[WAGCEVP]

When it's O-K to shoot to protect yourself and your family

Bill Lunn
http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?s=1359934


There's debate into when it's O-K to shoot to protect yourself and your family after a recent rash of shootings involving homeowners. One deadly robbery started at the Union Planters Bank on Quince Road and Perkins Friday night. That's when the victim's ATM card didn't work. The suspects took the man to his home just a few blocks away on Dunn Avenue. That's where the victim got a gun and shot the two suspects, killing one. The District Attorney ruled the shooting justifiable homicide but issued a warning about cases like this one. And don't forget the infamous Cat Burglar, gunned down by a home owner in the Hickory Hill area just last month. With a series of home defense shootings this summer, D-A Bill Gibbons wants to make sure the public is aware of the law.

Rosevone Bird knows all to well about deadly force. Last week, a man pushed his way into his home and attacked his wife's caretaker. Bird responded with one shot from his 357 magnum. "I shot him." Despite protecting his family, Bird says he is not proud of what he did. "Hell no, I feel bad."

The shooting was ruled justifiable by the District Attorney's office. But Bill Gibbons has a warning, protecting your property with deadly force is not justifiable. Gibbons said, "Essentially a person cannot use deadly force in self defense merely to protect personal property. A person has to believe that his or her life is in jeopardy." In fact, state law spells it out: The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. "If we face a situation where someone does use deadly force simply to protect property we will be prepared to prosecute that person."

Rosevone Bird has already made that split second life and death decision. Would he do it again? "If I had to I sure would." But for others who use deadly force in the future, a warning your actions will be carefully reviewed. It is very hard to say on a case by case basis what is justifiable and what is not. The bottom line, you have to believe that you or someone your with is in danger of serious injury or death if you don't take action.

In Friday night's shooting, the homeowner shot and killed Ricky Ricardo Wilborn. Another suspect was shot and is in critical condition. Prosecutors say if he recovers, he could face charges. Last month, two people died in two separate home invasions on the same night, the first on Lark where the homeowner shot and killed one man, another suspect injured, the second on Wildwind Cove, where the homeowner shot and killed the man known as the east Memphis cat burglar.

[DigMe]

Wow...nice "warning" there. Anything to make law-abiding citizens hesitate long enough for the BG to get the jump on them. :banghead:

brad cook

Glad to be living in TX

[Standing Wolf]

State laws vary extremely widely, and it's incumbent upon us to be familiar with them.

But for others who use deadly force in the future, a warning your actions will be carefully reviewed.

That's a very poorly written sentence, as well as an inane statement. Every shooting by a law-abiding American citizen is always carefully reviewed—as well it should be.

[zahc]

So, basically, I can go to anyone's house and ransack and pillage it, while they're home, and they cannot do anything about it, legally? THEY are supposed to run from ME?

And, I am not allowed to protect my stuff, I am supposed to let anyone take it who wants it? i'm going to start saying "yeah, that's my truck, but if you want it you can take it, I'm not allowed to stop you. All I can do is call the cops and let them stop you for me".

[Chipperman]

"Prosecutors say if he recovers, he could face charges."

More like, "If he recovers he and his family will have a multi-million dollar suit against the shooter." :barf:

[CB900F]

Zahc & all;

I don't know about other states, but in several the gist of the law is that you may also protect yourself with deadly force if you believe that you will come to 'great bodily harm'. I may be wrong, but if some BG type were to tell me that he was going to beat the 'stuffing' outta me, well - bang.

900F

[Moparmike]

And, I am not allowed to protect my stuff, I am supposed to let anyone take it who wants it? i'm going to start saying "yeah, that's my truck, but if you want it you can take it, I'm not allowed to stop you. All I can do is call the cops and let them stop you for me".But of course you are! What were you thinking Zahc? Report to the nearest Re-Education Center immedeately for treatment.

Shame on you.:scrutiny: You were turning out to be such a bright and inspirational young boy.

:evil:

[Ex-Doc]

You can use force to protect your property, but deadly force is for saving lives.

So yell at perp to get out of your vehicle (garage, shed, etc), spray with OC from a distance, then shoot to kill if attacked or approached. Don't forget to dial 911 too.

[Standing Wolf]

And, I am not allowed to protect my stuff, I am supposed to let anyone take it who wants it? i'm going to start saying "yeah, that's my truck, but if you want it you can take it, I'm not allowed to stop you. All I can do is call the cops and let them stop you for me".

In many states, that's the law—and cops don't devote an awful lot of time and effort to car thieves. In some states, even if you're threatened with death or great bodily harm, you're required by law to retreat as far as you physically can before you can defend your life.

It'd be interesting to see a comparison between a map of the states with shall issue laws and those with serious restrictions against defending one's life and/or property.

[Majic]

Being able to not protect your property is one of the reasons the insurance industry is making billons.
You aquire wealth,
purchase personal property,
pay the necessary taxes,
purchase the insurance,
lose the property to crime,
police tells you to contact your insurance (courtesy of your paid taxes),
insurance depreciates your property and pay you a lesser amount.

