Posted on 02/10/2010 7:28:24 AM PST by Sasparilla
A Lima, Ohio Burglar has sued the man whose home he invaded and who shot him. Nineteen year old Jack White has sued 54 year old Stephen White (no relation), saying that Stephen White shot him intentionally. The younger man says that the gunshot caused serious injuries and a disability. His medical bills have reached over $35,000.00. Stephen White had just returned to his home last February and found Jack White and two others in his yard. Jack had just broken into Stephen’s house and was running back to his own house nearby with a rifle and other things he had stolen from Stephen’s house.
The elder Mr. White chased Jack. He confronted Jack, and the rifle that Jack had just stolen went off during a struggle for it.
A Judge has sentenced Jack White to two years in prison, and told him that he had no right to be in another man’s home. Jack is well on his way to being a career criminal. He has a long juvenile record that includes other breaking and entering, assaults, thefts, and criminal trespassing convictions.
To further complicate the case, Stephen White faces Felonious Assault charges and a charge of...
(Excerpt) Read more at armedselfdefense.blogspot.com ...
Do you have a link? I couldn’t find one to a SCOTUS case.
google Katko vs. Briney.
It’ll come right up.
In the lower courts, it was known as the Briney Trapgun Case.
Does your answer represent the libertarian point of view, conventional legal reality, or what? Just so you know, my thinking, which is implicit in the question posed, is strictly confined to the morality of self defense. I'm open to another point of view. But I don't think we've completely delegated to the government absolute responsibility in the matter of apprehension of criminals who are in the process of conducting a crime. Does hot pursuit automatically a count as a strike against self defense?
It was an Iowa supreme court case not U.S. Supreme court case.
Well, obviously that's exactly what I did, and none of the references that I checked said anything about it having reached the US Supreme Court.
Then I narrowed the search by adding "Supreme Court" and still all the excerpts showed that those links were referring to the Iowa Supreme Court. I was able to find two links on Yahoo that DID have "US Supreme Court" near Katko and Briney, but they were both posts by YOU on Free Republic. If this case really did go to SCOTUS, you seem to be the only person willing to write about it. Finally, I checked the Wikipedia article on the case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney, and IT says nothing about it having gone to the US Supreme Court.
Recheck your facts my friend. If it really did make it, which I doubt, get us a link or a case number.
No problem. You seemed so confident, I kept checking and rechecking and re-rechecking! So we both learned something new today.
It isn't self defense if you are in hot pursuit, you have become the aggressor. Your right to use deadly force ceases when your life (or family and friends) is no longer in danger.
You describe yourself as a libertarian. If you confront a felon who is in possession of your personal property - and attempt re-possession of the property - and said property is a deadly weapon - and the felon struggles to maintain control of the property - why should the felon be given the benefit of the doubt as to intent?
You don't have the right to use deadly force to recover personal property. Do you think that if your neighbor has stolen something from you that you have the right to go into their house and shoot them to recover it?
Does your answer represent the libertarian point of view, conventional legal reality, or what?
Mostly conventional law. In this case though it is in line with my libertarian view. The basic rule is that you can only use deadly force if you are threatened with deadly force. If you go out and become the aggressor (taking the gun from someone) and shoot them, you didn't act in self defense.
I'm open to another point of view. But I don't think we've completely delegated to the government absolute responsibility in the matter of apprehension of criminals who are in the process of conducting a crime.
You cannot use deadly force in the apprehension of a criminal. The cattlemen who rounded up the rustlers and hung them were guilty of murder. But they had every right to apprehend them (including the threat of deadly force) and take them to a legal authority. The downside is that if you are mistaken, then you become guilty of kidnapping, etc.
No, and I didn't frame it that way either. I'm troubled by part of your answer which identify the property owner as the automatic aggressor (and the initiator of force):
It isn't self defense if you are in hot pursuit, you have become the aggressor. Your right to use deadly force ceases when your life (or family and friends) is no longer in danger[...]If you go out and become the aggressor (taking the gun from someone) and shoot them, you didn't act in self defense.
