It will come down to: Did you have a reason to be in fear of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another?
(b) He has it in his hands but it's unloaded.
(c) He has it in his hands and it's loaded - he may or may not be aware of this.
Okay, so (c) sounds like you'd be justified: fear of your life, immanent danger, etc. But what about (a) and (b)?
The officers in the Rodney King case were prosecuted under federal statute for violation of civil rights. This was because President Bush ordered the DOJ to investigate the possibility of charging the officers involved in King's beating, since the state court had acquitted Koon, Wind, and Briseno of all charges, and the jury was unable to reach verdict on one charge against Powell.I do believe he could be open to prosecution under Federal statutes if they wished. The Texas law is opposite of Federal law. Not sure how that washes down in Texas. The Rodney King officers were prosecuted under Federal statutes.
Bobby Gadsden Jr. was wearing all-black clothes, gloves, and had a rag over his face as a mask. He was walking down the stairway, carrying Barwick's long gun and a satchel full of ammunition, Moncks Corner Police Lt. Wendell Bowen said.
Barwick fired, fatally wounding Gadsden. Then he heard more rustling noises come from upstairs. Barwick ran to a neighbor's house to call 911 while police say at least one more suspect ran out of the house in the other direction.
Berkeley County Coroner Bill Salisbury said Gadsden, who was 21, died of a single gunshot wound.
Police arrested the second suspect a short while later and charged Clifford Ramsey, 20, of Moncks Corner, with first-degree burglary.
The shooting was justifiable, Bowen said.
(a) He has the drawer/cabinet/whatever open but hasn't actually touched the gun yet.
(b) He has it in his hands but it's unloaded.
(c) He has it in his hands and it's loaded - he may or may not be aware of this.
Okay, so (c) sounds like you'd be justified: fear of your life, immanent danger, etc. But what about (a) and (b)?
Just to expand the practical aspects of the discussion, and not to be at all argumentative, might I suggest that ordering the perp to put his hands up carries with it the risk of alerting an accomplice who could ambush you.
Sounds right to me.Posted by RX-178: At NO point in this scenario, are you actually in the situation of justifying the act of deadly force as defense of property. Period. ... You are shooting because the bad guy now has a deadly weapon in their immediate possession, which presents an immediate danger to your life.
...ordering the perp to put his hands up carries with it the risk of alerting an accomplice who could ambush you.
Depending upon the layout and the location of you and the known perp, you may be able to effectively mitigate that risk.
Be more wrong.Jim K said:Self-defense is not a "right"
If they force entry into your occupied home, deadly force is justified in most US jurisdictions, unless of course it proves unnecessary.Posted by AABEN: If they force entry you can wast them or if you come home and find them in your home shoot then.
A large percentage of gunshot victims survive.DEAD person tell no lies.
Today, 07:42 AM #29
The Termite
Member
Join Date: August 2, 2011
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska444
I do believe he could be open to prosecution under Federal statutes if they wished. The Texas law is opposite of Federal law. Not sure how that washes down in Texas. The Rodney King officers were prosecuted under Federal statutes.
The officers in the Rodney King case were prosecuted under federal statute for violation of civil rights. This was because President Bush ordered the DOJ to investigate the possibility of charging the officers involved in King's beating, since the state court had acquitted Koon, Wind, and Briseno of all charges, and the jury was unable to reach verdict on one charge against Powell.
Personally, I think it's double jeopardy, but the courts disagree with me.
Shooting an intruder in your house is going to fall under state law; with the possible exception if the intruder is a federal officer. Getting no-billed by a local grand jury, or the DA declining to prosecute, does not mean the DOJ can automatically charge you with violating the intruder's civil rights.
As for your statement that a homeowner who is not residing on federal property is prohibited by Federal law from using deadly force to prevent loss of property, please quote the relevant statute.
Last edited by The Termite; Today at 07:48 AM.
That is not entirely correct. It depends on each situation.I have heard it said many times over that you can't shoot to protect property EXCEPT in Texas.