Arizona GOP intending to further legalise killing of people

[Svensson]

Yes, This is a deliberately inflamatory title, but bear with me.

the Arizona house, controlled by Repubicans, are advancing HB 2843, which is an expansion on the law that you are permitted to use deadly force when someone breaks into your premises. The expansion is that this should now also include "property".

Now there is an article on Axios, claiming this to be targetted at immigrats, but the text of HB2843 does not specifically meantion this. However, given that there is prcedent (listed in the article) and the overall attitude towards immigrants in the GOP, this may well be what the expansion is meant to adress.

But in the meantime, does it not worry anyone in Arizona that your neighbour could be allowed to blow your brains out with a Magmum .45 if you just happen to walk across his front lawn? Or, would it not make anyone weary of visiting Arizona? remember we are not alking about the average 100 squre foot NYC garden, This is Arizona where properties could literally be hundreds or acres. How would you know for sure AT ALL TIMES that you are NOT on someone else's property?

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

the Arizona house, controlled by Repubicans, are advancing HB 2843, which is an expansion on the law that you are permitted to use deadly force when someone breaks into your premises. The expansion is that this should now also include "property".


This is commonly called "Stand Your Ground," along with the "Castle Doctrine." My state of Pennsylvania also has these measures. And I am very glad for them. Basically, they state that as long as you are in your home or anywhere you are legally allowed to be, you have no duty to retreat; in other words, you may *stand your ground* and defend yourself. By "property," this also means your car (for carjackings), and the *curtilage* of your home.

Now there is an article on Axios, claiming this to be targetted at immigrats, but the text of HB2843 does not specifically meantion this. However, given that there is prcedent (listed in the article) and the overall attitude towards immigrants in the GOP, this may well be what the expansion is meant to adress.


I confess to not knowing much about the realities of illegal immigration status in Arizona, but it begs the question, "What is this to do with Jack The Ripper???"

But in the meantime, does it not worry anyone in Arizona that your neighbour could be allowed to blow your brains out with a Magmum .45 if you just happen to walk across his front lawn? Or, would it not make anyone weary of visiting Arizona? remember we are not alking about the average 100 squre foot NYC garden, This is Arizona where properties could literally be hundreds or acres. How would you know for sure AT ALL TIMES that you are NOT on someone else's property?


There exists no law on the books of any state that allows a property owner to use deadly force against someone merely walking across one's front lawn! In EVERY case of lethal self defense, you must be in fear of grievous bodily injury/disfigurement/sexual assault or in fear of losing your life and in defense of others. And you better have a better reason than "he's on my property!" At most, the person is trespassing, which at that point is not even a felony in most places. So shooting the trespasser is likely to catch you a charge based on "overkill." If you encounter a burglar leaving your home with property, you cannot shoot him in the back as he leaves, even if he has your priceless bottlecap collection; to do so would show you NOT in fear for your life and you may well be prosecuted for negligent homicide. As far as the acreage problem, well, the best way to mark off your property would be a *fence,* with proper signage in English and Spanish. If you find someone on the wrong side of it, my advice would be to call the authorities and have them arrested for trespassing. Unless they get jumpy and try to kill you, shooting them is a really big headache involving courts and lawyers and money. How do I know this? I'm a retired Corrections Officer who has had to defend his life on 4 occasions with a handgun. This was in the line of duty. Fortunately, I have not had to defend myself as a civilian; but I live in the armpit of Pennsylvania with one of the highest crime and drug-related deaths in the state, so there's still time.....

[Svensson]

I confess to not knowing much about the realities of illegal immigration status in Arizona, but it begs the question, "What is this to do with Jack The Ripper???"

Nothing, which is why it's in the "pub talk" section.

There exists no law on the books of any state that allows a property owner to use deadly force against someone merely walking across one's front lawn! In EVERY case of lethal self defense, you must be in fear of grievous bodily injury/disfigurement/sexual assault or in fear of losing your life and in defense of others. And you better have a better reason than "he's on my property!" At most, the person is trespassing, which at that point is not even a felony in most places. So shooting the trespasser is likely to catch you a charge based on "overkill." If you encounter a burglar leaving your home with property, you cannot shoot him in the back as he leaves, even if he has your priceless bottlecap collection; to do so would show you NOT in fear for your life and you may well be prosecuted for negligent homicide. As far as the acreage problem, well, the best way to mark off your property would be a *fence,* with proper signage in English and Spanish. If you find someone on the wrong side of it, my advice would be to call the authorities and have them arrested for trespassing. Unless they get jumpy and try to kill you, shooting them is a really big headache involving courts and lawyers and money. How do I know this? I'm a retired Corrections Officer who has had to defend his life on 4 occasions with a handgun. This was in the line of duty. Fortunately, I have not had to defend myself as a civilian; but I live in the armpit of Pennsylvania with one of the highest crime and drug-related deaths in the state, so there's still time.....

