NationStates Jolt Archive

Rather than generalise overmuch based on nationality or political ideology, I’d like to have a discussion on individual views of the use of force.

My focus is two-fold. Use of force by a private citizen (including shopkeepers, security guards etc), and the use of force by law enforcement.

Sparking my interest in the first case (private citizen) would be in terms of self-defence of self, a third person, or of property (http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163976615193&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815).

My interest in the second case (law enforcement) would be in regards to their ability to use the defence of lawful authority (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6f1150e9-025c-42ee-bab9-99d0ce9eda36&k=47883) when it comes to applying force to private citizens.

You can make general statements and clarify them through discussion, or bring up specific examples. Feel free to bring up what the law actually is in your jurisdiction, or what you think it should be, but please be clear which is which.

My questions are:

1) What level of force do you think should be justifiably available to the private citizen in defence of self, a third person, or property? What should be the limits?

2) What level of force do you think should be justifiably available to law enforcement in the course of their duties? What should be the limits?

I use the dark side of the force, for I am a sithlord.

I use the dark side of the force, for I am a sithlord.

How is it that I didn't anticipate this? *is ashamed, has been away from NSG for too long perhaps*

Nonetheless, I said 'force' not 'the force'. Begone!

Dude, this should have totally been about star wars.

Dude, this should have totally been about star wars.

Yeah but it's not! :p

Alright, to get things back on track, I’ll cut and paste a bit from the two examples I linked to:

Defence of property (possibly of self?)
“A Burlington homeowner is incensed police won't charge a teenager with breaking and entering after he found the youth hiding in his basement Saturday night…
… their cocker spaniel started barking and then raced down the basement stairs. Shaxon followed the dog down the stairs and around a corner into the laundry room where he discovered the intruder.
"I grabbed him by the throat and just started punching him," said Shaxon, whose daughters are 10 and five months. "He dropped to the ground and I just started smashing his head into the concrete. I said, 'If you move, I'm going to end up killing you, I've got two kids here.'"

What is your opinion on this level of force used against the teen?

Defence of lawful authority
“EDMONTON (CP) - A Crown prosecutor says an Edmonton police officer caught on film severely smacking a cuffed woman in the head should not be charged with assault.
Calgary Chief Crown prosecutor Gordon Wong says the officer had to administer what is known as a "head stun" on Kristin Wilson during crowd control on Whyte Ave. in June during the Edmonton Oilers' Stanley Cup playoff run.
Wong says witnesses said Wilson was abusive, resisted arrest and at one point tried to flee into the crowd.
Wong says police if police didn't subdue her, they would have had to chase her and risk inciting a riot.
Wilson is suing the police for facial injuries and a concussion and has said she only swore at the officer, but that otherwise the attack was unprovoked.“

What is your opinion on the use of force by the police officer against this partier?

How is it that I didn't anticipate this? *is ashamed, has been away from NSG for too long perhaps*

Nonetheless, I said 'force' not 'the force'. Begone!

so? when i hear the word "force", i usually think of the force.

so? when i hear the word "force", i usually think of the force.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have started the thread with something like, "Since I know in the US you people are all violence-junkies, I don't expect anything less that complete justification of lethal force by everyone and an desire that even toddlers should carry guns". Would that get more interest?:rolleyes:

I think non-lethal force choke might be going a bit too far, especially since even a trained force-user can sometimes accidentally make it lethal (for example, in the case of pregnant women).

Force lightning and force crush is definitely too much.


Defence of property (possibly of self?)
“A Burlington homeowner is incensed police won't charge a teenager with breaking and entering after he found the youth hiding in his basement Saturday night…
… their cocker spaniel started barking and then raced down the basement stairs. Shaxon followed the dog down the stairs and around a corner into the laundry room where he discovered the intruder.
"I grabbed him by the throat and just started punching him," said Shaxon, whose daughters are 10 and five months. "He dropped to the ground and I just started smashing his head into the concrete. I said, 'If you move, I'm going to end up killing you, I've got two kids here.'"

What is your opinion on this level of force used against the teen?

It's hard to judge just from this article. "Smashing his head into the concrete" sounds brutal, but it may have been what was necessary. Or it may not have. I mean what was the intruder doing hiding there? Waiting for the man to leave so he could do something nasty with the 2 daughters? You never know and in a situation like that it's best to expect the worst.

