KentuckyBlue
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 48
in NC, they have to either be in the process of entering or attempting to enter... or they have to be inside and threatening you... if they break in, sit on the couch and start watching the simpsons, you cant shoot them
'm sorry, that's just irresponsible--if you're going to use deadly force, you at least have to be sure you're not shooting some drunk college kid at the wrong house or the previous resident who has Alzheimer's and has forgotten where he lives.
Most people who mean you no harm and accidentally come into your house are going to turn around and flee when they see you in your tighty-whities with a gun--it's a real good way to determine intent.
People like this will just make it more difficult for people who have a legitimate need to defend themselves in the future.
Early reports say that the victim and his roommate had been out drinking and got home around 3:00 a.m. Roommate went inside and went to bed; victim elected to stay in his vehicle and fell asleep. Around 6:00 a.m. the victim awoke and speculation is that he went to the wrong house and was kicking on the door.
I guess if I don't come out and say that you can shoot anyone you feel like, I'm not sufficiently "right-wing" for y'all...
But seriously, yes, I will definitely wait to be absolutely certain that a person knocking on my front door is a bad guy and not an over-zealous Jehovah's Witness before I send them to hell in a blaze of flaming lead. There's a huge grey area in this case, and some of you seem to be far more interested in appearing to uphold your right to shoot whomever comes anywhere near you to your fellow anonymous internet denizens than in facing the fact that an innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone will never be able to go on the internet and pass judgment on others like you get to, simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over.
A few of you seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the "perpetrator" was kicking, not KICKING DOWN the door, plus the fact that he intended no harm, plus the fact that the "defender," aka "defendant," aka "perpetrator," aka "trigger-happy macho %#@*," shot blindly through a closed door...
TS537 at first I thought you were joking. Seriously, you are going to let someone kick in your door in the wee hours of the morning just so you can show him your gun and hope that he will then flee? How would the home owner know that the guy kicking in his door was not going to kill him? Or that indeed he was the only attacker and not the vanguard of a crew of insane clown bikers?
I don't see how this will be a test of the "Castle Doctrine" the presumption is if someone is breaking down your door you can use deadly force. There is no requirement that the home owner determine the intent of the home invader before the home owner responds. The police are not required to determine intent if a suspect reached into his pocket and withdraws an "object" before they use deadly force. Why should a home owner be held to a higher standard?
Florida would make you even more angry, we can presume that if someone attempts to enter our car while we are occupants that they intend deadly harm and we can respond accordingly. In other words you jump into a passenger seat or even attempt to jump in that seat by breaking a window or trying to open the car door, we can use deadly force.
I would suggest reading more closely.
There is a huge difference between kicking ON a door (which is what the original poster wrote) and kicking IN a door (which is what you mistakenly read).
Tadarvis Gardner, 22, told police he was home with his girlfriend and brother when he heard someone trying to kick in the front door.
You open the door and find a serial rapist (but you don't know this yet) with a gag and a rope in his pocket. He pulls a gun on you and attacks your wife. OK, now we will go onto the piece about the raped woman walking a block to get help. She has to because you are dead."Imagine this scenario, if you will. You hear someone kicking on your front door, obvious due to the timbre and low area on the door where the impact was occuring (STET)."
Losta people here are making me wish less people passed background checks.
A few of you seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the "perpetrator" was kicking, not KICKING DOWN the door, plus the fact that he intended no harm, plus the fact that the "defender," aka "defendant," aka "perpetrator," aka "trigger-happy macho %#@*," shot blindly through a closed door...
I guess if I don't come out and say that you can shoot anyone you feel like, I'm not sufficiently "right-wing" for y'all...
But seriously, yes, I will definitely wait to be absolutely certain that a person knocking on my front door is a bad guy and not an over-zealous Jehovah's Witness before I send them to hell in a blaze of flaming lead.
There's a huge grey area in this case,
and some of you seem to be far more interested in appearing to uphold your right to shoot whomever comes anywhere near you to your fellow anonymous internet denizens than in facing the fact that an innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone will never be able to go on the internet and pass judgment on others like you get to, simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over.
I guess I just take the responsibility of being able to defend myself, my wife, and my home with lethal force seriously enough not to spend my free time bragging on the internet about who I'd kill if they dared to knock on my door at an inopportune time.