Except the thief is physically contending for physical possession of the owner's deadly weapon. Doesn't that dispute endanger the owner as well?
It seems to me you are implying the owner has a burden to release the weapon into the hands of any thief who grabs it. Shouldn't the thief have the same burden to release the weapon into the hands of the owner without a dispute? We are very clear on who is the thief and who is the owner, after all. As well we are clear on who is carrying the deadly weapon - the thief, not the owner. The rustling analogy does not apply, because the owner is not executing a thief who is already arrested.
Suppose the owner with a deadly weapon in hand attempts to arrest the thief. The thief then disputes the arrest with a deadly weapon. Who is responsible for initiating violence? Who is acting in self defense when they use deadly force?
This discussion is offending the libertarian in me. I don't recall the part where eschewing the initiation of force means open season for thievery and no recourse never...
I note that Briney appealed the verdict. I can't find the disposition of the appeal; probably dropped.
Also, some of his neighbors bid for the portion of his farm that was seized and leased it back to him after the sheriff's sale.
Interestingly both Briney and Katko felt they were getting screwed and together, sued the neighbors. Strange bedfellows.
Sorry but when you go after someone to get your property back you become the aggressor. That may not be right, but that is the way it is.
Except the thief is physically contending for physical possession of the owner's deadly weapon. Doesn't that dispute endanger the owner as well?
Sure, but this was initiated by the owner, that is aggression on his part. The thief can plead self defense here.
It seems to me you are implying the owner has a burden to release the weapon into the hands of any thief who grabs it.
No if the gun is in your possession and a thief tries to grab it you are completely justified in killing and shooting the thief. Once the thief has the gun and is running away (the running away part is very important) you are not justified in racing after the thief and grabbing the gun and shooting the thief.
Suppose the owner with a deadly weapon in hand attempts to arrest the thief. The thief then disputes the arrest with a deadly weapon. Who is responsible for initiating violence? Who is acting in self defense when they use deadly force?
Citizen arrests are tricky. Depending on the circumstances the owner is probably justified in killing the thief if it takes place at the scene of the crime. But and this is a huge but, it is very likely that the owner will be charged with murder if the citizen arrest takes place away from the crime scene. You can't go and hunt the thief down.
This discussion is offending the libertarian in me. I don't recall the part where eschewing the initiation of force means open season for thievery and no recourse never...
No recourse? We are talking about the use of deadly force. There is no problem with calling the cops, tackling the guy and beating him to a pulp (may get you in some trouble, but it is doubtful). The bottom line though is that you can't use deadly force merely to protect property.
Do you really think that if someone comes on your property and steals something that you can shoot them?
No, what I really think is: When the owner of a deadly weapon is physically contending for possession of said deadly weapon with a thief, it is reasonable for the owner of the deadly weapon to be in fear for his life and thus able to act in self defense.
I think this holds true across a wide range of scenarios, including the ones we were discussing. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to generalize the deadly weapon as some arbitrary item, not a deadly weapon. Obviously if you substituted "harmless ice cream cone" for "deadly weapon", the circumstances will be different.
hmm, maybe the part that you are missing is intent. If the perp is coming at you or not even fleeing (armed or not) and you feel threatened, by all means blow them away.
The problem of intent comes when the perp is not approaching or threatening you, then you lose the self defense justification. You don't lose all your rights, but you had better be very careful about the use of deadly force. If you are approaching the perp and/or threatening the perp (even if you can see that he has your stuff) you have become the aggressor. The perp at this point in time could be justified in killing you because you are threatening him and he has a right to defend himself.
The only exception that I know of is the Castle Doctrine. Generally if the perp is in your house it is automatically assumed that you are being threatened and you are free to use deadly force to your hearts content.
Outside of your house though, if the perp doesn't initiate the confrontation and you do, your use of deadly force will be considered murder. Think about this carefully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.