Defence of lawful authority
“EDMONTON (CP) - A Crown prosecutor says an Edmonton police officer caught on film severely smacking a cuffed woman in the head should not be charged with assault.
Calgary Chief Crown prosecutor Gordon Wong says the officer had to administer what is known as a "head stun" on Kristin Wilson during crowd control on Whyte Ave. in June during the Edmonton Oilers' Stanley Cup playoff run.
Wong says witnesses said Wilson was abusive, resisted arrest and at one point tried to flee into the crowd.
Wong says police if police didn't subdue her, they would have had to chase her and risk inciting a riot.
Wilson is suing the police for facial injuries and a concussion and has said she only swore at the officer, but that otherwise the attack was unprovoked. “

I don't think swearing at a police officer is warrant for administering a concussion. She was already handcuffed. I doubt the "risk inciting a riot" is a good justification either. It's not a major issue though, compared to what probably doesn't make the news...

1) What level of force do you think should be justifiably available to the private citizen in defence of self, a third person, or property? What should be the limits?
If defending themselves or another person then they should be allowed to use as much force as is necessary. There should be guidelines however as to what is defence and what isn't, defence is one thing but a revenge attack would only make things worse.

If defending propety then I feel that neither Britain or America has got the right idea, I don't like the way that in Britain if you so much as touch the burglar you get punished and they walk away free, I don't however aprove of the way in some parts of America it's legal to shoot a trespasser, again stealing is one thing which should be punished but murder is still far worse in my opinion. It should be a case of reasonable force for protection, once rid of them that should be the end of your part. That said I don't think any contact with the intruder should be encouraged for the owner's own safety.


2) What level of force do you think should be justifiably available to law enforcement in the course of their duties? What should be the limits?

You hear of police brutality but I often find, particularly in Britain that police are bound by so many rules that in many cases they can do very little. Particularly towards minors. My view has always been that if you're old enough to commit a crime you're old enough to suffer the consequences, I'm 17 and have never had a run in with the law, if I can do it then anyone should be able to regardless of age.

Against a common criminal I wouldn't aprove of anything extreme like a gun, the strongest weapon that should be used in such a case would be something like a tazer which could stun them just long enough to make an arrest. Police should be able to use items like a baton or truncheon without risking being accused of police brutality.

1) reasonable force is good if some guy attacks you can knock him out but beating him repeatedly on the head with a crowbar for not apparent reason is not something you should get away with

2) police should arrest those who are a danger to society and also be generally helpful. I do not think that they should bother with some guy smoking a joint on the street so long as he’s not selling it though they should bother with someone pissed in public

and being Sith rules you can have sex yet still use the force to pull women

It's hard to judge just from this article. "Smashing his head into the concrete" sounds brutal, but it may have been what was necessary. Or it may not have. I mean what was the intruder doing hiding there? Waiting for the man to leave so he could do something nasty with the 2 daughters? You never know and in a situation like that it's best to expect the worst. Given the age of the daughters, it's unlikely they would have been left alone to be molested. The article says the teen was smashed, probably part of the fight that had gone on outside. That he was 'stealthed out' might be an issue of perception, but then again, he could have been there to commit some sort of violent crime. Nontheless, he was bleeding out of his ears when taken away by the police. In my opinion, (and as is the law here in Canada) self-defence should be proportionate to the level of threat...the immediate, not possible level. To me, this kind of beating was excessive. I understand the property-owner's concerns, for sure...it could really have been a much more dangerous situation, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the man is successfully sued by the teen for battery.

I don't think swearing at a police officer is warrant for administering a concussion. She was already handcuffed. I doubt the "risk inciting a riot" is a good justification either. It's not a major issue though, compared to what probably doesn't make the news...

She also lost a number of teeth. I think the only reason it made the news was because someone managed to photograph the incident extensively.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have started the thread with something like, "Since I know in the US you people are all violence-junkies, I don't expect anything less that complete justification of lethal force by everyone and an desire that even toddlers should carry guns". Would that get more interest?:rolleyes:
nah. al i am asking you to do is get a better sense of humour.

nah. al i am asking you to do is get a better sense of humour.

Then say something funny:p

Defence of property seems to be a contentious issue. If you, for example, post a warning that trespassers will be shot...do you think that actually shooting someone who ignores the warning is justified?

Then say something funny:p

what? you don't find my first post in this thread funny?

what? you don't find my first post in this thread funny?

