Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions

Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Thu Aug 9 09:04:11 PDT 2001




On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:

>> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it
>> did, I think the intruder is toast.  In California, there is the presumption
>> that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research
>> that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm.  He
>> doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar.  So you can just
>> shoot first and ask questions later.
>
>I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary"
>definition.  Are you certain that's current law?
>

IIRC, last time I wandered through Colorado (I forget the year just 
now, but between '87 and '92 I think) there was a lot of public 
debate regarding the recently passed "make my day" law, which 
basically said the same thing. 

I remember being advised in Kansas that you couldn't just shoot 
someone in your house -- unless you were in a room that had no 
exit other than the one blocked by the person you were shooting.
The presumption was that as long as you still had some kind of 
exit where you could run away, shooting was not necessary. And 
shooting in the back sort of queered the presumption that you 
were in fear for your life, too: If the intruder was not advancing 
on you, shooting was considered unnecessary.

As I understand the situation in California, I think Tim is right; 
an intruder in your home is presumed to be there for nefarious 
purposes, period, and shooting is presumed self-defense.


				Bear





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list