So, Nacho, when are you emotionally strong enough to pull the trigger on someone? It is a tough call for everyone. So if and when you see someone in your house late in the night, what would you do? what are your thoughts? Do you try and protect your wife? Do you call 911 and wait for their response? Interesting questions a lot of people can not answer till it happens.
Castle Doctrine
- Thread starter nachosgrande
- Start date
- Status
IMO is a good thing, just in Indiana it doesnt just mean in your home or on your property. If you feel a need to defend yourslef in Indiana, yo have that right to now do so.
Been in effect now for over a year and I have not read of one incident where it was used and the person was held liable for defending himself.
Break in steal my pencils, one of us will leave on a stretcher, no other way to say it. If your stupid enough to break in and steal my pencils, you should be taken out on a stretcher.. DAMN YOU JUST DON'T BELONG IN SOMEONE'S HOME...
Been in effect now for over a year and I have not read of one incident where it was used and the person was held liable for defending himself.
Break in steal my pencils, one of us will leave on a stretcher, no other way to say it. If your stupid enough to break in and steal my pencils, you should be taken out on a stretcher.. DAMN YOU JUST DON'T BELONG IN SOMEONE'S HOME...
There seems to be some confusion regarding the requirement that you retreat-I think most places required you safely retreat? That being the case, a decent lawyer should be able to prove that there are damn few times when you can safely retreat.
If he’s 21 feet away and holding a knife, conventional wisdom (and demonstrations) show he can be on you PDQ. That being said, how are you going to safely retreat?
Gonna turn and run? (turning your back on an intruder sure ain’t safe).
You going to backpeddle away? (he can run forward faster than you can backpeddle-still not safe).
Well, you get the idea?
Looks to me like if you had/have a decent lawyer, the Castle Doctrine is going to make little/no difference.
Mebbe all the Castle Doctrine really does is protect you in case you’re unlucky enough to get an incompetent lawyer?
If he’s 21 feet away and holding a knife, conventional wisdom (and demonstrations) show he can be on you PDQ. That being said, how are you going to safely retreat?
Gonna turn and run? (turning your back on an intruder sure ain’t safe).
You going to backpeddle away? (he can run forward faster than you can backpeddle-still not safe).
Well, you get the idea?
Looks to me like if you had/have a decent lawyer, the Castle Doctrine is going to make little/no difference.
Mebbe all the Castle Doctrine really does is protect you in case you’re unlucky enough to get an incompetent lawyer?
mljdeckard
Member
When you shoot someone in your home, you are not shooting them for stealing. You are preventing them from doing you harm. That they also might be there to steal is incidental.
There is no shoot to wound. There is no shoot to kill. There is acting with all available means to stop the actions who is going to do you harm. If you aren't sure someone is going to do you harm, you are not legally allowed to wound them any more than you are allowed to kill them.
There is no shoot to wound. There is no shoot to kill. There is acting with all available means to stop the actions who is going to do you harm. If you aren't sure someone is going to do you harm, you are not legally allowed to wound them any more than you are allowed to kill them.
LightningJoe
Member
The state will impose less than the death penalty for murder unless the crime is somehow aggravated. A gun used to protect your home, on the other hand, may inflict a mortal injury. Inflicting that injury, though, isn't punishment; it's an act of self-defense. This is so transparently obvious that it is difficult to imagine an intellectually honest person who didn't readily apprehend that critical difference.
jad0110
Member
Statistically, yes, most thugs are going to flee without a shot being fired. But not all, it is those nut cases we must always be prepared for. And they do exist.
I would also say that you are looking at it too logically. To you and I, yes, it makes no sense to attack a person who has the drop on us with say, a 12 gauge shotgun. But put yourself in their shoes. Why in the heck would you ever go into someone's home forceably in the first place? To steal a pencil, nonetheless
. The answer is simply because they either don't care or are incredibly stupid. Maybe both. As others have said, it is reasonable to assume they are their to do you harm until you have verified otherwise, IMO.As for shooting an intruder who is already fleeing, no, probably not. I'd be more concerned about his fellow thugs who may still be lurking that pose a greater threat.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Perhaps you should ask some cops for their view on this.
