|
I have recieved a couple of notes from readers about existing law. Since I have am not a lawyer, perhaps you guys have answers to these: - One reader had a gun stolen. It took four days for the reader to get ahold of the Dallas PD. The officer was quite annoyed as if earlier notification may have resulted in recovery (yea, right). Does this reader have any legal liability for taking so long to notify?
- What is the legal foundation prohibiting the use of deadly force to protect private property? I'll do the reading. Where do I look.
Question number 2 is too open ended. At the federal level, there probaly is no prohibition. But every state and locality can have it's own answer. So, there are thousands of answers to this question. Mac, would you like to narrow the question?
Readers, time to pipe in.
|
Written by Nimrod45 on 2007-11-30 17:36:10
This goes back a long ways, but it is the philosophical foundation for the right to defend yourself and your property:
"[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power ... I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else."
and
"If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists only in violence and rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors."
- John Locke (1632–1704) Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690.
| Narrower question
Written by DDMac on 2007-12-01 20:09:03
The national news is always carrying news of the prosecution of someone for shooting a thief. It must be founded in Federal law, as no State I know of allows it and it is taught as law to Fed LEOs via agency standard operating proceedures. Just wanting to understand the rationale. Thanks, Mac. | Written by Nimrod45 on 2007-12-03 14:16:08
It looks to me like you are referring to what are known as "Castle Doctrine" laws, which are enacted by the individual States. These are based on the english common law principle of "A(n English)man's home is his castle". This is supported philosophically by writers such as Locke (above), Coke (1644) Blackstone (1765), and several court cases, particularly "Semayne's Case" (1605).
However, such right to self-defence/sanctity of one's home/property is not without stricture, if you use more than the necessary level of force; you may find yourself charged in any case, even if you are not convicted in the end.
| One last time on this
Written by DDMac on 2007-12-04 06:55:58
I'm not talking about any aspect of defending ones person. Why does the law restrict a person's right to decide what level of force may be used to stop someone from taking your riding mower, food, tools or anything else you worked for. The 5th Amendment "due process" clause addresses government actions, not the citizen's. Where is the anchor mandate declaring the sanctity of any human life is paramount to another's property rights? I know what the law is. I want to understand why. | Written by Nimrod45 on 2007-12-05 01:47:20
Sorry, I can't answer your question, specifically. It probably has to do with the legal doctrine of "reasonable" or "proportional" force. I don't know as the law every allowed someone to kill another outright just for stealing their property - probably because it doesn't entail an actual threat to one's person. And if it ever did, I have no idea when the restrictions were introduced.
But I still maintain that "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws are based on the principles I provided you, above, most particularly that of John Locke.
|
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