I agree pretty much 100 % of what you said here with regards to the current law. My concern was that the expansion from "inside your four walls" to "inside anywhere on your property" would precisely create such a law.

Leaving the complex issue of proportionality of this law aside, I know when I break into someone's home and open myself up to a potentially deadly conflict. Same with car-jacking. These are clearly defined boundaries that a reasonably intelligent person will know when they are violated. By expanding the law from "premises" to "property", I am not so sure anymore. Unless of course they pass another law that mandates fences

[Abby Normal]

Nothing, which is why it's in the "pub talk" section.



I agree pretty much 100 % of what you said here with regards to the current law. My concern was that the expansion from "inside your four walls" to "inside anywhere on your property" would precisely create such a law.

Leaving the complex issue of proportionality of this law aside, I know when I break into someone's home and open myself up to a potentially deadly conflict. Same with car-jacking. These are clearly defined boundaries that a reasonably intelligent person will know when they are violated. By expanding the law from "premises" to "property", I am not so sure anymore. Unless of course they pass another law that mandates fences

But surely self defense must still play into it no?

[Svensson]

well yes, but I think it always does. If I am in a public place, and my life is immediate danger, I am already allowed to use deadly force to avert the danger to my life, which was the legal argument in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

So the current law that you are allowed to use deadly force on your own premises must exist to lower the bar to what kind of danger you are in, right? This already exists in most countries and I believe (at least here in most European countries), you need to prove that your life was in danger.

Now I don't know what (or where) that lower bar is. And in a way, I see merit in that because you should be afforded additional rights/leeway in your place of residence. However, that lower bar is now extended to not just your residence, but anywhere that is your property. The housebill is quite clear that this is no longer JUST your residence:

""premises" means any real property and OR any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both EITHER human residence and OR lodging whether occupied or not"

So what is that lower bar that already exists in current law and is about to be extended to anywhere on your land?

P.S.: We might need an actual lawyer to untagle this one....

Cheers.

[Patrick S]

Fifteen years ago a thief, with a violent criminal record who thought we were out of town (he was given bad information by a neighbor's nanny), broke into my home. He broke a sliding-glass window which awakened me immediately. I had two boys aged five and one upstairs and my wife with me downstairs. As I saw it, I had no choice but to engage as my wife called 911. I didn't own a firearm (still don't). And I didn't think to grab something with which to defend myself because the only thought I had was to get to him before he could get to my family. I ended up fighting for my life. I don't remember much detail. But, he managed to land several blows with a crowbar. I ended up with a skull facture, fractured forearm, two broken ribs, bruises all over my body, and quite a few serious cuts because we ended up back out through the glass he'd just broken and onto the back patio. Fortunately, I managed to subdue him. He was severely injured: broken jaw, broken nose, broken orbital bone, dislocated shoulder, torn knee ligaments... He was still unconscious when the police arrived (9 minutes after my wife called) and they found on his person a knife and a loaded hand gun.

Obviously, I think about this incident a lot. Probably several times a week if not every day. I know that if I would have had a gun, I'd have shot the guy. And I'd have been thankful for any statute that protected me in that situation. I think about how easily it could have gone the wrong way and what might have happened to my family in those 9 minutes before the police arrived.

So, based on this experience, I feel like you have to do what you have to do when someone gets inside your home. And not every man has the same background and physical abilities that I do (or did before I got old). So, a firearm may well be the only reasonable recourse available to many.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of laws that allow someone to act irresponsibly - with a firearm or any weapon - because someone is simply on their property, outside their home, without malice, posing no threat. I've seen too many stories of someone simply not knowing where they are getting murdered or injured by someone who was clearly looking for any excuse to discharge a weapon.

Bottom line for me... I don't actually know exactly where I stand on all this. But, it was actually somewhat cathartic to write about this experience. It's not something I talk about often.

[The Rookie Detective]

Patrick, may I just say that you sound like a very brave person; and respect to you for sharing your story.


