Basically they've removed the "reasonably apprehends" part. Now, trying to break in is enough. Plus they've added the car and workplace. I suppose the old way if the bad guy had a crowbar and ski mask, you could more easily justify your "reasonable" fear. Now, any two-bit break-in artist is liable to be executed summarily and legally.For starters, NC’s old version of the law read as follows, “A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder’s unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.”
Sounds like paradise. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
This just looks like a clarification to me. Why exactly does someone break into my home, if not to do something illegal? That creates a strong presumption that death or bodily harm may also be the intent of the criminal. This change just makes sure that prosecutors understand that.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the site you linked to, the people of my home state don't get to shoot someone who is running away.
Some people break into their homes because they live there.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of Henry Louis Gates.
I'm thinking of the night my step brother forgot his key, was out later than he was supposed to be, and tried sneaking in through the family room door off the patio and was knocked flat by our labrador who held him on the floor on his back while the dog sat on his chest until the dog was given the leave it command by a person who was already in the house.
Those are two examples off the top of my head.
You need to properly identify someone AND determine their motives, rather than assume that observable behavior conforms to your assumptions about it.
"Now, any two-bit break-in artist is liable to be executed summarily and legally."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that possibility will deter some goblins from breaking into homes.
Goblins, FWM, are fictional, mythical creatures.
ReplyDeleteIf you're worried about them, you might try pentagrams on the floor in front of doors and windows. (Rock salt ones fluoresce wonderfully under black light)
If you're talking about people breaking in scaring you, call them people. Otherwise it's just a tedious affectation that makes you look stupid.
Goblins:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblins
This reminds me of the issues in the instance of the 300 lb. naked weightlifter gone amok.
ReplyDeleteWhile that seems to many of our gunloonz to be a justified case for shooting the nekkid big guy... what if it is the case that he did not voluntarily take the substances - steroids, possibly something hallucinogenic? What if someone drugged him and left him stranded walking around naked and desperate?
It is entirely possible that the weight lifter was ALSO a victim. It is entirely possible that his reaction was hallucination driven panic.
Until tox panels are completed and an investigation is concluded that explains how he got in that condition, we DON'T KNOW.
We certainly don't know that the injuries he caused, in his impaired condition, were intentional harm.
So.........would it be acceptable to shoot a person who is a victim? Or rather do we need to know first if he is a victim or a bad guy intending harm?
These laws make those important questions less likely, not more likely to be considered before an act which could maim or kill another human being.
I think those questions need to be asked, and people should not be killed unless there is absolutely no other alternative.
I don't think the 'absolutely no other alternative' incidents occur very often. Certainly NOT sufficiently often to alter the law to make it more excusable to shoot more people.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteGoblin is the name that we use to apply to those human beings who choose to become violent criminals. I'd be willing to extend the term to bankers who go astray, if you wish. I believe that it comes from Jeff Cooper, as his writings are the earliest example that I've seen. I understand that he got it from J.R.R. Tolkien, who was referring to orcs. They were once elves who had chosen evil.
As for Professor Gates, somehow, I doubt that he would shoot himself for breaking into his own home. In the case of your step brother, that's a good example of needing to identify one's target. By the way, didn't the lab in question recognize a member of the household?
You would do better in trying to understand what we write if you'd presume some intelligence on our part. We're talking about someone who has no business being in the house, not family members or guests. We do know the difference. I realize that this kind of "mistake" makes the plot of a Columbo episode or two, but that's television.
The naked big guy that you mention is a good example. Why is he there? I don't care. I don't care if his girlfriend dumped him. I don't care if his momma didn't love him. I don't care if his doctor injected him with something that he didn't bother to ask about. If I see a three-hundred pound naked man in my house, I don't need a lot of explanation. I need to survive the encounter.
Trying to excuse his actions is like trying to excuse the drunk who causes a wreck. Perhaps he's like Roger Thornhill from "North by Northwest," but again, that's a movie. The likely explanation is that he took a substance that made him crazy, and that's his fault. But again, I don't care. If he's in my house, my only goal is survival.
