is it covered?


PDA






Bezoar
November 1, 2007, 10:36 PM
if soemone is trying to kill you or someone else in your view, you have the legal right to use deadly force to stop death/bodily injury from happening. But if the perpetrator runs away you must stop.

But if the perpetrator beats you up in the kitchen, and runs away carrying the two guns he just stole from your house, do you have the legal right to draw your carry gun from its fanny pack and shoot the robber based on the fact that he is armed and a threat to the immediate area?

I have never seen it covered in any article whatsoever.

If you enjoyed reading about "is it covered?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
everallm
November 1, 2007, 11:01 PM
The issue is, can you stand up in court and prove that he was an immediate threat to the live of yourself or another. Not say "Well I thought he might hurt someone sometime". That's surmise and conjecture and the next comment from the prosecuter will be along the lines off, " I see, you can read minds or do you have an infallible crystal ball?"

Shooting him whilst he runs away is going to have you measured up for a nice orange jumpsuit and close and personal friendship with your new friend Bubba.

In general the statment that is applicable would be.

"I had an immdiate and well founded belief that the lifes of myself and others were in immediate danger"

If you can't defend that don't do even thing of doing it.

Manan
November 3, 2007, 02:41 AM
Depends on the state and the prosecutor and if the "castle doctrine" applies. Shooting someone in the back is harder to justify than in the front

If you enjoyed reading about "is it covered?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!