Inviting Crime

[archbishopjabber]

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

He would have to prove that the person trying to loot his house posed him an immediate threat upon his life. A crack addict desperate for money needs only walk two feet inside the wide open door, pick up one expensive thing and leave with it. The man can -easily- simply stay hidden and let the robber leave.

He is under no actual threat of death, and thus, not put into a situation whereby he needs to defend himself, so as far as I'm concerned, the man is guilty of at the minimum manslaughter, and depending on whether the state lawyer assigned to the case against the man is clever, could claim that since the state of his house was inducement to enter and loot, he was actually guilty of premeditated murder in the first degree.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Inviting Crime

It would be near impossible to prove that he had his windows and doors open without a witness though. Plus, you couldnt really prove that the crack addict posed a threat or not, anyone could say that by the slightest action they thought they were in immediate danger. With such a law you would have to have many eye witnesses to convict the man. "Dead men tell no tales"
Although, assuming a man lures a known convict into his house just to kill him, he probably has done such things before and enjoys them. In this case a character witness would tell the jury that he is very prone to such things.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Inviting Crime

The question is whether infringement upon property rights constitutes an act of violence. Since ownership ultimately dictates even why murder is wrong, there's nothing unreasonable with accepting that people have the right to protect their property as well as their person, but at the same time killing to defend it is often excessive. Minimum necessary use of force is always the most moral action if action is taken. The man in this case could hypothetically have been shown to be provoking an attack. There are a number of other considerations.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Inviting Crime

Another concept i just thought of is that if this "property violation justifying murder" thing were set in place, once the man sets foot inside the house (or on the property for that matter) with the intention of taking something he is trespassing and would deserve to die (according to the law). As long as the law says its ok to kill a man inside your home, then any advance with the thought of law infringement towards that individual would be counted as an act that would spark self defense. In such a case the owner would not be at fault, as clearly stated by the law.

Now morally it would not be justified, but that is a whole other issue.

[Melone Marshe]

Re: Inviting Crime

Think the OP is thinking of the Make My Day Law?

It all depends on if the person is trespassing and is of immediate threat to you or someone in your household. It doesn't matter if the door's closed or even wide-open, displaying a 50'' plasma screen TV - Having expensive stuff in plain view wouldn't hold up in court, since no one's gonna use "He has nice stuff, he's just begging to be robbed" as an argument in court, you know?

Granted, if they don't see that you or those around you were in dire danger, you could very well get charged with anything up to second-degree murder for it.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Inviting Crime

Another concept i just thought of is that if this "property violation justifying murder" thing were set in place, once the man sets foot inside the house (or on the property for that matter) with the intention of taking something he is trespassing and would deserve to die (according to the law).

Not quite. More like, the man who owned the property would be entitled to defend himself.

As long as the law says its ok to kill a man inside your home, then any advance with the thought of law infringement towards that individual would be counted as an act that would spark self defense. In such a case the owner would not be at fault, as clearly stated by the law.

It's very hard to discern intent. In this case the fact the criminal had a switchblade and a TV in his hand is probably what makes the self-defense argument sensible.

Now morally it would not be justified, but that is a whole other issue.

Yes it is, but I don't think it's outside the range of discussion based on the OP.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Inviting Crime

Having expensive stuff in plain view wouldn't hold up in court, since no one's gonna use "He has nice stuff, he's just begging to be robbed" as an argument in court, you know?

The argument might be used against a jury.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Inviting Crime

I would've voted him guilty. From the start, he laid a trap with an intent to kill people and that's enough to prove him guilty. It doesn't matter if his life was at any level of threat, the intent to kill was still there.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

I would've voted him guilty. From the start, he laid a trap with an intent to kill people and that's enough to prove him guilty. It doesn't matter if his life was at any level of threat, the intent to kill was still there.

~Tsugomaru

You can't necessarily prove that owning expensive things and not locking your door are intent to trap people any more than you can claim that a woman dressing in a revealing way is trying to trap people into raping her.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Inviting Crime

Yah, but this case is different. He was sitting there waiting to kill someone and he purposely set up that trap to kill someone.

But then again, the story isn't all too clear about it now that I reread it. =\

~Tsugomaru

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Inviting Crime

Well with that reasoning yes, you could get him, but only on the crime of conspiracy of murder.
Exactly what i was saying earlier, the man could say that he "thought" he was in danger out of any random movement the guy makes. From this, the owner could say he was only defending himself cause no one was really around to say otherwise. The only way i could really see the prosecution able to prove that it wasnt in defense is if the body of the man was overly beaten.

Also, laying a trap isnt against the law, its whats done after the trap has been sprung.

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

It would up a charge from manslaughter to first degree murder if you could prove he planned it all out, that's about it.

As an interesting legal aside, "Entrapment" -is- illegal if it is the police who entrap you to commit a crime, at least insofar as the legal defense of entrapment is recognised and if proven, negates any criminal liability.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Inviting Crime

This is sort of like saying that a girl who was dressed in skimpy clothing was "asking to be raped." I don't see much difference in the two situations, and logically they should be dealt with in the same manner (in both cases, the robber or rapist are at fault... hopefully).

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Inviting Crime

I have personally talked to 3 police officers about this similar situation.

All 3 said that if they pose a threat to YOU then you have every right to deal with it.

The rules are if they are in your house or on your property after 10pm you can injure/kill them.

They also noted that you shoot to kill or in this case swing to kill. There have been many instances where the robber sued the owner and won.

In Texas they have a law where if someone is on your property after 6pm you can shoot to kill.

Its the same about a couple cities in America about Car Muggings. Aslong as you feel you need to do something be sure to kill them. THats one less mouth for the Jury to hear.