I have been around a few Bad People. Most of them were cowards that favored non-confrontational crimes; not the kind that kick in back doors so much. The ones that *did* kick in back doors were almost universally The Bad People that scared me. Breaking into someone's house is a pretty scary thing to do, and I consider it to be a personality threshold of sorts.
Of the Bad Guys that kick in back doors to steal stuff/Be Bad People, it's been my impression that the smart/risk adverse ones break in during the day to try and avoid confrontation. They want loot, plain and simple. They tend to be either yoots looking for easy swag to fence, or adults that actually earn their living by stealin' stuff. The ones that break in at night/weekends are either stupid beyond belief (looking for a crime of opportunity and unaware that someone's likely home), really desperate and willing to accept the risk of a confrontation, or really are unafraid of the potential consequences. Either of those three mindsets render them a significant threat, in my opinion - much more of a threat than the professional day thief.
Finally, you have the ones that break in for something other than loot. It sounds silly, but there is a subset of the human population that really does this sort of thing.
The problem is that when you confront the shadowy figure in the darkened hallway, you don't know WHICH of these personalities you're facing. You also have virtually NO time in which to ponder this, or ask the intruder probing questions seeking their true intent.
I am a father and a husband. Anyone that has entered my house has done so by breaking through a locked door or window. They have already demonstrated that they really intend to be there, and that they know that they are unwelcome. If my wife/children are present in the house, I have to presume that they are potential victims and that the intruder is a predator. I will treat the intruder as someone who wants to hurt my family, simply because choosing to presume a lesser intent significantly exposes my family to an avoidable risk.
I would much rather spend my remaining days dwelling on the intent of the deceased intruder than dwelling on how I could have prevented a loved one from being predated upon by that intruder.
A basic rule to go by is that burglars, those who want property only, avoid people. If someone breaks into a home knowing that people are there, then they plan on hurting or killing someone. The person who only wants the property for financial gain, will do so when nobody is there. So if you are at home when someone breaks in, chances are that they are willing to hurt you or your family. Also, if someone breaks in when the home is occupied, they very well might not be there for propery theft and may be there for the sole intent of committing a violent crime. To assume that they are there only to steal property is dangerous.
I look at it this way, if someone is willing to break into my home while my children and I are there, I am willing to shoot first and ask questions later. I'm simply not risking our safety to be diplomatic. Being on a second story with only one staircase down, for all intents and purposes, eliminates escaping. And why should I have to escape my own home anyway?
moi_self26
Member
bah, nevermind
You shoot to STOP THE THREAT!!!! If, as a result of that, the offender dies, so be it. As someone else stated, just because you draw your firearm doesn't mean you have to use it, only that you had better be PREPARED to use it, and that use of deadly force was necessary to prevent his unlawful use of deadly force or his presumed use thereof (ever hear of the "reasonable man" theory). Further, warning shots and non-lethal shots are not recommended, again as someone already stated, due to the premise that if lethal force was not necessary (ie. to protect life by potentially taking a life), then lethal force was NOT justified to begin with (whether an injuring wound or not, the use of a gun WAS deadly force). If you force me to draw a firearm to defend myself or a third party, and then force me to shoot you, well, you can bet that my shots will be Center Of Mass, not wounding or warning shots.
nachosgrande
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 282
Does anyone know of a book I might be able to get my hands on that would give me the knowledge to differentiate between an idiot and a true threat in the heat of the moment? I'm being serious here.
I may not have any experience with bad guys, but I do have quite a bit of experience with idiots. Anybody here that says different would be lying. Idiots are everywhere. Some of my friends and family, for example, are idiots. In college, my cousin was home for the holidays and got so drunk one night that he went home to the neighbors house (which happened to be unlocked that night, fairly common in my area), thinking it was his, and fell asleep on the floor of the master bedroom.
I'd like to be able to spare such idiots, if they happen upon my home if I forget to lock the door.
