TimSr
Member
I would think that even with that, they couldn't just shoot somebody in the back whose walking across the lawn with your toaster in his hands. Would it not require a verbal order to stop or put it down, or something?
Man Charged With Murder In Home Shooting Case
- Thread starter alsaqr
- Start date
- Status
I would think that even with that, they couldn't just shoot somebody in the back whose walking across the lawn with your toaster in his hands. Would it not require a verbal order to stop or put it down, or something?
TimSr
Member
I'm sure that varies by state as well. Personally, regardless of all the good legal advice floating around to the contrary, I don't think it would be unreasonable for most people, to attempt to stop a theft in progress, if they felt reasonably safe doing it. The law may not see it that way, but I simply could not sit in the house, and look out the window and watch some kid steal my ATV, while hoping the police get there before he gets it loaded in his truck. While you can't use deadly force to protect your property, I would disagree that you have no right to protect your property.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
TimSr said:
It would require a lot more than that. Even in Texas, if you use lethal force against a man fleeing with your toaster, you are going to need the worlds best legal team to keep you out of jail.
Posted by TimSr:
That does not mean that it would be at all prudent to attempt to do so, however. Any exchange of bodily fluids, a dislocated rotator cuff, a torn tendon, or a fractured eye socket would certainly be an unpleasant result, and a reminder of a terribly unwise attempt to retain a piece of property that should have been insured in the first place.
And if the property owner were to be fatally injured, or should he end up having to pursue a defense of justification....
In many, if not most, jurisdictions, it would be lawful to use non-deadly physical force to prevent the unlawful taking of tangible, moveable property.
That does not mean that it would be at all prudent to attempt to do so, however. Any exchange of bodily fluids, a dislocated rotator cuff, a torn tendon, or a fractured eye socket would certainly be an unpleasant result, and a reminder of a terribly unwise attempt to retain a piece of property that should have been insured in the first place.
And if the property owner were to be fatally injured, or should he end up having to pursue a defense of justification....
xfyrfiter
Member
The way NM laws on justifiable homicide read, are not completely clear but could be understood to mean that deadly force is authorized to prevent a felony, or to apprehend a felon. I don't advocate trying either, but the 2007 statute is worth a read.
Posted by xfyrfiter:
But it is never a good idea to rely on a layman's interpretion of a statute read in isolation.
The relevant New Mexico jury instructions, which are based on case law, speak only to a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force had been necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Well, the crime did not occur in New Mexico.
But it is never a good idea to rely on a layman's interpretion of a statute read in isolation.
The relevant New Mexico jury instructions, which are based on case law, speak only to a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force had been necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Sad to hear a good man who did what I believe was Right is going to Jail for how he defended his Home . PS I would never set a trap like that .
george burns
Member
Illegal to set a Shotgun Trap also. But many people who live off the grid do that. I don't really know the answer.
Is it not considered entering an occupied structure to go into somebody's garage when they are home??
(1) Maybe and maybe not. It would depend on applicable case law. (2) In any case, castle doctrines aren't licenses to kill. They can help establish justification, but it's possible for a shooting of an intruder to fall outside a castle doctrine.Warp said:
Posted by Frank Ettin:
Yes, it gets complicated. I was told that where I live, "occupied" means that someone is "in it" (now "on it", because it now applies to real property owned or leased by the actor). Case law seems to have substantiated that at one time. There is no statutory definition of "occupied" here.
However, in Montana, which is what matters in this case, the law states that "occupied" means that a structure is suitable for being occupied, "regardless of whether a person is present". And the law apparently does extend to the curtilage.
The news reports stated that prosecutors contended that the defendant lost his castle doctrine protection when he left the house.
In any event, Montana law does state the following (emphasis added):
Absent castle doctrine "protection", the case becomes simply a matter of whether the defendant had been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself or someone else.
The trial jury concluded that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that it had not been justified.
Where I live (Missouri), the legislature has amended the law more than once in the last dozen years, and while it may seem to the layman that a resident almost has carte blanche to use deadly force against someone who has entered or who remains in the house unlawfully, the lack of clarity in the law is said to make the whole area a legal minefield. There has been no definite case law that addresses the amendments.