There is only one 300 pound naked guy allowed in my house.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, nothing is ever 100% perfect. We can only strive in that direction.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, there could be some odd situation as dog gone mentioned where it would seem a shame to shoot/kill an intruder who was somehow a victim.
And there is the flip side. Plenty of intruders have seriously harmed, raped, and/or killed the home owners. To tell homeowners they cannot act until it is crystal clear the intruder will harm them puts the homeowners in huge jeopardy. The motives of the intruders may not be clear until they are actually assaulting the homeowner. At that point it is too late.
The simple fact of the matter is this: in the vast majority of break-ins -- I'll argue 99.9999% of them -- the intruder is there to harm the homeowner. The only question is how much harm they will unleash. Even if the intruder only takes a $5 bill off of a table and leaves, they have still violated the sanctity of the homeowner's home and caused serious emotional injury. That alone is horrific.
And we can escalate from there. If the intruder steals a few thousand dollars of valuables without assaulting the homeowner, those valuables could have been the homeowner's assets to pay for critical medicine and leave the homeowner in serious medical jeopardy.
Finally, the intruder could assault the homeowner for whatever reason. And even if the intruder only intended to "rough up" the homeowner, seemingly minor contact has proven fatal at times.
An intruder has no right to break into someone else's home. A homeowner facing an intruder is an incredibly frightening and stressful situation. The way I see it, we have to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to the homeowner, not the intruder.
"An intruder has no right to break into someone else's home. A homeowner facing an intruder is an incredibly frightening and stressful situation. The way I see it, we have to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to the homeowner, not the intruder."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
Capn Crunchy wrote:
ReplyDeleteAn intruder has no right to break into someone else's home. A homeowner facing an intruder is an incredibly frightening and stressful situation. The way I see it, we have to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to the homeowner, not the intruder.
You incorrectly define the options. There is the alternative of either retreat, or less than lethal measures.
The simple fact of the matter is this: in the vast majority of break-ins -- I'll argue 99.9999% of them -- the intruder is there to harm the homeowner.
By all means, please back up your argument with something factual to support it.
I understand that he got it from J.R.R. Tolkien, who was referring to orcs. They were once elves who had chosen evil.
ReplyDeleteIt is a stupid usage, and in any case neither reflects the folklore definition nor Tolkien's.
We're talking about PEOPLE.
As for Professor Gates, somehow, I doubt that he would shoot himself for breaking into his own home.
You presume only one person living in the home. Another resident, if he were a gun lunatic like yourself, might as easily mistake Professor Gates breaking into his own home; the police were clearly confused as to his right to be there.
By the way, didn't the lab in question recognize a member of the household?
Yes. That was why he merely sat on my step brother, pinning him gently but firmly to the floor. My step brother was yelling at the dog 'get off me you moose'. Had it been a more dangerous intruder, the dog would have used less restraint.
That was demonstrated when my stepbrother's father, responding to a note left on the front door, entered the home while we were gone, to start loading some luggage belonging to my step brother for a trip, pending my step brother returning home from a brief errand to get something he'd forgotten.
The family members returned home from different activities at about the same time, to find my stepbrother's father screaming from where he was hiding in the bathroom shower, as the lab was attempting, snarling and growling, to break down the locked bathroom door. My father didn't like the man;apparently the dog picked up on that. He had to be carried bodily away. He wouldn't leave off his assault on the door when directed to do so.
It probably didn't help that my father then fed him a quantity of raw hamburgers from the fridge as reward for his initiative afterwards.
If I see a three-hundred pound naked man in my house, I don't need a lot of explanation. I need to survive the encounter.
He wasn't IN the house. He was outside the house, and clearly in distress.
GC I don't care. If he's in my house, my only goal is survival.
ReplyDeleteBeing in your house is not the same as being a threat; they are not automatically the same.
