Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
....The example I provided (the drunken coed) really did not sit well with me. I found it quite disturbing and wouldn't have blamed the DA for trying to find some way to prosecute. All they did was to shout and get no reply. I would hope I would do more than that.
The flip side is it's 3AM, you've just had a break in, your wife is in danger too, no one expects this to be a drunken coed, what are the odds? Shoot first your wife is in danger!...
|
The problem remains that we have very little data -- only the very limited information published in the media. The DA made his decisions based on a great deal more information, and we have no idea what that was. It's fatuous to speculate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
...We've already covered colorado's laws under these circumstances but what about other jurisdictions? In most places wouldn't this be a one way trip to the pokey?..
|
Again, it depends on exactly what happened and how. The laws of many States create various presumptions favorable to the householder in a case of unlawful entry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
...Understanding the laws what would you have done?...
|
Again, it depends on exactly what is happening and how it is happening. I do believe, however, that my training and knowledge will help me take tactically and legally appropriate action.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
...I've never seen one [pelvis] broken by a bullet. I'm trying to imagine where you would have to hit it and how hard on a 20 y.o. female (young peoples bones are much more elastic)and that seems to stretch it past the point of luck. Any thoughts?...
|
I recall reading one account published by Massad Ayoob of a successful use of a pelvis shot to stop an assailant armed with a knife. I relieve that in that case a 9mm +P JHP round was used. And the pelvis shot is widely taught as one option for certain situations. So there seems to be some consensus in the training community that it can be effective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
...if an individual is involved in an unlawful entry, it is considered via common sense and other mumbo jumbo to make it sound better and more legal that all your other criteria is true. ...
|
It's not a matter of "mumbo jumbo." It's a question of what the law is. And if you're suggesting that someone try shading the truth, that's a very bad idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
...you as the homeowner are given the benefit of the doubt. you won't be charged if someone breaks into your home in the wee hours of the mrng and you kill him as an example while your children sleep. you don't disagree with this do you?...
|
I disagree.
[1] It's not a matter of a "benefit of the doubt." It's a matter of some reasonably favorable laws which may help the householder establish justification.
[2] And while it's generally unlikely that the householder will be charged, it's impossible to say categorically that he won't be.