The lawyers will be fighting to prove the use of the signs were a preventative measure. Warning the potential robber that there can and will be harmful consequence if thry procede. just as the prosecutor "may" try to bend the informationin the states favor, however there is not always going to be a case of murder. I will never try to kill someone. I will take some arms and legs out, so they feel the pain and potentially live as a cripple living every day thinking of thier mistake.
its no different than a camera warning sign and the perp continues, and gets caught on camera. it was a mere warning.
My state is a "stand your ground state" however there is nothing that says I can't severly wound and retreat to a safer part of the property and call 911.
ever since the "sign" came up in here it has been an "assumption" that it wil end in murder.
and thats the problem with asumptions, they are not always correct, especially in a hypothetical situation where there is no fact to base the assumption off of.
I certainly understand everyones reasoning, but until ther is creditable evidence posted to back up this theory, its just speculation. and a waste of time to continue throwing theorys back and forth.
further fortification of the homeowners protection is the "castle Doctrine" and my state is a castle doctrine state.
Recent instances in my state.
https://fox59.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-1-after-home-invasion-in-anderson/
https://fox59.com/news/homeowner-on-indys-south-side-shoots-robber-trying-to-break-in-police-say/
then one in the case of the homeowner was unlawfully in posession of a fireare and needed it.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...in-englewood-both-charged-20120326-story.html
I will also add this bit of info.
about 10 years ago or so, there was a robber who broke into a ladys home and was bitten by her pitbull, spent 6 months in the hospital getting bone and skin graphs. The robber who actually made it into the house had sued the homeowner and won his case. merely because there were no signs posted warning of "dog on premesis". which what was the sole reason to sue.
its no different than a camera warning sign and the perp continues, and gets caught on camera. it was a mere warning.
My state is a "stand your ground state" however there is nothing that says I can't severly wound and retreat to a safer part of the property and call 911.
ever since the "sign" came up in here it has been an "assumption" that it wil end in murder.
and thats the problem with asumptions, they are not always correct, especially in a hypothetical situation where there is no fact to base the assumption off of.
I certainly understand everyones reasoning, but until ther is creditable evidence posted to back up this theory, its just speculation. and a waste of time to continue throwing theorys back and forth.
further fortification of the homeowners protection is the "castle Doctrine" and my state is a castle doctrine state.
Recent instances in my state.
https://fox59.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-1-after-home-invasion-in-anderson/
https://fox59.com/news/homeowner-on-indys-south-side-shoots-robber-trying-to-break-in-police-say/
then one in the case of the homeowner was unlawfully in posession of a fireare and needed it.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...in-englewood-both-charged-20120326-story.html
I will also add this bit of info.
about 10 years ago or so, there was a robber who broke into a ladys home and was bitten by her pitbull, spent 6 months in the hospital getting bone and skin graphs. The robber who actually made it into the house had sued the homeowner and won his case. merely because there were no signs posted warning of "dog on premesis". which what was the sole reason to sue.