It passed...

Only enough force to get them to back off (in defense of your property, yourself, or someone else) or to subdue them (law enforcement). Although frankly, if someone breaks into your house, you should be able to use as much force as you want. By all means, kill the son of a bitch. I know I would. If someone broke into my house, I'd bludgeon their face into jelly with my baseball bat. :D

Only enough force to get them to back off (in defense of your property, yourself, or someone else) or to subdue them (law enforcement). Although frankly, if someone breaks into your house, you should be able to use as much force as you want. By all means, kill the son of a bitch. I know I would. If someone broke into my house, I'd bludgeon their face into jelly with my baseball bat. :D

So you think a property crime merits a death sentence?

Only enough force to get them to back off (in defense of your property, yourself, or someone else) or to subdue them (law enforcement). Although frankly, if someone breaks into your house, you should be able to use as much force as you want. By all means, kill the son of a bitch. I know I would. If someone broke into my house, I'd bludgeon their face into jelly with my baseball bat. :D

I congradulate you for managing to read post 1 and not die ofr exhuastion.

So you think a property crime merits a death sentence?

Would you risk your family over the chance someone breaking into your home is "only" after your property?

Would you risk your family over the chance someone breaking into your home is "only" after your property?

^ What he said. ^

I congradulate you for managing to read post 1 and not die ofr exhuastion.

Oh man, you obviously have never read my threads in my former incarnation as Sinuhue if you think THAT was long.

Of course, I bolded the two questions so that slack-asses like yourself could just skip to the heart of the issue.

So you think a property crime merits a death sentence?

If they're stupid enough to invade my home, they deserve the consequences.

Oh man, you obviously have never read my threads in my former incarnation as Sinuhue if you think THAT was long.

Of course, I bolded the two questions so that slack-asses like yourself could just skip to the heart of the issue.

OMG! You were Sinuhue!? :eek:

Awesome!!!!! Good to have you around! :D:D:D:D

Would you risk your family over the chance someone breaking into your home is "only" after your property?

I don't accept your polarisation of the issue as being:

Kill the intruder

OR

Have your family harmed.

Force should be proportionate. I am not going to kill every person who enters my property without my permission. Hear that mailmen, Girl Guides etc? You are safe.

Defence of property seems to be a contentious issue. If you, for example, post a warning that trespassers will be shot...do you think that actually shooting someone who ignores the warning is justified?

Yeah. You warned them and still they willfully trespassed onto your property. People have a right, IMHO, to defend their homes.

If they're stupid enough to invade my home, they deserve the consequences.

So you are in fact saying that a trespass warrants lethal force, and that you are justified in your actions because you are defending your property.

I don't accept your polarisation of the issue as being:

Kill the intruder

OR

Have your family harmed.

Force should be proportionate. I am not going to kill every person who enters my property without my permission. Hear that mailmen, Girl Guides etc? You are safe.

I didn't make that polarization. You asked what was acceptable. Not mailmen, etc. but criminals breaking into your home and the potential risk to your family. Should you automatically shoot someone climbing your fence? No. Climbing in your window? The potential should be there.

So you are in fact saying that a trespass warrants lethal force, and that you are justified in your actions because you are defending your property.

If they're not killed, they could come back, with reinforcements, and end up killing me or my family. A chance I am not willing to take.

I don't accept your polarisation of the issue as being:

Kill the intruder

OR

Have your family harmed.

Force should be proportionate. I am not going to kill every person who enters my property without my permission. Hear that mailmen, Girl Guides etc? You are safe.

Proportionality in the use of force causes all kinds of problems. Let's say an intruder comes into my home armed with a screwdriver and nothing more. If he comes toward me and I shoot him, and proportionality is required by law, I could get locked up and/or sued. If I don't shoot him I take the risk that he may fatally stab me in my own home. Proportionality leaves too much of a gray area when it comes to strangers invading my living space.

Yeah. You warned them and still they willfully trespassed onto your property. People have a right, IMHO, to defend their homes.

You can't defend your home without killing the intruder?

I have to say, I'm glad the law in Canada would not back up this concept.

People trespass for a variety of reasons, not all of them criminal. Consider someone entering your yard to retrieve a ball or a dog, a teen dashing through your garden in order to escape bullies...a drunken neighbour mistaking your cookie-cutter house for his own. The trespass itself has no real defence, but offering someone who is trespassing violence for the act of trespass alone, in my mind, seems excessive. What are you defending your property from? The mere presence of an uninvited human being?

