Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
. . . .I may have created some confusion here in referring to the likelihood of higher risk in the case of a defensive shooting that occurred "in the out of doors in the absence of evidence of an unlawful forced entry". Let me explain.
My thought is, if one is forced to use a firearm inside his own residence after an unlawful and forcible entry, the likelihood that a defense of justification will be thrown into question by contradictory testimony or other evidence, and in particular the likelihood that GSR patterns will prove pivotal, would probably be lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere else.
|
As a practical matter, I think that you are correct. When the shooting happens in the shooter's home, and the person shot was previously unkown to the shooter, I think that a jury is more likely to believe that the shooting was SD. I think that's particularly true if there's evidence of a forcible entry. For that matter, I think that the police and prosecutor are also more likely to believe SD under those circumstances, as well.