in danger of death, or great bodily harm....and that killing is JUSTIFIED and legal. What is it, like 197, look it up.

If I shoot em in the knee caps, its only because I can get a better head shot now.

There is not a requirement to flee. Nor is there a requirement to use less than deadly force.
Yeah, the law states nothing about proportionality. If the perp has a knife or a baseball bat I'm sure as hell not going to put down my 12 gauge in lieu of a Louisville Slugger. If I feel I'm in imminent peril of death or great bodily injury, I'm going to use the best tool at my disposal for eliminating the threat.

That is not in the law.Yes it is. If, today, you claimed self-defense at trial, this is the exact instruction the jury would receive from the judge (with the brackets filled in, and correct pronouns chosen, of course):The defendant is not guilty of &lt;insert crime(s) charged&gt; if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] &lt;insert name of third party&gt;) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger
does not need to have actually existed.Instruction #3470 of the Judicial Council Criminal Jury Instructions (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf).All I have to do is prove to a jury that I thought myself, or someone else, was in danger of death, or great bodily harm....and that killing is JUSTIFIED and legal.You also have to prove it was reasonable AND proportional. I know you think you don't, but you do. Consider that before you pull the trigger.

That is not in the law.Yes it is. If you claimed self-defense at trial, this is the exact instruction the jury would receive from the judge:The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged> if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.Instruction #3470 of the Judicial Council Criminal Jury Instructions (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf). Note the operator "AND" and read 1, 2, and 3 carefully.All I have to do is prove to a jury that I thought myself, or someone else, was in danger of death, or great bodily harm....and that killing is JUSTIFIED and legal.You also have to prove it was reasonable AND proportional. I know you think you don't, but you do. Consider that before you pull the trigger.

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger
If you reasonably fear for your life it is reasonable to use deadly force.

I knew it, Aidon isn't a liberal, he's a closet libertarian.

And no, in California you aren't forced to flee while in your home. Your force must still be proportional, however, and I'd be surprised if the rule were different in Ohio. You can't just blow away anyone that sets foot on your property.

aybe not, maybe not. I'd advise you stay out of people's property lines in the rural areas of Tennessee, and Mississippi though. Possibly Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama and South Carolina to be safe. 99% of the time, you would be safe, but if you see the sign:

"Posted - No Trespassing or Hunting" on every tree or cresote fence post surrounding someone's barbed wire fenced in property line, I beg you, don't decide that direction would be good for a walk in the woods. :D

I certainly wouldn't unless I knew the owner, and he at least somewhat knew me. If you don't believe me, pick a small town at random in those states, drive to the town, tell the sheriff you survey for the USDA, and that you'd mightily appreciate being told which family farms to stay the hell away from. See what he says. There's one 100-300 acre farm in every town like that it seems.. at least one.

Though why you would be tramping through pine forests in Mississippi would be a mystery in the first place.

If you reasonably fear for your life it is reasonable to use deadly force.You're mixing up #2 (reasonableness) with #3 (proportionality). You need both. If you reasonably fear for your life, but can effectively defend yourself with <b>non</b>-deadly force, you must do so.

Maybe not, maybe not. I'd advise you stay out of people's property lines in the rural areas of Tennessee, and Mississippi though. Possibly Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama and South Carolina to be safe.Actually, true rural areas are the one place where I think it's justified for citizens to own guns. If the nearest cop is 250 miles away, you can't rely on police protection.

But in no case should you shoot an unarmed trespasser. I'd bet even in the reddest of the redneck areas you'd get prosecuted for that, if he was white.

You're mixing up #2 (reasonableness) with #3 (proportionality). You need both. If you reasonably fear for your life, but can effectively defend yourself with <b>non</b>-deadly force, you must do so.
I think you're misinterpreting it. Keeping in mind that these instructions cover the general use of force and not specifically deadly force, I think the wording is there to prevent escalating from, say, a punch to a shooting. If you're fear is for your life, you're justified in killing to protect it. I would agree, however, that if you shot someone and did not kill them, you couldn't shoot them again if it was obvious that they were no longer a threat.

[QUOTE=Tudamorf]If the nearest cop is 250 miles away, you can't rely on police protection.QUOTE]
You can't rely on the cops if the station is 250 feet away. If an armed perp is in your house there is little to no chance that the police will arrive in time to do anything but call for the coroner.

Keeping in mind that these instructions cover the general use of force and not specifically deadly force,Whoops, you're right. Here's the instruction on deadly force (#505):The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/[or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] &lt;insert name or description of third party&gt;) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ &lt;insert other forcible and atrocious crime&gt;)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger
does not need to have actually existed.Same criteria, slightly different wording. I think the wording is there to prevent escalating from, say, a punch to a shooting.Escalation is governed by a different set of rules. If you start or escalate the conflict, you're not entitled to self-defense.

Of course, when you're threatened with death or great bodily harm, deadly force is usually also proportional, but not always. If you have a readily available, non-lethal alternative that will prevent the harm, you're required to use it.

I would have my lawyer strike that instruction from the jury instructions.

The California Penal Code.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


If you don't like that, you can change the law of course.

And if the jury instruction is not striken, I could have my lawyer argue persuasively, that any person who read these laws would reasonably believe that if you break into my home and threaten me, that I am justified with shooting you in the face. Without running. Without yelling. Without cocking my weapon to scare you. Without firing a warning shot.

