Answer to the hypothetical

The situation I used for the hypothetical was the Boston Massacre.

The only two responses I read showed that the two people who responded had no real idea of what is going on and confirmed that you people really are idiots, but... (I did try to dumb down the questions after that though).

Actual outcome of the Boston Massacre was that deadly force was used and the soldiers were tried (with John Adams being their legal counsel).

The Colonists still saw themselves as British at this point and were demanding their rights as Britons.  One of those rights is due process of law.  This concept goes back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta, in which King John promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.

If you were inclined to say that deadly force was justified, then you happen to side with the redcoats!  In fact, you are saying that there was no reason for any of the further unrest which was the war for independence.

You wouldn't have prosecuted them because the Redcoats did the right thing.

Think about that.

BTW, if I were able to go back in time I would use modern crowd control methods to deal with this situation--NOT DEADLY FORCE.

Anyone who thinks that I would condone the use of deadly force against UNARMED Civilians clearly is not paying too much attention to what I am saying.

Or incapable of understanding what I have said.

What Should LE do. Should they be charged if they use deadly force?

Facts to this hypothetical situation:

Officer A  is walking down the street and X says something personal to A.  Officer says X knows that's not true. Then X responds by screaming insults and obscenities at Officer A. Officer B tells X he shouldn't be so rude to A.  X and B get into an altercation where B hits X. X tells B he's dead if he tries to shoot him.

A crowd of around 50 people begins to gather around A and B.  The crowd begins to shout insults at B and throw objects at him.  A call goes out for back up and 7 more officers arrive. One of the crowd tells the officers that the crowd will kill the officers if they shoot.

At this point, the crowd has grown to 300-400 people.  The officers tell the crowd to disperse.

Instead of dispersing, the crowd becomes more rowdy and belligerent.  They are throwing objects at the officers and taunting them.  One member of the crowd threatens the officers with a baseball bat.  Finally, something strikes one of the officers and knocks him down.  That is followed by members of the crowd attempting to hit the officers.  One of the officers is struck during the melee.

I should add that there had been agitation about "police brutality" among the locals, which contributed to why there was the taunting of the officers.

Additionally, most of the members of the crowd were not what people would call "solid citizens"--after all, they are threatening authority and willing to attack them and possibly kill them.

What should the officers do in your opinion?

1. Retreat
2. Use nonlethal force to stop the threat
3. Fire their weapons into the crowd

Should the officers be charged if they used deadly force in your opinion?

Think about your answers to this scenario very carefully.

Wisconsin Homeowners' Right to Kill Intruders

TMJ4 reports on the controversy over homeowner rights in the aftermath of a supposed DGU.

In Okauchee, Mike Fitzsimmons claims Babe broke into his garage in the middle of the night, that there was a confrontation and Fitzsimmons felt threatened.

"He told me he had a gun. He came at me with a gun. I told him to drop it, backed up, shot him, killed him," Fitzsimmons said of the shooting early Saturday morning.

In their investigation, police found Babe actually didn't have a gun. He did have a cell phone in his hand.

Current law states that a person may use deadly force only if they "reasonably believe" that doing so will save them or another person from death or serious injury.

The problem is when a homeowner unnecessarily kills someone, even if he realizes it, he always claims to have been justified. "I felt my life was in danger," is easy to say.

There are three possibilities:

1. In other cases it's true that he felt that way, and he was right, his life really was in imminent danger.

2. In some cases it's true that he felt that way but he was mistaken.

3. And in still other cases, he knew damn well his life was not in danger but being so outraged that some punk would dare to break into his home, he shoots and kills the intruder.

In all three, his description of events is more-or-less the same. The guys in the 3rd category are certainly not going to admit something that would work against them. The guys in the 2nd category, although they may be telling the truth about how they felt at the time, they've committed an unnecessary killing.

The current debate is to expand the rights of homeowners, as have many other states, pertaining to the requirement to retreat. In this case for example, it happened in the garage, the homeowner might have been able to retreat into the house. Some say they shouldn't have to.

To me this sounds like adolescent school-yard posturing, not a serious consideration of a life-or-death decision. If retreating is possible and would have reasonably diffused the situation, then wouldn't that mean the homeowner's life was not truly in jeopardy?

And, naturally you have the real fanatics, for whom it's very simple.

"I think the current law is ridiculous," said Kallay. "I should be able to do anything to protect my home my belongings and my family."

You get that, even "belongings." To protect belongings, these guys want the right to kill.

What's your opinion? Where's the right place to draw the line on the homeowner's right to use lethal force?

Please leave a comment.