I may not have any experience with bad guys, but I do have quite a bit of experience with idiots. Anybody here that says different would be lying. Idiots are everywhere. Some of my friends and family, for example, are idiots. In college, my cousin was home for the holidays and got so drunk one night that he went home to the neighbors house (which happened to be unlocked that night, fairly common in my area), thinking it was his, and fell asleep on the floor of the master bedroom.
I'd like to be able to spare such idiots, if they happen upon my home if I forget to lock the door.
ChCx2744
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,228
When a person(s) enters your home (FORCED OR NON-FORCED) without your consent or the consent of any of the occupants (Whether or not they are legal lease-holders/owners), here in Georgia it is automatically considered a Felony Burglary. With that said, Burglary covers a wide spectrum. When one commits Burglary, (s)he enters a private dwelling with the INTENT to commit a FELONY, regardless of personal motive. The act of entering the incident location without permission by itself can be VERY EASILY articulated before a judge and jury as being a immenent threat on human life. Bottom line? If someone enters your home without your permission (whether or not you are present when they do so, see them entering or not, if they forced themselves in or not, during the day or not, etc) you will have considerable leeway in using appropriate *DEADLY* force.
Taken directly from information provided to me by my brass superiors
Taken directly from information provided to me by my brass superiors
From basicblur:
That's on point. Wording varies, but in general you must retreat unless safe retreat is impossible, except in castle law situations...
Don't bank on that. Too many cases indicate otherwise.
Some states require you to leave your dwelling unless the intruder blocks your way, and that that has brought about the passage of castle laws that remove that duty.
Where I live, unless one is inside his dwelling, tent, or automobile, the duty to retreat remains. You would have to explain to the prosecutor why the avenue of safe retreat was not available to you, and for the use of deadly force to be judged to have been justified, the jury is going to have to agree.
Now, if you are elderly, have a bad knee, use a wheelchair, walker or crutches, one would think your case would be pretty sound.
If you attempt to retreat and are pursued I should think the attempt would suffice.
The outcome is going to depend entirely on the situation.
Do not rely on any of this as legal advice.
From ChCx2744:
That contradicts this from a Georgia law firm:
http://www.georgiadefenders.com/theft.burglary.htm
That's on point. Wording varies, but in general you must retreat unless safe retreat is impossible, except in castle law situations...
Don't bank on that. Too many cases indicate otherwise.
Some states require you to leave your dwelling unless the intruder blocks your way, and that that has brought about the passage of castle laws that remove that duty.
Where I live, unless one is inside his dwelling, tent, or automobile, the duty to retreat remains. You would have to explain to the prosecutor why the avenue of safe retreat was not available to you, and for the use of deadly force to be judged to have been justified, the jury is going to have to agree.
Now, if you are elderly, have a bad knee, use a wheelchair, walker or crutches, one would think your case would be pretty sound.
If you attempt to retreat and are pursued I should think the attempt would suffice.
The outcome is going to depend entirely on the situation.
Do not rely on any of this as legal advice.
From ChCx2744:
That contradicts this from a Georgia law firm:
http://www.georgiadefenders.com/theft.burglary.htm
I understand your feelings on this. I have always lived by the rule that "all life is sacred" but at times we must decide to take life for survival, whether to eat or to defend ourselves. I have a shotgun and a 45 handy near my bed. If I heard someone in the house, I would arm myself first, call police second if I have time, then announce my intentions as most robberies are just that, theft. Most robbers do not want to get shot. If I could determine they were unarmed I would hold them for the police, if I could not determine and thought my life or my families life was in danger, I would fire without hesitation and live with the consequences. Most defensive actions using weapons are in private residences during a home invasion (that is what it is, an invasion).
I would read anything by Massad Ayoob.
http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=Ayoob&Category_Code=AMAB
ServiceSoon
Member
This law should never be used as a shoot first ask questions later excuse. I hope nobody is going to open fire because they heard a bump in the night. The purpose of the law is to empower the person who isn't breaking the law and give them legal choices to deal with somebody who is breaking the law. You don't need a book. Just use common sense and remember the human condition. BTW, finish reading the complete eye for an eye scripture and remember an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Nachos, it would be nice to beleive that someone would not do you harm, or you family harm. But the reality of the situation is that if someone is breaking in your home, and then you truely DO NOT know what they are going to do. If you want a stark reality check, check out the average response time for the police department where you live. The average for where I live is a little over 5 mins, think about it. Act like you dial 911, then sit and think of things that could happen for five mins. use a stop watch. You will have a different point of view. By the way this is how I changed my wifes view on things.
