self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well if you change the circumstances, then yes. If a thief has a gun pointed at your wife's head, then you shoot him in the back, you are legally justified.
 
The answer may vary from state to state. If the robbery occurred here, the law states that the immediate flight after committing a robbery is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft" and an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, is justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. U.C.A. 76-6-301 U.C.A. 76-2-402

HOWEVER, I am not aware of such an action being taken here and I would not care to be the one to define case law in such an instance.

Then, of course, there are the personal moral consequences of killing someone who no longer posed a threat to you and the financial consequences as you tried to defend your actions, which, truth be told, would be the result of your injured pride or wounded ego.
 
there's a difference between robbery and burglary.

Robbery, in CA, is 211 Penal Code:
211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/211-215.html

Burglary, in CA, is 459 Penal Code:
459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement,
shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other
building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of
Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked
or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle,
trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any
house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited
camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as
defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as
defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit
larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this
chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling
purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed
for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for
dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not
occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the
occupants to leave the premises.

taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/458-464.html

as you can see, Robbery is considered a violent felony because it is a crime against a person. Burglary is considered a felony (but not violent) because it is a crime against property.

Deadly force is generally justified if you are protecting yourself or another from a violent felony.

the issue will be, if this is a burglary or a robbery.
 
ok, thank you, car knocker. i consider my original post answered by him. and for the state of california, this issue requires further research and/or inquiry by the appropriate established attorney(s).

by the way, i'm still confused over what a troll and ambushing is
 
yes, i am. tell me what it is. does that refer to a previous post about someone being paranoid or fearful or whatever that i'm trying to "bait a fish in the pond" so to speak? is the term "troll, ambushing" a colloquial phrase used by thehighroad.org community?
 
A troll is someone who posts on a forum, such as this one, attempting to get people riled up, or get a particular response from the members. For example, an anti-gun person might post something along the lines of what you have, in the hopes of getting the members here to advocate the shooting of a fleeing attacker in the back.
 
What is moral or immoral, doesn't always coincide with what is legal or illegal.

Many times the morally "right" thing to do is illegal.
Many times a morally "wrong" thing to do is perfectly legal.
(and yes, morality is an individual assessment anyway, so it varies.)

While one may feel it's not only morally "right" to blow them away from behind, or even that it's a moral duty to protect the community from them - this by no means makes it *legal* to do so.

I understand your outrage that the law in many cases, sets people up as victims and then protects their victimizers - that's more the realm of politics, and influancing the lawmakers, if you'd like something done about that.

-K
 
that's not my intention. my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger. in which case the accusers who call me a "troll" are guilty of making allegations against an innocent internet poster. i'm not anti-gun to law-abiding citizens.
 
You didn't ask about self defense. You asked about shooting a person who was no longer a threat to your safety. While he may deserve to get shot in the grand scheme of the universe, that doesn't make it self defense, or legal. Welcome to THR.
 
California criminal code 463.25(b)(ii):
You may not defend yourself against a robber who had turned his back unless the intruder has a malicious confidence and smiles with his "power," he's an immigrant with an expired visa, AND is a cold-blooded evil loser.
Click to expand...

That's what the law says.

:rolleyes:
 
that's not my intention. my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

If you have to pull the trigger, you will most likely need a gun. And if you are going to carry a gun you should get some training and do some more reading.
 
i consider my original post unanswered by scottgun's *previous post.
 
Last edited:
Many people have answered you. No, as you desribe the situation, it would not be legal to shoot. If you are in doubt, check the laws of your state.
 
Don't take our word for it, look up your state laws on the internet, contact an attorney or write a letter to your state's Attorney General for any clarification Then when you are old enough to get a handgun, several years from now, you will have all the answers.
 
Regarding trolls: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

From that link:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.
Click to expand...

I suggest that this thread be allowed to die immediately. Any moderators reading this ought to consider locking it.
 
"When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down."

i am not a troll. and i don't like scottgun's belittling of me. is he an old wise man or something? posting his "badges" at the end of his posts, member of nra and such. good for yourself, leave me alone if you're not going to give me straight answers. "car knocker" answered my post well i think. if you want this post to die, then fine with me. i got a cool answer from "car knocker."
 
my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

you should consult an attorney, not THR. this board has very little, if any, value if and when your t*t is in the ringer, so to speak.

i've found some people on this board to give some very poor advice, probably advice they themselves would not follow in real life. the anonymity of posting makes it easier for someone to interject something with no accountability.

some people also give good advice, but again, they are not attorneys. you should take their advice accordingly.
 
i already mentioned in a post about further research and attorney(s). i have anger against intruders, criminals. i don't want to have anger in general to other posters. this is a very serious issue concerning life or death.

no gun will guarantee 100% safety. dialing 9-1-1 will not guarantee safety 100% of the time. this is a cruel world we live in. wolves, snakes, lions out there. i wish we didn't have to talk about this. i'm sorry if i offended anyone with my ignorance and inquiry. truly, i had emotions against theoretical thieves with guns. i don't think i'm going to post in this thread anymore. i'm just going to have to try to suppress or not have retaliating anger if a stranger takes money from me and flees.
 
No one here will argue that the law does not protect you, and that the police cannot protect you. We will argue that shooting a fleeing attacker in the back is not legal, even if he deserves it.
 
"We will argue.." argue, or refer to the written law?

i consider giving me scientific, medical, and ethical reasoning and examples as arguing for this case. so far, i don't think i got any why it is illegal, just a repetition and referral to the law.

what are the societal benefits of not shooting someone in the back? a calmer less angry community that blindly lets thieves go?
 
It has been suggested numerous times that if you don't believe us, you ought to look up the law for yourself. We will not do your research here for you. Your original question was not about the theoretical societal benefit of shooting this hypothetical attacker, it was about the legality. This will be my last post in this thread. We've fed the troll quite enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top