View Single Post
Old April 24, 2012, 08:20 PM   #51
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Of course it is in jest - Kalw and I are the good guys in the shotgun forum - but having lived next door to CA and having to listen to the escapees and their rants......well, you get the idea...

Klaw - it is simple - why should any law-abiding homeowner who feels threatened and uses force to repel the invaders have to pay and defend himself from prosecution for doing a lawful thing in protecting his home and his family?

Personally, I think you should be able to shoot them in the back if they are running away with your stuff, but that is JMO.

I remember a story from a while back - it happened in the East - where a homeowner shot an intruder breaking into his home. The intruder fell from the second story window and was permanently injured. He sued the homeowner for lost wages because he was now unable to pursue his career as a criminal - AND HE WON the judgement!
As long as those types of judgements are allowed, then SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are absolutely necessary as are the provisions preventing civil suits afterwards.

Klaw - I know you have your shotgun for HD, so "one to the head, two to the chest" might be considered extreme - in your case, just remember one shot to COM................
oneounceload is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04712 seconds with 7 queries