Most burglars want only to find property that can benefit them. This notion that they all want to harm the homeowner is bullshit. It is not supported by fact.
You'd be better off getting a clever dog; they appear to have better taste - sometimes figuratively, occasionally literally - in identifying dangerous intruders from the harmless than you do.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you. Perhaps you live in a mansion with a panic room within easy reach. Most of us have smaller homes. We have no duty to retreat because it is our home--why can't you understand that. I have the right to be in my home. An intruder does not.
You say that we're talking about people, but anyone who breaks into my home has removed himself from my consideration as a human being. He has violated my right to be secure in my home. He is therefore a goblin and will be treated accordingly.
dog gone replied to Capn Crunch:
ReplyDelete"You incorrectly define the options. There is the alternative of either retreat, or less than lethal measures."
When an intruder/s break into a home, the homeowner has no idea what the intruder/s plans to do or will do. The homeowner has basically no means to ascertain anything and events could unfold in a few seconds. Further, the homeowner could have been sleeping and battling to become fully alert. The homeowner has no idea how many intruders are involved or where they are. The intruder/s could have a serious advantage in physical strength. Finally, the intruder/s have the element of surprise.
And you advocate more disadvantages for the homeowner in consideration for intruder/s that have already broken the law, have already harmed the homeowner emotionally, and plan to affect additional harm to the home owner?
You suggest the homeowner has the option to retreat. What if the intruder/s decide to rape a woman or girl trying to escape? What if the homeowners see the intruder/s on the way out and the intruder/s decide they don't want to leave witnesses alive? What if the homeowner is physically unable to effect a retreat? What if the homeowner is a family with 8 children? How do you round up and retreat with 8 children?
As for non-lethal measures, every non-lethal measure that I know about requires the target to be so close that they could strike which puts the homeowner in mortal danger. That's a good analogy. Would you take on an agitated, coiled cobra ready to strike in your home with a stun gun or pepper spray? Would you feel good about trying to retreat when there could be additional agitated cobras anywhere, unseen, and waiting to strike?
And many non-lethal measures are ineffective. I watched police spray a man with pepper spray and it had no effect whatsoever. In fact I was just a few feet away and the cloud didn't affect me, either.
Capn Crunch, I would say 99% of criminals who break in DON'T want to hurt anyone beyond taking their stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn order to ensure your guy is not part of the 1%, you'd kill him and feel perfectly justified.
How come I never hear about bean-bag rounds and other non-lethal measures when we talk about defending the home? I know why, because in that situation you would just love to punish the bad guy, even with death. How dare he break into YOUR home.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right. My home is my castle. If I can't be safe in my home, there's no place that is safe. When a goblin violates my home, I don't care why he's there. The presumption is that he's come to cause me harm, and it's my job to turn him off.
I realize that you find such thinking to be disturbing, but without that line, there's nothing sacred left.
Sure, because every robber is intending to kill the occupants, right? Only a small percentage of home invasions happen when the occupant is home, and only a small percentage of those that succeed actually result in injury or death of the occupant.
ReplyDelete"Nothing sacred left?" you must be kidding. Life is sacred, Greg, even the life of the so-called goblin. You're much too quick to want to kill him.
ReplyDelete"Being in your house is not the same as being a threat; they are not automatically the same. "
ReplyDeleteQuite right. Maybe they should where a t-shirt that broadcasts their intentions or file a pre-home invasion plan with the local police.
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteI agree that life is sacred. And please understand that I do not want to kill anyone and would not be happy about it if I ever did kill anyone.
The fundamental problem here is that some people are asking the homeowner to entrust their liberty and their very lives to someone else -- an intruder who has already demonstrated contempt for the homeowner's liberty and life. That is foolish.
And the "let them take whatever they want as long as they don't assault the homeowner" attitude also undervalues the impact of property crimes. Someone broke in to my friend's apartment three weeks ago and stole $2000 from him. To put that in perspective, he has been unemployed for a long time and that was all the money he had left. He had to live on that money and pay child support for the daughter that he cherishes and sees weekly. Now he is in a desperate situation where he cannot pay his rent or child support payments and will be going hungry. The domino effect of that "simple property crime" is enormous. The emotional pain and suffering and quite possibly physical pain and suffering that my friend will endure is a tragedy ... it makes me literally sick to my stomach.
As for beanbag rounds, my 72 year old mother cannot handle a 12 gauge shotgun. Neither can my petite daughter.
If it makes you feel any better Mike, I have gone out of my way to prevent an intruder in the first place. I lock my home at all times. I have a dog. I recently purchased motion detector lights for my front door. And I am in the process of acquiring an alarm system. Unfortunately, some other people cannot afford those options.
Mike and dog gone,
ReplyDeleteLet's assume your 99% number is correct and only 1% of intruders intend to severely injure, rape, or murder the homeowner. I'll refer to those 1% of intruders as violent intruders and the other 99% as non-violent intruders. And I will ignore the enormous emotional injury, financial impact, and domino effect of the thefts on the victims.
Thus you are advocating that it is better for society to have 1 severely beaten, raped, and/or murdered homeowner who was doing absolutely nothing wrong for every 99 dead "non-violent" intruders. (Of course we know that not all homeowners would kill their intruders so the actual number would be lower.)
Saying it another way, you are willing to sacrifice 1 citizen victim, against their will, to save as many as 99 criminal lives.
We could use the same rationalle to kill a citizen against their will and use their organs, tissue, etc. to save 99 lives.
In addition, anyone who wants me to respect his rights must respect mine in return. That's the social contract. A goblin who breaks into my house has broken that agreement. I couldn't care less what his purpose in breaking in happens to be. His intention is obvious.
ReplyDeleteYo can try to demonize - literally - other people as much as you like.
ReplyDeleteCriminals ARE still people, and you sound like a three year old hung up on fantasy characters which only further diminishes any tiny amount of credibility you have.
When you write: Greg Camp said...
In addition, anyone who wants me to respect his rights must respect mine in return. That's the social contract. A goblin who breaks into my house has broken that agreement. I couldn't care less what his purpose in breaking in happens to be. His intention is obvious.
No one has to respect your rights - not that you really know what they are and aren't - as a condition of having their rights respected. Two wrongs don't make a right, pun intended.
And as to your notions of some agreement, or your BELIEF that you know someone's intention, you are wrong.
You are morally wrong, you are legally wrong, you are ethically wrong. You are also stupid and totally failing in critical thinking if you can't distinguish the difference between a fact and a belief.
You once again demonstrate you don't really believe that shooting someone is a last resort, you prove you need to talk big to make up for being a scaredy-cat weakling coward.
And THAT is why NONE of us here on the blog believe you are a safe gun owner or CCW holder.
It is why we fault your ability to engage in critical thinking. It is why we think you are stupid.
I don't find you much of a writer either.
I will tell you this, if you ever DO shoot someone, all these assertions that you only did so as a case of last resort could be used against you to prove that it has always been your intention to shoot someone without properly first finding out if the shooting is justified.
And believe me, if you ever DO shoot someone and I find out about it, I will make it a point to provide any interested attorney, preferably a prosecutor, with that information.
You are a thug wannabe, nothing better. You live for a fantasy about guns, one that is not significantly different from the people who get into role playing games and lose their ability to fully separate the fantasy from their reality.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote about Greg Camp's recent comment,
"... your BELIEF that you know someone's intention, you are wrong."
Let's be crystal clear. An intruder who has just broken into our home has already broken the law and harmed us. And we know for certain that the intruder intends further injury. That is what Greg was asserting that we know for certain. What we do not know is the nature and extent of the additional forthcoming injury -- whether financial, emotional, and/or physical. And on that point, I believe we all agree.