I feel I am not qualified to comment on this hot topic, as I am not from the States.


However, because this is a topic of discussion, I might as well, as I can come at it from an objective standpoint.

And so, with the utmost respect for my American friends...let's begin...


As an outsider looking in, I must say that it feels impossible to discuss this topic contextually, without incorporating the root cause of the problem, the issue of gun crime, and the obvious connotations that go with that.

These have been an issue for the longest time.

For an American, the idea of being able to defend your property goes hand in hand with the inherent belief that an individual has a constitutional right to carry a firearm. On that basis, there is an argument to be had that the problem lies at the heart of the Constitution itself, and rather than looking for pragmatic ways to improve and evolve the system, the States are stuck in a kind of limbo of their own making...and choosing.

Victims of your own making as it were.

There is of course a huge difference between feeling you have the right to defend yourself and your family, and the belief you have the right to carry and use a firearm just because an outdated and practically redundant set of rules tells you you can, and often without reproach.

It is no coincidence of course that the States has a greater number of homicides than the combined total of all the other countries on the planet put together.

That in itself should tell you that the system is wrong, and it's a mindset that is unfortunately unlikely to change.


I like the theoretical ideology that the system tries to implement, but the practical reality is far different, and the application and implementation of such laws become riddled with hypocrisy and double standards.

I can't even begin to imagine having to consider using a firearm, and in that sense, I am grateful I am not from the States.

But, if I was, then I would never feel like it was right to use a firearm, just because I was raised to be told it was my right as an American.

How Narcissistic is that?

That's not to say I wouldn't use a firearm personally if provoked, but it would come from my feeling of defending myself as a human being, and not a card I could play just because of my nationality. I would essentially have an excuse/defense by claiming it's my constitutional right to defend myself.

No...it's my right as a human being to defend myself, regardless of my nationality or a systemic set of rules and laws.

And that's the problem right there in a less-than-convenient nutshell


The fundamental issue isn't about having the natural right to defend yourself and your loved ones as a human being, it's about believing you're entitled as an American to use a firearm just because that's how it's always been.

That's not progressive, it's regressive.


That is evidenced by the 2 candidates for the upcoming Election... I mean... why?


It's the equivalent of choosing between Sickert and Ostrog as your main Ripper suspect for the rigid canonical 5 series.



RD

(I had to link the Ripper case in there somewhere)

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Patrick, may I just say that you sound like a very brave person; and respect to you for sharing your story.


I feel I am not qualified to comment on this hot topic, as I am not from the States.


However, because this is a topic of discussion, I might as well, as I can come at it from an objective standpoint.

And so, with the utmost respect for my American friends...let's begin...


As an outsider looking in, I must say that it feels impossible to discuss this topic contextually, without incorporating the root cause of the problem, the issue of gun crime, and the obvious connotations that go with that.

These have been an issue for the longest time.

For an American, the idea of being able to defend your property goes hand in hand with the inherent belief that an individual has a constitutional right to carry a firearm. On that basis, there is an argument to be had that the problem lies at the heart of the Constitution itself, and rather than looking for pragmatic ways to improve and evolve the system, the States are stuck in a kind of limbo of their own making...and choosing.

Victims of your own making as it were.

There is of course a huge difference between feeling you have the right to defend yourself and your family, and the belief you have the right to carry and use a firearm just because an outdated and practically redundant set of rules tells you you can, and often without reproach.

It is no coincidence of course that the States has a greater number of homicides than the combined total of all the other countries on the planet put together.

That in itself should tell you that the system is wrong, and it's a mindset that is unfortunately unlikely to change.


I like the theoretical ideology that the system tries to implement, but the practical reality is far different, and the application and implementation of such laws become riddled with hypocrisy and double standards.

I can't even begin to imagine having to consider using a firearm, and in that sense, I am grateful I am not from the States.

But, if I was, then I would never feel like it was right to use a firearm, just because I was raised to be told it was my right as an American.

How Narcissistic is that?

That's not to say I wouldn't use a firearm personally if provoked, but it would come from my feeling of defending myself as a human being, and not a card I could play just because of my nationality. I would essentially have an excuse/defense by claiming it's my constitutional right to defend myself.

No...it's my right as a human being to defend myself, regardless of my nationality or a systemic set of rules and laws.

And that's the problem right there in a less-than-convenient nutshell


The fundamental issue isn't about having the natural right to defend yourself and your loved ones as a human being, it's about believing you're entitled as an American to use a firearm just because that's how it's always been.