You can't defend your home without killing the intruder?

I have to say, I'm glad the law in Canada would not back up this concept.

People trespass for a variety of reasons, not all of them criminal. Consider someone entering your yard to retrieve a ball, a teen dashing through your garden in order to escape bullies...a drunken neighbour mistaking your cookie-cutter house for his own. The trespass itself has no real defence, but offering someone who is trespassing violence for the act of trespass alone, in my mind, seems excessive.


You're moving the goalposts and setting up false dichotomies. You're now trying to say that killing is the only option being presented for anyone on your property. You know it's not. However that's not saying it isn't acceptable as a method of defense to criminal trespass/home invasion.

I didn't make that polarization. You asked what was acceptable. Not mailmen, etc. but criminals breaking into your home and the potential risk to your family. Should you automatically shoot someone climbing your fence? No. Climbing in your window? The potential should be there.
But if you are saying that there should always be the option to kill someone, whether they are climbing your fence, climbing in your window, or actually entering your home by other means, then all you have to stop people from killing every trespasser is their what...common sense? If defence of property can be used successfully in every case, then why on earth would people simply not shoot first, ask questions later?

Rather, you seem to imply that there should be reasonable restrictions on lethal force in defence of property. So in your mind, what would those restrictions be?

If they're not killed, they could come back, with reinforcements, and end up killing me or my family. A chance I am not willing to take.
It's a very paranoid mindset you take.

You can't defend your home without killing the intruder?

I have to say, I'm glad the law in Canada would not back up this concept.

People trespass for a variety of reasons, not all of them criminal. Consider someone entering your yard to retrieve a ball, a teen dashing through your garden in order to escape bullies...a drunken neighbour mistaking your cookie-cutter house for his own. The trespass itself has no real defence, but offering someone who is trespassing violence for the act of trespass alone, in my mind, seems excessive.

Maybe I can, maybe I can't. I'd much rather be the one to decide what I need to do to stay safe in my own home than leave it up to some judge or jury who's never been in my position.

I wouldn't shoot someone in my yard unless he was brandishing a weapon. In my house? Well, that's a different story. I'd rather leave some stranger bleeding out on my floor than let some stranger try come into my house and attack me. People are touchy about their homes. It's supposed to be a place where you're safe. If someone threatens that safety people are likely to take it rather seriously.

Proportionality in the use of force causes all kinds of problems. Let's say an intruder comes into my home armed with a screwdriver and nothing more. If he comes toward me and I shoot him, and proportionality is required by law, I could get locked up and/or sued. If I don't shoot him I take the risk that he may fatally stab me in my own home. Proportionality leaves too much of a gray area when it comes to strangers invading my living space.

Proportionality can cause problems, yes...but I think those problems are outweighed by the worse problems that an indiscriminate right to use lethal force, irrespective of the situation, would cause.

You're moving the goalposts and setting up false dichotomies. You're now trying to say that killing is the only option being presented for anyone on your property. You know it's not. However that's not saying it isn't acceptable as a method of defense to criminal trespass/home invasion.

No, I'm saying that if lethal force is going to be acceptable use of force in all situations of trespass, that I can't support that. You might not be suggesting this, but others certainly are. So if killing is not always going to be an option, then you need to lay out the 'ground rules' in some way. Do you accept the legal ground rules in your jurisdiction, or do you propose something else?

But if you are saying that there should always be the option to kill someone, whether they are climbing your fence, climbing in your window, or actually entering your home by other means, then all you have to stop people from killing every trespasser is their what...common sense? If defence of property can be used successfully in every case, then why on earth would people simply not shoot first, ask questions later?

Rather, you seem to imply that there should be reasonable restrictions on lethal force in defence of property. So in your mind, what would those restrictions be?

Common sense or fear of prosecution for defending yourself? What an option.

If a ten year old kid is climbing my fence and I shoot him, the police have justification to arrest me for criminal homicide. If a 18yr old gang banger is sneaking around on my property in the middle of the night and I shoot him, it becomes a grey area w/ leanings toward the property owner being in the right. If an individual is found illegally in my house at any time, lethal force is justified.

Yes. Common sense has to be used.

Maybe I can, maybe I can't. I'd much rather be the one to decide what I need to do to stay safe in my own home than leave it up to some judge or jury who's never been in my position.

