You cannot say “No it doesn’t.” And then in the next breath say you can under certain circumstances.
Read what I posted. I said that under certain circumstances the law gives a private citizen the same powers as a peace officer. I.E. the citizens arrest laws in many states. But and it’s a big but, you do not have the same legal protections that the law gives a sworn peace officer.
You cannot shoot a fleeing suspect over a property crime. Here is the exact quote he used.
Just to clarify, you cant shoot a fleeing suspect unless the escape of the suspect would place someone or the public in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Yes! Although in certain circumstances, a reasonable and prudent person could certainly make the case that if, during a home invasion that the suspect used or attempted to use deadly force, and upon you entering and confronting the suspect, he flees, that shooting him as he was fleeing could be seen as protecting the public from serious physical harm or death.
Why don’t you give me a cite for a case where that defense was accepted? When the suspect flees the threat to you and your family has ended and with it your legal justification to shoot him. At the time you press the trigger you have no way of knowing what he will do after he escapes. If the courts bought that argument there would still be a lot of violent criminals shot while fleeing. Your argument might fly if the home invader was a known serial killer or terrorist. The courts are not going to buy that you had special knowledge that the guy who broke into your home was going to murder someone immediately after he got away from you.
Here, I’ll make this easy for you. You come home from shooting at the range and find your family murdered. Upon seeing this you see the suspect attempt to leave the home and you shoot and kill him. Is it a good shooting? It’s rhetorical really. Because the answer is yes.
You can’t really believe that’s a good shoot. If you do I really hope you never find out how wrong you are in real life. You have no way of knowing that the person leaving your home did anything. You were at the range, you didn’t see him murder anyone.
A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…
You do understand that all that does is give you a defense against criminal and civil charges. It doesn’t mean you can’t be charged or sued and if a judge decides your actions weren’t pursuant to subsections B and D those charges will go forward.
This is the biggest misconception about castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. Contrary to what most people think they do not give one Carte Blanche to use deadly force against anyone and everyone they find in their protected space. If you shoot an intruder in your home the sheriff is not going to shake your hand and pat you on the back for making society safer. They will investigate like a homicide and if your use of deadly force is not within the law you will be charged. It’s that simple.
I spent 25 years in law enforcement. I taught use of force. I’ve seen plenty of cases where the use of deadly force being legally justified hinged on how the investigating officers wrote their report and how the states attorney decided to apply the law.
If you want to believe otherwise that’s fine, it’s your choice……