Quote:
|
We need to get it to where if you are in someones residence, illegally (you weren't invited) then you get what you get. Im my house that is either a Remington 870 with a 1oz slug or my Sig 229 - 40 Corbon Hollow points.
|
When a castle law came up for consideration in the Missouri legislature, opponents, editorialists, and attorneys writing guest columns said it would "legalize murder." The bill was enacted in law, and what is says (in plain English) is, among other things, that "a person may not use deadly force upon another person ... unless ... such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person".
"Unlawful entry" is defined as entry "without license" (read: uninvited). There's no mention of forcible entry.
Does that mean that if someone is in my house uninvited for whatever reason, I am permitted to kill him? I do not know. I don't know the case law. I certainly wouldn't want to test it from either the moral nor the legal standpoint, unless the presence of the "uninvited" person appeared to constitute a likely danger.
The law in Tennessee reads a little differently: "any person using force intended or likely to cause death orserious bodily injury within their own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household whenthat force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who
unlawfully and forcibly enters or
has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
Is that reasonable, or should it read "uninvited"? Points to be made on both sides, I think. Guy comes in through an open window and endangers me, why should I be obligated to look for signs of force? But do we really want to shoot someone simply because he is uninvited? Wrong house, person with dementia...and see below for a discussion of situations in which a person enters by necessity.
Quote:
|
Good luck getting out......alive.
|
That ups the ante a lot more. It's one thing to defend against an intruder. To shoot him to prevent his egress is murder. In Missouri, the law reads that I can shoot
if he remains after unlawfully entering, but it does
not say I can shoot him to
make sure that he remains after unlawfully entering.
That's great publicity for the antigun movement. Keep it up.
But the original question had nothing to do with that. The question was about what kinds of entry constitute felonies.
Well, as it happens, there is in Tennessee such a thing as a necessity defense. A man trespasses to avoid death or serious injury (snowstorm, for example) and he will not be convicted of the crime of trespass. Goes back to the common law and my therefore apply in most places. Sounds reasonable to me. And shooting the man does not. David Armstrong's experience further illustrates the idea. Did he commit a crime?
But I'm not sure why one would really care at all about whether someone in one's house has committed a felony or a misdemeanor. The Tennessee self defense law does not hinge on that distinction--at all (lay interpretation). The issue isn't even mentioned in the statute.
By the way, did someone say that if "someone pushes in your door when you open it and he knocks you down" that the entry is not unlawful and forcible? Really?