jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (11/01/86)
In-Reply-To: your article <1535@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Article: 10:60 In reply to Henry Spencer: Sorry, but the police in the United State are under NO legal obligation to place themselves in danger in order to protect you and your family. This has been upheld by the courts. If you should have to call them regarding an intruder in your house, the police are NOT required to take all means at their disposal to save you. They might even ignore your call or come "too late." The courts in the US have consistently held the view that the police exist for the "general good," not for the personal benefit of a particularly threatened individual. In other words, the government does not guarrantee your safety, yet it makes laws which restrict your ability to protect yourself from the bad guys. Jon Kaplowitz cbosgd!erc3ba!jfka
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (11/11/86)
Article: 11:12 > Sorry, but the police in the United State are under NO legal obligation > to place themselves in danger in order to protect you and your family. ... However, they usually will (barring perhaps the worst urban areas with the worst police). More to the point, why not give them the chance first? Personally, I am under no illusions that I am Superman, or Rambo, or even Dirty Harry. Confronting a possibly armed and probably desperate intruder (you can bet your booties he'll be desperate once he sees the gun in your hand!) involves a considerable chance of getting shot at. Which involves a considerable chance of getting shot. Which involves a substantial chance of dying (especially if he decides to take no chances and finish you off). Deliberately seeking out such a confrontation, when there are alternatives which haven't been exhausted first, strikes me as suicidal. If the police aren't willing or able to deal with the matter, there may be no choice. But if they will do it, for heaven's sake leave it to them! > In other words, the government does not guarrantee your safety, yet it > makes laws which restrict your ability to protect yourself from the bad guys. "Life's hard, and then you die." How *could* the government guarantee your safety? In anything short of a police state, that is? > [another contributor] > This makes the assumption that you hear someone breaking in. Most people > sleep so soundly that the only door or window being forced open that you > will hear is in your bedroom... Admittedly a problem, barring things like alarm systems. > ... (This is why I have a lock on the bedroom > door and keep a .45 next on a nightstand next to the bed. Of course, it > is ALWAYS put away before I unlock the door in the morning and let my > daughter in.) Hmm. I think I'd want my daughter (if I had one) *inside* the defensive perimeter. That is, a door between her bedroom and yours, and a lock on her bedroom door too. > > ... There are lesser reasons for this, like the courts taking a dim > > view of you shooting someone except in ... a dire emergency ... > > The courts don't take such a dim view of this in California, or most other > western States. California law makes the presumption that if someone forces > their way into your home while you are home, that the intruder intends you > great bodily harm. Use of lethal force is therefore acceptable. Have you checked this out with your lawyer? Does he have background in armed-self-defence law? If you haven't, I would urge you to find out for sure. The laws on such things generally are more sensible in the western states, but my understanding is that the laws *everywhere* are generally much less favorable than most people think. As an example, does "forces their way into your home" mean that you have to hear the sound of breaking glass and splintering wood? I could see the law making a distinction between overt frontal assault, presumably for violent purposes, and stealthy entry which doesn't announce its intent so clearly. > It is my impression also that a lot of people have a firearm as a talisman -- > they shoot it once a year, if that. If you are going to have it, you should > accept that it will regular practice -- at least once a month -- to be a > serious threat to an intruder. Agreed! You are *worse* off with a gun you can't use competently than you are without one -- if you can't use it well, you are effectively nearly unarmed, but you are (a) much less cautious, and (b) much more alarming to an intruder, than if you *were* unarmed. > [another voice heard from] > ...My primary mission is to survive, and consider > that the best way to do so is to be behind my water bed armed. ... > > ...If anyone enters my house at night, I > would be afraid that I COULD be hurt, and would take all possible measures > to kill the intruder. I have the provincial notion that this reduces > recidivism. I find it difficult to reconcile those two paragraphs; can you elaborate? If you're behind your water bed (armed or not), you aren't taking all possible measures to kill an intruder. If you're seeking him out with intent to kill, your primary mission is not survival. Personally, I tend to agree that reducing recidivism is a good idea, but I'm not enthusiastic about risking my hide to do it. I take the behind-the-water-bed view. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (11/18/86)
In-Reply-To: <1636@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Article: 11:15 >> [another voice heard from] >> ...My primary mission is to survive, and consider >> that the best way to do so is to be behind my water bed armed. ... >> >> ...If anyone enters my house at night, I >> would be afraid that I COULD be hurt, and would take all possible measures >> to kill the intruder. I have the provincial notion that this reduces >> recidivism. > >I find it difficult to reconcile those two paragraphs; can you elaborate? >If you're behind your water bed (armed or not), you aren't taking all >possible measures to kill an intruder. If you're seeking him out with >intent to kill, your primary mission is not survival. Personally, I tend >to agree that reducing recidivism is a good idea, but I'm not enthusiastic >about risking my hide to do it. I take the behind-the-water-bed view. > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry Request for elaboration - Thanks, Henry; I wasn't quite clear. I figure that the water bed has much better stopping power than body armor. Second that if the intruder does come so far as to enter my bedroom, then he means me no good. In that situation, I would do everything possible to blow the guy away before he (or she, lets be non-chauvinstic) is even aware that I am there. I keep a .45 auto loaded with hollow points as a bedside weapon. I agree that to keep weaponry without practice is dangerous. In Oregon, defending my domicile and life from a protected position from an intruder should be imminently justifiable. This is based on lectures from District Attorneys here. I would much prefer to kill the intruder than merely to injure them. With the jail space problem we have, he could be out and back in no time. BC