Last edited:
kentucky bucky
Member
If you think home invasion, for whatever reason is okee dokee, then by all means don't shoot the intruder. Maybe with some luck they are only there to steal a few things and not to rape and /or murder you and your family. Myself, if some thug invades my house I'm duty bound to take whatever means to defend my family. It is a God given RIGHT to defend yourself......Castle Doctrine or no Castle Doctrine.
From Graymutt:
True, and you have to be prepared for the worst.
They may be under the impression that no one is home. I once had someone try to open my apartment door with a credit card immediately after my wife left for a class. I had my 9MM ready, but a neighbor threw the guy off the fire escape before he got in.
Maybe a loud challenge before they get in would be a good idea. But I would sure as heck be ready for the worst.
Yep, you're on your own. That's good advice for anyone who has not yet come to that conclusion!
I don't have a lot of data on this, but it seems to me that a lot of recorded 911 calls conclude either with shots fired at the invader or with the phone going dead when the invader makes a violent attack. Any observations on this?
True, and you have to be prepared for the worst.
They may be under the impression that no one is home. I once had someone try to open my apartment door with a credit card immediately after my wife left for a class. I had my 9MM ready, but a neighbor threw the guy off the fire escape before he got in.
Maybe a loud challenge before they get in would be a good idea. But I would sure as heck be ready for the worst.
Yep, you're on your own. That's good advice for anyone who has not yet come to that conclusion!
I don't have a lot of data on this, but it seems to me that a lot of recorded 911 calls conclude either with shots fired at the invader or with the phone going dead when the invader makes a violent attack. Any observations on this?
Jeff F
Member
You know, a pencil can be a very deadly weapon.
mljdeckard
Member
Kleanbore- In Utah, the law reads that if you "enter a home or dwelling either by violence or by stealth with the INTENT to commit a felony", deadly force is allowed. You don't have to actually go through with it. And current precedent allows one to discern intent from the fact that they entered by violence or by stealth. If they sneak in or kick in the door, how can their intent not be felonious?
And I could care less what a 'lawfirm' posts on the internet as law, unless the 'lawfirm' is the Georgia attorney general.
And I could care less what a 'lawfirm' posts on the internet as law, unless the 'lawfirm' is the Georgia attorney general.
From kentucky bucky:
I think one needs to understand what is meant by "home invasion". That varies from state to state:
Here's one definition:
That definition includes threatening the imminent use of force upon a person, not just coming in to "steal a few things." It's something other than than someone coming in through an unlocked door, possibly entering the wrong house, and turning to leave upon encountering you or discovering the mistake.
So--if the intruder has threatened you in one way or the other and does not cease and desist, you would seem to have no reasonable alternative but to shoot (lay opinion). But maybe not in Illinois--there is reportedly no explicit statement that you have no requirement to escape should safe escape be possible. Not good--many other states have eliminated that problem.
If he ceases and backs away, what you may be permitted to do under criminal law is something a lawyer in your state will have to advise.
But what you may do and what you have to do may be two different things. You shoot; your shooting is judged to have been justified, at whatever expense and inconvenience to you; and there may be someone in the perp's family who cannot accept the judgment who will want revenge on you and yours. I would choose to avoid that risk when possible. Even without that risk, I don't like the idea of shooting someone if there is any reasonable alternative that does not put me or mine in imminent danger.
Let's reflect on that for a moment. Where I live and in some other states, the Castle Law shields me from civil liability if my shooting proves to have been justified under criminal law. If you don't have that shield, you may find you have fired the must expensive bullet you have ever imagined. And remember, the threshold for proof for the plaintiff drops from beyond reasonable doubt to by the preponderance of the evidence.
So what's the situation in Kentucky?
