My house was broken into today

[Sir Aardvark]

The way I've been reading this thread, it seems that some members are posting that they would shoot just about anybody who was in their house without permission.

Is life that cheap?

How about getting an alarm service that is monitored?

It would be a lot cheaper paying ADT $27.95 a month than it would be coughing up obscene sums of $$$ to fight the inevitable lawsuits and probable charges that are going to be brought against you - which you are not guaranteed to win.

If Vic's parents had an alarm on their house, then the break-in might never have occured. If you have an alarm turned on then you may not wake up at night to find that naked intruder standing over your sleeping wife.

I'm not saying that an alarm is a panacea for security and well-being, but it is a "layer of defense" that must definitely be considered - and if a side-effect of having an alarm means that you no longer feel the need to kill someone, then I believe that it is money well spent.

Cheap insurance if you ask me.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Self-Defense?

Vic,

If you take nothing else from this thread remember this:


In most situations like the one you described (95%), if you claim self-defense for shooting someone, the burden of proof now lies on you to justify your actions. The burden of proof is no longer on the shoulders of the DA.

You are essentially guilty until proven innocent. By claiming self-defense you are defacto saying, "I shot. I killed. I was justified to do so." The job of the police detective is done. You are the shooter. You admitted it when you claimed self-defense.

Now, the DA may wish to prosecute. Why? Because they are mean? J/K

No, they want to prosecute because they don't know you, your motivations, or all the little details surrounding the situation. The public should decide whether or not your actions are in spirit with the law, and a good DA will give them that opportunity if there is any chance what you did isn't covered by the law.

I recommend that you take Nevada's concealed handgun course. In it, many of the state laws will be covered and probably more thoroughly than in any other class you could take. At least, that is, for the money.

 

[WheelGunMom]

VicP71,

The burden in proof in Nevada does NOT shift to the person who uses deadly force in self-defense.

The Nevada Supreme Court has specifically affirmed the use of the following jury instruction in self-defense cases:

If evidence of self-defense is present, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty.

Runyon v. State, 116 Nev. 1041 (2000)

 

[Woodsmoke]

Awesome

Awesome Gun Mom!

I was unable to find that ruling last night. All the more reason to take the Nevada concealed handgun course. I have no doubt they would cover something like this.

Still, for anyone else reading this thread and not living in Nevada. As a general rule, innocence is assumed, but self-defense is not.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

quote:
Now, notice the terms "attack" in there? I sure did. If your daughter's teenage boyfriend is in the bathroom getting kinky with her in the shower, then it's not a legally justified shoot. Based on what's been posted in this thread, he'd be dead and leaking everywhere, and somebody would be facing murder charges. Is that what you people want?

---------------------------------

You assume I have a teenage daughter? Please dont make assumptions about me. I know who should and shouldnt be in my home in the wee hours.

You also took parts of the Castle Doctrine out of context. Article HB1097 stipulates the right to use force to protect oneself. It does not stipulate anything about bieng in ones residence, only the right to defend oneself against an attack.

The part covering a homeowners right to use force is covered in article HB99. Lets look at that shall we:



HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


See there. And before you highlight "Criminal Attack" under HB99 - save it. The legal definition of criminal attack can mean anything from vandalizm, to breaking and entering. You said you were a deputy, you know that. If someone is brave enough to kick in your door at 1:30 in the morning, what in the world makes you think that person is not fully willing, and capable (armed)to take your life? I am fully covered under Louisiana law to defend my home against an intruder. That doesnt mean I am going to blow away the kid down the street for coming in without knocking (again dont assume things about me Im not a blood monger just looking to kill someone). But if I hear my front door getting booted in at 1:30 in the morning, or if I walk in on a burgular -in my home- you can bet your ass I will bring the full brunt of my capabilities to bring him down. Im done arguing here. Run your ship how you wish, just dont knock me for the way I run mine. And stop using my posts in trying to get your position across. I respect your position, respect mine.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

I said I wasnt going to continue to argue this, but I wanted to post this. Here is the aticle in the Castle Doctrine I was looking for:

Justifiable Homicide
Under 4a

When commited by a person in a dwelling, place of business, or a motor vehicle, as defined in R.S. 32:1 (40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawfull entry in the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person who commits the homicide reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premesis or motor vehicle.

