Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone
edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."
Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of here) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.
He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge (despite not having anything on him but the cash they were trying to steal from him). It's a really sad situation, for both parties. I don't know the kid who was killed, but he probably didn't deserve to die (even with beating the shit out of my friend and trying to rob him), and my friend is a good dude who definitely doesn't deserve to be in prison, even if he killed someone in self-defense, or tried to buy some pot
One of the reasons I'm absolutely against possession of drugs being a crime is exactly this: it gives police officers the power to put in jail anyone they choose.
Couldn't agree more. Then again, I research drug policy and addiction and have very strong convictions on this matter, so I'm admittedly biased (albeit all my views are fact/evidence-based). I could go on for pages about those biases though, so I'll spare you
edit - Screw it, I will add in one of the reasons/thoughts: currently, our prison population (which is by far the highest in the world, per capita) is comprised of over 50% inmates there for non-violent drug offenses. This prison population has risen roughly 800% since the inception of the war on drugs in the 70s. Add in that we now have a booming private prison industry -- by definition, prisoners are their merchandise or profit-margin. This creates a serious conflict of interest that incentivizes crime, and leads to things like lobbying for more laws, specifically, the criminalization of drug addicts (despite knowing that treatment and harm-reduction strategies are more effective, and less costly; many make the mistake of framing the argument as a moral one, like "they are sick people that need help, not criminals that need to be reprimanded," -- I agree with that, but don't think it's the strongest reason to argue for reformation of our drug laws)
Yes that's one of worst things of America. In Italy you go to jail only if they catch you with a quantity above a certain limit, but personal consumption of any drug is not a crime.
The main problem with the US system is that these kids thrown in jail will be exposed to real criminals who will corrupt them. Then their jobs opportunities are pretty much gone after they get out, so they are screwed for life. They will be forced to become actual criminals.
Drugs should be illegal but consumption should not be punished with jail.
Mmm yes it's difficult. Many grey areas.
In your scenario obviously if you end up in front of a judge with the pussy hat (you think I'm joking, it's real) you're screwed.
But I would say you should get off, because you grabbing your stuff back is not unlawful. You did not "escalate" nor caused the altercation.
More gray area would be if I punch you in the face, with a single punch and I stop. Then you pull out a knife, I pull out a gun and shoot you.
Imagine we are both men of same age / size. While I did attack you first, it's you who escalated to deadly force - in fact my punch does not give you the right to stab me.
That looks good, but what I said still stands. You can't use deadly force to defend property.
What you quoted means that if someone breaks into your house it's treated as a potential threat to your life, like I discussed in my other response.
But if you're in your house and someone is stealing your car outside, you can't go out shooting.
You can, however, go out to confront them and if they attack you then shoot (which is where stand your ground saves your ass)
Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone
edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."
Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of here) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.
He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge (despite not having anything on him but the cash they were trying to steal from him). It's a really sad situation, for both parties. I don't know the kid who was killed, but he probably didn't deserve to die (even with beating the shit out of my friend and trying to rob him), and my friend is a good dude who definitely doesn't deserve to be in prison, even if he killed someone in self-defense, or tried to buy some pot
Thanks for sharing the story, very interesting.
One of the reasons I'm absolutely against possession of drugs being a crime is exactly this: it gives police officers the power to put in jail anyone they choose.
Couldn't agree more. Then again, I research drug policy and addiction and have very strong convictions on this matter, so I'm admittedly biased (albeit all my views are fact/evidence-based). I could go on for pages about those biases though, so I'll spare you
edit - Screw it, I will add in one of the reasons/thoughts: currently, our prison population (which is by far the highest in the world, per capita) is comprised of over 50% inmates there for non-violent drug offenses. This prison population has risen roughly 800% since the inception of the war on drugs in the 70s. Add in that we now have a booming private prison industry -- by definition, prisoners are their merchandise or profit-margin. This creates a serious conflict of interest that incentivizes crime, and leads to things like lobbying for more laws, specifically, the criminalization of drug addicts (despite knowing that treatment and harm-reduction strategies are more effective, and less costly; many make the mistake of framing the argument as a moral one, like "they are sick people that need help, not criminals that need to be reprimanded," -- I agree with that, but don't think it's the strongest reason to argue for reformation of our drug laws)
Yes that's one of worst things of America. In Italy you go to jail only if they catch you with a quantity above a certain limit, but personal consumption of any drug is not a crime.
The main problem with the US system is that these kids thrown in jail will be exposed to real criminals who will corrupt them. Then their jobs opportunities are pretty much gone after they get out, so they are screwed for life. They will be forced to become actual criminals.
Drugs should be illegal but consumption should not be punished with jail.
Mmm yes it's difficult. Many grey areas. In your scenario obviously if you end up in front of a judge with the pussy hat (you think I'm joking, it's real) you're screwed.
But I would say you should get off, because you grabbing your stuff back is not unlawful. You did not "escalate" nor caused the altercation.
More gray area would be if I punch you in the face, with a single punch and I stop. Then you pull out a knife, I pull out a gun and shoot you. Imagine we are both men of same age / size. While I did attack you first, it's you who escalated to deadly force - in fact my punch does not give you the right to stab me.
Interesting, what do you think?