The law is clear here. And I have a case, a friend, who used this tactic successfully in court, and is now a free man, after shooting him twice in the chest with his 9MM. He only believed the man had a knife. No knife was found at the scene of course, but the scene was never secured(family or friends of the bullet catcher had free access to the site).

And he was able to convince the jury that he believed his life was in danger. That is the way the law works.

I would have my lawyer strike that instruction from the jury instructions.

The California Penal Code.California's Penal Code is only one source of law. There also judicial opinions interpreting it, that are binding.

When a case goes to the jury, they aren't handed a stack of legal books or the California Penal Code. They're handed jury instructions, which are plain English summaries of the law relevant to the case.

If it's a self-defense case, they are handed that very instruction I quoted. It cannot be stricken. It is the <b>official</b> instruction which, by law, is given to the jury to explain what self-defense means.

Again, if I were you, I'd think twice before pulling the trigger, because there's a big difference between what you think the law is, and what it actually is.

The law, the penal code, is part of my overall mindset.

It would be admissible to present the, this part of the, law to the jury as a piece of evidence in this case, because of that. Over and over again, if need be.

And only if I ever shot someone in self defense, of course.

If I did not, you would never know about it, I assure you.

This part of the law is quite clear on the matter, a reasonable person such as yourself can see that.

The law, the penal code, is part of my overall mindset.Yes, but your opinion isn't the one backed by force; ours is. The Penal Code has been interpreted by California courts, and that interpretation is just as much law as what the legislature wrote. It doesn't matter what's "clear" to you, just what the legislature and the courts say the law is.

And no, the jury would not actually see the text of the Penal Code. It would see a jury instruction, in plain English, such as what I quoted you. Of course, you could argue with the judge that that instruction is wrong, but since it's the official instruction specifically designed to conform to California law, I wouldn't place my bets on winning that argument.

I knew it, Aidon isn't a liberal, he's a closet libertarian.

And no, in California you aren't forced to flee while in your home. Your force must still be proportional, however, and I'd be surprised if the rule were different in Ohio. You can't just blow away anyone that sets foot on your property.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and the NRA.

I'm pro-labor, pro-immigration, pro-civil rights, "gun nut" who still believes that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed a civil right. I believe we should go to war against threats to our security, but Iraq didn't qualify. Iran does. I believe the government has no place spying on its citizens and that the notion of the Government dictating the manner in which individuals should live "for their own safety" is evil, whereas it is the role of the Government to dictate safety to Corporations, not the reverse. I believe the Government should be an instrument of good and that it costs money to be an instrument of good. Taxation is necessary and it shouldn't be levied without consideration of wealth. I think the disparity in wealth in the US is deplorable, that a nation of our stature shouldn't have 84% of our wealth in the hands of a mere 20% of the people (the invisible hand doesn't work when its every action is controlled by the thumb and the rest of the fingers are just along for the ride).

I believe that if you go to work and put in a full day's work, you should be able to live off what you earned that day. I believe employers have a responsibility to provide for the safety of their workers and that we shouldn't be making the bankruptcy laws for individuals more onerous, while letting major corporations default on pension plans. I believe that industries abusing their positions as providers of staple services and products should be regulated and if need be, nationalized. Exxon shouldn't be making 35 billion in profit and paying their CEO 400 million dollar retirement bonuses, while Americans are paying record prices on our fuel for our vehicles and home heating use.

I think religion has no place in our government...and our government has no place in our religion. Jeffersons wall of seperation was good then and continues to be a good idea now. I still believe in the notion that a man isn't guilty of a crime until he's been convicted, and I think that if you accuse someone of a crime, your name needs to be publically available. I think that convicting someone of a felony (especially murder) should never be done solely on circumstantial evidence. I think there should be a federal law forbiding universities from suspending male students simply because they've been accused of sexual misconduct. I think women should have the right to an abortion...and men should have the right to waive parental rights and responsibilities (including monetary support).

I believe in equal protection under the law, even for gay people...I also believe that beating up a minority shouldn't be a greater crime than beating up a white male. I don't believe the state has the right to dictate what is and isn't "proper" to say. You have a right to call me a kike. Of course, I should have the right to deck you in the mouth afterwards. I think its ridiculous how insane our nation has gotten regarding "sexual" crimes and we need to completely revamp that entire paradigm. The idea that because an offense was sexual in nature, its acceptable to tag a person, like an animal, and track their every movement is disgusting. Rape shouldn't be held as any greater a crime than an assault of the same level of violence.

Regarding sexual laws...if you want to have multiple wives, you should be permitted to, so long as everyone involved consents (why you'd be so stupid is beyond me though). I think the standard for students sleeping with their teenage students should be the same regardless of what sex the teacher was...and that standard should be fairly laxidasical, so long as the teacher wasn't using any manner of coersion. Its especially bad when we start throwing good looking young female teachers in jail because they fulfilled a fantasy that every straight 15 year old boy in America has.

I believe that the Bill of Rights is not a list of our rights, but an emphasis of some of our rights and that all rights not listed therein are reserved for the people. I further believe that "the people" means each and every one of us...not some nebulous metaphysical "The People" entity which is only existant via the very goverment that great document was meant to protect us again.

libertarians and conversvatives call me liberal...liberals call me libertarian. I just call myself proper.