The villains in Home Alone 1 and 2

Icalasari

^^ Some people I know would say that he deserved it

Nova

And that's the attitude that disgusts me, Icalasari.

MillerCross

punch said people in my name, please.

captainbrass

IJBM - from debates about 20 year old films for kids to debates about inter-personal violence; we've got you covered.

Malkavian

IJBM- this debate started talking by people talking about frivolous lawsuits that almost never happen and are sensationalized for political reasons.

Waltzy

I would be more sympathetic if he were stealing to support his son, perhaps. But his cocaine habit, not really.

The people in the home someone's breaking into do not know anything about the invader. They don't know the true nature of a stranger, but they do know what could happen, that they or people they care about could be hurt.

There are some situations in which an invader can be easier to sympathize with, this much I'll admit. Another thing to take into account though is that the people living in the home don't really have any time to navel gaze over the possible moral repercussions of doing what they feel necessary to protect themselves or their family. They are running on fear and adrenaline in the heat of the moment, and I don't think it's fair to blame or look down on the resident for being caught by surprise and reacting however they are able.

The shooting people in the back thing is another deal though.

Malkavian

I don't care if it's to support of his son or his cocaine habit, neither means he deserves death.

Certainly, I understand that things happens in the heat of the moment and someone can't be completely judged for what they do out of fear. These are things that happen and to judge someone for that after what I've said would be hypocritical.

However, to go 'oh it's okay that I killed him. He was a coke addict.' after the fact is not morally defensible.

Nova

They are running on fear and adrenaline in the heat of the moment, and I don't think it's fair to blame or look down on the resident for being caught by surprise and reacting however they are able.

On the other hand, I also don't think it's fair to let anyone off the hook for killing a person. They may have thought that the person was intending harm; but in acting to prevent this harm from possibly being caused, they have caused irreversible harm themselves, haven't they?

Waltzy

I don't mean to say that someone would deserve death. I'm just saying, what are you gonna do? The cookie's gonna crumble and whichever way it goes down, it goes down, and it's the invader who has to swallow that gamble if they break into someone's home.

^ Perhaps they did cause irreversible harm, but the last thing I'd do is blame it on the resident. It's not their fault someone's breaking in.

The exception to this is the shooting in the back thing or such similar scenarios.

Nova

I'm gonna do the same thing as I'd do if a person killed another.

Most likely, I would like to charge them with imperfect self-defence. Wherein they would not be charged with murder, as there was no malice aforethought; but a death still occured due to their actions, so they are charged with manslaughter.

ClockworkUniverse

Hmmm...that article is quite sparse. What's generally done in cases of it? Because the US prison system has proven quite capable of turning a normal person into a hardened criminal.

Nova

They're just convicted of manslaughter.

I don't know anything about the US penal system, though. Just Australia's, which isn't so bad.

Waltzy

I would argue that it depends on the circumstances of the break-in.

Did they have a weapon? How much force did they use to break in?

If the situation looked like there was demonstration of ability and willingness to use force, it could be considered justifiable.

Personally I'd still give the resident the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but of course these things vary.

ClockworkUniverse

^^Well, in that case, my view on it depends on the country. The US has perhaps one of the worst attitudes toward dealing with criminals in modern Western civilization..

Malkavian

I've just realized this issue is a bit too personal for me, so peace out y'all and I respect all the opinions here even if I disagree with them.

Nova

C.  Requirement of Actual and Reasonable Belief 

The test for self-defense consists of a subjective element and an 

objective element.  That is, the defendant must have an actual belief 

in the need to defend himself against imminent harm, and the 

defendant’s belief in the need to defend himself against imminent 

harm must be justified “from the point of view of a reasonable 

person in the position of [the] defendant.”

  If a defendant satisfies 

both of these requirements, he will be exonerated.

“If the belief subjectively exists but is objectively unreasonable, 

there is ‘imperfect self-defense.’”

  In cases of imperfect selfdefense, the defendant has acted without malice and can be convicted 

of manslaughter, but not murder.

ClockworkUniverse

Aha. Thanks.

That's actually pretty reasonable, I'd say.

Nova

Yeah, it's pretty reasonable.

The following is English-based, not American, but I think it holds pretty much true for America as well.

Opinions differ on what constitutes a reasonable amount of force, but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of areasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:

"The defense of self-defense is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defense... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

In R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349, the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defense when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defense, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

ClockworkUniverse

Hmmm...also seems reasonable.

My one concern would be that it's hard to quantify levels of aggression. For example, which is more aggressive: shooting someone once or hitting them in the head with a baseball bat two or three times?

Nova

Hitting them with a baseball bat.

As you're hitting them multiple times there, see.

ClockworkUniverse

I agree. But would everyone? Some would likely consider a gun a more aggressive weapon, as it's lethal by design, where the bat is not.

And this is a law where everyone's opinion matters, given that it's up to several people to decide on the level of aggression.

Nova

The thing is, though, that with multiple hits, you are (I'm assuming here, though) hitting them after the threat is over.

Unless your initial hit wasn't enough to incapacitate them, but  didn't think of that when I made my first assumption.

ClockworkUniverse

Yeah, that second part's what I'm thinking of. Is there any way to tell, short of asking the defendant (and, if possible, the victim), if the threat ended after the initial hit?

Don't get me wrong, I think the system for determining culpability is probably as good as it's going to get, but this seems like one of those situations that's just inherently difficult.

Nova

Yeah, there actually are ways.

Like, depending on the angles of impact and stuff.

It's not a perfect science, though.

ClockworkUniverse

True.

Issues tend to be complicated like that. When they aren't, they aren't issues.

IanExMachina

There is a guy (Tony Martin) in the UK that got charged for murder (then it was appealed and given manslaughter) for killing a burglar.

He shot one guy in the back as he was fleeing and pretty much just left him there to bleed out.

All Nines

My previous post might have sounded harsh, but I only meant it to be "if they don't back off when they see that I'm armed"; I wouldn't shoot a guy in the back if he was leaving. Try to remember his appearance and get him reported, sure, but not shoot him. And when I say swing at them or shoot, I don't mean kill; I mean take down.

Someone breaking into a house for the sake of family is certainly more forgivable than someone feeding a drug addiction, but either way, my thought isn't quite "whatever, he's a criminal; surely he has no good intentions for anyone"; it's more along the lines of "if he didn't know the risks, he's a dumbass who shouldn't be on the streets; if he knew the risks, sucks for him." Although I do approve of the death penalty (if not the current practice of it; namely, it's too expensive), so I'm probably at odds with a lot of people here.

Gelzo

I skimmed a lot, but I saw this and thought it needed a citation, so to speak.

"what is 99% of time just stealing"