|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 25, 2010, 11:41 AM | #26 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
I am only aware of texas having the right to use "up to and including" lethal force for the protection of property... The other state laws I am aware of (including my home state) limit lethal force to protection of life and limb or to stop a violent felon witnessed in the commission of a violent felony crime...
Brent |
February 25, 2010, 11:43 AM | #27 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2010, 11:49 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
February 25, 2010, 11:54 AM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 20, 2005
Posts: 2,348
|
I'm not judging the incident, but I'd like to offer an opinion on the action in general.
If a sworn officer discharges his weapon, they usually take the firearm for prima facia evidence and sit the guy down for an investigation, no matter how rudimentary. If it's a good shooting, no harm, no foul. However, we use tunnel-vision on citizens using the same tactics, and that's where I'm torn on this. As a strict constructionist I don't think a citizen needs anyone's permission to carry. The 2A says "shall not be infringed." Simple, clear, I get it. In the same application, we are a Republic, an organization of laws. You just can't pop whoever you feel like and apply your own views on the 'castle doctrine.' In the scenario of kicking in your door, I can see a very clear scenario. Your wife is choking on a hotdog and makes a desperate attempt to signal me, walking on the street. You kill me as I run to her aid. There were courts, codes of behavior and thugs in our colonial days and in our old west. Scrutiny isn't a new or unconstituional concept. If the shooting is good, no fear, the 2A should protect you. However if you're some hot-head who wants to try out his new hollowpoints and rains down on the first sucker, we should investigate that action as we would do for a sworn officer. |
February 25, 2010, 11:56 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 367
|
Thanks for posting those statutes - really does shed some light on the defense of one's home in the state of Georgia.
Quote:
Is it possible the intruder was armed and simply had the weapon on a holster or pocket? Absolutely. BEFORE reading the laws I'd have thought the home owner would have been better served to allow the intruder to break in and rather than opening fire order him to the ground, etc. If the burglar moves, shoot him. |
|
February 25, 2010, 11:59 AM | #31 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
It boils down to your own personal beliefs, your knowledge of the laws of the state you reside in; and if your own personal beliefs are in contradiction to the laws of the state you reside in you must decide, preferrably ahead of time, which one is going to influence your actions more - your personal beliefs or the state laws. Hopefully your personal beliefs are in agreement with state laws (such as in this specific case) and the only person who has a problem at the end of the day is the criminal (and the homeowner left with a blood stain on his carpet.) |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:01 PM | #32 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
The presence of a visible object to be used as a weapon is rarely required these days... The attacker being nearly the same size or larger than the victim... the victim can often assume severe bodily harm or death could be imminent at the hands of an attacker...
Brent |
February 25, 2010, 12:01 PM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Quote:
As OuTcAst said, Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange Last edited by Double Naught Spy; February 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM. |
|||
February 25, 2010, 12:02 PM | #34 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
1. Home invaders were unarmed (and in one case mentally ill) 2. Homeowners were both off-duty police officers (meaning department was named as an additional set of deep pockets) 3. Decedents had angry family members willing to bankroll pointless suit 4. Both cases were dismissed at summary judgement, appealed and dismissed again by the Court of Appeals. Here in Texas, any use of lethal force is going to go to a grand jury - and while Texas grand juries are notoriously pro-property rights, I don't think too many people want to go through that without a lawyer - and a lawyer can cost several thousand dollars. On that basis alone, I would have given a verbal warning if I thought I could safely do so. |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:04 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 185
|
Quote:
Last edited by golfballshootr; February 25, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason: Quote |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:07 PM | #36 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 20, 2005
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
For example, you have a former friend, maybe an old drinking buddy. The guy made a pass at your wife. Over the years it has really stuck in your craw. You invite the guy over one night to "bury the hatchet." You pour him a shot of tequila and then blow his brains out. "Officer, his murderous action was the most horrid thing I ever saw!" |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:10 PM | #37 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2010, 12:12 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Being prepared for an intruder isn't against the law, is it?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:15 PM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 20, 2005
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
Ever watch a mafia movie? |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:22 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
It would appear that LE did investigate this incident, and found it to be a "good" shoot. How much more straightforward does this have to be?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:22 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 185
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2010, 12:24 PM | #42 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 20, 2005
Posts: 2,348
|
OuTcAsT, I prefaced my original comment with the phrase "in general."
Just because the example cited was a clean shooting, it should not mean that all homeowners should or will get a free pass. |
February 25, 2010, 12:26 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Now we are down the citing unrealistic examples from The Odyssey and The Aeneid and movies as justification for quesitoning the homeowner's defense against an intruder?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
February 25, 2010, 12:35 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
|
I think the level of questioning the shooter should be relative to the other evidence in existence. For instance, homeowner calls police and reports I just shot a guy who broke into my home and the police show up and there is a body on the floor in a pool of blood and nothing else - no broken door or window, the "intruder's" car is parked in the driveway - then I can't say I would begrudge the police for asking a few questions!
We don't have that in this case. And I also don't think there is anything wrong with the cops showing up, finding a broken door, a blood trail heading back out that door, a stolen car a couple blocks away with a couple of thugs in it, one of which happens to have one of the homeowner's bullets in his leg, from saying to the homeowner, "You know, you really should work on your aim more!" and leaving it at that. |
February 25, 2010, 12:36 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:39 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
February 25, 2010, 12:50 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
stranger kicks in door on property where he does not live or own
the owner defends himself against stranger who has committed forced entry. the violater was shot 3 times. next.
__________________
"It'll happen fast once I start" - Charlie Waite |
February 25, 2010, 01:10 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 16, 2009
Posts: 195
|
B18C5-EH2,
I do believe, by the title of your OP, you assumed right off the bat that the homeowner was at fault based on the "No Charges Filed?" part of the title. I for one do not agree. The homeowner was at home minding his own business and a BG forcibly broke in, braking the law. It seems cut and dried to me. We had a break-in a couple years ago. It happened about 10 minutes after my wife left the house at around 10:00 AM to go to the school to participate in an activity with our son. ADT was monitoring the house, I got a call on my cell, cops were on the way, everything worked as it should have. Fortunately, we think the alarm scared off the BG because nothing was taken. But the BG was never found. Two doors, one from the outside leading to the garage and the other from the garage leading into the kitchen, were destroyed. The outside door was wood covered by metal on both sides, and the BG went through it quite easily, dead bolt and all. My opinion is that he must have been fairly strong (or high) to have been able to do that. What bothered me the most about this was that it happened so soon after my wife left. Either the BG saw her leave, or he intended to break in whether someone was at home or not. Either way, had I been home, there would have been one less BG running around. What you need to understand is this. Anyone physically capable of breaking in a locked door to a home meets the requirement for "having the abiility to do physical harm" whether "armed" or not. That combined with "acting in an irrational manner" and causing his intended victim to "fear for his life" is all the justification necessary for the homeowner to act the way he did. And some states may not even require all three conditions. The homeowner did right. BGs beware... |
February 25, 2010, 01:17 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
The laws of course differ from state to state, but in North Carolina, by statute: "A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence."
In Florida, a person "is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred." So at least in NC and FL, this homeowner would have been justified. DogoDon |
February 25, 2010, 01:37 PM | #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Yeah, then there was this gem; Quote:
So my question now is; B18C5-EH2, having read the responses, and the statutes, has your opinion changed since the OP ?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
||
|
|