----------------------------
Thats the article that says I have the right to meet an intruder in my home with force, up to and including deadly force. And, no , I dont pray everynight for someone to break into my house so that I can shoot them.

 

[Gewehr98]

Speaking of assumptions...

We're getting to the point of throwing oddball circumstances into the mix.

HPD, you've now added a forceful breaking and entering into the equation, as opposed to my argument where somebody is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Were that person's hands in the air and in a surrender position, would you still send them to your maker? I think I already know your answer.

You've also zeroed in on a state-specific piece of legal text which describes unlawful entry as justification for deadly force. Congratulations. Texas allows deadly force for protection of personal property. Shall I continue?

As for one-upsmanship and playing the victim with the proverbial door-kicking in at 1:30 AM, I've been there, done that, got the police report. I had a home invasion robbery attempt happen at my residence in Citrus Heights, CA back in 1998. He who kicked in the front picture window for entry ended up staring down the barrel of a USMC Remington 870Mk1, urinating himself and generally being miserable as the Sac County Sheriff's Dept. showed up to give him a ride downtown. Suffice it to say, I found out afterwards that our Greenback Lane duplex was previously rented by drug dealers who had since been incarcerated. The previous clientel didn't get that note. I *suppose* I could've shot the guy as he came through the window, and probably have been exonerated in court, but he was unarmed and rather submissive when faced with a 12 gauge. In other words, in just a few seconds the threat had ended and shooting him at that point would've probably gone bad for me and my future. Not a kum-ba-yah moment, but in a split second, a dullard like myself was able to ascertain the threat and proceed accordingly.

Regarding assault, don't get too comfortable telling a deputy sheriff from another state what does and does not constitute assault on a person, unless you're very well read on that state's legal codes, too.

I do appreciate the insight into your character, however - I find it interesting. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking the argument and position, something entirely legitimate on this forum, see the rules for a refresher. Nor does it say anywhere I have to respect such a position, one simply has to maintain a civil discourse per those same forum rules. Likewise, the same goes for quoting what was previously out there in the public domain under your hand, if you're not willing to stand by what you've written, then don't make it a matter of public record for all to be used indefinitely and hereafter.

In summary, I will happily reiterate that I'm glad I did not shoot the mentally handicapped and lost young man who came into my Florida home late one night, and we'll leave it at that.

More light folks, less heat. Remember where you are and who may be reading your work.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

quote:
HPD, you've now added a forceful breaking and entering into the equation, as opposed to my argument where somebody is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
--------------------------------

You wont let it go will ya'
The basis of my arguement has never changed. If the wrong place and wrong time happen to be my living room at 1:30 in the morning I will exercise my right to defend my family against what I consider an obvious threat.
--------------------------------
You've also zeroed in on a state-specific piece of legal text which describes unlawful entry as justification for deadly force. Congratulations.Texas allows deadly force for protection of personal property. Shall I continue?
---------------------------------

I was defending my position against a statement you made which was obviously directed towards me. There are many general ,non -state specific- statements being made in this thread (most by you) - example :
----------------------------------
Remember, Castle Doctrine states you have no duty to retreat in the face of a threat to your life or limb, not that you can simply shoot somebody because they're in your home.

-------------------------------
And yet, Louisiana law says that I DO in fact have the right to use up to, and including deadly force to defend my dwelling from an unlawfull intruder. At this point I dont think I need to go further scince I've proved you wrong as wrong can get by posting the exact article which gives me that right. God forbid I should ever have to exercise that right I need not fear capital murder charges, or lawsuits in the aftermath. Contrary to what you have posted -Directed towards me. I have not taken anything out or added to my original stance. My stance is clear, and it is legal. Morally if you dissagree with me, well thats for another topic. Start a thread and I'll join in. We've hijacked this one long enough.

--------------------------
Regarding assault, don't get too comfortable telling a deputy sheriff from another state what does and does not constitute assault on a person, unless you're very well read on that state's legal codes, too.
---------------------

Are you addressing this comment that I made in my last post?
And before you highlight "Criminal Attack" under HB99 - save it. The legal definition of criminal attack can mean anything from vandalizm, to breaking and entering. You said you were a deputy, you know that.
--------------------
Any violation done unto someones property or person constitutes criminal attack (varying degrees); from keying one's car all the way up to chopping someones hands off to rape to murder.