View Single Post
Old June 23, 2009, 07:41 AM   #14
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn N
"In this particular case, we don't know yet. But there have been many cases where a shooter does what he thinks is right and ends up charged with something that, at best, requires a great deal of time and money to defend and a conviction and prison time at worst.

So this guy saved whatever little bit of property the stupid thief would have carried away and now is sitting up at night worrying about being charged with manslaughter or murder and maybe, just maybe, feeling pretty crappy about killing an unarmed man. Do you think he is regretting his decision?"
+1

Outcome=>NoShooting = the owner loses property and must deal with their insurance company regarding restitution.

Outcome=>Shooting = the owner spends a small fortune in legal fees; may need to pay a retainer of up to $10K to their lawyer, assuming the case will go to trial; loses the time that will be spent in court; loses time spent preparing for the trial; and possibly loses some freedom - including the right to own firearms - if the trial goes against them.

The burglar is the bad guy, not the owner; and no one is suggesting that the owner 'let the burglar go their merry way'.

The point is that in terms of future hardship to the owner, the outcome from not having taken those shots would likely have been preferable (to the owner) than the outcome from having opened fire.

In relative terms, the death of the burglar brings the owner little benefit, and much distress, cost, and legal grief. In the end, was it worth it? And in particular, was there a better way to handle the issue?
Doc Intrepid is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03963 seconds with 8 queries