That's not progressive, it's regressive.


That is evidenced by the 2 candidates for the upcoming Election... I mean... why?


It's the equivalent of choosing between Sickert and Ostrog as your main Ripper suspect for the rigid canonical 5 series.



RD

(I had to link the Ripper case in there somewhere)

Allow me to address your "points" with replies of my own, as a retired law enforcement officer and a gun rights advocate. You wrote:

"For an American, the idea of being able to defend your property goes hand in hand with the inherent belief that an individual has a constitutional right to carry a firearm."

It's more than just a belief, sir; it is a clearly defined right. Some states severely (and illegally) limit this right; other states are much more amenable to the Law of The Land. More states have "Constitutional carry" laws than not, and I believe it is only a matter of time before all states finally respect an individual's 2nd Amendment right.

"There is of course a huge difference between feeling you have the right to defend yourself and your family, and the belief you have the right to carry and use a firearm just because an outdated and practically redundant set of rules tells you you can, and often without reproach."

Sorry, but no responsible citizen who carries a firearm believes they can just "use a firearm" carte blanche, with no legal repercussions! You must be in imminent danger of losing your life or being badly injured, or protecting someone who cannot, before that gun comes into play. I hear idiots all the time say, "If a burglar comes on my property, I'll just shoot him and drag him inside!" And they will go to jail. If you catch a burglar in the act and he is leaving with your television or other valuables tucked under his arms, you cannot shoot him in the back and claim to be defending "your property." You must let him leave, because at that moment, he is no threat to you.

"It is no coincidence of course that the States has a greater number of homicides than the combined total of all the other countries on the planet put together."

It's also no coincidence that the States have a larger land area and greater population than most other European countries, but you don't have the drug and inner city gang problems we have. Or if you do, it's on a smaller scale. When you break down these homicides, you'll see a thunderin' herd of homicides are gang-related/crime-related, and the victims very often know their killer. Mass shootings get all the press, but they are still relatively rare and even those stats are skewed by fearmongers trying to suggest that there are all these school shootings happening every day. They just aren't. And for some reason, they factor suicides by gun into the number of "homicides," so the numbers are disproportionately high. Sadly, with the pathetic state of policing in this country, you are far more likely to be murdered by a cop than a crackhead or mugger. But that's another rant for another time.

"I can't even begin to imagine having to consider using a firearm, and in that sense, I am grateful I am not from the States."

I would love to live in the bubble you are living in. Since I don't know where you come from, I can only recommend visiting here and seeing the urban situation for yourself. For example: my town, Reading, Pennsylvania, has a population of just under 100,000. It consistently ranks among the following: Poorest small city, lowest percentage of high school graduates in the state, and best of all, one of the highest heroin overdose rates in the country! As bad as it is, places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago make Reading look like Stowe-On-The-Wolde! I carry every day to protect myself and my family, and I assure you there is no "entitlement" involved. By the way, in case you didn't know, these crime-ridden pestholes I have listed are all Democratically run cities and have been for ages. Coincidence? I don't think so.

"The fundamental issue isn't about having the natural right to defend yourself and your loved ones as a human being, it's about believing you're entitled as an American to use a firearm just because that's how it's always been."

See above. No responsible gun owner/carrier thinks like that. There's an old saying, "attached to every bullet you fire is a lawyer!" I have seen people lose everything because they mistook what they assumed was legal justification for what was really an overreaction. Now, most of these people were irresponsible gun owners, and I do not abide them. I have always said that if you're going to own/carry, you must train with it and know the laws in your state! You are doing yourself a disservice if you do not.

"That is evidenced by the 2 candidates for the upcoming Election... I mean... why?"

Here I am in perfect agreement with you! It's morons like this that have made and kept me a Libertarian for over 30 years.