The best course, here or anywhere, is to not shoot (or swing a nine iron or stab with the Wusthoff carving knife) unless it is immediately necessary to protect the person against death or serious injury. You really do want them to leave unhurt without having harmed anyone.
Yes, it gets complicated. I was told that where I live, "occupied" means that someone is "in it" (now "on it", because it now applies to real property owned or leased by the actor). Case law seems to have substantiated that at one time. There is no statutory definition of "occupied" here.
However, in Montana, which is what matters in this case, the law states that "occupied" means that a structure is suitable for being occupied, "regardless of whether a person is present". And the law apparently does extend to the curtilage.
The news reports stated that prosecutors contended that the defendant lost his castle doctrine protection when he left the house.
In any event, Montana law does state the following (emphasis added):
Absent castle doctrine "protection", the case becomes simply a matter of whether the defendant had been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself or someone else.
The trial jury concluded that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that it had not been justified.
Where I live (Missouri), the legislature has amended the law more than once in the last dozen years, and while it may seem to the layman that a resident almost has carte blanche to use deadly force against someone who has entered or who remains in the house unlawfully, the lack of clarity in the law is said to make the whole area a legal minefield. There has been no definite case law that addresses the amendments.
The best course, here or anywhere, is to not shoot (or swing a nine iron or stab with the Wusthoff carving knife) unless it is immediately necessary to protect the person against death or serious injury. You really do want them to leave unhurt without having harmed anyone.
OP
OP
alsaqr
Member
Montana Man Sentenced To 70 Years In Prison
For the shooting of an exchange student. Markus Kaarma will be eligible for parole in 20 years.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...ts-70-years-in-german-exchange-students-death
For the shooting of an exchange student. Markus Kaarma will be eligible for parole in 20 years.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...ts-70-years-in-german-exchange-students-death
No in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Joe Horn shot two men burglarizing his neighbors house. He called the police, the dispatcher told him multiple time not to interfere. Joe Horn told the dispatcher he was going out side and said "I'm going to kill them". He then proceeded to go outside and shoot both men as they fled.
Joe Horn declared he was going to kill them, then went outside and killed them. Yes, he claimed self defense and said he was in fear for his life. I don't buy that because I can hear with my own ears Horn state he is going to kill the burglars while he is in the safety of this own home.
Kaarma and Horn give gun owners a bad name. One case just didn't happen to turn out the way it should have.
Kaarma got exactly what he deserved. He set a trap and executed the kid.
Kaarma and Horn give gun owners a bad name. One case just didn't happen to turn out the way it should have.
Kaarma got exactly what he deserved. He set a trap and executed the kid.
Bobson
Member
Horn may well have gone outside (despite the 911 dispatcher's instruction) with intentions of killing those guys for theft, but the situation changed when they came after him. Whether or not Horn was legitimately in fear for his life is irrelevant. What's important is that there was evidence that the men did in fact approach him with dangerous instruments.
You can't look at specific cases and try to use past circumstances to determine what you may or may not get away with. You might get lucky, but that's a terrible approach to trying to build an understanding of what's justified in self-defense.
"But that guy got away with it" isn't going to fly too far in a courtroom.
All that said, I do agree with you. Kaarma seemed to have intent to kill that kid before it even started, and it does seem to me that Horn went outside with intent to kill those guys even if they never turned toward him at all. What you need to understand, though, is that there needs to be a distinct separation between your emotions regarding specific cases and your approach toward preparing to defend yourself. There should be no connection whatsoever.
And that is apparently what you base your opinion on. On the other hand, the grand jury which declined to indict Joe Horn heard two weeks of testimony. Obviously, that grand jury had a great deal more information than you do and knew a great deal more about what happened than you do.JSH1 said:
Your opinion in the Joe Horn matter is clearly based on your biased misinterpretation of minimal data, and your opinion on Joe Horn is therefore worthless.
Enough. This has wandered well away from the original case.
- Status
