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