The problem with your position is that you demand a homeowner know for a certainty that the intruder has hostile intentions before acting. And I am telling you that the only way to know the intruder's intentions for a certainty is after they act ... and then it is too late.
As for comments that shooting an intruder is morally and legally wrong, consider this. You are demanding that the homeowner entrust the well being and possessions of themselves and their family members to a stranger or strangers who have just violated the law and their personal liberty. If I dropped off my children and entrusted their well being with strangers that I somehow knew were criminals that would be immoral and child neglect. Don't laugh, drug addicts have actually done this.
As for your comment, "you prove you need to talk big to make up for being a scaredy-cat weakling coward". I find it interesting how afraid you are of a person who simply stated that they will defend their family from home invaders. You'll never have to face Greg Camp's response as long as you stay out of his home. But criminals who have no honor, do not state their intentions, break laws, and violate people are something that we are childish for fearing.
I agree that using deadly force is a last resort. The difference between us is that you say uncertainty is a reason to insure that we leave the invader alone. I say uncertainty is a reason to insure that the invader leaves my daughter alone.
Capn, Your question is are 99 bad guys worth 1 good guy?
ReplyDeleteWell, let's think about it like this. I'm a believer in that old adage which says in every bad guy there's a little bit of good and in every good guy there's a little bit of bad. Adding all that up then, I have to say yes, 99 bad-guy lives are worth more than one good-guy life.
But, it's a pretty absurd discussion. All I'm saying is you, as a gun owner, should be very reluctant to take the life of a criminal regardless of the circumstances, which you sound to be. What I object to is the cavalier attitude I often hear, referring to them as goblins and being too quick to blow them away.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that everyone should be reluctant to take anyone's life, criminal or otherwise. Any time a "bad guy" dies, I find it very sad that their life choices culminated in their demise. At least they were able to weigh the "risk versus reward" and choose that path. It's a little bit inappropriate and crude to say, but there is an element of truth to the adage "at least he/she died doing what they love."
To be sure, I am even more saddened when a "bad guy" murders a person who was doing no wrong. The victim's last hours, minutes, or second were spent in horror on a path that they definitely did not choose.
In such a comparison, the victim suffered a much larger wrong. And rewarding criminals with both their lives and financial gain is very destructive to society.
Given those two very large down sides to crime, I fall heavily on the side of law abiding citizens.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting that we all go about like the Boondock Saints, although that movie does have a symbolic meaning that we all should stand up to evil. But when it comes to my home, entry into my home without permission is an act of violence in itself. In a situation like that, the goblin does not deserve a second chance.
In your view, how long do I have to wait to see if a home invader plans another act of violence? How many rooms must I have in my house to retreat to? Put yourself in the position of the homeowner. Someone has broken into your house. Would you feel at that moment that retreat is the better option? Where are you going to go that the invader can't follow you? Most of us do not have panic rooms.
Now, I recognize that these events are rare. But they do happen. We gun owners don't seek them out. If they come to us, we have a response.
Crunch wrote:An intruder who has just broken into our home has already broken the law and harmed us. And we know for certain that the intruder intends further injury. That is what Greg was asserting that we know for certain. What we do not know is the nature and extent of the additional forthcoming injury -- whether financial, emotional, and/or physical. And on that point, I believe we all agree.
ReplyDeleteNO, Crnch we do not agree. You assumptions are completey in error.
You demonstrate once again that you are not well read or well educated on subjects where you voice an opinion.
You lack an understanding - among other things - of Mens Rea.
Here is an introduction to it, but it is a bit more complex than this - and you had damn well better understand this before you contemplate shooting an intruder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
"Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes."
and here is the site for strict liability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29
"In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.
Strict liability laws were created in the 19th century to improve working and safety standards in factories. Needing to prove mens reas on the part of the factory owners was very difficult and resulted in very few prosecutions. The creation of strict liability offences meant that convictions were increased. Common strict liability offences today include the selling of alcohol to underage persons.
These laws are applied either in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the deterrent value of the offence."