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/080.PDf
This would appear to be the operative part:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon
another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only
when the defendant believes that the person against whom
such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling
otherwise than under a claim of right to its
possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary,
robbery, or other felony involving the use of force,
or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a
dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person
is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Evidence of reasonable belief, etc. is further defined here:
[URL="http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/055.PDF"]http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/055.PDF
Excerpts:
Seems to bring in the requirement that entry be forcible for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force.
What I don't see is anything regarding protection against civil suits. Maybe someone else has knowledge about that aspect.
So--you do what you have to do. Let's hope you are never faced with the need to shoot.
I think one needs to understand what is meant by "home invasion". That varies from state to state:
Here's one definition:
That definition includes threatening the imminent use of force upon a person, not just coming in to "steal a few things." It's something other than than someone coming in through an unlocked door, possibly entering the wrong house, and turning to leave upon encountering you or discovering the mistake.
So--if the intruder has threatened you in one way or the other and does not cease and desist, you would seem to have no reasonable alternative but to shoot (lay opinion). But maybe not in Illinois--there is reportedly no explicit statement that you have no requirement to escape should safe escape be possible. Not good--many other states have eliminated that problem.
If he ceases and backs away, what you may be permitted to do under criminal law is something a lawyer in your state will have to advise.
But what you may do and what you have to do may be two different things. You shoot; your shooting is judged to have been justified, at whatever expense and inconvenience to you; and there may be someone in the perp's family who cannot accept the judgment who will want revenge on you and yours. I would choose to avoid that risk when possible. Even without that risk, I don't like the idea of shooting someone if there is any reasonable alternative that does not put me or mine in imminent danger.
Let's reflect on that for a moment. Where I live and in some other states, the Castle Law shields me from civil liability if my shooting proves to have been justified under criminal law. If you don't have that shield, you may find you have fired the must expensive bullet you have ever imagined. And remember, the threshold for proof for the plaintiff drops from beyond reasonable doubt to by the preponderance of the evidence.
So what's the situation in Kentucky?
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/080.PDf
This would appear to be the operative part:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon
another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only
when the defendant believes that the person against whom
such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling
otherwise than under a claim of right to its
possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary,
robbery, or other felony involving the use of force,
or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a
dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person
is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Evidence of reasonable belief, etc. is further defined here:
[URL="http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/055.PDF"]http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/055.PDF
Excerpts:
Seems to bring in the requirement that entry be forcible for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force.
What I don't see is anything regarding protection against civil suits. Maybe someone else has knowledge about that aspect.
So--you do what you have to do. Let's hope you are never faced with the need to shoot.
From mljdeckard:
Thanks. Interesting. I think intent is adequate just about anywhere, but this eliminates the requirement that the entry be forcible.
Kick in? Hard to imagine.
Sneak in? How about coming home to the wrong house after curfew. It has happened.
But even breaking in may not always be felonious. I was awakened one night 35 years ago by my dog and found a man breaking into the unoccupied house next door through a basement window. I stupidly did not call the police, but instead called out to the man. He said he was my new neighbor, that his wife had just given birth, and that the front door lock wouldn't work. I bought the story and it turned out to be true. By the way, he fixed the lock but it never worked very well.
Of course, even if he had been a criminal, I would not have been justified in using deadly force, as I was not occupying the house, even under the common law in effect at the time.
I'm OK with what's in an ad from a licensed law firm.
What's the situation on statutory protection from civil liability in Utah?
Thanks. Interesting. I think intent is adequate just about anywhere, but this eliminates the requirement that the entry be forcible.
Kick in? Hard to imagine.
Sneak in? How about coming home to the wrong house after curfew. It has happened.
But even breaking in may not always be felonious. I was awakened one night 35 years ago by my dog and found a man breaking into the unoccupied house next door through a basement window. I stupidly did not call the police, but instead called out to the man. He said he was my new neighbor, that his wife had just given birth, and that the front door lock wouldn't work. I bought the story and it turned out to be true. By the way, he fixed the lock but it never worked very well.
Of course, even if he had been a criminal, I would not have been justified in using deadly force, as I was not occupying the house, even under the common law in effect at the time.