I have had to deploy my weapon officially four times in the course of my duties. In all four cases, I was justified in using deadly force....but I didn't. Why? Simply deploying the weapon while showing a willingness to use it was enough to deescalate the situation. It's a terrible thing to have to deploy violence in defense of yourself or your loved ones....but the alternative is much more terrible.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Fifteen years ago a thief, with a violent criminal record who thought we were out of town (he was given bad information by a neighbor's nanny), broke into my home. He broke a sliding-glass window which awakened me immediately. I had two boys aged five and one upstairs and my wife with me downstairs. As I saw it, I had no choice but to engage as my wife called 911. I didn't own a firearm (still don't). And I didn't think to grab something with which to defend myself because the only thought I had was to get to him before he could get to my family. I ended up fighting for my life. I don't remember much detail. But, he managed to land several blows with a crowbar. I ended up with a skull facture, fractured forearm, two broken ribs, bruises all over my body, and quite a few serious cuts because we ended up back out through the glass he'd just broken and onto the back patio. Fortunately, I managed to subdue him. He was severely injured: broken jaw, broken nose, broken orbital bone, dislocated shoulder, torn knee ligaments... He was still unconscious when the police arrived (9 minutes after my wife called) and they found on his person a knife and a loaded hand gun.

Obviously, I think about this incident a lot. Probably several times a week if not every day. I know that if I would have had a gun, I'd have shot the guy. And I'd have been thankful for any statute that protected me in that situation. I think about how easily it could have gone the wrong way and what might have happened to my family in those 9 minutes before the police arrived.

So, based on this experience, I feel like you have to do what you have to do when someone gets inside your home. And not every man has the same background and physical abilities that I do (or did before I got old). So, a firearm may well be the only reasonable recourse available to many.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of laws that allow someone to act irresponsibly - with a firearm or any weapon - because someone is simply on their property, outside their home, without malice, posing no threat. I've seen too many stories of someone simply not knowing where they are getting murdered or injured by someone who was clearly looking for any excuse to discharge a weapon.

Bottom line for me... I don't actually know exactly where I stand on all this. But, it was actually somewhat cathartic to write about this experience. It's not something I talk about often.

"Fifteen years ago a thief, with a violent criminal record who thought we were out of town (he was given bad information by a neighbor's nanny), broke into my home."

You're very fortunate to have survived this encounter, and I have nothing but respect for you defending your loved ones and your home. However, it may well have been a different story if there were multiple home invaders not reluctant to use their weapons. You sound like you're a skilled fighter; so am I. But three or more on one doesn't look good for you no matter how good a fighter you are.

"I didn't own a firearm (still don't). And I didn't think to grab something with which to defend myself because the only thought I had was to get to him before he could get to my family. I ended up fighting for my life."

That part surprised me; you took a beating and were nearly killed. I had a similar situation where I heard and saw my doorknob rattle in the middle of the night while I was watching television. My wife was sleeping. At the time I had no kids, but I still grabbed my gun and snuck out the patio door after making sure it was safe. I came around to find the clumsiest potential burglar ever trying to pry my door open. In my hand was my Glock 19 and I greeted him with, "Hi there!" He froze, seeing me and the gun. I had him on the ground spread eagle at gunpoint while I called the police. They arrived and took him to durance vile. Just the presence of my weapon (and I genuinely surprised him; he must have been deaf!) took away all thoughts of fighting me. If I didn't own a gun and endured what you did, I would immediately purchase and train extensively with it. More and more burglaries are turning into home invasions because of the presence of more than one attacker/criminal. I'm 55 years old, and I often say, "I'm too young to die....but too damn old to take an ass-whoopin'! Ain't nobody got time for that!"

"I know that if I would have had a gun, I'd have shot the guy. And I'd have been thankful for any statute that protected me in that situation. I think about how easily it could have gone the wrong way and what might have happened to my family in those 9 minutes before the police arrived."

And you would have been perfectly within your rights to make your attacker "take the Room Temperature Challenge." I don't know what state you reside in, or even if you are from the US, but assuming you are, you would very likely not face any prosecution. Your injuries, combined with the fact that the perp brought weapons, would be enough to clearly show you in fear for your life. Add the fact that you had a family to defend, and you're golden.

"Obviously, I think about this incident a lot. Probably several times a week if not every day."

Same. This is PTSD, plain and simple. Have you talked to someone? There are resources available to help. I did not go through what you did, but the very first time I pointed my sidearm at someone and intended to use it was traumatic. I remember afterwards I had a delayed reaction and vomited due to the adrenaline dump. The movies don't tell you about that. Strangely, I also felt hornier than an alley cat on Saturday night; it was explained to me that these are natural physiological responses to extreme stress.

"On the other hand, I am not in favor of laws that allow someone to act irresponsibly - with a firearm or any weapon - because someone is simply on their property, outside their home, without malice, posing no threat."

What laws do you mean?? I live in a state with both Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine, and nowhere in the Commonwealth have I seen any laws on the books that permit this. In fact, I know of no law anywhere that permits this.