I wouldn't shoot someone in my yard unless he was brandishing a weapon. In my house? Well, that's a different story. I'd rather leave some stranger bleeding out on my floor than let some stranger try come into my house and attack me. People are touchy about their homes. It's supposed to be a place where you're safe. If someone threatens that safety people are likely to take it rather seriously.
The test for proportionality is not always as crazy as people think it is...generally if someone enters your home with force, you aren't required to sweetly ask him to leave, and wait to use force. Force can be applied immediately. However, going back to the first article, where the man severely beat the intruder...if that was you, how much of the force applied would have been in defence, and how much would have been in revenge? Should it matter?

Proportionality can cause problems, yes...but I think those problems are outweighed by the worse problems that an indiscriminate right to use lethal force, irrespective of the situation, would cause.

You and I think differently. I think the idea that one can defend his home and keep it a safe haven outweighs the problems that might arise. You gave the example of some drunk mistaking my home for his. Well, if that drunk is aggressive enough to climb in through a window or kick down the door how do I know that he isn't going to come after me? I and everyone else I know keep our doors locked. If a couple of drunks mistakenly get shot, well, it's the trade-off for helping people to guarantee the safety of their homes.

No, I'm saying that if lethal force is going to be acceptable use of force in all situations of trespass, that I can't support that. You might not be suggesting this, but others certainly are. So if killing is not always going to be an option, then you need to lay out the 'ground rules' in some way. Do you accept the legal ground rules in your jurisdiction, or do you propose something else?

I don't support "all" situations either but many can be justified. "on your property" is one thing. "inside your home" is another.

I live in the People's Republic of Illinois where the rules change by city. Some have laws similar to the UK where a person defending even their home is guilty until proven themselves innocent (mostly urban and suburban) to being more up to the police. I would like more "stand your ground" laws that authorize home defense but put the onus on the authorities for showing it wasn't selfe defense in order to arrest the homeowner.

The test for proportionality is not always as crazy as people think it is...generally if someone enters your home with force, you aren't required to sweetly ask him to leave, and wait to use force. Force can be applied immediately. However, going back to the first article, where the man severely beat the intruder...if that was you, how much of the force applied would have been in defence, and how much would have been in revenge? Should it matter?

But what level of force? Only proportional to what is being done to you personally (as in the UK) or as soon as he kicks in that door becoming a target?

Common sense or fear of prosecution for defending yourself? What an option.

If a ten year old kid is climbing my fence and I shoot him, the police have justification to arrest me for criminal homicide. If a 18yr old gang banger is sneaking around on my property in the middle of the night and I shoot him, it becomes a grey area w/ leanings toward the property owner being in the right. If an individual is found illegally in my house at any time, lethal force is justified.

Yes. Common sense has to be used.
I ask, because a lot of people are under very mistaken impressions as to what the law says you can do to protect your property.

I'm seizing on your comment: "If an individual is found illegally in my house at any time, lethal force is justified".

Now, you've included the caveat that common sense should be used, but I'm not sure you support common sense being regulated by laws. So, assuming that common sense was up to the homeowner in that situation, and he lacked it, would killing an elderly alzheimer's patient who had wandered in the unlocked patio door simply be a "oops, too bad you did that, but it was legally justified" situation?

I want to know where your limits come from, outside of the very subjective standard of common sense.

The test for proportionality is not always as crazy as people think it is...generally if someone enters your home with force, you aren't required to sweetly ask him to leave, and wait to use force. Force can be applied immediately. However, going back to the first article, where the man severely beat the intruder...if that was you, how much of the force applied would have been in defence, and how much would have been in revenge? Should it matter?

That's the thing. How should I know how much force I'd use? It's a split second decision made under stress. Now you're asking a judge and jury who aren't under stress and who have time to think to judge my actions. I don't think such a system is fair. You go into another person's home uninvited you're risking your life.

You and I think differently. I think the idea that one can defend his home and keep it a safe haven outweighs the problems that might arise. You gave the example of some drunk mistaking my home for his. Well, if that drunk is aggressive enough to climb in through a window or kick down the door how do I know that he isn't going to come after me? I and everyone else I know keep our doors locked. If a couple of drunks mistakenly get shot, well, it's the trade-off for helping people to guarantee the safety of their homes.