I'm OK with what's in an ad from a licensed law firm.
What's the situation on statutory protection from civil liability in Utah?
Cyborg
Member
Who Wants To Kill Anyone?
I work armed. I have even drawn my sidearm on duty though, thankfully, I have never discharged it except at the range. I do not work armed to kill anyone. I have no desire to end anyone's life. I do desire to stop badguys from doing bad things. I bought pistols chambered for .40S&W because I was reliably told that the .40 represents a good compromise between recoil and STOPPING POWER. I just want to stop them. I WILL admit, however that I do not believe that I would lose much sleep if it turned out that I had stopped them permanently.
I learned in BLE that burglars are some of the most dangerous criminals. If they will enter a home at night with people present, they will not scruple to kill/seriously injure the occupants. I also learned that the first thing to go when the SHTF is fine motor control. COM is the ONLY place to aim if you are to have any chance of hitting - and stopping - the burglar.
Kleanbore, you did not look at the appropriate part of the Texas Penal Code. Chapter 9 is the part of the TPC that authorizes use of force. It covers all uses of force by everyone including LEOs, parents, teachers and suchlike.
Anybody in Texas who wants to carry had better be REALLY frakking familiar with TPC chapter 9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyborg
I apologize for the length of this post but there are WWWWWAAAAAAYYYYY too many people spouting nonsense about Texas law.
I work armed. I have even drawn my sidearm on duty though, thankfully, I have never discharged it except at the range. I do not work armed to kill anyone. I have no desire to end anyone's life. I do desire to stop badguys from doing bad things. I bought pistols chambered for .40S&W because I was reliably told that the .40 represents a good compromise between recoil and STOPPING POWER. I just want to stop them. I WILL admit, however that I do not believe that I would lose much sleep if it turned out that I had stopped them permanently.
I learned in BLE that burglars are some of the most dangerous criminals. If they will enter a home at night with people present, they will not scruple to kill/seriously injure the occupants. I also learned that the first thing to go when the SHTF is fine motor control. COM is the ONLY place to aim if you are to have any chance of hitting - and stopping - the burglar.
Kleanbore, you did not look at the appropriate part of the Texas Penal Code. Chapter 9 is the part of the TPC that authorizes use of force. It covers all uses of force by everyone including LEOs, parents, teachers and suchlike.
Subchapter E covers use of force by LEOs. Subchapter F covers "Special Relationships" such as Parent-Chile, Educator-Student and Guardian-Incompetent. Without subchapter F parents could not even call their children down since voice is a level of force. Without subchapter E LEOs would not even be able to come on the scene since presence is the lowers level of force.
Anybody in Texas who wants to carry had better be REALLY frakking familiar with TPC chapter 9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyborg
I apologize for the length of this post but there are WWWWWAAAAAAYYYYY too many people spouting nonsense about Texas law.
From Cyborg:
Actually, I did post the part I wanted to point out, but thanks for expanding.
I'm familiar with Chapter 9, but I wanted to point out the meaning of "robbery" as used in 9.31 (1) C ("was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery").
Robbery is something more than lifting a purse from behind a bar-stool, and a lot of people are not sensitive to the distinction. That was my point. Sorry if I was not clear.
The part about protecting property at night was not, in my mind, germane to the discussion.
I'll see you on that and raise you one. Anyone who wants to carry or otherwise use a deadly weapon anywhere had darn well better know the laws in effect in that place--and pretty darn thoroughly!
Actually, I did post the part I wanted to point out, but thanks for expanding.
I'm familiar with Chapter 9, but I wanted to point out the meaning of "robbery" as used in 9.31 (1) C ("was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery").
Robbery is something more than lifting a purse from behind a bar-stool, and a lot of people are not sensitive to the distinction. That was my point. Sorry if I was not clear.
The part about protecting property at night was not, in my mind, germane to the discussion.
I'll see you on that and raise you one. Anyone who wants to carry or otherwise use a deadly weapon anywhere had darn well better know the laws in effect in that place--and pretty darn thoroughly!
- Status
