US states get 'shoot first' law

[rph72]

http://www.news24.com

US states get 'shoot first' law
27/10/2007 16:22 - (SA)

Washington - Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.

John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.

From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.

"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.

The incident made national headlines since it was Baker's parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.

But Woodson's death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.

Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.

No proof necessary

In contrast with traditional self-defence laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.

Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first".

But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.

Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.

"This law will bring common-sense self-defence protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.

"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.

"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."

It's about time they change the law here as well.

 

[NoADSLyet]

Yay, Cowboys and crooks on the rise, e-Mbeki should listen and learn from the first world rulers!

 

[LoneGunman]

although speaking as someone in the US - it doesnt 'mean' very much in reality. Relative to SA, there's almost no real crime at all here.

I sleep with most windows wide open, there's no fences anywhere, no walls anywhere, no burglar bars over windows, you can park your car and leave it open and go shopping (and many people do this) - so a shoot first law doesnt mean too much in the big scheme of things.
Thats the difference between being in a peaceful society that's mostly working,
and a society that's technically in a state of civil disorder and widespread unrest (which the ruling Gov has chosen to have people think of it as 'crime'). The truth is that what SA is dealing with, is way beyond just 'crime'.) It's civil disorder.
Big difference.

 

[NoADSLyet]

The truth is that what SA is dealing with, is way beyond just 'crime'.) It's civil disorder.
Big difference.

Truth spoken, when I was in US and Canada i could see and feel the difference, Humanity. Will for ever miss it!

 

[Picard]

The truth is that what SA is dealing with, is way beyond just 'crime'.) It's civil disorder.
Big difference.

I don't think it's civil disorder. I think it's social engineering by the government. What they are doing is to make conditions here in SA so unbearable that all whites would just leave or get murdered out.

Here the attacker must first try and shoot you before you can shoot back creating a situation similar to "draws" like in the American cowboy films. Both people have basically a 50/50 chance to come out alive.

 

[orin76]

I don't think it's civil disorder. I think it's social engineering by the government. What they are doing is to make conditions here in SA so unbearable that all whites would just leave or get murdered out.

What absolute rubbish. Newsflash!!! White people are not the only ones being murdered and they're definitely not the only ones who are considering emigration.

 

[noxibox]

I`ve been thinking of emmigrating to Zimbabwe in a few years time.
Should be quiet there.

I don't think it's civil disorder. I think it's social engineering by the government. What they are doing is to make conditions here in SA so unbearable that all whites would just leave or get murdered out.

That is highly unlikely. Why ascribe to conspiracy what can more plausibly ascribed to laziness and ineptitude?

Here the attacker must first try and shoot you before you can shoot back creating a situation similar to "draws" like in the American cowboy films. Both people have basically a 50/50 chance to come out alive.

It was always the law here that you had to be facing real danger and fire a warning shot.

In principle I agree with the notion that if someone is lurking in my garden or skulking about my car outside I shouldn't just shoot them, but once they're in my home I see no reason why I should even be required to fire a warning shot.

 

[antowan]

We need this in SA. Would solve a lot of problems. Naturally there will be false shootings, but it is a brilliant idea...

 

[bwana]

Can anyone provide documentation on the legal requirement of a warning shot?

 

[kilps]

I don't think something as radical as the article describes is the best solution - it's just too dangerous in terms of mistakes and abuse.

But at the same time you can't have a situation where the it's only self defence once they are just about to attack you - you need something more middle ground - but where the line is is a pretty difficult to decide.

 

[LoneGunman]

I've always believed in the concept of
'If someone is in your garden (or living space) - you shoot them repeatedly until they're dead, then go choose a big knife from the kitchen, put it in their hand so their prints are on it, THEN call the police.

If the government wants people to hesitate at life or death situations - all the more reasons to shoot first, and simply add the 'evidence' to make the scene fit the 'official' requirements for use of deadly force.

The object of the game, is to stay alive, and protect yourself and those under your protection - and to ensure that anyone stupid and dangerous enough to come into your property or home, is too dead, to be able to do the same to anyone else.

Eventually you run out of criminals...when you've killed them all.
Its harsh, but its the only sane solution. Anything else is madness.
/2 cents mode off

 

[NoADSLyet]

............Eventually you run out of criminals...when you've killed them all..............

You reckon, in South Africa???? xx%*43+ Million??? At least you have some hope!

 

[stoke]

"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.

"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."

I would like to thank captain obvious.

 

[Darth Garth]

The same country that illegally invades and kills thousands and tortures and locks up people with no recourse to justice , spies on their own citizens and we should follow their sterling example ???.

Funny.

 

[ld13]

Can anyone provide documentation on the legal requirement of a warning shot?

This “shoot first” has been discussed multiple times on the radio (RSG). While we don’t have that law in SA, the courts do seem to be on your side with these things. If you acted on the belief that you/family/friend were in fact in any direct danger, you’re ok. Depending on the situation, Shoot to kill. They take these things on a case by case matter. If you are alone in the house, it’s dark, there is someone lurking inside your house – by all means, do what you need to do in order to protect yourself.

I’m not sure what the legislation says about the warning shot though. But under duress you don’t have time to fire a warning shot first, unless the person is like moving towards your house, then a warning shot would be the perfect way to deter the said person. And firing a warning shot in certain situations is not recommended as it could put you in a more disadvantaged position by giving away your (hidden) location for instance.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

They are state laws which are for the most part born of the common sense of the man in the street as opposed to federal laws which are born out of lunacy.

So yes, we should be following these sterling examples.

 

[bwana]

This “shoot first” has been discussed multiple times on the radio (RSG). While we don’t have that law in SA, the courts do seem to be on your side with these things. If you acted on the belief that you/family/friend were in fact in any direct danger, you’re ok. Depending on the situation, Shoot to kill. They take these things on a case by case matter. If you are alone in the house, it’s dark, there is someone lurking inside your house – by all means, do what you need to do in order to protect yourself.

I’m not sure what the legislation says about the warning shot though. But under duress you don’t have time to fire a warning shot first, unless the person is like moving towards your house, then a warning shot would be the perfect way to deter the said person. And firing a warning shot in certain situations is not recommended as it could put you in a more disadvantaged position by giving away your (hidden) location for instance.

Thanks - that was pretty much my understanding of the matter too.

 

[CathJ]

This “shoot first” has been discussed multiple times on the radio (RSG). While we don’t have that law in SA, the courts do seem to be on your side with these things. If you acted on the belief that you/family/friend were in fact in any direct danger, you’re ok. Depending on the situation, Shoot to kill. They take these things on a case by case matter. If you are alone in the house, it’s dark, there is someone lurking inside your house – by all means, do what you need to do in order to protect yourself.

I’m not sure what the legislation says about the warning shot though. But under duress you don’t have time to fire a warning shot first, unless the person is like moving towards your house, then a warning shot would be the perfect way to deter the said person. And firing a warning shot in certain situations is not recommended as it could put you in a more disadvantaged position by giving away your (hidden) location for instance.

Bearing in mind that a warning shot doesn't just disappear into thin air, either - it has to go somewhere!

 

[bwana]

Bearing in mind that a warning shot doesn't just disappear into thin air, either - it has to go somewhere!

I would think that most people who've been through licensing know not to fire a shot into the air.

 

[Farquaon]

Im still getting used to the idea of not locking your car, or leaving my valuables open, especially leaving stuff on the passenger seat. I have been here in the states for the last month, and yet have to hear a hooter in traffic.