I agree, we do think differently, and I think you've laid out your position very clearly, thanks. Protection of property (and of the person in possession and occupation of that property) outweighs the safety of any trespassers.

I don't argue the opposite, by the way, that the safety of trespassers should be paramount, but rather that there should be limits on the defence of property.

And I wonder how much of this difference of opinion is in fact based on political ideology/nationality, hence the desire to see a range of opinions.

I ask, because a lot of people are under very mistaken impressions as to what the law says you can do to protect your property.

I'm seizing on your comment: "If an individual is found illegally in my house at any time, lethal force is justified".

Now, you've included the caveat that common sense should be used, but I'm not sure you support common sense being regulated by laws. So, assuming that common sense was up to the homeowner in that situation, and he lacked it, would killing an elderly alzheimer's patient who had wandered in the unlocked patio door simply be a "oops, too bad you did that, but it was legally justified" situation?

Come on S. Don't go into the silly "what if" situations. You should know better. If an "elderly alzheimer's patient" is sitting on my couch, no it's not justified. If he is threatening my family w/ a knife or gun for being in "his" house, then it becomes a possibility.

I want to know where your limits come from, outside of the very subjective standard of common sense.

The limits are "threats" and that it should be the onus of the police to determine if it "wasn't" a threat if lethal force is used. However, "common sense" has to be used.

What are your limits?

I don't support "all" situations either but many can be justified. "on your property" is one thing. "inside your home" is another.

I live in the People's Republic of Illinois where the rules change by city. Some have laws similar to the UK where a person defending even their home is guilty until proven themselves innocent (mostly urban and suburban) to being more up to the police. I would like more "stand your ground" laws that authorize home defense but put the onus on the authorities for showing it wasn't selfe defense in order to arrest the homeowner.
Interesting, I had no idea the laws could vary so much city to city.

So generally, a defence must be proven by the person who commited the offence (shooting and intruder for example)...you would like to see a reverse burden of proof...that there WAS no acceptable defence. Interesting. Kind of strange, but interesting possibilities...

Come on S. Don't go into the silly "what if" situations. You should know better. If an "elderly alzheimer's patient" is sitting on my couch, no it's not justified. If he is threatening my family w/ a knife or gun for being in "his" house, then it becomes a possibility. It's not a silly 'what if' situation. If there is no law that would hold a property owner culpable for homocide in defence of his home, then it is entirely possible that such a situation could arise. My comments are not all directed specifically at you, by the way...I hope Congo is reading them as well, because people honestly do argue that there should be no law of culpability in defence of the home. So while 'common sense' would dictate that someone should not shoot an elderly alzheimer's patient (or a wife returning home, mistaken for an intruder etc), without having legal sanctions for those who don't use common sense, 'common sense' really doesn't have any weight. I want people to consider this, because it's an issue that people often have what they think are very cut and dry opinions on...but they need to consider the possible scenarios to really get a sense of what they are willing to support.

The limits are "threats" and that it should be the onus of the police to determine if it "wasn't" a threat if lethal force is used. However, "common sense" has to be used. What level of threats...do you support proportionality, or have another standard?

What are your limits? Proportionality, within reason. I honestly think that every single situation needs to be considered on the facts, with no bright line rule outside of general guidelines. So if I am alone in my house, and someone forces the door...well I'm likely to be a lot smaller than the intruder, and I'll go for whatever weapon I can find (kitchen knives being the only lethal weapons in my house). But I would definately yell, 'get out' and attempt to lock myself somewhere for safety's sake, hopefully somewhere with a phone. Honestly, in that situation, I would definately let someone rob my home rather than risk injury to myself.

Were my children present, the situation would of course be different. Again, I would attempt to get us out of harm's way, and I would again let the house be robbed rather than risk harm...but if physical danger was immediately present, I would defend myself to my utmost, not necessarily measuring (or even capable of doing so) the level of force I was using.

What I worry about is not situations like this, but rather where people are repelled from a home by immediate lethal force, when no outward threat was present other than their illegal presence on your property.

Or, where more force than is at all necessary to defend your property, even short of lethal force is used. Kicking the shit out of a stupid teen trying to steal apples from your yard SHOULD result in some liability to the property owner. I do not feel that property rights absolutely trump the safety of others. I belive that it is just that it be required, for example, that warning of 'traps' on the property be given to possible trespassers, including dogs, or pits with sharpened stakes at the bottom.