Sure, but you didn't actually kill the man. Nobody is suggesting that you weren't within your rights to physically tackle an intruder in the middle of the night. But when it comes to shooting first and asking questions later it becomes more complicated. What you did was bring him to the ground and restrain him, perfectly reasonable and responsible in the circumstances. But when it comes to using lethal force there should be a higher standard of responsibility.

Well, I thought you were talking about criminals. What level of crime trespassing is would appear to be relevant, no?

This is not 'coddling', it's attempt to have a rational debate.

b

More coddling of those in the wrong. A "non-criminal" in the wrong house, is trespassing. Whether it is civil trespassing or a misdemeanor or felony, does not interest me

.
Does the concept of "appropriate response" enter into this? Does someone stealing a stereo deserve the death sentence, applied unilaterally by a homeowner with a gun and an aggressive attitude?

I am reminded of the rule of reciprocity. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

If for some reason you had stumbled into the wrong house, with no criminal intention, would you wish to be shot? Or would you hope that whoever discovered you would take every precaution before ending your life?
When you end someones life, I'd hope that the justification wasn't that "he shouldn't have gotten drunk and lost his way". Hell it shouldn't even be "He was taking my stereo."
It seems to me that SYG, promotes the attitude of shooting first and asking questions later, simply because within the law the burden of proving that someone has killed "justifiably" is incredibly small. . And that simply leads to more mistaken deaths. LIfe cheapened.
CNN today headlines another unarmed black teenager shot by police in California. Guaranteeing the issue remains at the top of the news cycle for a while yet.

Criminal acts require a criminal intent ("mens rea") In california, so-called general intent crimes just require an intent to do the acts that constitute the crime. I think with regard to a rrespass by someone who is drunk who mistakenlygoes to the wrong house, he would be entitled to a so-called mistake of fact defense. Whi;le states differt in their criminal statutes all states except Lousiana lookeed to the English Common Law in deriving said statutes. Anyway, I think a mistaken trespass is not criminal because it lacks the requisite bad intent.

The appropriate response factor is IF the resident feels threatened. If a 10 year old comes into my house at 11PM (Late for me, mind you), I will respond differently than if a grown man 6ft 6inch breaks through my door. There is little threat from a kid coming in from the outside into the wrong house.

I have said before (quote from page 8):
Good difference of examples:
Girl/Boy Scout selling cookies on a porch... This would be a no shoot situation
Door to Door encyclopedia salesman... This is a tricky one, but still a no-shoot situation
Intruder coming through door... Shoot at center of body mass of target. This would require the invader being visible. Shoot three times, rapidly evaluate environment, continue engagement until immediate threat is eliminated.

Please note that I did not recommend shooting the scouts, or even the Door to Door salesman.

I recommend shooting the INTRUDER. Please understand this. I recommend shooting the INTRUDER. Please understand this. (repeated for emphasis)

I don't think the intruder "wishes" to be shot. That is a silly line of argument. Nobody wishes to be shot.

Is manslaughter a crime? As I recall, it is. Hmmm, does anyone intend to manslaughter anyone, Freeman?

bbauska wrote:Is manslaughter a crime? As I recall, it is. Hmmm, does anyone intend to manslaughter anyone, Freeman?

Manslaughter is death caused as the result of an action without intent to kill, but at the same time does not mean there's no intent to carry out the action itself.

You both need to be careful about what you mean by 'intent' in such cases.

it may be useful to read a basic primer before declaring absolutes about law. Try something simple like Wikipedia

For example, 'mens rea' means state of mind, not 'intent'. However, it's clear that manslaughter such as negligent manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter etc are based on an intent to do (or in negligence, not do) something.

As Brad gave us some anecdata, here's another case:

Killed at Home: White Plains, Police Shoot Dead Black Veteran, 68

If what the family is saying is true, then this is astonishing. SYG laws as in Florida would have made no difference - you aren't allowed to Stand Your Ground against a cop, even if he is breaking down your door.

Thank you Dan: What happened to Ken Chamberlain is unbelievable. Here's the link to the NYTimes story about it, which is a little more balanced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/fatal-shooting-of-ex-marine-by-white-plains-police-raises-questions.html

This story could have taken place in Syria, other than the motivation for the police to break down this poor old man's door seemed to be that he wouldn't let them in. The fact that an old black man wasn't obeying police orders enraged the cops, and led to his murder by cop. OK, I wasn't there, I don't know what their motivation was, but cops broke down the door to a man's house, invaded his house and killed him. Stand your ground INDEED.

Investigate, and punish those who acted outside the scope of the law. SYG has nothing to do with the Chamberlain case.

You're right, it doesn't. As resident of public housing in New York State when he was alive, Mr. Chamberlain, a former marine and corrections officer, was legally prohibited from having a gun on the premises. So the very concept of Stand Your Ground makes no sense here.

bbauska wrote:Investigate, and punish those who acted outside the scope of the law. SYG has nothing to do with the Chamberlain case.

The same applied to the Connecticut case you highlighted, but that didn't stop you.

But it does have similarity to the Zimmerman-Martin case in that there's an issue with the police and there haven't been any charges yet.

Agreed, Owen. Just stating for the record.

Are you looking for some other reaction besides my recommendation of investigation, and punish those who acted outside the scope of the law? Could it be that we agree? OMG!

Actually, while we may well agree on that, I still have a fundamental problem with your position on what householders should be able to do - and the responsibilities that they hold.

You are the one who has pointed out that life is paramount. Taking a life, for whatever reason, is not something to take lightly.

By the way, going back to Zimmerman, there are holes appearing in his story. He claims he was hit first and landed on pavement. A witness says they were on grass. He claims he was under Martin. The witness says he was on top. The 911 call recording has someone calling out for help, and Zimmerman claims it was him. An audio expert says it is not.

Yes, there should be an investigation. It's a crying shame that there was not much of one until this came to national prominence. Justice should not be dependent on media attention and protest, it should be automatic.

And my problem with your stance on SYG in the home, with the attendant lowering of legal responsibility and reduced powers to the investigationg authorities is quite simply this:

As much as I understand your fear of intruders, that doesn't mean that it could not be used to protect and shield a murderer. How? Well, if I wanted to kill someone, why not invite them around my home, shoot them and make it look like they were an invader? If it's superficially looking like a break in or home invasion, what can the cops do? And what would a supine prosecutor do?

Owen, We still agree. I am all for the investigation taking place. It is sad that it took media to make this happen. It should be automatic, you are correct.

One witness says one thing, and another says another. Just today ABC news comes out with an enhanced video disputing the previous video that they posted! I am concerned that this case is becoming Tawana Brawley all over again. That case, and Rev. Sharpton's response to the lie that was created makes it so much more difficult for people to believe a similar situation. A "Boy who cried wolf" similarity. That is why I am all for the police and prosecutor doing the job; not Sharpton or the Media.

Would your clearly hypothetical case be possible under a self-defense situation as well? I bring GMTom to my house and shoot up the house and kill him. I claim he shot first, and a firefight ensued. W/O SYG in place, I could claim that he was shooting first and be exonerated.