Everybody wins except you.

[greyhound]

So, basically, I can go to anyone's house and ransack and pillage it, while they're home, and they cannot do anything about it, legally? THEY are supposed to run from ME?

At least here in Maryland, yes. You should jump out a second floor window before shooting a pursuing attacker.

And in the PRMD, the decision whether or not to charge will NOT be made by the DA, you WILL be going before the grand jury. Prepare to be judged by the sheeple.

Only makes me more eager to move.

[dairycreek]

And they are in strong agreement that here, in Oregon, the only reason for using deadly force is if you (or your family) are in immediate danger from serious harm. You to have to establish that the BG had both the intent and the means to do that harm. If you are found to have engaged in lethal force and there was neither the means or the intent you may be in big, big trouble. From a purely personal point of view there is nothing that I own that would be worth killing someone to protect - except, of course, my family. Good shooting;)

[12-34hom]

The two key words are "imminent" & "reasonable" when the application of deadly force is used to protect ones self and or family members.

There are states which allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

The ramifications of using deadly force are far reaching.

12-34hom.

[LawDog]

And in the PRMD, the decision whether or not to charge will NOT be made by the DA, you WILL be going before the grand jury. Prepare to be judged by the sheeple.

*shrug* Same thing happens here in Texas.

And I'm here to tell you that I'd rather have twelve of my peers decide if the critter needed shooting, than have a vote-desperate political animal such as the D.A. making that decision.

LawDog

[peashooter]

TN Code 39-11-611
b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's 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 when that 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

That means, if you break in my home and come my direction, you are subject to deadly force being used against you.
Nuf Said.
:fire:

[synoptic]

So, basically, I can go to anyone's house and ransack and pillage it, while they're home, and they cannot do anything about it, legally? THEY are supposed to run from ME?

Don't many states have some sort of "Castle Clause" where if someone enters your home uninvited you have the right to shoot them, or did I just dream that up one night?

edit: nevermind, I should have read peashooter's post a bit more closely

[zahc]

I only said 'truck' because that is my greatest possesion right now. I meant it like 'house'.

[BHPshooter]

And, I am not allowed to protect my stuff, I am supposed to let anyone take it who wants it? i'm going to start saying "yeah, that's my truck, but if you want it you can take it, I'm not allowed to stop you. All I can do is call the cops and let them stop you for me".

I'm glad someone else sees it my way.
Come, now. I can see if there is a personal/cultural/religious reason you wouldn't want to shoot a robber/looter, but if the criminal doesn't respect the law enough to leave you alone, and you don't teach him to fear you, then what is there to deter crime? The police? Well, judging from the response times around my house, the cops could arrive anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes, less if you are really lucky. A reasonably fit individual can generally run a mile in 7-8 minutes, so that puts a robber with a pocketful of your hard-earned jewelry or electronics about 2 miles away when the cops arrive. By the time the cops get you're statements and start doing something, they can't do jack s???.

With these laws, either way you're screwed. :barf: :scrutiny:

Wes

[jsalcedo]

Texas law:


It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.

So if the home invader survives he can't get you in court for shooting him.

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.


(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or


(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and


(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[CZ 75 BD]

the "castle doctrine" says you need not flee your own home. Also stated laws vary by state, so there is no excuse for not knowing the limits where you live.

[Loaded]

Oh how I love living in Colorado!

In Colorado, a person is entitled to act on appearances when exercising self-defense: a reasonable belief that you are in danger entitles you to defend yourself, even to the extent of taking human life, even though it may later turn out that you were mistaken about the danger. It is also true in Colorado that a person who is under attack need not retreat in the face of that attack before lawfully exercising the right of self-defense, even to the extent of using deadly force.

THE "MAKE MY DAY" DEFENSE:

The "make my day" statute creates certain additional rights of self defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

The statute goes further than other forms of self defense by providing for immunity from prosecution (as well as from civil liability) rather than merely establishing an affirmative defense. Based on this difference, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving applicability of the statute rests on the defendant, who must prove applicability by a preponderance of the evidence. Resolution of the issue should be conducted by way of a pretrial hearing. Conflicting evidence as to the applicability of the statute must be resolved by the trial court, and appellate courts will defer to the trial court's findings. A defendant who loses at the pretrial hearing may still present self-defense to the jury.

God I love it here!

[Black92LX]

When is it ok to shoot to protect my family???

Anytime they are in danger! even if that means i pull the trigger knowing that i am going to jail. Family FIRST!!!

[XLMiguel]

Hmmmmmm. Someone is in my house uninvited in the dead of night WILL be asumed to be a threat to me & mine. If confronted & they choose to leave immediately, I wouldn't shoot them in the back, but any hesitation or as much as one step towards me would be interpreted by a reasonable person as intent to do me harm . . . In VA, they're bought & paid for at that point.