Drug possesser , does he have a right to defend ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

I dont think protecting your illegal drug stash qualifys for the use of deadly force...

---

Exactly, since the dealer is committing a felony. We had a nut up here decide to open up on a car load of kids a few years ago for trying to buy pot from him (wonder why). Luckily no one was hit; but, no one did time either.

Based solely on what I read in the OP, all the gun-related charges should be BS. Janq is right on this one (yet again) - if 3 guys break into my home, I have every right to use whatever amount of force I deem necessary to protect myself & my property (whatever that property may be). Sixto may well be correct in his interpretation of the law in this case, but if that is so, then the law is bad.

Prosecutors should of course go after the homeowner on whatever drug charges they feel they can make (though since I believe drugs should be legal, I'd argue that those laws are bad as well...different topic), but to charge him with attempted murder, etc for defending himself is messed up.

But the key question here is was he defending himself, or was he defending the drugs. It also not an issue of what this guy is or what he has done, its an issue of what he is doing. Either way, he is in the wrong as the law is written. He put himself in the position to become a target by having the drugs... an illegal substance. Just by possessing the drugs, one is in the act of committing a crime. You have no right to defend yourself while you are in the act of committing a crime.
Throw a dart at a map of the U.S., and proceed to the nearest prison. You will find no shortage of drug dealers turned murders now residing on the states dime.


Lets look at this using a different example;

Let’s say I rob a bank. I now have thousands of stolen dollars in my possession. A couple of hillbillies find out about what I now have, and they try to rob me. I kill one of them in the robbery attempt. Am I guilty of murder?

Gotta agree with Janq here. +1

But, does Michigan even have a Castle Law? :king:


:urla9ub:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

On a superficial level, one would think Jang is correct, but I will bet a paycheck that I'm right.

Why do you think there is now a federal gun spec in regard to drug crimes? We can argue theory all day... but it is what it is fact is fact. If the drugs were not a factor in the robbery, you might have a valid point, but since the drugs are the motive of both crimes, this guy is going to do some time.

---

OK. I agree he'll most likely going to do time. But I don't think it should be for defending himself.

Are you justifying the actions of the three just because he had MJ in his house? Are we now going to start qualifying reasons/justifications for 'Home Invasions'? :confused:



:urla9ub:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P7fanatic

Are you justifying the actions of the three just because he had MJ in his house? Are we now going to start qualifying reasons/justifications for 'Home Invasions'? :confused:



:urla9ub:

---

No I'm not. I'm also not saying that the robbers were OK in robbing the man for his drugs. They both got what they deserved IMO.
But, when this goes to trial, all this is going to end up hanging the defendant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

But the key question here is was he defending himself, or was he defending the drugs. It also not an issue of what this guy is or what he has done, its an issue of what he is doing. Either way, he is in the wrong as the law is written. He put himself in the position to become a target by having the drugs... an illegal substance. Just by possessing the drugs, one is in the act of committing a crime. You have no right to defend yourself while you are in the act of committing a crime.
Through a dart at a map of the U.S., and proceed to the nearest prison. You will find no shortage of drug dealers turned murders now residing on the states dime.


Lets look at this using a different example;

Let’s say I rob a bank. I now have thousands of stolen dollars in my possession. A couple of hillbillies find out about what I now have, and they try to rob me. I kill one of them in the robbery attempt. Am I guilty of murder?

---

Lets stay with drugs are in his house ( illegally )

and some robbers came in to steal cash and jewelry, these robbers are unaware that theres drugs in this house, they demand all the cash and jewelry in the house while pointing a weapon at resident, the resident going into his jewelry box pulls out a weapon that s/he kept there and shoots the robbers,
the police arrives and finds the illegal drugs and dead robber.
Did the resident still have the right to defend his house / life ?


.

Yup. The subject of the robbery was not drugs.

Our victim here was most likely a dealer, otherwise nobody is going to try and rob him for his dime bag of personal use weed. Because he is a drug dealer, he made himself a target.

Drug dealers protecting their stuff is not a adequate defense to shoot someone.(especially fleeing). Hope they all get a long time in Jackson Prison.

I agree with SIXTO. Dope dealers are going to do time for shooting to protect their drugs. RM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

Just by possessing the drugs, one is in the act of committing a crime. You have no right to defend yourself while you are in the act of committing a crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

Yup. The subject of the robbery was not drugs.

Our victim here was most likely a dealer, otherwise nobody is going to try and rob him for his dime bag of personal use weed. Because he is a drug dealer, he made himself a target.

---

Sixto, I'm not trolling or picking on you, but could you clarify the above? Even possessing a dime bag is committing a crime. I know that most BGs aren't going to rob a guy of his dime bag, but it's still not legal to have one, unless small quanities have been decriminalized in your area. Is this a judgement call by the officers involved as it seems it would be in your second quote, or is this a hard and fast rule zero tolerance rule like it seems in the first quote?

Sorry, I know this is a gray area and it seems like I'm picking apart your posts. I'm just curious how a LEO would view all this.

I dont mind answering your questions, ask away.

The difference isnt the quanity of drugs, its if the illegal items are the subject of the robbery. If the dope isnt a factor, then its not a factor.
If you became a random victim of a invasion robbery, and you had your bong from college in the attic thats not a factor. But if your a dealer, and have a fair amount of drugs and the robbers are after your drugs and illegal profits, thats a whole new thing.

Thanks Sixto. One last question, a bit off topic...

What would you say if someone said to you "You're a public servant, go get me a glass of water."?

I've always wanted to say that to a LEO, but I'm sure he/she wouldn't find it as funny as I would. But I have an odd sense of humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

I dont mind answering your questions, ask away.

The difference isnt the quanity of drugs, its if the illegal items are the subject of the robbery. If the dope isnt a factor, then its not a factor.
If you became a random victim of a invasion robbery, and you had your bong from college in the attic thats not a factor. But if your a dealer, and have a fair amount of drugs and the robbers are after your drugs and illegal profits, thats a whole new thing.

---

I agree on that principle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morintp

What would you say if someone said to you "You're a public servant, go get me a glass of water."?

---

I'd tell you that an police officer is not a public servant. He is a servant of the judicial branch of government. Now go off and pay your taxes, and get your own damn water. :wink: